According to a recent article on the Mashable website 72% of Americans have privacy concerns over Google Glass. The main objections to Google Glass are not its massive price tag – $1,500 before tax – or the bad press that some of its users have been getting, it’s privacy concerns.
According to a report released by Toluna – a market research organisation – 72% of Americans don’t want to wear Google Glass due to privacy concerns. Potential users are concerned about security breaches revealing personal data and geo-location data. There was also a perception that the glasses would interfere or distract the wearer from concentration leading to potential safety issues including susceptibility to crime.
The right to be forgotten is the development of the previous article in this library on the new data protection regulations (the “Regulations”) refers to the Regulations being in place by 2014 currently that forecast would be optimistic. Viviane Reding (European Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship) the driving force behind the Regulations, has succeeded in getting the Regulations approved by the European Parliament.
My very short submission preferring efficient regulation and legislation in the form of the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA) here, deliberately stays out of the details of the controversial law. The DEA is no less controversial today than it was in 2010 when it came into force. It was clear then that the controversial law was bound to change significantly, consequently, it wasn’t worth setting out any details at the time.
Case: C-314/12 UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH and Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft mbH
The following article, gives details of the judgment of 20 February 2012, of the honourable Mr Justice Arnold. Mr Justice Arnold held that the users and operators of The Pirate Bay had infringed the Claimants copyright.
The Claimants’ were rights-holders (or organisations acting on behalf of rights-holders) and the Defendant’s were ISPs. The UK court granted an injunction pursuant to S97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”), which implements Article 8(3) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001, to block or at-least impede access to The Pirate Bay.
The clause that deals with most Website Terms Conditions Updates that we have reviewed in the UK reads as follows:
Website Terms Conditions Updates
We reserve the right to update or otherwise change these Terms and Conditions without notice. if we do so we shall post such notice on the website. Your continued use of the website after notice of such changes has been posted on the website shall mean your acceptance of the Updated Website Terms and Conditions.
What exactly is a models lawyer? Well a models lawyer practices several different areas of law. One aspect relates to modelling, and the types of deals and issues specific to the fashion industry, modelling agencies and customers that book talent. Here are some modelling tips from a fashion lawyer.
Non circumvention agreements are agreements that prevent a party from being cut out of a deal. they are normally found with non-disclosure clauses.
The typical scenario is where a party (a “disclosing party”) discloses confidential information about some commercial opportunity to another party (a “receiving party”)
10 good reasons for modelling contracts between model agencies and other mother agencies; model agencies and models; and model agencies and clients that book models are:
1. A photographer introduced to the model can contact the model directly to take images. Such images may be commercially exploited leaving the model agency out of the loop.
2. Clients introduced to a model by an agency may contact the model directly cutting out the model agency.