If he holds the copyright, he should be able to sell the pictures as he pleases.
As for the athlete "promotion", I would need more information to come to a conclusion, however:
1) It would be a trademark violation of the athlete's name at most (and the IOC would have no standing there, as far as I can see).
2) There would have to be actual promotion involved. Simply including a picture (or digital representation, as recently decided by a judge in a sports game case) of an athlete in a product does not necessarily imply endorsement or trademark infringement.
Re: Ever tried taking a real camera to a sporting event?
Bringing in a camera and taking pictures of a sporting event may be against the terms of use you agreed to when you bought your ticket, but that doesn't give the sport's covering body the copyright on those photos.
"Inquistr suggests the problem is that the guy, Richard Giles, put his own photos (on which he owns the copyright) on Flickr under a Creative Commons license."
And also, quite correctly, that:
"It's difficult to see what sort of leg the IOC has to stand on here [...]. The guy took photos himself -- so it's his copyright. Putting them under a CC license is then his decision."
How much does it cost to use Bing? Gmail? Free can be leveraged in many ways.
The key here is that Ballmer basically says that they can't give software away for free because they expect to make money off of their work, which totally ignores the fact that his own company gives software away all the time (IE) if they think it will bring in money on other fronts (Windows).
What's the going rate for illegally offering for download music you don't actually own the copyright for? $9,000 a download?
Plus, I'm sure the record companies keep exact data about how many times each song has been sold. And it's not like they can claim ignorance of copyright laws in court, or that such a judgement per song is way too high to be reasonable . . .
"10,000 downloads, you say? That'll be $90,000,000 please. Would you like to pay by check?"
The idea that stands out to me in your response is that the necessity of obtaining a patent (for an idea to be profitable) is directly proportional to the obviousness of the idea. That is, the most obvious ideas would require a patent to be profitable (by virtue of their ability to be easily understood and copied), while the most non-obvious ideas wouldn't.
This obviously runs counter to the intended goal of our patent system (issuing patents only for non-obvious ideas), and is probably why our IP system is such a mess.
Very insightful, thank you.
(Humorous Note: I can imagine the Catch-22 patent system of the future. If you apply for a patent, it is automatically rejected, since any idea that requires a patent to to be profitable must be too obvious for a patent to be issued. Problem solved!)
Edwards seems to be missing the fact that copyright is about . . . copying.
A library lending a book to someone is no different from me lending a CD I own to a friend. It's mine, I paid for it, and I can sell it/loan it/trade it if I wish.
To make his comparison with illegal music-sharing valid, the library would have to be making photocopies of his book to lend.
I hear this fear from people in Silicon Valley all the time, and I've never -- not once -- seen in born out in reality.
While it is refreshing to hear that, I do feel that I should point out two things:
(1) Our system currently allows patents, so the fact that you have not seen this behavior in the current system could be a case of apples and oranges.
(2) I would prefer that the rights to my work not depend on the goodness of other peoples' hearts. "They probably won't abuse it" might be true, but I wouldn't want to count on it.
Again, not true at all. It's very rare for a startup to have a single founder. Usually you have the guy who's exceedingly good at designing engines team up with a smart business guy.
I guess my point was that it seems rather limiting to say that if you design the next revolutionary technology, you must yourself necessarily bring that technology into the physical realm to sell it, else your (potentially years of) work is for naught. That is to say, I believe there is some value in letting innovators sell their ideas whole to people who can actually bring the product to fruition. Of course, that gives rise to the "patent troll" situation we have going on now, which is centered not around protecting innovators, but around squashing or extorting money from innovators who happen to come up with the same solution independently. I'm honestly not sure what the answer to that particular problem is.
@AC
You seem to be rather hostile, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were after an actual discussion:
Who said that you couldn't?
Well, actually, I did. I was trying to figure out a method by which I could give out the details and still be protected from someone cutting me out of the loop. If you can give me such a method, then the question is answered and my worry is unfounded.
We have these places where such issues are examined and decided. They're called courts.
Well yes, as my very next sentence (and your snarky reply) shows. My concern was not whether or not courts existed, but how I would prove that they took my idea in one of those courts.
So? Sounds like a personal problem to me.
And it very well could be. If the majority of the people out there see it differently than me, then a lack of patent law would not hamper innovation in general, and my concern is again unfounded and just something I should get over.
If, however, the majority of people see it as a deterrent as I do, then I think we would need to take a good long look at things before we just wipe the system out entirely.
We have amazingly good capital markets these days. If you have such an amazing concept, you would go to some venture capitalists or other private investors and raise money. That's how many of the best startups in Silicon Valley worked.
But would you agree that it would be quite an uphill battle to get people to invest potentially millions of dollars into an idea that I wouldn't be able share the details of? "I came up with an engine that gets a hojillion miles to the gallon, but I can't share any of the details. Just trust me and invest."
Because if I were to share the details, what would stop an investor from declining to invest and then creating the startup himself to cut me out of the loop? Sure, I might be able to throw in an NDA or something in an attempt to protect myself, but when a new startup starts producing an engine eerily similar to my design next month, and the investor I pitched the idea to originally just happens to now be a major investor in said startup, how am I to prove that my NDA was actually broken?
Overall, even if it were possible to work around the issues with other contract law and the court system (the extensive use of which is already major reason against the current IP regime), I would still argue that the lack of patent protection would deter me from spending the time.
If I love (or am exceedingly good at) designing engines, but I don't love (or am exceedingly bad at) running a company, a no-patent system rather leaves me out in the cold.
While I don't disagree with your conclusion that an injunction against MS in this case makes no sense, I am still not convinced that patents do not encourage innovation, at least in some fashion.
Certainly, they can be (and are regularly) abused, and used as a club to bludgeon competition (especially with vague, over-general, and/or obvious ideas). I do not agree with this use, obviously, and I believe we need to trim down the IP system considerably, which has become a runaway train in all three major areas (patents, copyright, and trademark). What I have trouble coming around to is the idea of a system without patents at all, and to this end I have devised a simple scenario that I hope someone can use to point out where my thought process goes wrong.
Let's assume, for the moment, that I have spent the last several years of my free time designing a new product. We'll say it's a new car engine that gets a hojillion miles to the gallon. Whatever. Let's assume that no patent law exists, and anyone is free to copy any design they wish. Now assume that I have completed this engine design, and I want to make some money off of the idea. How do I do it?
I do not have the facilities to mass produce the engines myself. I could shop the idea around to engine makers who do have the means to make my new engine design, but what is to stop them from saying "Thanks, we'll do that." and then kicking me out the door without any compensation? How do I market my idea without leaving myself wide open, in other words?
On the post: Go To The Olympics? Take Photos? Put Them On Flickr? Await Olympic Committee Legal Threat Letter
Re: Re: Re: Did you actually READ the letter?
As for the athlete "promotion", I would need more information to come to a conclusion, however:
1) It would be a trademark violation of the athlete's name at most (and the IOC would have no standing there, as far as I can see).
2) There would have to be actual promotion involved. Simply including a picture (or digital representation, as recently decided by a judge in a sports game case) of an athlete in a product does not necessarily imply endorsement or trademark infringement.
On the post: Go To The Olympics? Take Photos? Put Them On Flickr? Await Olympic Committee Legal Threat Letter
Re: Ever tried taking a real camera to a sporting event?
On the post: Go To The Olympics? Take Photos? Put Them On Flickr? Await Olympic Committee Legal Threat Letter
Re: Did you actually READ the letter?
"Inquistr suggests the problem is that the guy, Richard Giles, put his own photos (on which he owns the copyright) on Flickr under a Creative Commons license."
And also, quite correctly, that:
"It's difficult to see what sort of leg the IOC has to stand on here [...]. The guy took photos himself -- so it's his copyright. Putting them under a CC license is then his decision."
On the post: Steve Ballmer Declares 'Free Is Not A Business Model' -- Apparently Unfamiliar With Microsoft's Free Products
Re: Is it really free?
The key here is that Ballmer basically says that they can't give software away for free because they expect to make money off of their work, which totally ignores the fact that his own company gives software away all the time (IE) if they think it will bring in money on other fronts (Windows).
On the post: Edwyn Collins Can't Give Away His Music Thanks To MySpace, Warner Music
Ouch For the Record Companies
Plus, I'm sure the record companies keep exact data about how many times each song has been sold. And it's not like they can claim ignorance of copyright laws in court, or that such a judgement per song is way too high to be reasonable . . .
"10,000 downloads, you say? That'll be $90,000,000 please. Would you like to pay by check?"
On the post: Canadian Law Professors Insist Banning The Sale Of Word Is Good For Society & Innovation
Re: Re: Patent Thought Exercise
The idea that stands out to me in your response is that the necessity of obtaining a patent (for an idea to be profitable) is directly proportional to the obviousness of the idea. That is, the most obvious ideas would require a patent to be profitable (by virtue of their ability to be easily understood and copied), while the most non-obvious ideas wouldn't.
This obviously runs counter to the intended goal of our patent system (issuing patents only for non-obvious ideas), and is probably why our IP system is such a mess.
Very insightful, thank you.
(Humorous Note: I can imagine the Catch-22 patent system of the future. If you apply for a patent, it is automatically rejected, since any idea that requires a patent to to be profitable must be too obvious for a patent to be issued. Problem solved!)
On the post: New Zealand Author Claims Libraries Are Involved In Grand Theft By Loaning Books
Bad Comparison
A library lending a book to someone is no different from me lending a CD I own to a friend. It's mine, I paid for it, and I can sell it/loan it/trade it if I wish.
To make his comparison with illegal music-sharing valid, the library would have to be making photocopies of his book to lend.
On the post: Canadian Law Professors Insist Banning The Sale Of Word Is Good For Society & Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Patent Thought Exercise
I hear this fear from people in Silicon Valley all the time, and I've never -- not once -- seen in born out in reality.
While it is refreshing to hear that, I do feel that I should point out two things:
(1) Our system currently allows patents, so the fact that you have not seen this behavior in the current system could be a case of apples and oranges.
(2) I would prefer that the rights to my work not depend on the goodness of other peoples' hearts. "They probably won't abuse it" might be true, but I wouldn't want to count on it.
Again, not true at all. It's very rare for a startup to have a single founder. Usually you have the guy who's exceedingly good at designing engines team up with a smart business guy.
I guess my point was that it seems rather limiting to say that if you design the next revolutionary technology, you must yourself necessarily bring that technology into the physical realm to sell it, else your (potentially years of) work is for naught. That is to say, I believe there is some value in letting innovators sell their ideas whole to people who can actually bring the product to fruition. Of course, that gives rise to the "patent troll" situation we have going on now, which is centered not around protecting innovators, but around squashing or extorting money from innovators who happen to come up with the same solution independently. I'm honestly not sure what the answer to that particular problem is.
@AC
You seem to be rather hostile, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were after an actual discussion:
Who said that you couldn't?
Well, actually, I did. I was trying to figure out a method by which I could give out the details and still be protected from someone cutting me out of the loop. If you can give me such a method, then the question is answered and my worry is unfounded.
We have these places where such issues are examined and decided. They're called courts.
Well yes, as my very next sentence (and your snarky reply) shows. My concern was not whether or not courts existed, but how I would prove that they took my idea in one of those courts.
So? Sounds like a personal problem to me.
And it very well could be. If the majority of the people out there see it differently than me, then a lack of patent law would not hamper innovation in general, and my concern is again unfounded and just something I should get over. If, however, the majority of people see it as a deterrent as I do, then I think we would need to take a good long look at things before we just wipe the system out entirely.
On the post: Canadian Law Professors Insist Banning The Sale Of Word Is Good For Society & Innovation
RE: RE: Patent Thought Exercise
But would you agree that it would be quite an uphill battle to get people to invest potentially millions of dollars into an idea that I wouldn't be able share the details of? "I came up with an engine that gets a hojillion miles to the gallon, but I can't share any of the details. Just trust me and invest."
Because if I were to share the details, what would stop an investor from declining to invest and then creating the startup himself to cut me out of the loop? Sure, I might be able to throw in an NDA or something in an attempt to protect myself, but when a new startup starts producing an engine eerily similar to my design next month, and the investor I pitched the idea to originally just happens to now be a major investor in said startup, how am I to prove that my NDA was actually broken?
Overall, even if it were possible to work around the issues with other contract law and the court system (the extensive use of which is already major reason against the current IP regime), I would still argue that the lack of patent protection would deter me from spending the time.
If I love (or am exceedingly good at) designing engines, but I don't love (or am exceedingly bad at) running a company, a no-patent system rather leaves me out in the cold.
On the post: Canadian Law Professors Insist Banning The Sale Of Word Is Good For Society & Innovation
Patent Thought Exercise
Certainly, they can be (and are regularly) abused, and used as a club to bludgeon competition (especially with vague, over-general, and/or obvious ideas). I do not agree with this use, obviously, and I believe we need to trim down the IP system considerably, which has become a runaway train in all three major areas (patents, copyright, and trademark). What I have trouble coming around to is the idea of a system without patents at all, and to this end I have devised a simple scenario that I hope someone can use to point out where my thought process goes wrong.
Let's assume, for the moment, that I have spent the last several years of my free time designing a new product. We'll say it's a new car engine that gets a hojillion miles to the gallon. Whatever. Let's assume that no patent law exists, and anyone is free to copy any design they wish. Now assume that I have completed this engine design, and I want to make some money off of the idea. How do I do it?
I do not have the facilities to mass produce the engines myself. I could shop the idea around to engine makers who do have the means to make my new engine design, but what is to stop them from saying "Thanks, we'll do that." and then kicking me out the door without any compensation? How do I market my idea without leaving myself wide open, in other words?
Next >>