Ahh, another example of PDF retraction that puts an opaque black box over something, yielding to the highly sophisticated "Highlight the text" attack.
sigh.
(To ensure clarity: The addresses of Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, and John Paul Jones are included at the end of the complaint, and are improperly redacted. One presumes this information isn't hard to come by, but if you're going to try to redact it, you might as well do it right.)
The only true safe way is to print it, redact with a sharpie and scan it back in. Not everyone is versed enogh with Adobe acrobat to do it the right way.
1) Irrelevant in the case of this court filing as the lawyer's name is attached
2) In the case where this might be relevant there's a much easier way - export PDF pages to high resolution PNG, edit to put a black box over the text, and then combine the PNGs into a PDF again. This also has the benefit of stripping any PDF metadata that may have been present in the original.
FWIW, (2) doesn't strip any sort of steganographic watermark that might already be embedded in the document, but invisible to the naked eye. Of course, there's no reliable way to do that, anyway. And steganography could be used in ways that are visible to the human eye (i.e., survives printing/scanning) but still imperceptible with a single copy of the document.
Not necessarily! Consider rearranged words or punctuation in different versions of the document. You'd have to do something like type up a paraphrase to get around that.
Redacting with sharpie migh still leave the text visible via gamma futzing or other photoshop tricks. Print-exacto knife-scan is an improvement on print-sharpie-scan.
Export the page in question to a raster image format like PNG at a high resolution, use an erasing tool on it, re-import the whole thing as a high-res raster (not OCR).
In the past 15 years I have seen so many poorly redacted PDF from government agencies, where they just draw a black box over the PDF-native text.
In that they both use a descending chromatic line over a minor chord in the harmony, a device that has been used in music for over 300 years.
Their differences are great, notably in the structural importance of the figure (it happens in the middle of an ambient passage in Taurus, but it's the opening, passage of Stairway); in the fact that Stairway uses a melodic line on top of the chords, whereas Taurus doesn't; and that Stairway uses it as a structural block for the whole song, and in Taurus, it's only a moment in the middle of a larger section.
Here is an arrangement by guitarist Davey Graham of She Moves Through The Fair. As someone who heard similarities between Scottish/Irish folk and Indian music, his take on the tune is really quite original.
This is a recording of Jimmy Page playing the tune, which sounds so close to Davey Graham's version, it seems impossible that it's not a rip-off. I believe he takes credit for it on recordings.
A mistake for an attorney to do this. While some courts might possibly think it's 'cute' there is a higher risk that some will see it as a negative even if they try not to be biased.
A court filing is not a job application or a college applications or trying to get funding for your company. It's one shot. Not the type of risk that makes any sense at all. Good for publicity though if that is the idea.
Clerked in a Federal Court however I stopped practicing law a few years after that for something more lucrative. [1]
In any case the attorney (OP) says:
> Some courts mandate certain fonts, font-sizing, spacing, and margin size. Let's hope the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania doesn't.
Not sure how it can be any clearer (re: my point) than that.
Note also that I didn't say 'not allowed' but that it was a 'risk'.
Now perhaps the attorney that filed this knows something about the judge or court. My comment was for HN as a general point which is valid I feel.
Let's say you are meeting a new girlfriends family for the first time. You decide to show up in a clown suit. Sure it's possible that the parents might think that's great but also a risk that they will think you are foolish for doing so. (Ditto for most appearance related things).
Note that it still uses double line-spacing, or something too close to that. (The embedded Scribd butchers some formatting on mobile, but I think line spacing is preserved.)
Double line spacing is wrong: it violates the principle of proximity, which is a cornerstone of all visual design―because it simply describes how humans' visual perception works. Practical formulation of the principle of proximity is very simple: there should be obviously more space around an item than inside of it, for the item to look like one integrated thing and not a bunch of them. This works on all scales.
Double spacing makes it look like you can stick a line between two existing ones. The lines don't stick together anymore, and this makes the paragraph shaky, like it's falling apart.
I don't like some guys making millions while some other guys nearly equally deserving get nothing. But still, trying to determine "originality" is a fool's errand just like copyright on so much of art is a fool's errand.
sigh.
(To ensure clarity: The addresses of Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, and John Paul Jones are included at the end of the complaint, and are improperly redacted. One presumes this information isn't hard to come by, but if you're going to try to redact it, you might as well do it right.)