Photo Copyrights

Someone please explain something to me. How can the Picture People and other studios like them justify claiming a copyright on pictures taken by their staff? And, how can Wal-Mart justify confiscating a Picture People print from someone attempting to scan a photo at their store?

Are these pictures artistic? No.

Did they have us sign a release like a normal model? No.

Did we pay them for the image? Yes.

So, how the hell do they expect to tell people they own it?

Our country is so ridiculously wrapped up in so-called "intellectual property" that we'll eventually sue ourselves into destruction. If I pay someone to take a picture of my child or my family, I damn well expect to own the rights to that image. If the law contradicts that premise, then the law is wrong and should be changed. Our elected officials (or should I say money grubbing whores) need to stop acting like proxies for big business financial interests and start doing the "right thing".

The Need for "Deep" Characters

Over at the Movie Blog today, they're running a review of The Alamo. The reviewer praises Quaid and Thornton but calls all of the other characters stereotypes and painfully two-dimensional. It never ceases to amaze me the number of times you hear movie reviewers, actors, and directors speak about shallow, stereotypical, one-dimensional, and/or (a new one for me) two-dimensional characters.

The desire for deep characters takes me back to Harrison Ford's comments comparing Indiana Jones to Han Solo. He likes the depth of the Indiana Jones character but would never reprisde Han because he's such a one-dimensional character. Which character seems more like a real person to you? Is it the archaeologist by day, adventurer by night comic book style Jones, or is it the cocky pilot with a bit of a soft spot for doing the right thing?

Maybe one-dimensional characters are more a reflection of life than the hallowed "deep" characters.