anyone considering installing the option should get #2 wire. no down side to it but since more common, its cheaper than #3
I was able to procure #3 a bit cheaper than #2. Also, you can get away with 1" conduit with #3, but that's a really tight pull for #2.
- - - Updated - - -
They are not infringing on your copyright, they are using it under fair use.
Section 107 of the Copyright Act states:the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
So before you bad mouth them, consider that they did not have to take down the pictures legally speaking, but did so anyways to respect your wishes.
First off, the image WERE labeled copyrighted (in the EXIF information for Copyright holder), but as a later poster pointed out, the Berne Convention and USA law since joining the Berne Convention doesn't require labeling. The big advantage of labeling is there is doubt that the work was produced prior to the USA joining the Berne Convention. This is obviously not the case here.
So where do you go to law school? First off, you aren't citing all of Section 107. It goes on to say:
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; [...]
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and [...]
So the news exemption is not a blanket exemption. What the Courts look for is whether the use of the copyrighted work is transformative. For example,
one newspaper copying an article from another is clearly not transformative. Google indexing a newspaper in its search engine clearly is. This is an evolving
body of law with important cases being decided as recently as this year.
In this particular case, the photograph was used by me *AS NEWS REPORTING* about the delivery. The re-use of the photograph in a different article written by
Teslarati, which really had nothing to add on the matter but what I've already said in this thread, was not transformative. In the case of HybridCars.COM, their editor himself felt that his use was infringing, because he immediately asked for permission after using the photograph!
- - - Updated - - -
Words are even more open for sharing, I'd assume. If I hear someone say something, I can quote them. Similarly, if someone writes something, I can quote them. We do this all the time, of course. But if someone indicates their words are copyrighted, I assume most people (like me) would rather respect their wishes to not be quoted, and also avoid any potential legal issues, than ignore the person's request.
In the particular case of quoting someone's words, the work is usually transformative. If you were just to take someone's words and say `Kenneth said this "..."`, that's not transformative. In the case of writing a larger piece and using a short quote, that's transformative and fair use.
- - - Updated - - -
This is a public forum. The world has access to read it and does. If it’s newsworthy and affects TSLA stock, it gets reported.
I understand that anything I say here about the Model X is newsworthy and will likely be reported. That's different than stealing my words or photographs.
just saying.
