...remember that every place where a Wal-Mart shows up, it wreaks economic havoc on local stores and businesses, driving far more people out of business than it employs.
I get a little confused by attacks like this on Wal-Mart and other big box stores when they build a store somewhere. If the local population chooses to shop at Wal-Mart over Local Joe's Supermarket and that forces Local Joe's to close, how is that Wal-Mart's fault? It seems like it the real blame falls to the local shop for failing to deliver what their customers desired.
...why do we see more delinquents and serious crime today than we did 50 years ago?
Do we? If you have some data to back up this claim, I'd really love to see it and correlate it with population studies to see if the percentages really are relative.
Also, in the last 50 years we've also experienced an information explosion. Is there really more incidents of violence now or is that we now hear about them more regularly? Fifty years ago a sexual assault in Podunk would not have made it past the local papers. 300 years ago no one but those involved would have know about it. Today the whole world know in minutes.
What is it with lawyers thinking they can bully people around with the law like this? Now, I know the lawyers spotlighted here on Techdirt are probably not a realistic cross-section of the entire profession, but we do hear a lot about these types here.
My question is this: Does the profession attract this type of personality or does the profession create this trait in people who become lawyers?
Re: Pictures don't always belong to the person who take them
You guys are taking the loss out of context. There are actually quite a few exceptions to the law which determines the copyright of the picture. If, for example, I took a picture on behalf of a newspaper - and I have - I don't own that picture. The newspaper owns it.
Right, that's a "work-for-hire" situation. The monkey picture is not a "work-for-hire" situation because there is no legal way for the monkey to be an employee.
Anytime I take a picture on behalf of someone else that person owns the copyright instead of me.
Not true. You actually do own the copyright.
If someone asked me to take their picture with their camera and there just happens to be a Yeti in the background I can't claim ownership of the picture just because I pushed the button.
Yes, you could claim copyright of the picture. You my not be able to demand the physical picture (or the negative or the SD card) itself, but that is different then holding the copyright.
Now, what happens if someone steals my camera and take pictures? I still own it and there are plenty of precedents which prove it. The theft of smartphones is becoming increasingly common and one of the methods of tracking them down and prosecuting thieves is the use of selfies taken by thieves. Even though the thief took the picture, they can't tell the media to take the picture down because they own it. The true owner in this case is the owner of the device not the person in pushed the button. If the thief owns the picture it would be increasingly difficult to prosecute or publish.
I believe that that the thief would actually own the copyright in this case. But you are slightly conflating physical possession and copyrights. The thief wouldn't own the physical media the picture is on because it was obtained unlawfully, but still may actually own the copyright of the picture.
Now, in the case of an animal taking this picture that is still ambiguous, suppose a trip wire was used to take a picture instead or motion sensor. The animal is still physically pushing the button. That's how many wildlife photos were taken and the copyrights are protected just fine. So is it really important how the animal took the picture? Does the act of stealing the camera in and of itself make the difference versus a motion sensor? I can't find a precedent for that one, but it does seem fairly obvious that the spirit of law sides with the wildlife photographer if not the exact phrase.
When setting up a shot using a tripwire, the photographer still is controlling the creative elements of the shot - framing, lighting, etc. It been pretty much settled that the photographer owns the copyright in those cases. The monkey picture isn't like that though - the monkey's creativity provided those elements, not the photographer who has admitted he turned his back and the monkeys took his camera and started shooting pictures.
My point is that there are many examples of people owning a picture that they didn't push the button for.
Not as many examples as you may think. In most cases, whoever pushed the button owns the copyright, unless it was a work-for-hire situation.
This is a pretty disingenuous article. Normally I agree with the views presented on TD, particularly with regards to Hollywood, but the analogy presented here is so flawed it really hurts its own credibility.
Ok, I'll bite.
What analogy are you referring to? All I saw was an article pointing out Hollywood's hypocrisy in how it addresses different issues.
Here's a hint, if you're going to debate Copyright Law, the source is the current copyright law - not some random blogger.
Here's a better hint: If you are going to debate copyright law, the source is current copyright law AND the caselaw surrounding it. How the courts have interpreted the statutes is just as important as the original laws.
Just pointing to 17 U.S.C. clarifies nothing. You need to be specific, including any relative caselaw that supports your argument. You haven't done so.
Also, if you actually read the article that was linked you'd know it was "some random blogger" quoting the words of an actual copyright attorney who works with photographers.
The fact that copyright - a right that is entirely government-created - does in fact take those rights away, should be very meaningful to you.
Fair enough and you're right, of course. It most certialy does matter in the overall debate whether copyright should exist or not.
Still, in purely practical terms with our copyright system as it currently exists, the distinction really is meaningless - permission to use however you choose is not required.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: The photographer owns the photo.
The copyright owner is unlikely ever care or similarly even find out that someone uses a copy of the photo they took but don't own the copyright to in their portfolio.
Maybe a few years ago, sure. Portfolios of this type are more commonly published on the web these days and usually where anyone and everyone can view them. That does make a difference.
Seems like something fair use would cover if it wasn't huddled in the corner hoping not to get beat up again.
I'm not certain Fair Use would cover this usage myself. Most factors go against it. It's for profit (you're selling your services), non-transformative, use of the entire work, etc..
For example, if I shoot a photo for TechDirt and TechDirt pays me and also owns the camera, they (generally) own the copyright. But (generally) I could still use it for self promotion.
In addition to Karl's comment you are also wrong about using it for promotion too. If Techdirt holds the copyright, then you have absolutely no rights to copy or distribute the photo unless Techdirt grants you a license or otherwise agrees to let you do so.
In this hypothetical situation, it would be argued that because the photographer provided the equipment, he or she is the true owner of the photo. This would actually be true if we were talking about two humans. The person or object who hit the button is irrelevant.
That is incorrect. Here are the words of a lawyer who specializes in copyright and photography:
In general, when the shutter is released, the photographer who pressed the button owns the copyright. Source
And EVEN IF in some magical land the monkey was able to get ownership, the monkey would have to give consent to have the photo licensed. So even then Wikimedia doesn't have a valid claim.
Those who are claiming the monkey owns the copyright are also incorrect. No one owns the copyright - it's in the Public Domain.
This is a no brainer guys. The photographer owns the photo.
If it's such a "no brainer" care to include how you came by that conclusion? Lots of people who are very knowledgeable in copyright law claim otherwise.
You can argue all you want about what you think will or should happen, but it won't change the fact that you're pulling opinions from the sky and seriously reaching for an outcome that won't happen.
I'm not reaching for anything. I really couldn't care less who ultimately ends up (if anyone) with the copyright for a monkey picture. I'm more interested in the discussions that are developing around this issue.
That's a dangerous assumption for culture, highlighted by the fact that so many people default to insisting that someone must hold the copyright over this photo.
A very dangerous assumption, for sure.
We even had a commenter on the first story this week who proclaimed themselves a "former professional photographer" who claimed that "Everything of even theoretical value has to belong to SOMEONE...".
The real disconnect here is that people would not break a padlock to gain entry to something, but have no problem sticking an extra board in their xbox or replacing the eprom on their scope to accomplish the same thing.
I think you are the one with a bit of disconnect myself. Your analogy is flawed.
By saying "people would not break a padlock to gain entry to something" is misleading. True, most people wouldn't break a padlock to gain entry to someone else's property.
Now ask all those same people if they would break a padlock on a lockbox they purchased legally at the flea market, estate sale or storage unit auction.
You are failing to include the fact that people are modify their own property that's physically in their possession.
On the post: New Report Challenges The Whole 'IP Intensive Industries Are Doing Well Because Of Strong IP' Myth
Re:
I get a little confused by attacks like this on Wal-Mart and other big box stores when they build a store somewhere. If the local population chooses to shop at Wal-Mart over Local Joe's Supermarket and that forces Local Joe's to close, how is that Wal-Mart's fault? It seems like it the real blame falls to the local shop for failing to deliver what their customers desired.
On the post: Learning From History: How One Lying Liar Almost Screwed The Comic Book Industry
Re:
Do we? If you have some data to back up this claim, I'd really love to see it and correlate it with population studies to see if the percentages really are relative.
Also, in the last 50 years we've also experienced an information explosion. Is there really more incidents of violence now or is that we now hear about them more regularly? Fifty years ago a sexual assault in Podunk would not have made it past the local papers. 300 years ago no one but those involved would have know about it. Today the whole world know in minutes.
On the post: Angry Lawyer Sues Wordpress Because Someone Set Up A Website Mocking Him
My question is this: Does the profession attract this type of personality or does the profession create this trait in people who become lawyers?
On the post: Photographer Still Insisting He Holds Copyright On Photo By A Monkey, Hints At Possibly Suing Wikimedia
Re: Pictures don't always belong to the person who take them
Right, that's a "work-for-hire" situation. The monkey picture is not a "work-for-hire" situation because there is no legal way for the monkey to be an employee.
Anytime I take a picture on behalf of someone else that person owns the copyright instead of me.
Not true. You actually do own the copyright.
If someone asked me to take their picture with their camera and there just happens to be a Yeti in the background I can't claim ownership of the picture just because I pushed the button.
Yes, you could claim copyright of the picture. You my not be able to demand the physical picture (or the negative or the SD card) itself, but that is different then holding the copyright.
Now, what happens if someone steals my camera and take pictures? I still own it and there are plenty of precedents which prove it. The theft of smartphones is becoming increasingly common and one of the methods of tracking them down and prosecuting thieves is the use of selfies taken by thieves. Even though the thief took the picture, they can't tell the media to take the picture down because they own it. The true owner in this case is the owner of the device not the person in pushed the button. If the thief owns the picture it would be increasingly difficult to prosecute or publish.
I believe that that the thief would actually own the copyright in this case. But you are slightly conflating physical possession and copyrights. The thief wouldn't own the physical media the picture is on because it was obtained unlawfully, but still may actually own the copyright of the picture.
Now, in the case of an animal taking this picture that is still ambiguous, suppose a trip wire was used to take a picture instead or motion sensor. The animal is still physically pushing the button. That's how many wildlife photos were taken and the copyrights are protected just fine. So is it really important how the animal took the picture? Does the act of stealing the camera in and of itself make the difference versus a motion sensor? I can't find a precedent for that one, but it does seem fairly obvious that the spirit of law sides with the wildlife photographer if not the exact phrase.
When setting up a shot using a tripwire, the photographer still is controlling the creative elements of the shot - framing, lighting, etc. It been pretty much settled that the photographer owns the copyright in those cases. The monkey picture isn't like that though - the monkey's creativity provided those elements, not the photographer who has admitted he turned his back and the monkeys took his camera and started shooting pictures.
My point is that there are many examples of people owning a picture that they didn't push the button for.
Not as many examples as you may think. In most cases, whoever pushed the button owns the copyright, unless it was a work-for-hire situation.
On the post: Reagan Biographer Claims 'Copyright Infringement' Because Another Biographer Used The Same Facts
Re:
Probably stemming from the misnomer "Intellectual Property".
Wouldn't "Reproducible Property" be closer to what copyright and patents protect?
On the post: Hollywood Funded Group Demands BitTorrent Inc. 'Take Responsibility' For Piracy
Re:
Ok, I'll bite.
What analogy are you referring to? All I saw was an article pointing out Hollywood's hypocrisy in how it addresses different issues.
On the post: How That Monkey Selfie Reveals The Dangerous Belief That Every Bit Of Culture Must Be 'Owned'
Re: Track Record (Later Guys)
Here's a better hint: If you are going to debate copyright law, the source is current copyright law AND the caselaw surrounding it. How the courts have interpreted the statutes is just as important as the original laws.
Just pointing to 17 U.S.C. clarifies nothing. You need to be specific, including any relative caselaw that supports your argument. You haven't done so.
Also, if you actually read the article that was linked you'd know it was "some random blogger" quoting the words of an actual copyright attorney who works with photographers.
On the post: How That Monkey Selfie Reveals The Dangerous Belief That Every Bit Of Culture Must Be 'Owned'
Re: Re:
My apologies then.
Out of curiosity, which parts are the mostly sarcasm parts?
On the post: How That Monkey Selfie Reveals The Dangerous Belief That Every Bit Of Culture Must Be 'Owned'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Track Record
Fair enough and you're right, of course. It most certialy does matter in the overall debate whether copyright should exist or not.
Still, in purely practical terms with our copyright system as it currently exists, the distinction really is meaningless - permission to use however you choose is not required.
On the post: How That Monkey Selfie Reveals The Dangerous Belief That Every Bit Of Culture Must Be 'Owned'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: The photographer owns the photo.
Maybe a few years ago, sure. Portfolios of this type are more commonly published on the web these days and usually where anyone and everyone can view them. That does make a difference.
Seems like something fair use would cover if it wasn't huddled in the corner hoping not to get beat up again.
I'm not certain Fair Use would cover this usage myself. Most factors go against it. It's for profit (you're selling your services), non-transformative, use of the entire work, etc..
On the post: How That Monkey Selfie Reveals The Dangerous Belief That Every Bit Of Culture Must Be 'Owned'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Track Record
Forgot to log in.
On the post: How That Monkey Selfie Reveals The Dangerous Belief That Every Bit Of Culture Must Be 'Owned'
Re: Re: Re: RE: The photographer owns the photo.
In addition to Karl's comment you are also wrong about using it for promotion too. If Techdirt holds the copyright, then you have absolutely no rights to copy or distribute the photo unless Techdirt grants you a license or otherwise agrees to let you do so.
On the post: How That Monkey Selfie Reveals The Dangerous Belief That Every Bit Of Culture Must Be 'Owned'
Re: Re: Re: Track Record
That is incorrect. Here are the words of a lawyer who specializes in copyright and photography:
And EVEN IF in some magical land the monkey was able to get ownership, the monkey would have to give consent to have the photo licensed. So even then Wikimedia doesn't have a valid claim.
Those who are claiming the monkey owns the copyright are also incorrect. No one owns the copyright - it's in the Public Domain.
On the post: How That Monkey Selfie Reveals The Dangerous Belief That Every Bit Of Culture Must Be 'Owned'
Re: Track Record
If it's such a "no brainer" care to include how you came by that conclusion? Lots of people who are very knowledgeable in copyright law claim otherwise.
You can argue all you want about what you think will or should happen, but it won't change the fact that you're pulling opinions from the sky and seriously reaching for an outcome that won't happen.
I'm not reaching for anything. I really couldn't care less who ultimately ends up (if anyone) with the copyright for a monkey picture. I'm more interested in the discussions that are developing around this issue.
On the post: How That Monkey Selfie Reveals The Dangerous Belief That Every Bit Of Culture Must Be 'Owned'
Re:
Here is that comment.
On the post: How That Monkey Selfie Reveals The Dangerous Belief That Every Bit Of Culture Must Be 'Owned'
A very dangerous assumption, for sure.
We even had a commenter on the first story this week who proclaimed themselves a "former professional photographer" who claimed that "Everything of even theoretical value has to belong to SOMEONE...".
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140806/07044228126/photographer-still-insisting-he-h olds-copyright-photo-monkey-threatens-to-sue-wikimedia.shtml#c1499"
Apparently, in this person's head, everything in the Public Domain has no value, even theoretical.
On the post: City Of London Police Arrest Creator Of Anti-Censorship Proxy Service Based On Hollywood's Say So
A distant relative of Barney Fife?
On the post: Tektronix Uses DMCA Notice To Try To Stop Oscilloscope Hacking
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Tektronix Uses DMCA Notice To Try To Stop Oscilloscope Hacking
Re: Re: Re:
I think you are the one with a bit of disconnect myself. Your analogy is flawed.
By saying "people would not break a padlock to gain entry to something" is misleading. True, most people wouldn't break a padlock to gain entry to someone else's property.
Now ask all those same people if they would break a padlock on a lockbox they purchased legally at the flea market, estate sale or storage unit auction.
You are failing to include the fact that people are modify their own property that's physically in their possession.
On the post: Photographer Still Insisting He Holds Copyright On Photo By A Monkey, Hints At Possibly Suing Wikimedia
Re:
And that opens up another can of worms. If that photo had been taken in California, would the monkey hold the "publicity rights" to the photo?
Next >>