E. Zachary Knight (profile), 28 Mar 2011 @ 10:51am
Question to all those claiming that it is Photobucket's responsibility to police for copyright infringement:
Since copyright it automatically applied to a work whether it is actually registered with the US government, how is photobucket supposed to determine what is copyrighted? How are they supposed to know that the person uploading the photo has the express permission of the copyright owner to upload it or not? Is every person in the world with a camera supposed to submit every photo they take to Photobucket so they can update their filter?
The logistics behind such a requirement are mind boggling to the point that it would bankrupt a service like photobucket in minutes and a service like You-tube in days. There is no way they can scan every photo, video, mp3 etc for infringing content especially when such content can cross mediums. A video can contain not only infringing video content, but also photo, music, sfx, gameplay, books, etc. You-tube would have to police for every possible thing that is copyrightable, not just for the giant multi billion industries but also for the person with a camera who only shares their pictures/films with family and friends.
The real reason the fashion industry wants to gain copyrights on design is to stop the imitators from imitating their designs. I think it is completely stupid, but that is the only real reason I can come up with.
On the post: Another Court Rejects Idea That DMCA Requires Proactive Approach From Service Providers
Since copyright it automatically applied to a work whether it is actually registered with the US government, how is photobucket supposed to determine what is copyrighted? How are they supposed to know that the person uploading the photo has the express permission of the copyright owner to upload it or not? Is every person in the world with a camera supposed to submit every photo they take to Photobucket so they can update their filter?
The logistics behind such a requirement are mind boggling to the point that it would bankrupt a service like photobucket in minutes and a service like You-tube in days. There is no way they can scan every photo, video, mp3 etc for infringing content especially when such content can cross mediums. A video can contain not only infringing video content, but also photo, music, sfx, gameplay, books, etc. You-tube would have to police for every possible thing that is copyrightable, not just for the giant multi billion industries but also for the person with a camera who only shares their pictures/films with family and friends.
Logistically impossible.
On the post: Back In The Days When Skywriting Was Patented
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032138/
On the post: Newsweek Explains Why Fashion Designers Don't Need Copyright
"Counterfeits"
Next >>