Peter Slattery

This is an interesting thing here. I am involved constantly with deciding what infringes copyright and what doesn’t, who owns what and what is fair and what just ain’t. So here is something lifted (with thanks and respect) straight from Alvin’s Educational Technology Blog. See what you think.

January 30th, 2009

‘When it comes to copyright infringement, it helps to be famous. When artist Shepard Fairey wanted to create a poster during the presidential election, he went to Google. There he found a picture of Obama, and without seeking permission from the photographer, he used the photo as the source of his artist work.
Under copyright law, this is called a derivative work and creation of such works is under the control of the owner of the original work. Fairey did not know who owned the photograph he used. He did not both to check. He certainly did not have the permission of the work’s owner to create a derivative.

If Garcia writes a book including famous photos he has taken, will he have to ask Fairey for permission to publish a picture of the poster based on the photo taken by Garcia?’

Michael Kirby I think is a worthwhile man. And this article from the Australian (Michael Pelly February 03, 2009)
offers some of the character, interest, not-the-sameness of Justice Kirby. And as he ‘retires’ I think it is worth taking a moment to think about his contribution.

Here is part of the article:

‘Kirby was Australia’s first – and perhaps only – celebrity judge. He is a hero to those who want to concentrate on what the law could be rather than what it is. He is a law reformer of international reknown, a public intellectual who defies labels and a gay icon.

Some are offered with a smile, other in a reflective tone that invites you to accept what he saying as truth.’

Justice Kirby is possibly not everyone’s cup of tea, but then again, I am a coffee drinker and I think he is pretty okay.

I was discussing the middle east nightmare with a friend the other day and subsequently she sent me this email.

‘Wherever I Go, I Hear The Same Tired Middle East Comparisons

by Robert Fisk

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/10-10

Robert Fisk is pretty reputable I thought, and yet the argument here simply seems to lack logic, any real depth of substance when presenting an argument, and contains also just a little arrogance. Irrespective of my views on the middle east, the argument here seems to be that something must be in some way wrong or inaccurate if:
1. I have heard it before
2. I am tired of it.

Imagine saying this:

‘Wherever I go I hear the same tired commandment:THOU SHALT NOT KILL’

Now clearly this must be somehow a really bad idea because:
1. I have heard this not only before…but a lot!
2. And if something tires me, bores me, …ME!…then clearly it must be wrong.

But maybe I am missing something here?

Then of course there is what Robert Fisk writes. And you can read this for yourself if you would like to.

I really thought that GFC meant ‘Go find carrots’. Yet while I was seeking vegetables I discovered my error, and that in fact GFC makes reference to our globe, to finance and to, apparently, a crisis. So I got in touch with a financial advisor I know and asked if I should be worried or doing something, because I was just about to have a coffee. He sent me this reply:

‘Pete
Have a double shot!!!
Nothing you can do except to sit tight and watch your super go back up
and interest rates drop!!!!
Regards’

And I was relieved because I really was about to buy a diamond mine in South Africa.

On the front page of this morning’s paper I read a description of the GFC (see how fast I learn!) that said:

‘This is the calm before the storm.’ And: ‘The point is that the bad stuff hasn’t really started happening yet.’

I am really interested in these views because:
1. I am intrigued that we still have people who are regarded as financial experts when it seems to be the very same people who were experts before the GFC and unable to do anything to avoid it. Handy having experts who can do nothing.
2. While noticing that we do indeed seem to have a problem, some (reasonably realistic) views and expressions of hope, optimism and positivism (is that a word?) seem much more useful and certainly much more welcome.

So I think I will attend to the advice that says: ‘Sit tight and watch your super go back up
and interest rates drop!!!!’

And while I am sitting around..and possibly having a coffee, here is a video that I found heart-breakingly beautiful and uplifting. I know I am a big sook but I think it might just be lovely anyway. I hope yous enjoy it too.

In perspectives on our societies, there is always big picture stuff and small picture stuff, and getting the balance right in any approach to therapy (small picture) as well as our approach to legislation (big picture) seems important. As I sit in conversation with a person I am aware of just how intrinsic it is to the welfare of an individual to perceive themselves as being in charge of their life, (see, amongst others, the research of Len Syme, oft-quoted on this website) and to actually be in charge of their life.

I am also aware of the significance of the social determinants of health (see as much research as you wish including that of the World Health Organisation).

So in the big picture to hold individuals responsible when social conditions are appalling, just seems unjust. Similarly in the small picture stuff to see individuals as powerless to choose and take charge of their lives, seems not only unjust, but foolish and unproductive.

I have just come back from a week in Perth training Corrective Services Personnel (those working both with adults and young people). In broad strokes the training was about understanding what drives human behaviour, including the sometimes pretty ugly side of what humans are capable of, and looking at ways in which change can be promoted. This perspective is about face-to-face work with people, looking for the best in them and helping it emerge; helping a person be in charge of themselves and simultaneously respectful of those around them. It’s the small picture stuff…then of course on the other hand there is the big picture stuff; the social determinants of behaviour.

Speaking on Radio National’s ‘Perspective’ (29th September 2008) David Brown Emeritus Professor School of Law University of New South Wales, has this to say:

‘The highest imprisoning country is the leader of the ‘free world’, the US, with a rate per 100,000 population of 738, some 4 times that of New Zealand, 6 times that of Australia, 8 times that of Germany, 11 times that of Norway and 12 times that of Japan.’

He goes on to say:

‘Focussing only on advanced western style democracies, those countries with the highest ‘imprisonment rates are “neo-liberal” countries with liberal market economies: USA, South Africa, NZ, England/Wales and Australia. The next bracket with lower rates Lacey tags “conservative corporatist” with “co-ordinated market economies” such as The Netherlands, Germany France, and Italy. With lower rates still come the “social democracies” with “co-ordinated market economies” such as Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark, followed by “Oriental corporatist with a “co-ordinated market economy” such as Japan.’

And:

‘The relatively disorganised, individualistic liberal market economies are particularly vulnerable to penal populism, for ‘liberal market systems are oriented to flexibility and mobility and turn to punishment as a means of managing an excluded population’.

And in this final comment there might be some coming together of the big and small picture perspectives:

‘By comparison ‘co-ordinated systems which favour long term relationships -through investment in education and training, generous welfare benefits, long term employment relationships -have been able to resist the powerfully excluding and stigmatising aspects of punishment.’