Hard News: Save the King's Arms
217 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last
-
Henceforth: Darroch's Law.
Ha, win. And as a bonus this is post 666.
-
For sure they would have an interest in improving the place, but you could hardly argue that being constantly packed out is bad for business. And it is constantly packed out, and that's what the complaints here are about.
It's not always packed out; far from it, and the crowd isn't always party people either. But when it is packed out, it's a 'mare.
What happened was that they spent money on a new, higher stage, a better PA (the bass bins are built into the stage) and, eventually, a sorta backstage room, that made the KA a contender for more touring acts, especially with its generous official capacity.
The part they didn't do was to turn the rest of it into a matching dancehall venue. While it might have been tight at times before, the major problems manifested after that, IMO. It seems they're taking that step now, which is good.
This is a reputation business. They're competing for acts, and for punters. And as Danielle noted, if you get stuck out in the beer garden at an oversold gig, you're not visiting the bar.
-
Um, IANAL, but firstly, isn't there such a thing as collection copyright in some jurisdictions - e.g. a copyright in a collection of information that has required skilled input to accumulate and catalogue?
Secondly, if the original photographs are under the control of someone (such as the ACC) can they not set contractual terms on anyone gaining access to them? That isn't copyright, but (if the contract is properly agreed to) it is enforceable?
-
The part they didn't do was to turn the rest of it into a matching dancehall venue.
Isn't part of the attraction that it's a pub? There are proper theatre-style venues, like the Studio, but I think the KA has more character. The Barfhouse in Wellington is similar.
-
Darroch's Law
Striking new show where an idealistic environmentalist navigates an arid bureaucracy.
-
Secondly, if the original photographs are under the control of someone (such as the ACC) can they not set contractual terms on anyone gaining access to them? That isn't copyright, but (if the contract is properly agreed to) it is enforceable?
Yes, but not by using a copyright statement..
-
Um, IANAL, but firstly, isn't there such a thing as collection copyright in some jurisdictions - e.g. a copyright in a collection of information that has required skilled input to accumulate and catalogue?
Copyright can subsist in a compilation, but infringement only occurs if a substantial part of that compilation is copied. The copying of a single picture that is not itself a copyright work is probably not the copying of a substantial part.
Secondly, if the original photographs are under the control of someone (such as the ACC) can they not set contractual terms on anyone gaining access to them? That isn't copyright, but (if the contract is properly agreed to) it is enforceable?
Arguably a contractual provison that prohibits copying of an image in which copyright has expired is an unenforceable restraint of trade. I'm not sure if anyone's tried to enforce a provision like this in NZ, but I suspect courts may not look kindly on someone trying to use a restraint of trade to extend their monopoly rights over a work.
(Caveat: copyright law is complex, and I have not researched any of this, as I don't keep a law library at home...)
-
Hi all, two further points:
First, what is an original? The digital images and physical prints of archival images you get from the National Library these days are often digitised from the original negative. So the digitised version is just as "original" as the paper version (i.e. the actual original is the negative).
Second, making a high-quality copy does take labour and skill and thought and care by highly-trained professionals. It really does. I've seen it.
ScottY notes:
I do agree a photo of a photo/artwork, where the photographer has had to adjust the light, check compositon, focus etc., might qualify as copyright work. But I suspect a lot of archival work involves simply scanning a document or work without much thought as to those issues.
I suspect you'd be wrong (depending on what you mean by archival work, of course). When you copy a heritage image (or document) you have to take it out of secure storage and handle it and expose it to light and other hazards. You don't want to do this often as you risk damaging it. So you make sure you do a high quality copy so that if someone wants another copy later you don't have to handle the original again.
Gordon
-
3410,
Second, making a high-quality copy does take labour and skill and thought and care by highly-trained professionals. It really does. I've seen it.
Agreed. So does, for example, replacing a gearbox, but neither should be considered a "creative work."
-
Uh oh - what qualifies as "creative"?
-
3410,
Ok. Just "a work" then.
-
I suspect you'd be wrong (depending on what you mean by archival work, of course). When you copy a heritage image (or document) you have to take it out of secure storage and handle it and expose it to light and other hazards. You don't want to do this often as you risk damaging it. So you make sure you do a high quality copy so that if someone wants another copy later you don't have to handle the original again.
Noted (and sorry if I offended any archival-type-persons out there). But it still comes down to whether the person doing the reproduction is exercising sufficient skill and labour. Unless the reproduction is in some way different to the original it is arguable that no new copyright work arises in the reproduction.
It might be arguable that new copyright arises if the scanning process involves some judgement about things like lighting, contrast etc, even if the scanned image appears identical to the image on the original document/photo. But ultimately though it's for a court to decide. I'm not aware of any NZ case law on the issue.
-
Unless the reproduction is in some way different to the original it is arguable that no new copyright work arises in the reproduction.
...
But ultimately though it's for a court to decide. I'm not aware of any NZ case law on the issue.There'll be precious little case law on it in any jurisdiction that "matters" (ie: that constitutes "persuasive" for NZ courts), I suspect. It's the kind of thing that'd be settled long before it made it before a judge.
-
There'll be precious little case law on it in any jurisdiction that "matters" (ie: that constitutes "persuasive" for NZ courts), I suspect. It's the kind of thing that'd be settled long before it made it before a judge.
It's not uncommon in IP law for the UK cases to be cited - most of the relevant acts share a common root.
In some cases, the teachings of UK cases have been followed by an NZ court, and thus become part of NZ law directly.
But you're right. There is a dearth of directly relevant NZ case law. I'll be very interested to see how the 'wikipedia case' referred to upthread goes.
-
It's the kind of thing that'd be settled long before it made it before a judge.
Most likely.Only a tiny percentage of disputes ever go to trial.
-
I'm sorry to interrupt a clear-cut case of Darroch's Law, but I'm just happy that Animal Collective is at the Powerstation. What it loses in historical atmosphere it makes up for in, like, actually being able to see the band.
-
if the scanning process involves some judgement about things like lighting, contrast etc
I am unaware of any copying process that fails that test at the level of professionalism Gordon refers to. Unless someone can tell us about a case of a library or other repository batch scanning archived images with no manual intervention.
Whether than then creates something deserving of protection that prevents others using it, I don't know. We passed the age of "originals" and "copies" long ago. But I am not waiting around for another hundred pages to learn more.
-
It's not uncommon in IP law for the UK cases to be cited - most of the relevant acts share a common root.
In some cases, the teachings of UK cases have been followed by an NZ court, and thus become part of NZ law directly.
Well, it's not all that long ago that we lost the Privy Council as our highest court, so for a long time our judicial systems were tied intimately. Any PC ruling (on any subject, not just IP law) made before we got our own Supreme Court is binding on all lower NZ courts until such time as a ruling from SCONZ diverges. And because we share a common law heritage, it's not at all unusual for rulings from appellate courts in Australia, the US and Canada to be cited in arguments here. They're not binding, but they are persuasive to varying degrees - the higher the court, the more persuasive the ruling, especially if there's little in the way of difference in matters of fact or statute. They will also cite rulings from NZ courts, for the same reason and the same values of persuasive. After all, when you've got a common legal heritage it would be silly to ignore the ponderings of experienced legal minds just because they're from "over there."
-
Mike,
I bought my tickets to see Malkmus at the studio. I was gutted to see the gig get moved to the Kings Arms. Having endured several ordeals at oversold international gigs at the KA previously I was very dubious about attending another. True to form the Malkmus gig was a complete shambles. What a joke. Never again. Promoters need to sort their shit out.
-
Here we go then ...
Banks orders Bhatnagar to ditch the proposed licensing laws, Bhatnagar blames council officers, asks how he could have known that his idea would be so unpopular.
(Oh yes. Who knew that a law so pointlessly prescriptive that it would have forced suburban restaurants to hire bouncers would be unpopular?)
And a withering post from Simon Grigg on life with the Auckland City Council:
'm going to leave it to others to tell you exactly why this proposed new law is so bad for the city but it's shocking that some one like the Citizens & Ratepayers crew, who have absolutely no understanding of what is needed or what this industry is or what it requires are trying to draft this. But suffice to say that I can say with reasonable confidence that if Aaron Bhatnagar had turned up at the door of Cause Celebre we would have quickly turned him away as undesirable. It's a cheap shot, but I just need to look at his images on his site to know that. It's not that he's necessarily a bad guy, he simply doesn't come close to getting it.
It was grimly amusing that Bhatnagar seemed to have heard of the King's Arms for the first time after all this blew up last week. He does seem more of a Viaduct guy.
-
Can we trade this victory for a repeal of the dumping of night classes?
-
Bhatnagar on RNZ explains that not enough consultation went on with the "on-license industry" before the policy was floated, and that it was dropped in the face of universal opposition - on Facebook. Staff apparently "misled" him that their consultation showed wide public support. Plunket appears suspicious that the young gent from Remmers does not understand the difference between public and industry.(streaming 5m30, MP3 1.9MB).
Later in the show (audio not up yet), Banks repeated the line about misleading consultation before announcing the buck stopped with him for the fiasco. That's amidst recitations of his latest mantra of "sound sensible reasonable and fair". Must need better campaign advisors to whittle that down to a tastier and less tautologous soundbite.
-
more of a Viaduct guy
Simon pegs other Council representatives as frequenters of that sophisticated licensed establishment, Cobb & Co.
-
Hang on, I'm confused. They scrapped the whole thing, because of objections to the on-licence parts? I'm smelling something that's almost as bad, but not quite, coming in as a "Look, we listened to your objections, and this isn't as draconian as the old one" policy. Shaping up for a classic case of "overreach with this, then achieve what you actually want with the barely-more-moderate replacement"
-
That Herald story has some clues.
Mr Banks, who wants to be the first mayor of the Super City next year, said he had no doubt the liquor issue would have damaged a key constituency - the hospitality industry - with which he had a long association.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.