As to the question of 授權. Here, the USB and the DVD played an very important and telltale role. 1 The USB is basically a virtual copy of the 2006 edition. There is really no reason for Mr Chan to "lent" it to Mr Lau just to view the photos, since Mr Chan had already showed Mr Lau the 2006 edition. One reason is for discussing and planning of the new edition. 2 Why did Mr Chan send a DVD which contained all the necessary materials for the upcoming edition to Up Publishing Ltd in HK and for Mr Lau to take it to SCMP as a proof of Mr Chan's 授權 and for SCMP to verify? And since there's no proof of theft (it was changed from "stolen" to "lent") or any wrong doings, it's more than likely that it's a 授權 from Mr Chan.
@123NTW
4 ай бұрын
With utmost respect. Yuen papa seems making a lot of assumptions without offering any proof. According to Albert Einstein, "Assumptions are made and most assumptions are wrong.”
One has to go to court to collect the "double, triple, quadruple, quintuple...damages". With the "statute of limitation" is now gone, the matter is moot. Tough luck.
@陸月久
4 ай бұрын
有能力的,幫陳生後人打官司啦,你一句佢一句有乜用?嘴炮也
@123NTW
4 ай бұрын
It appears that there are "3 copyrights" involved. One owned by華早, one owned by 中僑 and one owned by 橋叔. 中僑 apparently owned the publishing right to its 2006 edition, including photos, the much talked about "自序" and all other materials. Basically, it is a soft copy, a blue print of the 2006 edition. And it's also reasonably to assume that the right has been transferred to 橋叔.因2006 畫冊係橋叔免費為中僑籌款出嘅, 咁極有可能出版後中僑將版權交給橋叔. 咁橋叔嘅授權就包括中僑2006 嘅 "自序" 相片 及其它資料. 如果中僑版權已屬橋叔, 咁劉生只要得到華早同橋叔授權就可.
Пікірлер: 57