11–20 of 75 posts
Help! On another, similar article, they have used one of my pictures, with me and my wife in it - http://www.euractiv.com/sections/competition/luxembourg-tax-... The only reason I think is because it was taken in front of the Amazon office in Luxembourg. Any suggestion on how to ask for removal, and possibly compensation for damage?
Help! On another, similar article, they have used one of my pictures, with me and my wife in it - http://www.euractiv.com/sections/competition/luxembourg-tax-... The only reason I think is because it was taken in front of the Amazon office in Luxembourg. Any suggestion on how to ask for removal, and possibly compensation for damage?
The image you are talking about appears to be: http://www.flickr.com/photos/25012939@N03/4196459317 on that image it says: "Some rights reserved" and when you click through you are taken to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ So, it appears you have the photograph available on the Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic Creative Commons license. The original story using your picture is attributing it to you. S…
I for one hope the countries in question will patch the tax holes, but not as much as to make the companies evade to other countries. The national economies would be vastly improved, at the expense of shareholder dividend.
A company though, can be split up and spread around, and many modern companies operate almost everywhere and yet nowhere in particular. That's very true of internet companies that don't need any local presence to operate in a country. Additionally they are seen as ideal tax targets by politicians because they can't vote, and are often perceived as "foreign" even if the reality is rather more complex, and people perceive tax on corporations to be free as the price increases that it (theoretically) results in can't be distinguished from general price rises due to inflation.
So we end up in a messy situation that suits nobody. Big companies exploit their trans-national nature to try and get taxed in places that don't really need the money like Luxembourg. Big countries try and exploit their size to extract as much money as possible from the evil foreign capitalists, regardless of where they may actually be based. Companies get taxed without representation and we just sort of ignore this because we feel they can already buy too much influence with politicians anyway, even without them actually getting to vote on anything.
And in the end, governments still don't have enough money.
Economists who study this problem sometimes conclude that the best rate to set corporation tax at is zero; they argue that "dead weight costs" of corporation taxes are very high compared to most taxes and besides, ultimately the costs get passed on to consumers. Of course this ignores the fact that business is global but taxation and voting is still very local. What might make theoretical sense in a textbook rarely seems sensible to the man on the street.
Help! On another, similar article, they have used one of my pictures, with me and my wife in it - http://www.euractiv.com/sections/competition/luxembourg-tax-... The only reason I think is because it was taken in front of the Amazon office in Luxembourg. Any suggestion on how to ask for removal, and possibly compensation for damage?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The image you are talking about appears to be: http://www.flickr.com/photos/25012939@N03/4196459317 on that image it says: "Some rights reserved" and when you click through you are taken to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ So, it appears you have the photograph available on the Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic Creative Commons license. The original story using your picture is attributing it to you. S…
Actually, wouldn't the story have to be licensed under the same license to satisfy the terms? Is it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The image you are talking about appears to be: http://www.flickr.com/photos/25012939@N03/4196459317 on that image it says: "Some rights reserved" and when you click through you are taken to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ So, it appears you have the photograph available on the Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic Creative Commons license. The original story using your picture is attributing it to you. S…
Actually, wouldn't the story have to be licensed under the same license to satisfy the terms? Is it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, wouldn't the story have to be licensed under the same license to satisfy the terms? Is it?
No, including an image that is licensed in this way is not going to force that relicensing. I don't believe that this type of use is a 'derivative work' and so the ShareAlike clause would not mean the overall story had to be licensed in the same way.
That is not how I expected it to work.
In Australia, IKEA paid 1%* tax over the last 12 years, even as sales surged 500%:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/06/luxembourg-tax-...
(The Guardian article has since removed the 1% reference, though it was in there when I first read the article.)
Help! On another, similar article, they have used one of my pictures, with me and my wife in it - http://www.euractiv.com/sections/competition/luxembourg-tax-... The only reason I think is because it was taken in front of the Amazon office in Luxembourg. Any suggestion on how to ask for removal, and possibly compensation for damage?
The image you are talking about appears to be: http://www.flickr.com/photos/25012939@N03/4196459317 on that image it says: "Some rights reserved" and when you click through you are taken to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ So, it appears you have the photograph available on the Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic Creative Commons license. The original story using your picture is attributing it to you. S…
The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 grants a right to privacy.
It is not clear whether or not the right under copyright law to copy an image is always sufficient to give you a right to publish the image. That depends on jurisdiction.
In the UK, for example, it does not, as a result of the way ECHR has been implemented in local law through the Human Rights Act 1998, though courts have to weigh Article 8 against Article 10 (freedom of expression) so it's not clear cut.
EDIT: The EU Data Protection Directive, and it's member state implementations (so in the UK the Data Protection Act, for example) also comes into play.
Consider e.g. that Google Street View was met with threats of lawsuits in many European countries until the blurred out faces - while Google had the right to take the pictures, and have the copyright to the images, privacy laws and human right laws in many European countries did not give them automatic right to publish those images.