watch the thematic video
: Showbiz edmond movies
|BEST BANK OR CREDIT UNION NEAR ME|
|Showbiz edmond movies|
|Ally bank savings account promotion|
Showbiz edmond movies -
Ex-Everton director Sarvar Ismailov charged with GBH after leaving for 'personal reasons'
Former Everton director Sarvar Ismailov has been charged with grievous bodily harm just three weeks after leaving the club for "personal and health reasons".
Ismailov, nephew of Russian billionaire Alisher Usmanov, appeared in court after being accused of assaulting Edmond Krasniqi at a flat in Hyde Park Gate, London, on 11 June.
The 25-year-old stood down from his position on the Everton board, as well as his role as sporting and commercial director of the women's team, on November 2 having only been appointed three months earlier.
Ismailov's older brother Sanjar has also been charged with causing GBH to Mr Krasniqi, although that is not the only allegation against his sibling.
Sanjar has further been accused of assaulting a model named Astrid Fajcsi and causing her actually bodily harm on the same day and at the same Kensington flat as Mr Krasniqi.
He is also alleged to have criminally damaged her iPhone and diamond bracelet worth over £5,000.
The Ismailov brothers appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court via video-link on Wednesday along with Malik Bilal, 40, who is also facing a GBH charge.
The district judge has adjourned their case until 15 December.
Sarvar first joined Everton in 2019, becoming the club's Global Commercial Consultant and later taking up his role on the women's team.
He was then appointed to the Toffees' board of directors in July before resigning three months later.
Click to playTap to play
Everton wrote in a statement at the time of his departure: "Everton Football Club can confirm that Sarvar Ismailov has stepped down from his duties for personal and health reasons.
"He has resigned from the Club’s Board of Directors and the positions of Owner’s Executive Representative and Sporting and Commercial Director at Everton Women.
"The decision was taken by Mr Ismailov and is effective immediately."
Changing landscape of copyright
Nowadays, it is so easy to copy materials that are available online.
When you see an interesting picture or video posted by someone on their social media account, all you have to do is download a copy or if you cannot download it, take a screen shot, and then post it in your own account for all your friends and followers to see.
However, if you are not sure if someone took that photo or created that video themself, you insert the letters CTTO or CTO meaning credit to the owner just to make sure that you make some form of attribution to the real owner of those photos or videos.
The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL), however, points out that doing so is not proper attribution, as you may be infringing on someone’s copyright unless the use can be justified under the so-called “doctrine of fair use.”
Under our Intellectual Property Code (IPC) and under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, obtaining copyright over one’s literary and artistic work should not be subjected to any formality. The works are protected from the moment of their creation, but you can have them registered or recorded with the National Library so that you will have proof of ownership. But registration of one’s literary and artistic works, which includes photographic works, is not a requirement before the owner can sue for copyright infringement.
* * *
You take a video of a scene with a building, which is the architectural masterpiece, say of one national artist on the background. You use that photo without asking the architect’s permission in your upcoming film which, good for you, got Netflix interested enough to buy the rights to show your film on their very popular streaming service.
Without knowing it, you are violating the rights of the author or such work of architecture.
During the just-concluded five-day 1st Philippine International Copyright Summit, Chuck Valerio, who is the assistant bureau chief of the Bureau of Copyright and Related Rights accreditation and standards division, explained that local copyright laws do not recognize the so-called freedom of panorama (FOP) or the right to shoot public spaces.
Freedom of panorama, he said, is an exception under copyright laws, similar to fair use, that dispenses with the need to secure prior permission from a copyright owner for the use of a work.
But since our IPC does not have such freedom of panorama provision and since taking a photo or video of a copyrighted work such as a building, whose architectural design is copyrighted, is considered as creating a derivative work based on an existing copyrighted work, then the appearance – whether intentional or not – of such copyrighted work in a photograph may be considered as creating a derivative work.
Creating derivative work from one’s copyrighted work is an exclusive right given to a copyright owner.
Valerio cited the case of France, where the company in charge of Eiffel Tower’s maintenance installed a new lighting display and copyrighted it so that photos of the tower taken at night – when the lights are displayed – are subject to copyright laws and fees for the right to publish.
In other jurisdictions with FOP provisions in their copyright laws, one has a right to take photographs of public spaces and the use of such photos even for commercial purposes and even without the consent of, or payment of royalties, to the copyright owner is allowed. Basically, the FOP provision will allow the reproduction and communication to the public of the copyrighted work as appearing in the photo.
There is now a proposal in Congress to amend the IP Code and include such FOP provision. As proposed, “the copyright in a work that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of the work or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematographic film or in a television broadcast.”
Unfortunately, as pointed out by lawyer Jose Antonio Aliling and Raffy Lerma, who is a board member of the Photojournalists Council of the Philippines, suits for copyright infringement can be very expensive so that copyright owners in the country would oftentimes just turn a blind eye to infringement of their works. Or some just are not aware of what their rights are.
* * *
If one uses a copyrighted work without the consent of the copyright owner, and the unauthorized use of such copyrighted work is not one of those considered as exceptions or limitations to copyright, then one can be sued for infringement. Good faith is not a defense in copyright infringement and one can be held criminally, civilly or administrative liable.
During the same forum, there was a very interesting presentation as to whether literary and artistic works created via artificial intelligence are entitled to copyright protection.
Lawyer Ijeoma Unachukwu of CIPP/US Communities Rise pointed out how AI is now being used to create artistic works. She cited the AI portrait of Edmond de Belamy, which was created by feeding the AI system with 15,000 portraits from the 14th and 15th century allowing the generator to make a new image based on the training data. The AI portrait was auctioned for $432,500.
In South Korea, she cited how AI was used to revive deceased superstar Kim Kwang-seok’s voice 25 years after his death. Supertone’s AI technology was trained to sing over 700 songs with the artist’s voice and was able to learn by listening to several songs by the artist.
AI was also used to finish Beethhoven’s last symphony 194 years after his death by Amper AI music. In movies, an AI called Benjamin wrote a short science fiction film called “ Sunspring” after the AI was fed with dozens of sci-fi screenplays. And then there is the nude portrait of crouching women, which was brought to life by an AI trained to paint like Picasso after the AI analyzed dozens of Picasso’s past works. Then more recently, she said that a 3-D portrait of Rembrandt was created by art historians and technicians using data and FR techniques from 346 of Rembrandt’s paintings.
Unfortunately, a number of issues need to be resolved before it can be determined if such AI created works are even copyrightable. She said that the US copyright office, for instance, will not register works produced by machines or mechanical processes that operate randomly or automatically without sufficient creative input or intervention from a human author in the resulting work. So in the US, works created by the AI will fall into the public domain. But if there was human intervention, does the copyright belong to the human author?
Unless the work is created by humans, then it is not entitled to copyright protection in the US. In that interesting case of Naruto vs Slater, a macaque (monkey) took selfies and those photos were used in a book by David Slater (who actually was the one who set up the camera for the monkey). The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sued Slater for copyright infringement claiming that since it was the monkey who took the photographs of himself. The court held that the macaque Naruto did not have statutory standing to sue under the Copyright Act.
If the AI’s work, assuming that the AI is the one which has the copyright, is used without its permission, can it sue for copyright infringement? Should AI works even be protected? Since the AI used as input copyrighted works, didn’t the AI also commit copyright infringement?
Technology is changing everything. Let’s hope that our legal framework can keep up with these changes.
For comments, e-mail at [email protected]
Showbiz Cinemas offered incentive to come to Edmond
NewsOK: Oklahoma City News, Sports, Weather & Entertainment
EDMOND — City council members approved this week the terms for a development agreement with Showbiz Cinemas and Covell-35 Development LLC to pay $4.8 million over 20 years as an incentive for developers to build a $23 million family entertainment center with a 12-screen theater and 18 bowling lanes.
The Edmond City Council also agreed to spend $268,905 upfront for infrastructure improvements at Covell Road and Interstate 35 to make way for the 82,500-square-foot center to be constructed on 11.04 acres on the northwest corner of the intersection.
Council members are expected to sign the final agreement during their Feb. 27 meeting.
The movie and entertainment complex, with an arcade, food and meeting spaces, is expected to bring in $12 million a year in annual sales, Assistant City Manager Steve Commons said.
The $4.8 million would be paid annually based on an amount equal to 2 cents of the city's sales tax generated directly from the movie and entertainment complex operations during the previous year, Commons said.
"The incentive would not exceed $4.8 million and is expected to be paid off in 15 to 16 years," Commons said.
"The money will go for land acquisitions, site development costs and clearing, leveling and raising the land and paving. It will be used to get the land ready for construction. We are not going to spend any money until everything out there is locked into place."
Kevin Mitchell, president and CEO of Showbiz Cinemas, said they want to start construction as soon as possible. The business will create 150 new jobs, Mitchell said.
The Edmond Economic Development Authority board recommended the city council offer an incentive package.
Roddy Bates, a Covell-35 Development partner, said he is satisfied with the incentive agreement.
Economic impact resulting from the construction of Showbiz is estimated at nearly $28.4 million, including the land, construction costs and square footage, said Janet Yowell, Edmond Economic Development Authority director.
The family entertainment center, with theaters with oversize leather seating and 70-foot curved screens, will be built to the east of the Hilton Garden Inn and conference center now under construction.
Retail business are expected to be built between the hotel/conference center and entertainment complex, Bates said. He would not say what retail businesses are looking at locating there.
Developers and city officials have said for years that once the hotel and conference center starts to come out the ground, other businesses and restaurants will follow.
City leaders put up $12 million to help develop the hotel and conference center and a sports complex, on the northeast side, as part of a 300-acre development on three corners of the Covell and I-35 intersection.
Construction on the public/private $37 million hotel and conference center got underway in June. The last piece of the roof of the six-story hotel was put into place on Monday. Those projects are expected to be completed by November or December.
(Story continued below...)
Diana Baldwin has been an Oklahoma journalist since 1976. She covered the Oklahoma City bombing and covered the downfall of Oklahoma City police forensic chemist Joyce Gilchrist misidentifying evidence. She wrote the original stories about the... Read more ›
Photos by Timothy Ramsey
Above: Members of Kimberly Park Holiness Church chat about the movie “War Room” after viewing it on Saturday, Dec 26.
By Timothy Ramsey
For The Chronicle
Many movies are made to entertain, make you laugh, are thought provoking and/or emulate life. The movie “War Room” encompasses all of these aspects. The W.I.S.E. (Women in Spiritual Excellence) ministry of Kimberly Park Holiness Church, 1640 SM Caesar Drive, sponsored a free showing of the award-winning movie on Saturday, Dec. 26.
“Awesome, faith and unity,” were the first words uttered by Wanda Green, a, member of Kimberly Park, when speaking of what she thought of the movie. When asked what she would take from the movie to apply to her everyday life, she said, “Stay on your knees, just stay on your knees.”
Carolyn Edmond, founder of W.I.S.E and first lady of Kimberly Park, said she decided to show the movie at the church because, “It was an opportunity to bring people together just to give them an ‘ah ha’ moment that we have to always be thankful to the Lord and remember that the word of God is powerful and it’s our weapon against the negative things that are happening in our lives.”
The movie centers around the Jordan family, comprised of Tony (husband), Elizabeth (wife) and Danielle (daughter), as well as Ms. Clara (mentor and Elizabeth’s real estate client). Tony is a successful pharmaceutical rep who travels frequently and Elizabeth is a real estate agent. Elizabeth meets Ms. Clara as she is attempting to sell her home. Tony and Elizabeth’s marriage is on shaky ground and they argue frequently. Ms. Clara immediately sees that Elizabeth is having issues and begins to probe about her personal life and befriends her.
Ms. Clara shows Elizabeth her home that she has lived in for 50 years. She then shows her prayer room to Elizabeth and tells her that the power of prayer has helped her along in life, and that she has been where Elizabeth is. Ms. Clara tells Elizabeth that she calls her prayer room her “War Room” where she fights her spiritual battles.
Tony, in the meantime, is very contentious toward Elizabeth, nor does he spend much time with his daughter Danielle. He spends a lot of his time traveling for his job and almost has an affair with another woman while away on a business trip.
Ms. Clara and Elizabeth’s relationship quickly blossoms and Elizabeth fully commits to the teachings of Ms. Clara. She begins to transform her prayer life and the way she relates to her husband and daughter. Elizabeth then creates her own “War Room” where she begins to pray for her family and totally surrenders to God.
Tony loses his job because of his dishonesty and hits rock bottom. He then finds Elizabeth’s “War Room” and sees that she has been praying for him even though their relationship has been rocky. They begin to repair their relationship and Tony repents to God, his family and his former employer. In the end, the family’s prayers have been answered and they become the tight-knit unit they have always wanted to be.
Elizabeth tells Ms. Clara that she has been a huge blessing in her life and Ms. Clara finally tells her that she has prayed to God to bring her someone to teach her ways of prayer. She lets Clara know that she must pay it forward by showing another woman the power of prayer.
“I enjoyed the movie and it had parts that related to young people and it inspired me and it’s a very good movie. In the beginning of the movie, she was kind of bitter and had a lot of hatred in her heart and I can relate and see how that can manifest in young people and adults, “ said youth member Sydney Himes of Kimberly Park, where the pastor is Robert Edmond.
Laura Ford, Sunday school teacher and prayer leader, said, “It’s powerful and it’s at a perfect time, simply because you may have people at your church praying. It needs to be on a larger scale and this movie helps to bring that out for others to see. Prayer is not just done in a corner, and when the whole church comes together to pray, then it actually makes a great difference, not only in the lives of those doing the praying, but in the church as a whole and also in the community.”
She went on to say, “I love the idea that we battle on our knees because many times we think it’s a physical war, but the true root of the matter is spiritual, so we have to make sure we use spiritual weapons to defeat the enemy.”
ShowBiz Cinemas E-Gift cards are the perfect gift for any occasions. E-Gift Cards can be redeemed in-theatre or online. Buy today!
https://www.showbizcinemas.com/gift-cards/ Gift Card
Gift card web page, terms & conditions for ShowBiz Cinemas.
Gift Card Info
- Frequently Asked Questions ShowBiz Cinemas
‘The Unforgivable’ Film Review: Sandra Bullock Ex-Con Drama Stuffs a Miniseries’ Worth of Characters Into a Packed MovieИсточник: https://www.thewrap.com/the-unforgivable-film-review-sandra-bullock-remake-netflix/
Ruth Slater (Sandra Bullock) has been in prison for two decades when “The Unforgivable” opens. That’s a long time to idle while the world moves forward. But 10 years — the length of time this film was in development — is pretty extensive, too. Indeed, the fact that the movie’s history is almost as convoluted as Ruth’s makes it all the more impressive that director Nora Fingscheidt (“System Crasher”) and her team have crafted an affecting, if flawed, redemption drama.
“Unforgiven” was an acclaimed, three-part British miniseries that had the space and time to unwind these characters and their complex history. And once you know this remake was at one point planned with Angelina Jolie in the lead and Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects,” “Jack Reacher”) as writer and director, it’s easy to get lost imagining another route entirely.
But this is a story about moving forward, about learning to reassess judgments and misjudgments, and defining one’s self from within when the world has already dismissed any attempts at redefinition. And a formidable Bullock makes this character her own, even as Ruth struggles to figure out where she fits.
When her compassionate parole officer (Rob Morgan, “Mudbound”) drops her at a decrepit halfway house in Seattle, it’s clear that Ruth is unmoored. Her roommates are thieves and drug addicts, and the only job she can get is on an assembly line skinning fish. She has just one living relative, her younger sister Katie (Aisling Franciosi, “The Fall”). Ruth is desperate to reconnect, but it soon becomes clear that her sole aim will also be her biggest challenge.
Twenty years ago, after Ruth and Katie’s parents died, the girls were evicted from their family farmhouse. From what we’re able to see in flashbacks, a desperate Ruth shot the sheriff who came to take them away. She’s served her time but will forever be reviled as a cop killer. Now Katie, who remembers the past only in unsettling bursts, has a new life with the Malcolms, a pair of loving adoptive parents (Richard Thomas, Linda Edmond) and an adoring little sister (Emma Nelson, “Where’d You Go Bernadette”).
Ruth believes she’s paid the price for her crime, but she’s having a hard time finding anyone who agrees. The Malcolms are terrified of her disrupting their settled home. The sheriff’s bitter sons (Tom Guiry and Will Pullen) want to destroy what’s left of Ruth’s life in vengeance for the way she ruined theirs. There’s also Blake (Jon Bernthal), who stands on the assembly line with her and seems like a promising romantic prospect — until she confesses her story. And John Ingram (Vincent D’Onofrio), a lawyer who’s willing to help her, until his wife Liz (Viola Davis) points out that their own black sons would never get a second chance if they’d killed an officer like Ruth did.
This is a lot to juggle, especially in a movie rather than a miniseries. And there are times when the screenplay, by Peter Craig, Hillary Seitz, and Courtenay Miles, gets bogged down by so much heavy responsibility. Because Fingscheidt has gathered such a strong cast, and taken such pains to delineate between each world, we feel as though every disparate thread deserves its own time. Instead, most of the characters get short shrift, and powerful actors who might normally serve as anchors — Morgan, Davis, and Bernthal in particular — are reduced to memorable cameos.
But this is Bullock’s show, for better and worse (she’s also a producer). As for the latter, there’s the confusing and distracting practical matter of math: Bullock is 57, Franciosi is 28; Ruth seems to be around 40, and Katie around 20. Because their history is unfolded slowly in flashbacks (played by Bullock as Ruth’s younger self, and Neli Kastrinos as Katie’s), we spend a lot of time trying to figure out how Ruth and Katie could be connected.
Still, a tightly-drawn Bullock is fully in tune with Ruth’s pain, making her extreme introversion an evident side effect of trauma rather than personality. Because Ruth keeps so much inside, Fingscheidt uses every element to create a sensory connection between this difficult character and the audience. The score, from Hans Zimmer and David Fleming, takes us part of the way there.
But Fingscheidt’s underlying focus is on the cultural strata that divide the characters. Guillermo Navarro’s intimate cinematography, which shifts with the socioeconomic settings, matches each notably divergent environment as designed by Kim Jennings and Natalie Van Hest. Jennings and Van Hest have eyes for minute detail, and deftly pull us from Ruth’s viscerally repellent halfway house to the Ingrams’ expensively enviable farmhouse to the Malcolms’ softer suburban haven.
All of this fine work does bring us back to the fact that there’s too much here, and too little time in which to explore it all. As it happens, the original “Unforgiven” is streaming on Britbox, while “The Unforgivable,” which is currently in theaters, will be on Netflix December 10. It’s not exactly uplifting, but a pairing of the series and the film might compel anyone looking for something more intense than traditional holiday fare.
“The Unforgivable” opens in US theaters Nov. 24 and on Netflix Dec. 10.
ShowBiz Cinemas E-Gift cards are the perfect gift for any occasions. E-Gift Cards can be redeemed in-theatre or online. Buy today!
https://www.showbizcinemas.com/gift-cards/ Gift Card
Gift card web page, terms & conditions showbiz edmond movies ShowBiz Cinemas.