Your work MUST be easily identifiable as yours or anyone can use it ~ I think ..

[cyphyr]

I'd be interested in comments and feedback about PLUS and the "Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act" otherwise known as the "Instagram Act".

In short (it is more complex read the attached links) unless your work is easily identifiable as yours anyone can use it.

Comments ...

Richard

[Matt]

What is my country coming to.

[zaxxon]

Thanks for the head's up.

[TheBadger]

Without property rights, there can be no human rights.

[Dune]

A killer for those who live off their own creativity instead of others'. I don't think our country is as bad.

[Tangled-Universe]

Once lost, you'll never get it back peacefully...

[inkydigit]

who owns your bits/bytes/pixels?
and 'easily identifiable' is vague...

[efflux]

This is connected with some other stuff I've mentioned on the forum. These are not laws, at least not in Great Britain, the commonwealth and United States.

http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/article/living-rule-law

The problem is that people are also seen as property. That's where the consent comes from. Your parents consented to sign you up for these corporate laws when you were born by registering you with the state (just the same as they want you to register these images undermining common law) so these corporate laws apply to you but it's flawed because you didn't agree to be registered with the state.

People now assume that all these statutes are law. There very few statutes at one stage. Our law was almost all common law unless you were working in commerce. Now that governments of common law countries know the people don't bother to withdraw consent they write masses of unlawful statutes all the time. They can write one tomorrow that gives them power to send you to a concentration camp.

Judges in the US and British Commonwealth countries are under oath to abide by common law which trumps statutes. This is why it's hard to get a judge to actually swear by this oath because otherwise it's a corporate court. Same with Police, they are under oath of common law, they are not meant to force statutes.

[efflux]

The basic is, don't upload images on sites that have no respect for proper common law because then you're agreeing to corporate laws. That is if you want to hold onto ownership. If somebody steals those images, it is no good for them to plead that they did "dilligent" searches. That's simply not the law but essentially it becomes law when it is "acted". People just bow down to corporate tyranny as usual.

Why do you think these statutes are initially described as "bills". Bills are paid for aren't they? That's the sum and substance of it. People are so stupid now they don't even understand their own language. Understand. There is another. Police and courts will always ask you to understand. Why? Because understanding does not mean comprehending the meaning, It means you agree to stand under the jurisdiction of the statute thus giving it consent.

I do not understand this Act. That's all people need to do en masse.

[efflux]

I'm also willing to bet without even looking into it that nowhere on that PLUS site does it say you have "ownership". It talks of rights-holders, licensors, licensees. Got a driving licence? You don't own that "vehicle". I highlight vehicle because that's a commercial term.

Your images are yours unless you register them somewhere else but the slaves will continue to give away all their property rights.

[efflux]

Common law trumps other law. I mentioned that elsewhere:

REGISTER, common law. The certificate of registry granted to the person or persons entitled thereto, by the collector of the district, comprehending the port to which any ship or vessel shall belong; more properly, the registry itself. For the form, requisites, &c. of certificate of registry, see Act of Con. Dec. 31, 1792; Story's Laws U. S. 269 3 Kent, Com. 4th ed. 141.

Who do you think "owns" those images if you register them?