Is Taking A Photo Of An iPhone A 'Copy'?
from the do-words-have-meaning? dept
There are still some serious questions about the legality of the police's decision to search the home of Gizmodo reporter Jason Chen and to seize his computers as part of their investigation of the iPhone prototype story. However, with the unsealing of the search warrant, some are noticing some oddities. Reader johnjac highlights that the police defense of the need for the search warrant claims that Jason "created copies of the iPhone prototype in the form of digital images and video." While it may just be either a misstatement or an awkward use of the word, it does seem like a strange description of what happened, designed to make the judge think that the "risk" was much greater than it actually was. If there were actual "copies" of the device being made, that might be an issue. But photographing or videotaping a device is hardly making copies. But, of course, in an age where many in the world are trying to falsely equate "copies" with "theft," suddenly the idea that Jason was able to "copy" the iPhone prototype via the magic of a camera makes his actions seem that much more nefarious than they really were.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copies, iphone, jason chen, search warrant
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Copies of copies of copies
She also copied the mouse pad.
This oh-so-humorless woman took special care to warn the trainees that in real life, they were always to use the mouse pad. Her reason? "Because you'll wear the mouse's balls out."
Remember, those were tax dollars at work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Magic Camera
; P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Copy" as defined in CA Penal Code
*IANAL*
California Penal Code 499c(a)(7) defines what "copy" means in regards to the specific charge, 499c(b)(3), against Jason Chen:
In this regard, specifically dealing with trade secrets, I think the definition of "copy" is fitting for the action of photographing a not-yet-released device. What is being dealt with here is not the copying of a device, per se, but the copying of the trade secrets. (Trade secrets which happen to be physically embodied in a device, but some of which are transferable via photo.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What law are they citing?
Also, did Apple have a properly filed claim to this copyright?
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "Copy" as defined in CA Penal Code
That said, he never signed a contract to protect Apple's trade secrets, and should be under no obligation to protect them.
Jefferson is looking sternly down upon the state of California at this point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chen's mistake- not taking a picture of his pictures.
http://vimeo.com/4520463
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "Copy" as defined in CA Penal Code
Jason appropriated the iPhone with the intent of using it to bolster Gizmodo's readership. He certainly seemed to be aware that the phone was not publicly released, and he (via Gizmodo) paid good money, supposedly not for the device, but for the "scoop" on the unannounced device. IMVHO, Jason paid for a trade secret so he could report it at Gizmodo.
While I don't particularly like the laws out here, this one doesn't seem so bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "Copy" as defined in CA Penal Code
So, by your logic, I could be convicted of stealing a car because I took a picture of it? Your definitions need updating.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "Copy" as defined in CA Penal Code
How anyone can square that with free speech is beyond human comprehension. It would take a gorram lawyer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "Copy" as defined in CA Penal Code
My car, as I understand it, is not a trade secret. The whole text of 499c isn't very long. Read it for yourself and see if you still think my car would constitute a "trade secret."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copies
"material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term 'copies' includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed." 17 USC 101.
That implies a photo of the phone, or a video of the phone, is not a copy from which the work can be perceived. Although it's true that you can "perceive" the phone in the sense of looking it at, such a copy would fail the last sense of the definition, since it's nothing like the material object in which the work was first fixed.
Also in copyright, a copy must be a substitute for the original. No danger of that here. In other words, does the video or photo of the phone substitute for the phone itself? I don't think it does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "Copy" as defined in CA Penal Code
It seems that it was very clearly LOST, not stolen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copies
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:x3 "Copy" as defined in CA Penal Code
lost by a drunk apple worker
The phone was the property of apple.
The phone was returned to Apple.
But before it was returned, it was photographed.
So fir the drunk who lost it in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Oh yes? And what just how was a physical iPhone prototype was able to be duplicated exactly via digital means so you have a completely identical and functional duplicate at near-zero cost simply by a mouse click? Please explain exactly how this device was "shared" via the internet? What "content" are you talking about? Its a PHONE, so what part of this story constitutes infringement via providing a COPY of the PHONE? And no, a PICTURE of a phone is not the same as a COPY of a phone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Copies
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Copies
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abuse
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:x3 "Copy" as defined in CA Penal Code
[ link to this | view in thread ]
umm yeah right
Apple gets a giant butt load of free publicity and hype for it's upcoming product and it discovers that one of their employees is either a moron or an advertising genius.
The idea that any competition could capitalize on the photos is laughable.
Seems to me that Apple comes out smelling like a rose.
I feel sorry for them and there wayward phone.
Jackasses...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's very clear in the warrant
It quotes section 499c(b)(3) "copy (including photograph) any article representing a trade secret."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:x3 "Copy" as defined in CA Penal Code
Since the Apple employees manning the phone lines hadn't been told about new prototype phones, much less that one had been lost, they assumed it was a Chinese copy and not a real one, and so didn't ask for it back.
At that point, the finder and Gizmodo had no evidence that it really was an Apple device. It seems that was only confirmed by the Apple branding on the internal components (only visible after opening the phone - "vandalized" in your words) and then finally confirmed by Apple coming clean about the leak and asking for it back.
At no point, as far as I can tell, did either the finder or Gizmodo try to hide the device or prevent Apple from getting it back. Not exactly a hallmark of theft.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cameras
Obviously this is the biggest issue here. By taking pictures of the iPhone, the photographer commited THEFT... he STOLE the iPhone's SOUL... and in extension Steve Jobs' soul.
This is a VERY serious matter! My people have had their souls stolen by National Geographic photographers for years and finally something will be done about!
My soulless people cry out for justice, and now those cries are joined by the cries of the soulless Steve Jobs!
JUSTICE!!!
Tribal Leader
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Cameras
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's very clear in the warrant
But once the Apple employee has "lost" the phone he has effectively placed it in the public domain secrets wise.
Apple are still entitled to their property back - but by their negligence they have given up their right to keep it secret.
It is exactly the same situation as if they had accidentally announced some technical details on television. Once they themselves have let the cat out of the bag it is fair game for everyone else.
What they are trying to do is like trying to get someone to sign an NDA AFTER they have already given them the information - the problem is that it is too late.
Of course if you break in to an Apple building and photograph the phone then that would be the situation in which the law you quote would apply - but this is very different.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
When is a photograph a substitue for the real thing?
He sent them back a photograph of the money.
They sent him a photograph of a pair of handcuffs....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:x3 "Copy" as defined in CA Penal Code
Um, the dude literally filed the serial number off. Not exactly upstanding citizen behavior.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: When is a photograph a substitue for the real thing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "Copy" as defined in CA Penal Code
Either your logic, or the law's logic sucks.
That phone was out in public. That is no longer a "secret".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Copy" as defined in CA Penal Code
Because of the text, I do not believe your scenario would bring this law into play, because:
1. You do not have an "intent to deprive or withhold the control of a trade secret from its owner" nor do you have an "intent to appropriate a trade secret to his or her own use or to the use of another."
2. You have not "unlawfully obtained access to the article."
3. You have not violated 499c(b)(1) or 499c(b)(2)
As for the "out in public" comment, the phone was in a specially-designed case to conceal its identity. Also, the internals of the phone were not made known by Apple to the public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Copy" as defined in CA Penal Code
I hope the law does not apply in this case, for a phone left in a public bar, found, offered for return, refused, sold, and...um..."examined" prior to return.
Though the detail of the law may stipulate different, I simply don't see the concept of "stolen" anywhere in this story. If shit I lost in a bar were returned to me like this, it would be an improvement. Every time I ever lost something, it was gone forever.
I also don't find requiring Apple to say "Yes, that is our phone." as extortion or blackmail. That, of course, is the very premise under which it must be returned to Apple.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
find about a person from a phone contacts in iphone
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]