You're absolutely right—I published those monkey selfie images when I blogged about this issue 3 years ago. As you no doubt are aware, the use of images for discussion and debate—especially when there is no money involved—is basic fair use, regardless of who (if anyone) holds a copyright.
O. M. G. You didn't tell me he had the camera on a tripod!! My God, man; this seemingly inconsequential fact completely changes EVERYTHING! Oh wait, did I say "everything"? I meant "nothing".
Sneaky, last-minute provisions is good for the gander too
Amash and Lofgren should sneak a reversal (or NOT sneak, just blatantly add) a reversal to every single bill that comes up before Congress until one passes. Maybe that will be harder now that the Republicans control Congress, though...
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Censorship is the attempt to completely suppress information from any broad public access. Google is not doing that. It is perfectly acceptable for anyone (you, me, Google, even racists and facists) to rank certain things over others. Consumer Reports does this. So does Meta Critic and Pete Rates the Props.
But by doing so, all that information—including the stuff the editor thought was inferior—is left in the world to fend for itself. It has not been censored. The simple lack of promotion is not censorship. And no one—including the Spanish press—has an inalienable right to be promoted by Google or anyone else.
That is certainly another option: "Oh, sorry. Actually I was mistaken. This photo was—in fact—taken by me. Now give me my copyright."
But of course there wouldn't have been nearly as much publicity around this photo if it were just another shot of a monkey. It is the story behind it that makes it valuable. So that's why he's trying to have the story and copyright too.
And here's the sad thing: David Slater could have used this 15 minutes of fame to propel him to more work and more success. Creative people know (or should) that at least half of your present paycheck is based on your past work. People hire you today because of the stuff you did yesterday. Take a look at any professional sports contract.
And yet he's blowing all of this opportunity to try to cling to a couple of photos. Let them go and keep creating. These photos might be a career highlight, but they shouldn't be the end of his career. This wasn't his "One Last Job."
The discussion got me thinking: if I were a photographer like Slater and I wanted to try to game the copyright system, here's what I'd do. Regardless of how the photo was taken, I would crop, filter, color correct, and do other modifications to the source file. I could then release this modified version of the photo and legitimately(?) claim copyright on that particular transformation of the original.
Then I would be very careful to NEVER release the original file. In fact if I were truly evil, I might permanently delete it. Or I might keep a very low res copy (maybe even a print out to further discourage copying) just to have an example of the original to show my transformation if I somehow needed to prove this to the courts.
Of course this hurts the public. It encourages the sole caretaker of what is the only copy of public property to withhold or destroy it in order to create artificial scarcity of the transformative work.
And this begs the question: how much transformation is sufficient to warrant copyright? And can I claim a transformative copyright if I do not also make available the public domain source?
If there is copyright to be had, someone will argue (and in fact Slater already has) that there was authorship in the setup of all the equipment that was then used by the monkey to snap the picture. How is it any different that an animal steps in front of an IR sensor triggering the shutter vs pressing a button to trigger a shutter? I don't believe there is. But in neither case did a human trigger the taking of the photo, so I argue that in both cases, there is no copyright claim.
Re: monkeys, camera traps, and other non-human shutter triggers
But now there's a fuzzy line. Setting up a camera trap in an area might set up the frame. But the lighting is ultimately up to nature. It could be sunny, cloudy, raining, etc. And none of those are controlled by the human. And of course they aren't choosing the subject matter either. It is whatever happens to wander into the frame. We are in a very nebulous area where sure, the human did some setup work, but there are a LOT of other variables outside of their control.
Taking this reasoning further, could you argue that Canon or Nikon has a legitimate claim to copyright on photos taken with their equipment? After all they "set it up" by designing and manufacturing the equipment. They just happened to "let someone else press the button".
Re: monkeys, camera traps, and other non-human shutter triggers
IANAL, but this talk about "intention" seems like a slippery slope. If Slater asserts that he completely set things up and left the camera out intending an animal to come up and take a photo, does he now magically own the copyright? And sure people set up camera traps intending animals to trigger them. But the key is the human is not actually doing the triggering.
This reminds me a bit of Halakha, where Jews are forbidden from doing "work" on Shabbat which includes turning electrical devices on and off. Some Jews get around this by employing a switch with "Halakhic uncertainty" so that even though the performed an action that eventually results in an outcome, the outcome is unpredictable and indirect.
Personally I feel that unless the human is directly triggering the shutter, then they don't own the copyright. Of course that brings up further edge cases: if they just hit record on a video and let it go for the whole day, can they pull a frame out of that and claim copyright? It gets back to the video surveillance issue.
I think this discussion is great; thanks to all for participating. And it is indicative that there is no clear answer here and further solidifies my believe that this will ultimately have to be litigated to create case law.
So they are going to give a competitive advantage to only Google?
If I'm reading this right, the proposal is to keep the law in place, but to carve out an exception for the dominant news aggregator. That seems completely unfair and is only going to make it harder for all other news aggregators (and presumably other news organizations and bloggers referencing news stories) to compete.
They need to just cut their losses, reverse the whole of this fundamentally flawed law, and chalk it up to a hard-learned lesson.
As someone who is passionate about (and in fact works in the field of) wildlife conservation, it saddens me to see the International League of Conservation Photographers (ILCP) they support Slater in his misguided campaign to assert copyright where none exists.
That particular document is of interest to me because it raises the issue of camera traps: weatherproof digital cameras placed outdoors where a motion detector triggers the camera to record a picture or video. One could argue that—while a human is going through all of the set up—the actual photo was triggered by the motion detector. Therefore there is no human authorship.
Yet there are currently camera trap photography contests—such as this one sponsored by the BBC—where a requirement of submission is “The photos must have been taken in the past three years and be your own original work. You—or your organisation—must be the owner of the copyright of all photos entered.”
These traps are becoming more common and the quality of the photos is getting better and better to the point where this ambiguous legal issue will ultimately be decided in court.
Whitehouse said ...the criminal activity that steals American intellectual property...
Oh, is there an epidemic now of people physically breaking into the studios and stealing the actual master copies of movies and music? Because that's the only way would can literally steal intellectual property. If you can't even grok the difference between stealing and infringing, then I'm not interested in anything else you have to say.
The free market has spoken: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:bd92a9b6eca367d2ee68bb2c8cf64a6e30df943f&dn=Bob%20Dylan%20-%20The%20C opyright%20Extension%20Collection%20%282013%29%204CD%20MP3%40320kbps%20Beolab1700&tr=udp%3A%2F%2 Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftra cker.istole.it%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337
...if Feinstein gives in to Kerry, it seems like the only viable option for getting the report out to the world is to have outgoing Senator Mark Udall release it himself on the floor of the Senate.
This is what I'm hoping for, as it would be a hell of a lot more enlightening than a heavily redacted "report". That's "report" in quotes because we're not even talking about the full report, are we? This is the executive summary. We're dancing around. I'm sure there's shit in there that's completely shameful, but it's about time this country signed itself up for a 12 step program, made a searching and fearless moral inventory, and start making amends.
Given how this whole thing is escalating, I predict within the next year we will see police seizing a credit card or a check book and then "seizing" the entire credit limit/account balance.
Then why not to the absurd: the gold fillings in your teeth, the eyeglasses you are wearing, or how about one of your kidneys? That'll fetch 5 figures on the organ market.
When questioned by the police, there are only 2 things you should ever say to them: "am I free to go?" and "I invoke my right to remain silent".
If the EU is serious, then they should start blocking .com
@btr1701 hit the nail on the head. If the EU regulators are truly serious about this, they should STFU and start blocking access to .com and all other sites not under their control that won't kowtow to their censorship.
Even better: I'd love to see Google go ahead and do it for them. Put up a big banner on .com for all EU visitors: "Sorry, but your stupid government thinks your lives are better off without Google products. If you disagree, click here to send them a message." I would love to see their email servers melt down from all that traffic.
Not exactly true. One could make up their own 2nd wife and equally have courting involved. Copyright doesn't prevent one from using the same ordinary concepts.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright
Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
You're absolutely right—I published those monkey selfie images when I blogged about this issue 3 years ago. As you no doubt are aware, the use of images for discussion and debate—especially when there is no money involved—is basic fair use, regardless of who (if anyone) holds a copyright.
You know who else hosts the image? Wikipedia.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright
Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
On the post: How Congress Secretly Just Legitimized Questionable NSA Mass Surveillance Tool
Sneaky, last-minute provisions is good for the gander too
On the post: Surprise: Spanish Newspapers Beg Government And EU To Stop Google News Shutting Down
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
But by doing so, all that information—including the stuff the editor thought was inferior—is left in the world to fend for itself. It has not been censored. The simple lack of promotion is not censorship. And no one—including the Spanish press—has an inalienable right to be promoted by Google or anyone else.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright
Re: I don't believe the original story
"Oh, sorry. Actually I was mistaken. This photo was—in fact—taken by me. Now give me my copyright."
But of course there wouldn't have been nearly as much publicity around this photo if it were just another shot of a monkey. It is the story behind it that makes it valuable. So that's why he's trying to have the story and copyright too.
And here's the sad thing: David Slater could have used this 15 minutes of fame to propel him to more work and more success. Creative people know (or should) that at least half of your present paycheck is based on your past work. People hire you today because of the stuff you did yesterday. Take a look at any professional sports contract.
And yet he's blowing all of this opportunity to try to cling to a couple of photos. Let them go and keep creating. These photos might be a career highlight, but they shouldn't be the end of his career. This wasn't his "One Last Job."
On the post: Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright
The "transformative" loophole
Then I would be very careful to NEVER release the original file. In fact if I were truly evil, I might permanently delete it. Or I might keep a very low res copy (maybe even a print out to further discourage copying) just to have an example of the original to show my transformation if I somehow needed to prove this to the courts.
Of course this hurts the public. It encourages the sole caretaker of what is the only copy of public property to withhold or destroy it in order to create artificial scarcity of the transformative work.
And this begs the question: how much transformation is sufficient to warrant copyright? And can I claim a transformative copyright if I do not also make available the public domain source?
On the post: Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright
Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
On the post: Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright
Re: monkeys, camera traps, and other non-human shutter triggers
Taking this reasoning further, could you argue that Canon or Nikon has a legitimate claim to copyright on photos taken with their equipment? After all they "set it up" by designing and manufacturing the equipment. They just happened to "let someone else press the button".
On the post: Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright
Re: monkeys, camera traps, and other non-human shutter triggers
This reminds me a bit of Halakha, where Jews are forbidden from doing "work" on Shabbat which includes turning electrical devices on and off. Some Jews get around this by employing a switch with "Halakhic uncertainty" so that even though the performed an action that eventually results in an outcome, the outcome is unpredictable and indirect.
Personally I feel that unless the human is directly triggering the shutter, then they don't own the copyright. Of course that brings up further edge cases: if they just hit record on a video and let it go for the whole day, can they pull a frame out of that and claim copyright? It gets back to the video surveillance issue.
I think this discussion is great; thanks to all for participating. And it is indicative that there is no clear answer here and further solidifies my believe that this will ultimately have to be litigated to create case law.
On the post: Surprise: Spanish Newspapers Beg Government And EU To Stop Google News Shutting Down
So they are going to give a competitive advantage to only Google?
They need to just cut their losses, reverse the whole of this fundamentally flawed law, and chalk it up to a hard-learned lesson.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright
ILCP sadly supports Slater
That particular document is of interest to me because it raises the issue of camera traps: weatherproof digital cameras placed outdoors where a motion detector triggers the camera to record a picture or video. One could argue that—while a human is going through all of the set up—the actual photo was triggered by the motion detector. Therefore there is no human authorship.
Yet there are currently camera trap photography contests—such as this one sponsored by the BBC—where a requirement of submission is “The photos must have been taken in the past three years and be your own original work. You—or your organisation—must be the owner of the copyright of all photos entered.”
These traps are becoming more common and the quality of the photos is getting better and better to the point where this ambiguous legal issue will ultimately be decided in court.
On the post: Senator Whitehouse Is Very Angry About A Made Up Google Search And A Made Up Pirate Bay
You missed the first sentence, Mike.
Oh, is there an epidemic now of people physically breaking into the studios and stealing the actual master copies of movies and music? Because that's the only way would can literally steal intellectual property. If you can't even grok the difference between stealing and infringing, then I'm not interested in anything else you have to say.
On the post: Google Pulls Out The Nuclear Option: Shuts Down Google News In Spain Over Ridiculous Copyright Law
Re: Yes, Really.
The Spanish legislators apparently care enough to pass a law specifically targeting the company.
Also: News.google.es has received an estimated 159,783,000 visits over the last 30 days.
Mostly bots, I'm sure.
On the post: Google Pulls Out The Nuclear Option: Shuts Down Google News In Spain Over Ridiculous Copyright Law
Spain? Never heard of it. Is that T-pain's son?
On the post: Labels Barely Release 1964 Dylan, Beach Boys Archive Materials Solely To Get Extended Copyrights
The internet has routed around Sony's damage
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:bd92a9b6eca367d2ee68bb2c8cf64a6e30df943f&dn=Bob%20Dylan%20-%20The%20C opyright%20Extension%20Collection%20%282013%29%204CD%20MP3%40320kbps%20Beolab1700&tr=udp%3A%2F%2 Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftra cker.istole.it%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337
On the post: Ridiculous: John Kerry Asks Dianne Feinstein Not To Release CIA Torture Report After Agreement Was Reached To Release On Monday
Help us, Mark Udall; You're our only hope.
This is what I'm hoping for, as it would be a hell of a lot more enlightening than a heavily redacted "report". That's "report" in quotes because we're not even talking about the full report, are we? This is the executive summary. We're dancing around. I'm sure there's shit in there that's completely shameful, but it's about time this country signed itself up for a 12 step program, made a searching and fearless moral inventory, and start making amends.
On the post: DC Police Department Budgets Its Asset Forfeiture Proceeds Years In Advance
Taking it to the next level
Then why not to the absurd: the gold fillings in your teeth, the eyeglasses you are wearing, or how about one of your kidneys? That'll fetch 5 figures on the organ market.
When questioned by the police, there are only 2 things you should ever say to them: "am I free to go?" and "I invoke my right to remain silent".
On the post: EU Thinks It Has Jurisdiction Over The Global Internet: Says Right To Be Forgotten Should Be Global
If the EU is serious, then they should start blocking .com
Even better: I'd love to see Google go ahead and do it for them. Put up a big banner on .com for all EU visitors: "Sorry, but your stupid government thinks your lives are better off without Google products. If you disagree, click here to send them a message." I would love to see their email servers melt down from all that traffic.
On the post: Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Sherlock Holmes Case: Holmes Is Now (Mostly) Public Domain
Re: Re: On paper vs In practice
On the post: Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Sherlock Holmes Case: Holmes Is Now (Mostly) Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Rule 39 FTW!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rule%2039
Next >>