strickj

Just wanted to add a better suited comparison before heading off to bed... It's kind of like going to WalMart and buying a movie or a CD. You may actually be 'buying' the movie or CD in it's physical form but you are not buying the actual intellectual property of that movie or CD. Unless the actual owner of the intellectual property specifically grants you the right to copy that CD or movie, then you can not copy it. The same applies to all intellectual property. The owner must specifically grant permission for each type of use. If no specific use is expressed, then the implied "personal use" is going to apply upon exchange of payment. You know, I wouldn't say that your ordinary a tattooist will know anything about copyrights.... or any laws as far as that's concerned. I hate to paint with a broad brush here, but I've meet a few and they all fit into that stereotype (kidding folks!)

How do you know that, mcurrier? Not trying to prove or disprove anything here. Just curious about how you know. I've read both that oil is from fossils and that it is naturally forming. But seems that no one really knows for sure. It's all a theory. What I have read universally is that there is no way to determine current quantities and no way to know how long it really takes to "make" more. Back OT, I passed 3.25 today. That's up .11 cents in less then ten days at the same station. That's a penny a day. At 365 days a year, that would make it 6.90 by this time next year

HA! I actually did that the other day with the Shriner's Nut Logs. Old people and little kids go to bed too early! Oh and I voted Samoa since it wasn't multi choice. Those and the thin mints are my favorites.

Nope, never gonna be a big issue! They make their money from word of mouth almost exclusively. A TA would be an idiot for claiming an infringement unless it's against someone famous (like the st case mentioned) or used commercially(like the 2nd case). That's not to say that they don't own the intellectual rights, though. Like mentioned, all artists make their living off of writing usage of their art in licensing. It doesn't matter if they're hired to do that particular job or not. It doesn't matter if the actual design itself is of their own, either. The artist still created the art so he owns it, unless it is spelled out specifically that he is giving you his full rights. You can hire a photographer to take shots of X and give him specific details on everything on how and what to do, but at the end of the day, that photographer owns the intellectual rights to those photos unless it is specifically spelled out in the terms that he does not. You can hire a painter to paint your portrait... well you get the idea... It's like that for everything. If it isn't spelled out in writing (or otherwise expressed), then the creator owns it.

You're commie if you don't buy at least one of each!

Well, kinda... but not really. What I did say-iif an artist designs a piece of art, he ultimately owns that design. Even if that artist is a tattoo artist and his art is your tattoo. He can ultimately sue you for reproducing, profiting from, or using commercially if you do not seek the proper permission to do so. What I did not say is that a tattoo artist could sue you if your tattoo was his design but was done by 3rd party. In that situation, the designer would have to sue the tattooist that stole the design, not you. Actually it's not. A copyright is much like a trademark or patent. If you invent something, would you want someone to start selling copies of your hard work and profiting from it? Absolutely not. An artist does not want someone profiting from their hard work either... As far as karaoke or music infringements goes, google "fair use". I don't feel like explaining everything, but basically, you can sing someone's song but you can not change the words. There is actually "fair use" for everything copyrighted.

Ok, I know this is going to be the last thing on the minds of a typical gun board visitor... but I know that there are several lovers of the art within the ink here... so I thought that I would pose the discussion. I thought it was pretty interesting, myself. Warning: Just stay with me here. I'm gonna get kinda winded! On another board, a photographer asked if a usage release was needed from the tattoo artist that tattooed the model he was planning to shoot. In the world of photography, a release is always needed when photographs are taken of anything that's easily recognizable, including people, when those photographs are to be used for commercial purposes, like in his case. The photographs were ultimately going to be used commercially by the photographer, so no 'fair usage' applied. Now, the easy and obvious answer here is going to be a big "no". When you get a tattoo, you buy it and it's on your body, so it's yours. With that, a release from the model herself would be enough to cover his (photographer) use of the model's likeness, including her ink. Right? Well, maybe not! Every artist, from photographers to sculptures to graphic designers, will immediately own the intellectual rights to their created art the instant it is created. That means every photograph a photographer takes is owned by the photographer as soon as it's taken. Every graphic made by a graphic designer is owned by the graphic designer as soon as it's made. Every song made by a song writer is owned as soon as it's written. Now, artists will rarely ever outright "sell" the complete rights to their art, unless big bucks are involved. By writing out terms of usage for their creation, artists make their living. Each and every one. What that means is that when you, the customer, pays the artist, you are not necessarily buying the art itself, right out. You are actually buying usage rights to use that artwork. The artist will determine the usage that is granted for that art work. IE, an artist will often declare whether it can be use for personal use, commercial use (the "buyer" profiting from it), used "here but not there", or even timed usage where any usage will expire upon a certain date. This very thing happens with everything from photographs to website designs to sculptures displayed publicly downtown. In order to use any of the art, you, the customer, must have written permission for that use from the creator, the owner. If within that contract, or written permission, it does not include commercial usage, then you can not use it commercially. If within that contract, or written permission, it does not include reproduction, then you can not reproduce it (for a tattoo, reproduction would be letting a friend get one like it). There is a lot of case law regarding intellectual property rights and those cases will usually always side with the creator during a dispute of rights. With a few exceptions to things like verbally expressed or implied usage. A tattoo artist's art is his tattoo. Going by the rights of other artists and case law, you could assume that the tattoo artist will actually own all of the tattoos they have created. Unless, of coarse, the contract the customer signed before getting the tattoo included usage (mine never did). The argument here is that the only rights a tattoo customer has is 'implied personal-display usage'. This would be similar to being able to hang a painting in your home but not on a billboard. That's because, by permanently placing their art on you, the artist implies that you can personally display it privately and publicly. There is no further 'implied usage' beyond that. So, unless you have written permission from that artist, the customer can not use it otherwise. The customer can not reproduce the art, profit from the art, use it commercially, etc. At this point in time, the only difference between the intellectual rights of a tattoo artist and his art, and any other artist and their art, is the lack of case law, as far as photographing commercially is concerned. The only known case is the case between Matthew Reed vs Rasheed Wallace and Nike, 2005 IIRC. In a nut shell, Reed, the tattoo artist, sued Wallace, a pro basketball player, for copyright infringement for the artwork being shown in a Nike commercial. Which Reed claims Wallace did not have the rights to do. The case was ultimately settled out of court. I'm not personally sure if being settled out of court is grounds for it to be actual 'case law' to be used in future law suits, but it does show that a lot of money can be lost if you choose to misuse your ink. However, there are more cases from tattoo artists concerning copyright infringements, though. After a quick Google search, I came up with Aaron Coleman vs Travis Baker and Stars And Stripes Clothing. In this case, Coleman claims Barker used his tattoo design in Barkers clothing line, Stars And Stripes. This case seems to still be pending. Though, it does show that anyone with Coleman's tattoo does not own it, even though the tattoo may be etched into their skin. All of this said to show that the actual barer of a tattoo may not have any rights to the tattoo, past an implied personal display usage. Even though there is less case law on copyright infringement with tattoos, compared to copyright infringement for other forms of art, there is still enough case law and written copyright law there to support the claim that the creator ultimately owns the intellectual rights to the tattoo. Now, of coarse, all of this is moot for the average guy with tattoos... but it sure makes you think, eh? Phew! Discuss...

Dude. Seriously! I have not made any comments in this thread about "punishing citizens" or making it a prescription only drug. My ":rolleyes:" was in reply to your comment about meth labs not being dangerous and should not be properly cleaned up.

Is this thread serving a useful purpose anymore?

Wow.

The factory handle is above the window. The aftermarket I want will be in addition to the OE but forward of the window. Ultimately, I'd like to get one that comes with the OE matching trim like this one I would even take one with a gauge pod if I could find one..

There is still a speed limit even if not posted. That said, why the rant? It's a take home car... and he was at home with it? Edit; it should also be noted that the reason cops are allowed to use their cars off duty is the deterrent of crime from just the presence of their car. It is not a waste of tax payer's money.

I do not see how this could be struck down as being "unconstitutional". In fact, it is very pro-constitutional as it's separating a religion from the state. That said, I would only support it if it was changed to include all religions and all religious "morals".

I have a UTG rail and am pleased with it. It does exactly what I need it to do. That's to hold a VFG, occasionally hold a bipod, and to look bad-ass to impress my friends. Of coarse, I'm no operator so my opinion about them may not be worth much

I broke the OE handle last week so I want to put in something heavy duty that can handle "heavy loads" (ie,me!). The problem is I have to put my full weight on that one little handle each time I get in. I haven't looked at the bare metal yet but I'm certain that I can find a way to mount one. Worst case, I'll wield in a bung or a stud to have something to bolt the new handle to. I'm not concerned with keeping it low profile or looking stock as long as the handle is nice. The bolt heads can be easily covered with some fiberglass tinted to math my trim anyway.

DRM, I prefer a bolt-on but can wield it if need be. It needs to go on the A-pillar and of a trailblazer to help my fat ass get in the damn thing. Of coarse, I could get smaller tires and loose some weight... but where's the fun in that Thanks. I think one of their universals may work.

Can anyone point me to a site that sells aftermarket oh **** handles? After many seconds of endless and tiresome Google searches I have come up empty. All I have found is forums with people selling OE handles. I need something strong... and cool looking! Thanks!

Incorrect. One of my favorite and most used portrait lenses (70-300) was under a 100 bucks. Super sharp with great bokeh. I've also got a point and shoot that will take just as good of a photo as a dslr. As mentioned, lighting is the most important part. You can pick up inexpensive flashes on Ebay, like Vivitar. Just stay away from anything that's no-named from China! You can also pick up inexpensive triggers on ebay... or an optical slave if your camera does not have a hot shoe. I typically use at least three Nikon SBs to get items completely and evenly lit but one simple off camera flash can work great for gun board posts. Another easy way to light is using those clamp on reflector things that you can get at the hardware store. You can use several of those with CFL lights and a cut up white bed sheet pulled across the front of the reflector. The sheet will act as a "sock" and will defuse your light and give you softer shadows. I absolutely despise light boxes. You can only put small items in them and you're unable to control any of your lighting with them. I always use seamless backgrounds or cyclorama walls. with those, I have total control of the lighting and I'm not restricted on the size of the item I'm shooting. Not to mention trying to store one of those things. As with my AR below, it would not fit inside of a lightbox: (shot on white seamless at f8 1\200 iso100, lighting was IIRC, two shoot through umbrellas left and right and a bare flash or reflector infront for fill) The only draw back to using those instead of a light box is trying to get your paper flashed pure white. If you don't have a light source dedicated to the paper, it will come out gray-ish (see Para pic below) A cheap and easy "DIY" way to make a cyc is using the back side of a large target, BTW. You can also lay a piece of glass down on top of your paper or use colored plexi to give you a reflective look. these usually require some post editing to remove the back edge of the glass and any impurities in the surface though. (shot for a client on black seamless and glass.f10 1\125 iso 100 with tripod, lighting was two soft boxes left and right and a white reflector in front) Notice the almost wet look reflecting under the beer. This trick can be used with any color paper, and not just black. One of the biggest problems I see with folks photographing guns is their way too shallow depth of field. When shooting objects, you generally want the entire thing to be in focus. Not just the front. To get total focus, you want to shoot with at least an f10 in most cases. The only time that you would use a shallower DOF (f3.5 or a 1.8 prime lens for instance) is when only part of the object is meant to be the object of the viewers attention. This was shot to show the lack of scratches\grit\etc on the barrel notch thingies to show that the gun was brand new: (f11 1\200 iso 100 at 180mm. only one flash was used since it was only going to be seen in the Trading Post which is why the BG is not pure white) A shot like this is perfectly acceptable since only part of the object is meant to be of the viewers attention. A shot of a complete gun where the grips or the barrel is out of focus while the rest is sharp, is not acceptable since the shot is intended to show the whole gun... thus, the viewer, should be able to see the whole thing in focus.

You'd be surprised at the religious resistance to anything grown in a lab. There's a lot of misinformation about stuff out there that scares the hell out of people. It's very similar to guns, where people hear something and take it for truth... then vow to make sure it's illegal. I had 2nd degree burns on my upper arms when I was 13 or 14. I had the painful, nasty bubbled skin but was lucky enough to to need skin grafts.

I understand what Greg's saying. Well, somewhat anyway... The movie set and all of the irrational fear comments made me laugh! There was a story posted here sometime back where a man was trying to get his runaway daughter in his car after spotting her in a busy parking lot. The girl, once her father grabbed her, screamed "HELP! I'm being kidnapped!" and [add teenage drama here]. In a scenario like this, rushing in to help and doing the wrong thing, could land you in a world of trouble. But, the thing to keep in mind, in that scenario, the father would not be wearing a halloween mask and tasering the girl. The other key phrase is doing the wrong thing. If you do the wrong thing in either case, then you'll find yourself in trouble. Now, Greg, no one here has said that they would go in 'guns a blazin', as someone said. And I don't think that a reasonable, rational person would go in 'guns a blazin' in the scenario I mentioned, either. Simply stepping in to aid assistance to someone that may be in need is not going to land you in the pokey. If you can stand around and watch while a girl is being kidnapped, tased, robed or beaten, by a man in a halloween mask, just because you're afraid of what you'll do...then I honestly don't know what to say. Maybe you need to take a long look at yourself in the mirror and reevaluate things because I know that I damn well couldn't watch something like that happen.

^^^ Debbie Downer

You are going to have to burn your Jeep. It's the only logical thing to do! Sorry OP, I have no non-toxic or flame free solutions.

Anybody else watch? Pretty impressive!

Rest assured, if some magical carb or tranny was invented, the money from an oil company offering to buy the rights would only be a drop in the bucket compared to the millions upon millions of dollars the inventor could make from it from other avenues. Just imagine what would happen if put up to auction between just the big 5. Such a device would essentially create a monopoly for the winning bidder. Who on earth would want a 20-30MPG Chevy xzy when it's Nissan equivalent gets 200+MPG!. As for ethanol, like Sheep, I have noticed more and more stations carrying non-ethanol gas around here. Just a year ago, only select Exons carried it and it would cost a bit more per gal. Now, it seems that more stations carry the non-ethanol then ethanol gas and it's the same price. My truck has never been able to tell a big difference in the MPG between the two, though. I see a larger jump in my real time MPG when I get stuck in Friday evening traffic after 5 minutes. Edit; World News this morning ran a story predicting gas to hit 3.75 before spring

I'll second Rimmer Freak. I've made a couple of lower offers on guns when I just didn't have the extra cash around. I've also bought a few guns from here without any haggling done at all. Bought one gun where the seller ended up offering me a lower price after I ended up buying a **** ton of accessories and ammo from a couple of his other ads. I guess it goes both ways