Category Archives: law

AirstripOne to fasttrack for immigration anyone who graduates from a ‘top global university’

But how will they determine what constitutes a ‘top global university’?

Arkansas ban on “gender affirming” (i.e., puberty blocking, etc.) “healthcare” blocked by federal court

Crikey, ‘Straya’s gone full totalitarian now!

A decade ago, Aussies here said such things would never happen there…

Parasites never leave until their host is dead


Biden admin abusing power; Supremes doing nothing about it

In other news, water is wet; clear skies are blue at day and black at night…

i.e. not news, but still disappointing…


E.U. sues Hungary and Poland over Alphabetis


The European Commission on Thursday launched legal cases against Hungary and some regions in Poland over LGBTQ discrimination. 

Hungary has faced wide condemnation from the European Union since its parliament passed a law that bans information about LGBTQ issues for minors.

In Poland, more than 100 regions have declared themselves “LGBTQ-ideology-free zones,” sparking wide criticism across the bloc. 

“Europe will never allow parts of our society to be stigmatized,” the European Commission said on Twitter. 

I hope they leave the E.U., and take Slovakia and others with them; time to smash the E.U.!




Go, India!


Why should one not have free usage rights to a paparazzi photo taken of oneself?

First World ‘problem’, but anyway…

I recently read a story about some singer who used a paparazzi photo of herself, snapped in a public place, on her social media, and then was subsequently sued by the company who owned the image for damages, because they hadn’t been compensated for the usage.

Apparently this isn’t the first time this has happened; other celebs have been similarly sued for using images of themselves shot by paparazzi, without compensation.

I find the idea that, for a non-studio, non-posed photograph, one can possess copyright to the extent that the subject of the photograph himself / herself cannot use it royalty-free to be absurd.

In the same way in which the subject of such photos isn’t compensated for having their photograph taken in a public place by the same paparazzi who then proceed to profit thereby, selling images to media, etc., and yet nobody objects to that, why shouldn’t the subject be allowed to use the same image for free?

I don’t like either most pop stars, actors, celebs nor the paparazzi who profit from them, so I have no stake in this.

But I find many aspects of copyright law to be unfair, confusing, irrational and absurd.


Sue San Jose, someone