Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:00:08 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJHTh6rAuBg
>>
>> New research into analyzing 3D images from 2D artwork, like old
>> paintings.
> 
> "This video is private". :-(

Somebody caught them. Now it fails for me too. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Yes, we're traveling together,
   but to different destinations.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:50:53 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:00:08 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJHTh6rAuBg
>>>
>>> New research into analyzing 3D images from 2D artwork, like old
>>> paintings.
>>  "This video is private". :-(
>
> Somebody caught them. Now it fails for me too. :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO9U71dsp0U



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:49:20 +0200, Fredrik Eriksson wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:50:53 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:00:08 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJHTh6rAuBg
>>>>
>>>> New research into analyzing 3D images from 2D artwork, like old
>>>> paintings.
>>>  "This video is private". :-(
>>
>> Somebody caught them. Now it fails for me too. :-)
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO9U71dsp0U

Ah, now that one works. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO9U71dsp0U
> 
> Ah, now that one works. :-)
> 

"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Samsung 
Electronics."

Not any more.  :-(

Post a reply to this message

Kyle <no### [at] spamok> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO9U71dsp0U
> > 
> > Ah, now that one works. :-)
> > 

> "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Samsung 
> Electronics."

> Not any more.  :-(

  I don't get it. It's an advertisement they made, and they are getting
tons and tons of viewers. For their advertisement. Which advertises their
product. Tons and tons of viewers. Sounds like the *dream* of an advertiser.

  And they take it down. Huh? Me no comprende. Are they nuts?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   And they take it down. Huh? Me no comprende. Are they nuts?

Samsung doesn't have the rights to it.  They probably bought the rights to 
broadcast it X times on Y television stations.

Kind of like how you don't have the copyright to your wedding photos.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Yes, we're traveling together,
   but to different destinations.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:12:40 -0400, Kyle wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO9U71dsp0U
>> 
>> Ah, now that one works. :-)
>> 
>> 
> "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Samsung
> Electronics."
> 
> Not any more.  :-(

Sheesh, you'd think they'd WANT their advertising out there.

It's like the Russians in Dr. Strangelove - who had a doomsday device to 
act as a deterrent, but hadn't announced that they had it to the world, 
but had turned it on...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:29:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Warp wrote:
>>   And they take it down. Huh? Me no comprende. Are they nuts?
> 
> Samsung doesn't have the rights to it.  They probably bought the rights
> to broadcast it X times on Y television stations.
> 
> Kind of like how you don't have the copyright to your wedding photos.

If that was the case, wouldn't the copyright claim be from someone else?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> If that was the case, wouldn't the copyright claim be from someone else?

It probably *should*, technically.  Maybe Samsung is making the claim on 
behalf of an advertising company or something.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Yes, we're traveling together,
   but to different destinations.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 18:25:15 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> If that was the case, wouldn't the copyright claim be from someone
>> else?
> 
> It probably *should*, technically.  Maybe Samsung is making the claim on
> behalf of an advertising company or something.

I suppose that's possible....

Jim

Post a reply to this message