Slashdot Mirror
Photographers Want Their Cut From Google's Ebooks
It's not just the writers anymore: carluva writes "The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) and several other visual artist groups are suing Google over its digitization of of millions of books, claiming copyright infringement related to images within the books. The photographers initially wanted to be included in the authors' and publishers' class action suit, but filed their own suit after that request was denied. Google and others assert that images are only included in the digital copies when permission has been obtained from the copyright holder."
Copyright that last forever is the problem here.
Current U.S. copyright for an individual is life plus 70 years and for a corporation 95 years. Since both of those are longer then the U.S. life expectancy, copyright is now infinite. I guess Jack Valenti got his wish.
A) It doesn't take ANY PROPERTY at all. The fact that you can't recognize that throws some serious doubt that you even know what copyright is.
B) It's just a pointer to data.
C) It brings more revenue to the holder.
D) Providing information to the masses is not any more evil then a library or fair use.
E) What you, and a lot of other people, don'y realize is that by design the internet shares information. That is the default behavior. That is why it's opt out.
It;s like putting a sign on a bulletin board and then whining that other people can read it.
It's not Google, its the fucking way the internet works.
Twit.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
No but that is part of my point. How can someone justify a desire to get paid ridiculously when all they did was buy a new camera? Sure "it's an investment" but it's not what I would consider to be a creative effort as their skill hasn't been the influence so much as the equipment.
Most of us agree already that intellectual property goes too far. When it comes to things like movies and music and books, there is at least some real creativity. Photography? Not so much. (Sure, I took great pictures of my son for his graduation out doors and got really good results thanks to my use of cardboard, white school glue and aluminum foil... I used it to decrease the harsh shadows from the strong over-head sunlight. Good technique? Yes Good results? Yes! Creative? No.)
Wedding photographers, burn in hell!
They aren't quibbling over paying anyone, they are just trying to find a blanket way to offer payment to those who deserve it
No they aren't. They are trying not to pay anyone. They committed large-scale commercial copyright infringement. Then, in response to a lawsuit, they tried to cut a deal. If Google had been held to the same standards as individuals, they would have had to pay $7,500 to $150,000 per book. Those are the statutory penalties in the USA. For the number of books they've made available, the statutory fines could have bankrupted the company.
If Google had really been acting in a non-evil way, they'd have pushed for the law to be changed to require compulsory licensing for out-of-print works and tried to reach an agreement with the publishers before hand for in-print works. Instead, they used a legal loophole to try to get a special exemption for them (but no one else) retroactively.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Google London
Google UK Ltd
Belgrave House
76 Buckingham Palace Road
London SW1W 9TQ
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 (0)20-7031-3000
Fax: +44 (0)20-7031-3001