Sorry but did we read the same comment? It's not patronising. The people who are stuck in low end jobs were not in the scope of this comment (there are also people in war zones or very sick, also out of scope). And how did you manage to find this extremely hurtful to any group...?
Just to clarify - the article describes BirdNET-Pi, not the mobile app Birdnet. In the mobile app we have to record and manually select a fragment to analyze, here it's a continuous monitoring where detections are visible in real time and can be replayed.
They charge you a service fee (5% + $0.35) when you reload credits. This is very well hidden and not publicly stated (or at least I couldn’t find it would logging in and trying to purchase).
Bird stickers unfortunately don't work, birds don't recognize them. Something like "anti collision dot stickers" will work though if the spacing between the dots is not larger than recommended.
Permission is no more required to use faces than it is to sing names.
You can feely sing about McDonald's hamburgers, dress as Ronald McDonald in a music video, or do both at the same time.
Permission only comes into the equation when there's a likelihood of a party believing they're conducting business with a party which they are not (fraud by misrepresentation).
To put it more simply; selling burgers dressed as Ronald McDonald is a bad idea. Selling a song under the name "Eminem" while deepfaking Eminem is a similarly bad idea. Using someone's likeness artistically is, by default, absolutely fine.
Not disagreeing with you, but I am curious about how it works. Singing someone's name feels obviously fine. Dressing as Ronald McDonald though raises some questions on my end.
Aside from "likelihood of a party believing they're conducting business with a party with which they are not", are there any other "rules of thumb" when it comes to this?
What if the owner of Ronald McDonald trademark (apparently, his costume clown face persona+multiple variations of the name are trademarked) didn't like the way the character was portrayed by you or just didn't want you to use it for whichever other arbitrary reason, does their position stand any legal ground? And does their specific reason even matter at all when it comes to this?
Trademarks are industry specific. McDonalds has the rights to the likeness of Ronald McDonald in commercial transactions and marketing involving food, and nothing else.
Incidentally, this is why Apple Records, Apple Socks, and Apple Computer can all simultaneously exist.
To this day, Apple Computer pays a licensing fee to Apple Records for the existence of iTunes; because Apple Records has retained the trademark for the use of the word Apple in reference to music sales since before Steve Jobs ever touched a computer.
