Swedish Police Shoe Database May Tread On Copyright

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Swedish Police Shoe Database May Tread On Copyright

Posted by timothy on Thursday September 9, 2010 @10:58AM from the heel-to-toe-heel-to-toe dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Swedish police, who have been instrumental in various raids against file-sharing sites, may have a bit of a piracy problem on their own hands. It seems they wanted to put together a database of shoe print information for matching crime scene shoe prints to particular shoe types. To do so, they used images found online, and some Swedish copyright experts have noted that this appears to violate Swedish copyright law. The police claim there's an exception for police investigations, but people (and some shoe companies) are pointing out that creating a database isn't about an investigation."

156 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Sure it is! by Chris+Burke · 2010-09-09 11:02 · Score: 4, Funny

The investigations are just hypothetical and in the future!
Also, the NSA needs to spy on my phone conversations in case I ever become a terrorist. Which, I have to admit, is pretty good foresight on their part.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
1. Re:Sure it is! by mirix · 2010-09-09 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  As much as I agree with your intent, this is a lot more like having phone tapping equipment available, in the case that it is required, rather than actively tapping you.
  The whole database idea seems sort of goofy to me though, can't see it being terribly effective. (how many people wear adidas superstars?)
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
2. Re:Sure it is! by aliquis · 2010-09-09 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  Ban this sick filth!
3. Re:Sure it is! by h4rr4r · 2010-09-09 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  Or now know to change shoes after committing a crime. Just switch in a crowded place and dump them in the trash at same crowded public place. Like stolen cars used for crime, remember to switch crime-shoes early and often.
4. Re:Sure it is! by dreampod · 2010-09-09 11:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Amongst professional criminals I'm sure that this sort of thing is common but when dealing with crimes of passion or low value crimes it becomes much more useful. After all when you own only a pair or two of shoes of a style and become a suspect, having just replaced them with brand new shoes is very suspicious. As well for something like a convenience store robbery it starts to make it even more financially worthless when you steal $50 and have to replace a $30 pair of shoes.
5. Re:Sure it is! by Chris+Burke · 2010-09-09 11:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  As much as I agree with your intent, this is a lot more like having phone tapping equipment available, in the case that it is required, rather than actively tapping you.
  Er, well, neither really applies. They are actually collecting data, but it's data regarding a type of forensics, not data related to any individuals. It's more like figuring out how one might go about tapping phones.
  It's really not a civil liberties issue like warrant-less phone tapping is. I was just riffing on the idea of claiming you need the data for "an investigation" when there's no such specific investigation, just hypothetical future ones. :)
  The whole database idea seems sort of goofy to me though, can't see it being terribly effective. (how many people wear adidas superstars?)
  I can think of cases where being able to identify the type of shoe that made a print would be helpful, especially if it helps tie a particular suspect to the scene. A print made by a work boot that's standard issue at the company a suspect works for could be a good bit of evidence. A print made by a shoe so common it could be made by anyone is not so good. But it's better to know that than have it be unknown if the print could mean anything or not.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
6. Re:Sure it is! by JumpDrive · 2010-09-09 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  The whole database idea seems sort of goofy to me though, can't see it being terribly effective. (how many people wear adidas superstars?)
  Obviously , you haven't been watching CSI.
7. Re:Sure it is! by h4rr4r · 2010-09-09 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  Go to the local goodwill. These places also prefer cash, which is a big advantage to those who are in that field of work.
8. Re:Sure it is! by h4rr4r · 2010-09-09 11:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So you think the police can just steal phone tapping equipment? I do believe they have to buy it, like they would with these pictures. Either they are all for IP or not.
9. Re:Sure it is! by internettoughguy · 2010-09-09 11:33 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I can't see why they don't just build a Visual Basic GUI that downloads the images as they are needed.
10. Re:Sure it is! by bennomatic · 2010-09-09 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  If they want the information to be accurate, they should go to the source and pay the price.
  
  However, they could certainly take the Google approach and find a way to collect the data from the public, taking pictures of shoes and asking what make/model they are.
  
  The problem with building a database based on web images is not so much the fact that they're running afoul of copyright--I'm sure I could find an attorney who would argue fair use rules or something along those lines, since they're not selling the DB--but rather that there is no guarantee that the data is accurate. If they were to work with shoe companies and compensate them for their time, I'll be they could get a beautiful database of shoe prints, normalized and with metadata included. How much more helpful would it be if they not only had the images, but the wireframes so that they could, from a steroscopic photo of an impression, do a comparison of shapes, angles and depths to find the perfect match?
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
11. Re:Sure it is! by m2shariy · 2010-09-09 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  Police does not investigate $50 crime. Anyway, steal the shoes as well and make it $80 :)
12. Re:Sure it is! by shaitand · 2010-09-09 11:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  As much as I oppose anything that strengthens the police state (any police state really) I feel compelled to point something out. Shoeprints being part of a future police investigation is about as hypothetical as my claim that should I throw a rock in the air it will fall back down.
  The volume of previous observations that can be found by searching through police files where shoe prints were in evidence is pretty substantial.
13. Re:Sure it is! by BluBrick · 2010-09-09 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  Or now know to change shoes after committing a crime. Just switch in a crowded place and dump them in the trash at same crowded public place. Like stolen cars used for crime, remember to switch crime-shoes early and often.
  And leave your DNA in shoes that match tracks at the crime scene? Might as well write a signed confession.
  
  --
  Ahh - My eye!
  The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
14. Re:Sure it is! by nospam007 · 2010-09-09 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  "The whole database idea seems sort of goofy to me though, can't see it being terribly effective. (how many people wear adidas superstars?)"
  How does the police know it's that brand if they don't have a database?
15. Re:Sure it is! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 12:19 · Score: 0
  
  Your consent has been noted, the taps will be installed soon. Thank you for your understanding.
  
  Sincerely,
  Your Government
16. Re:Sure it is! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 12:42 · Score: 0
  
  After all when you own only a pair or two of shoes
  No-one in Sweden has less than three pair of shoes.
17. Re:Sure it is! by gstoddart · 2010-09-09 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  Also, the NSA needs to spy on my phone conversations in case I ever become a terrorist. Which, I have to admit, is pretty good foresight on their part.
  So, you are going to become a terrorist then? Because, if it's good foresight, they're right.
  Stay put, agents are on their way.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
18. Re:Sure it is! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 12:59 · Score: 0
  
  Anyone with a UID under 10k is automatically a terrorist!
19. Re:Sure it is! by Quothz · 2010-09-09 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  Shoeprints being part of a future police investigation is about as hypothetical as my claim that should I throw a rock in the air it will fall back down.
  I think you're misunderstanding the point. Jurisprudence does not, in general, recognize a future hypothetical case as being equal to a current actual case, regardless of the likelihood (the exception, it seems, being American 9th Circuit lawsuits against future John Doe copyright violators, but that's not jurisprudence so much as an unholy cross between corruption, politics, and insanity). To permit otherwise would be akin to allowing police to use investigative powers for any imaginary future purpose, and nobody wants that, except police.
  The correct answer is for the police to ask nicely. I honestly can't imagine more than a bare handful of shoemakers would deny them a limited license to make use of the prints for internal investigative purposes. I'm not sure about Swedish law, but in most places fancy-pants lawyerese isn't even needed; just a "sure, use our prints for that purpose, signed, authority person" letter on record. No need to adjust the laws when any decent administrator armed with Internet access, a handful of stamps, and a printer can solve the problem.
20. Re:Sure it is! by h4rr4r · 2010-09-09 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly you watch too much CSI and not enough real life. After you commit your crime and the police get to this location the garbage will be at the dump for days.
21. Re:Sure it is! by Compaqt · 2010-09-09 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  Enhance, enhance!
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
22. Re:Sure it is! by shaitand · 2010-09-09 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know enough about Judicial precedent in Sweden to argue the point to be honest.
  Here in the US courts have an odd habit of throwing out usual practice and technicalities if they don't pass the smell test. If investigations are exempt from copyright restrictions and the supposedly has a likelihood of being used entirely for investigations on par with likelihood of the existence of gravity a judge is likely to toss any argument saying that likelihood is hypothetical out as nonsense. Especially for the police. In the US courts (which are supposed to be impartial) tend to favor whichever party has a larger financial influence vs a smaller one and government over non-government and so on progressively up the food chain.
  For example, if an individual uses legal instruments like trusts that can be drawn up without red tape and fees to gain any form of upper hand. The court will usually look at the bottom line as if none of that paperwork exists and see if there is a tangible exchange of money. If a bank does the same thing moving money around in 'accounts' on their books even though the money never leaves their bottom line and they never stop drawing interest, the court is likely to rule in their favor rather than according to their bottom line.
  In this case, a US court would be looking for any excuse to find your attack on the police to be nonsense and defend law enforcement. After all the impartial judge is on the same team as the police.
23. Re:Sure it is! by Sulphur · 2010-09-09 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  Be on the lookout for person of interest in stolen Superstar tennis shoes.
24. Re:Sure it is! by retchdog · 2010-09-09 14:39 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Jurisprudence does ... in general ... recognize a future hypothetical case ... as ... lawsuits against ... copyright violators ... [A]n unholy cross between corruption, politics, and insanity ... permit... police to use ... powers for any ... purpose.
  The correct answer is ... just ... a ... person ... armed... can solve the problem.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
25. Re:Sure it is! by MichaelSmith · 2010-09-09 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  More to the point, consider the lengths police go to build databases of car parts and materials. What type of paint was used on what model of car? What type of glass. I would be surprised indeed if the police had to pay for this information. Most likely the manufacturers help them as a matter of mutual interest.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
26. Re:Sure it is! by mabhatter654 · 2010-09-09 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  haven't you seen CSI... there really are detectives that "geeky" that they collect tire treads, foot prints, bugs, etc. just to have them handy.
  This is how they look like big shots... just like hackers sit out there and collect atari 2600 roms all day. Somebody has to build these on the off chance they might have only muddy prints to follow. In reality, most violent crimes have only a few suspects... most of the time for murders and such the perp is somebody that knows the vic... making the pool of "shoes" much smaller and plenty of witnesses that can testify you really wear them.
27. Re:Sure it is! by westlake · 2010-09-09 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  Or know to change shoes after committing a crime. Just switch in a crowded place and dump them in the trash at same crowded public place.
  Dumpster-diving is part of the job.
  The need to ditch something quickly limits your options.
  If someone sees you carrying an extra pair of shoes at seven o'clock - and your bag is empty at seven-thirty - you have something to explain.
  The geek shouldn't turn his mind to crime. He over-complicates things.
28. Re:Sure it is! by budgenator · 2010-09-09 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  The cops have a saying, "check the inlaws befor the outlaws".You could go out and commit a random, onetime murder and be pretty sure of getting away with it as long as you didn't do something stupid and leave a obvious clue.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
29. Re:Sure it is! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 17:46 · Score: 0
  
  Among the family and close friends of the victim, or in a group of possible suspects? I guess only a few will own Superstars.
30. Re:Sure it is! by kwbauer · 2010-09-09 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  Which, I have to admit, is pretty good foresight on their part.
  Why? You planning to become a terrorist?
  Sorry, I couldn't resist.
31. Re:Sure it is! by SeaFox · 2010-09-09 18:01 · Score: 1
  
  After all when you own only a pair or two of shoes of a style and become a suspect, having just replaced them with brand new shoes is very suspicious.
  You could buy the new shows (cheap ones) before the crime, wear them while committing it, and then get rid of them. You get to keep your old comfy shoes and the police will be thrown off on a false trail!
32. Re:Sure it is! by opposabledumbs · 2010-09-09 18:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  For me, the issue here is the use of copyright law to stop this. I don't see why the police would have to get a copyright exemption for the creation of a database, as they are not planning to make or sell shoes with similar patterns.
  As far as I can see it, this is research of an academic nature. Now, if people want to go after the police here in a civil liberties and person's rights issue - and I don't think there's an issue with these in this case anyway, because I don't see how the shoes you wear now, or may buy in the future, are unique enough to qualify as rights-qualifying - then that's fine. But copyright this is manifestly not.
33. Re:Sure it is! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 18:23 · Score: 0
  
  Are you retarded? He said robbery. Police investigate robberies.
  
  "As well for something like a convenience store robbery it starts to make it even more financially worthless when you steal $50 and have to replace a $30 pair of shoes."
  If you rob a store the police are going to investigate, even if you get your ass beaten like a red headed stepchild and run off with nothing.
34. Re:Sure it is! by sco08y · 2010-09-09 18:58 · Score: 1
  
  The investigations are just hypothetical and in the future!
  But, really, what's wrong with a database of Swedish police shoes?
35. Re:Sure it is! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 20:01 · Score: 0
  
  It's a step away from having a DNA database of everyone in the country but only keeping that information on file "just in case" it's ever needed. Seriously, though, I don't see a problem with keeping images of shoes (I would with DNA) but this is exactly how messed up copyright is. This is obviously a prime case of fair use in the public's interest now being challenge because the IP related to a photo of a shoe trumps criminal investigations. When are governments going to learn that we're beggaring society to safeguard the earnings of a few greedy companies!
36. Re:Sure it is! by swedishcitizen · 2010-09-09 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  It is nothing new that police in Sweden breaks the law. They break it all the time, and in the court they have evidence even if they are collected in illegal way, and nobody can do anything regarding that. You will be charged in any case, and nobody chase them for illegal collecting evidence. So, the point is, that police in Sweden can do anything they want in any situation, without any excuse or if it is illegal or not.
37. Re:Sure it is! by Captain+Hook · 2010-09-09 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  Buy a pair of shoes, glue the tread from a different pair of shoes onto the bottom. Police find a shoe print and start looking for the addidas shoe of the tread pattern while you are wearing Nike trainers. No need to dump the shoes, no need to carry a spare pair which would look suspicous.
  The only way you would be caught would be if you are stopped and the tread patterns checked directly which would mean the police already have a reason to suspect you. I'm obviously a criminal master mind, next I will hold the world to ransom for 1 Millllion Dollars.
  
  --
  These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
38. Re:Sure it is! by Ihmhi · 2010-09-09 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  For me, the issue here is the use of copyright law to stop this. I don't see why the police would have to get a copyright exemption for the creation of a database, as they are not planning to make or sell shoes with similar patterns.
  I guess this will all hedge on whether or not the Swedish court system considers a photo of the sole of a shoe a derivative work.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
39. Re:Sure it is! by Captain+Hook · 2010-09-09 20:38 · Score: 1
  
  It's not the copyright holder of the shoemaker which is being violated, it's the copyright holder of the photograph (admittedly, they are probably the same entity in reality).
  Either, making a copy of a copyrighted image is illegal or it isn't. The police, having being caught doing exactly what everyone else does on the internet and who would be at risk of legal action by a whole host of Swedish specific *AA organisations are trying to argue that they are excempt because the database will be used to investigate a crime which hasn't happened... yet.
  
  --
  These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
40. Re:Sure it is! by cyclomedia · 2010-09-09 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  again this assumes you planned the crime beforehand
  
  --
  If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
41. Re:Sure it is! by delinear · 2010-09-09 23:04 · Score: 1
  
  You can always think up ways to trick the system, but systems such as this are intended to catch out casual or amateur criminals, or to aid in compiling a reconstruction which may prompt a witness to come forward (if they put together a photo-fit they always want it to be as accurate as possible, and yes that can be down to which individual brand of trainers a criminal wore).
42. Re:Sure it is! by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2010-09-09 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  Also, the NSA needs to spy on my phone conversations in case I ever become a terrorist.
  We foresaw that you might possibly say that, so the system to do so is already in place and in use!
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
43. Re:Sure it is! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 23:21 · Score: 0
  
  The impression I got was sort of a catch-22.
  They spy on his conversations in case he becomes a terrorist, which gives him reason to become a terrorist.
  And I think that's exactly what's going to start happening more and more often over the next few decades.
44. Re:Sure it is! by delinear · 2010-09-09 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  Would that mean people could enrol in a cinema course at their local college and then legitimately download and archive movies because they are "not planning to make or sell" infringing movies and can claim that it is "research of an academic nature"?
  This just highlights (and I suspect that's the purpose behind the claims) the extent to which overly restrictive copyright can stymie legitimate fair use. Twenty, or perhaps even ten years ago, nobody would have even considered this might fall foul of copyright, now with IP troll law firms buying up the rights to IP specifically so they can sue infringers, it's suddenly a real concern.
45. Re:Sure it is! by delinear · 2010-09-09 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  This raises the point that often knowing which lines of enquiry not to pursue is important. If the type of shoe is worn by a significant number of people in the area, it's a waste of resources to send out officers to find out who has been buying said shoe, or to go door to door asking about this piece of evidence. If, on the other hand, it turns out the shoe is imported and quite rare it's probably worth throwing some resource at following up the lead. In most crimes, the police have to sift through a ton of potential evidence, most of it will lead nowhere, it's useful to know that sooner rather than later.
46. Re:Sure it is! by WillDraven · 2010-09-09 23:47 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot: News For Nerds, Advice For Criminals. :-D
  
  --
  This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
47. Re:Sure it is! by WillDraven · 2010-09-09 23:52 · Score: 1
  
  With the ever increasing definition of the term, any one of us could one day wake up and be a terrorist without changing a single habit.
  
  --
  This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
48. Re:Sure it is! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  There are two kinds of criminals. Those who do proper planning, and those who don't.
  Those who knock off convenience stores for cash in the register don't properly plan. The risk vs profit isn't there, so no good criminal would even consider it. They wouldn't plan far enough ahead to even buy different clothes to commit the crime.
  Those who do proper planning are going after serious jobs. They'll not only plan for the right shoes, but they'll also pick the target appropriately, and not leave any physical evidence that would tie them to the crime. If they leave anything, it would be a decoy. If he wears size 9 shoes normally, he may wear a size 12 for the crime. It may seem silly to think that it could happen, but professionals plan for everything. They're also the ones you rarely hear about.
49. Re:Sure it is! by VolciMaster · 2010-09-10 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  Or now know to change shoes after committing a crime. Just switch in a crowded place and dump them in the trash at same crowded public place. Like stolen cars used for crime, remember to switch crime-shoes early and often.
  Even with such databases being used *ALL THE DAMN TIME* in shows like CSI... folks still do stupid things when committing crimes.
  
  --
  antipaucity
50. Re:Sure it is! by VolciMaster · 2010-09-10 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Go to the local goodwill. These places also prefer cash, which is a big advantage to those who are in that field of work.
  ... or do like me and buy 3-5 pairs of shoes when they're on sale (like they always are somewhere) when you buy new ones.. then rotate through them so they wear more-or-less evenly
  
  --
  antipaucity
51. Re:Sure it is! by pyrosine · 2010-09-10 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  The solution is to replace your shoe's sole with another now, so that it isnt tracked back to your shoe in case you do commit a crime.
52. Re:Sure it is! by xenapan · 2010-09-10 08:37 · Score: 0
  
  How then would you know the police department isn't shopping for new shoes?
  All the data they really need would be tread marks. I mean what they use it for is probably just to help identify suspects based on the imprint to determine height/weight (based off size and depth of imprint). Then the wear of the tread to tell how old the shoes are roughly. What does finding the brand and exact style of the shoes have to do with everything? If a suspect leaves shoe prints, they have most of the data they need already.
  
  --
  insert funny sig here
53. Re:Sure it is! by mabhatter654 · 2010-09-10 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  Except what would be the point of going to all the trouble to kill somebody "just because". That's why serial killers are so rare, because a rational person wouldn't hunt down and kill folks for no reason, there's too much to lose. *and even serial killers have a "reason" it's just not a rational one.
54. Re:Sure it is! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-12 13:50 · Score: 0
  
  However, I don't think the swedish national police are going to be doing any database design for the NSA anytime soon
Slender, not broad by ciaran_o_riordan · 2010-09-09 11:02 · Score: 1

When making laws about restricting the use of information, make them as narrow as possible, and broaden as necessary.

--
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
1. Re:Slender, not broad by treeves · 2010-09-09 11:28 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Well, it's gotta be a pretty small data set. I mean, how many different kinds of Swedish Police shoes can there be?
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
2. Re:Slender, not broad by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  Well if the shoe fits,..........store it
3. Re:Slender, not broad by ian_from_brisbane · 2010-09-09 13:14 · Score: 0
  
  2
  The left one, and the right one.
4. Re:Slender, not broad by OnePumpChump · 2010-09-09 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  I can see a possible use for a database of police shoes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbLU9tdDwxo&feature=related
Coming up next on... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 11:18 · Score: 1, Funny

Unshod Mysteries.
Compilation of facts are protected by dreampod · 2010-09-09 11:22 · Score: 1, Insightful

While I couldn't comment about how Swedish law treats such things in the United States or Canada this would be protected if the shoe prints were gathered directly rather than using online photos. A compilation of facts and details regarding the pattern and arrangement of shoe treads is definitely safe territory protected by the fact it does not inhibit the market for the original goods (unless some shoe company really wants to argue that their major clients purchase them to avoid being identified by the police), isn't for commercial gain, and does not replicate the original in any way.
Personally I would be very cautious about opposing something like this even if a literal interpretation of the law were to support this belief. Opposition to such a non-offensive, common sense proposal is likely to have governments write in specific loopholes to allow such action which could be discovered to have unintended side-effects that actually harm the business.
1. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by h4rr4r · 2010-09-09 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  It is probably the same. Taking pictures of shoes you bought or their impressions is very different from "pirating" images online for your personal gain.
  Hmm, perhaps I need to start selling treadless crime-shoes.
2. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by cptdondo · 2010-09-09 11:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think you missed the point. The tread isn't the issue; the pictures are copyrighted by someone. You can't go on-line, scarf a whole bunch of pictures off the web, and then use them to conduct your business.
  I can't do that with images, music, or anything else, and neither can any other agency. Otherwise, I could just download all the music in the world, and claim that I am building a database for future use in identifying stolen music.
  Doesn't work that way.
3. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by DurendalMac · 2010-09-09 11:43 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I missed the part where police forensics are a business. Furthermore, these images aren't being tossed on their website. They're being used in an internal database. It's idiotic for people to whine about this. They're not claiming copyright or publicly using it to make money on their website. It's an internal database used solely (pun intended) for matching footprints to shoe types. I think that Swedish copyright law needs some serious work if that is somehow an issue.
4. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by bennomatic · 2010-09-09 11:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Hmm, perhaps I need to start selling treadless crime-shoes.
  Maybe you could get police departments to invest in them, since they'd be able to catch the perps as the slip-slide around corners during foot chases.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
5. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by dreampod · 2010-09-09 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  I understand that perfectly. However TFA and TFS both imply that it is the 'Shoe Database' itself that is violating copyright rather than the fact that they went out and used copyrighted photos to generate that database. The difference between the two is enormous and the articles and people discussing the two should stop conflating them.
6. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by bennomatic · 2010-09-09 11:56 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Uh, isn't this how Google images works?
  
  I mean, it'd be one thing if they were building this database for sale, or as a SAAS solution that other police departments were going to pay them for. But I'm sure there are lots of applications which do indeed scarf images randomly for the web and repurpose them for their own use, without threat of copyright lawsuits.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
7. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by John+Hasler · 2010-09-09 12:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  As far as I can tell from the article no shoe company has complained. It appears that some professor has merely speculated that the database may infringe copyrights.
  I agree with the suggestion that they would get better quality data by working with the manufacturers, though.
  
  --
  Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
8. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by h4rr4r · 2010-09-09 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  Check out climbing shoes, with very soft tread you can get good grip out of what looks like a very smooth surface.
  I was thinking something like that.
9. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by ascari · 2010-09-09 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  Trust me, the complaints will come when the lawyers RTFA.
10. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by ascari · 2010-09-09 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  I think you missed the point: Think of how cold it is in Sweden. Shoe theft is a very big deal in the winter.
11. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by carp3_noct3m · 2010-09-09 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  Is it strange that I for some reason really want to get my hands on such a database? Why yes Watson!, I do recognize that shoe print, its obviously a recent edition of the Florsheim Imperial, our killer is obviously wealthy and well dressed!
  
  --
  "It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
12. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 14:04 · Score: 0
  
  If the police want to use cars, they have to buy them. If they want uniforms, they have to pay for them. If they want physical computer hardware, they have to purchase them. I'm even guessing that they have to buy Microsoft windows (no doubt quite cheap) to run on those computers. Why should they be allowed to "steal" the hard work off of innocent companies that are just trying to make a living, just because they might use this in crime fighting later on.
  Under that theory everything they have should be "acquired" for free, just because it could be used to fight crime.
  The main issue I see is that they break copyright law with no consequences and then go off and arrest individuals for doing the same thing.
  The law should be the law.
13. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by wiredlogic · 2010-09-09 14:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You've gotten used to the laissez faire form of copyright we all live with in the modern world where digital duplication is effortless and has no direct cost. A strict reading of copyright law indicates that any unauthorized copying outside the protections of fair use (excerpts, parody, etc.) is a violation even if you don't engage in distribution.
  This is why the AHRA was put in place in the US for the narrow scope of personal music copying. Essentially, enough Congresspeople got upset about the implication that their personal mix tapes in the 80's were a violation of copyright that they created a little loophole to shut up the RIAA.
  
  --
  I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
14. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by Artraze · 2010-09-09 14:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And yet, if I download songs for my personal, decidedly private and not business use, I'm subject to damages of hundreds of dollars for each instance.
  The point isn't that this is _bad_, but if they're going to go around busting down doors because people are sharing copyrighted works for personal use, they shouldn't be violating copyright for their institutional use and pretending it's OK.
15. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by MichaelSmith · 2010-09-09 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  If the police want to use cars, they have to buy them.
  Funny this should come up. I worked for the state government in Victoria, Australia (I know, not Sweden, not the Police) and we had an exemption from sales tax. Because of this we made a good profit selling our cars on the second hand market.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
16. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:28 · Score: 0
  
  The person who took these photos of the shoe prints put the hard work in and deserves recompense for their hard work.
  And what happens if someone spins this off into a commercial product for other police forces to buy? Where's the photographer's cut in that?
  Police are stealing the fruits of others labour.
  Personally, they can have my extensive collection of shoe photos, but it shouldn't be assumed that everyone other photographer feels the same way.
17. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by DurendalMac · 2010-09-09 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  All of your physical comparisons are utterly moot. You can't copy a car. Do you work for the damned RIAA or something?
  
  As for software, that's strictly a commercial product. How is it "stealing" when you grab a freely available image from a website? When was the last time you had to pay for an image, excluding porn?
18. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by DurendalMac · 2010-09-09 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  When was the last time someone tried to sell you a picture of a shoe?
19. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by DurendalMac · 2010-09-09 16:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  What the hell are you smoking? The photographer was already paid by the shoe company, you dope, at least in cases where it was pulled by shoe company sites. The shoe company gets their return by having a picture of their shoe for people who want one and consider a purchase. How in the HELL does an internal database of these pictures in ANY way impact that business?
  
  And when was the last time someone tried to sell a picture of a goddamned shoe tread?
20. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 16:27 · Score: 0
  
  Does it matter if they make a profit from it? The RIAA would sue their ass for making such a compilation of songs to identify every "known" singer's voice on a phone call for "future" investigations. So, why wouldn't the shoe company sue them for unauthorized distribution of their Copyrighted works? Hey 5-0 it works both ways bitches!
21. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by rawler · 2010-09-09 18:55 · Score: 1
  
  I think that copyright law needs some serious work
  There, fixed that for you.
22. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by paziek · 2010-09-09 19:04 · Score: 1
  
  Well, a lot of people use copyrighted stuff internally at their home, but still - they get sued. I wonder why? This indeed needs some serious work.
23. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by GumphMaster · 2010-09-09 19:09 · Score: 1
  
  ... our killer is obviously wealthy and well dressed.
  Or the killer is me :) My Imperials were so devoid of anything resembling a tread that for the first couple of weeks just walking down the street was dangerous. The best you would get would be a line of stitch marks and, in really deep mud, a shallow Florsheim logo. They have a tread now, but you won't find it in Florsheim's catalogue.
  
  --
  Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
24. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by Sique · 2010-09-09 19:56 · Score: 1
  
  Because Sweden is a signator of the Berne Convention, where every new use is subject to the agreement of the original author. So even if the shoe company has paid the photographer for the picture, they paid him only to use it for the agreed upon purposes, and if the agreement doesn't contain "inclusion into a forensic database", then the shoe company is not allowed to sign a letter of agreement with the police for the inclusion of the picture into the police's database.
  It's that simple.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
25. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by Sique · 2010-09-09 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  The shoe companies are (in Sweden) not the entities to complain or file suits. It's the original photographers, whose Author's Right might be infringend upon.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
26. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by VShael · 2010-09-09 20:22 · Score: 1
  
  I can't do that with images, music, or anything else, and neither can any other agency. Otherwise, I could just download all the music in the world, and claim that I am building a database for future use in identifying stolen music.
  Doesn't work that way.
  And yet, bizarrely, it DOES work that way. Just not for the plebian masses like you and me. But for the elites, and our lords and masters, you betcha.
  The police, for example, collect paedophiliac imagery and add it to the already massive database they have on the subject. Ostensibly, this is to help track down kids who have been sold into slavery and what not, and potentially identify perps as well as victims.
  However, there was already at least one case which came into the public view, when someone who had access to this database accessed it from an unsecure machine across the internet. I could google the reference to this case, but I'm at work, and there's no way I'm going to enter pedo-like words into a search bar while at the office.
27. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by VShael · 2010-09-09 20:26 · Score: 1
  
  They're not claiming copyright or publicly using it to make money on their website
  Oh, I get it! If I don't claim copyright, or publicly use it to make money on my website, I can have a personal for-use copy of anything I like.
  If only the courts thought the same way.
28. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by Aceticon · 2010-09-09 20:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's still a copyright violation when an individual (thus not a business) downloads music or software for the purpose of evaluation (thus not for profit and with the intent of paying for it later) without the copyright holder's authorization.
  Similarly, if a charity downloads images from the net and uses them in a campaign to call people's attention to problem X, it's still a copyright violation.
  Copyright legislation still it illegal to copy something without authorization from the copyright holder even if only not-for-profit uses and with the best of intentions.
  This is not just a peculiarity of Swedish Copyright laws.
  I would reckon that this is probably one of the biggest reasons why so many of us here at /. are against Copyrights and other forms of Intellectual Property: it restricts and punishes common, not for profit uses of things like sounds, images and text.
29. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by vadim_t · 2010-09-09 20:39 · Score: 1
  
  None of that matters. The law is the law, and it doesn't contain exceptions for the police or shoe photography. There are statuory damages that can be collected even if not a single photo gets sold.
  Personally, I'm against the current obsessive enforcement of copyright. This is why I think that if it's going to be interpreted in a strict and unflexible way, it should be done that way for everybody. The police mustn't get an exception to it. If the law is too overbearing, then the law should be changed for everybody.
30. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 21:00 · Score: 0
  
  Next time some one get robbed or rapped the police just says i'm sorry but our shoe database was takeaway due to a copyright issues.
31. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by BetterThanCaesar · 2010-09-09 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I can tell from the article no shoe company has complained.
  Not true. The original article in Svenska Dagbladet says (my translation):
  
  Shoe company Brandos [sic], Sweden's larget online shoe company, reacted when the National Police Agency proudly presented their new shoe database the other week.
  - To our great surprise we saw that the image on the police's web site looked suspiciously like one of our images. In a story on [TV channel] SVT we then saw that more images were taken from us, says Fredrik Juto, chairman of Brando.
  The company has several staff members and photo studios working on taking images of all shoes from several angles. Today, there are over 100 000 product images avaialble on the web.
  - We have previously helped the police in Sweden and abroad with identifying shoe models, and we'll gladly continue to help. But it upsets us that they've consistently and without our consent taken what we suspect are many images from us, says Juto.
  
  --
  "Stop failing the Turing test!" -- Dilbert
32. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by Kidbro · 2010-09-09 21:44 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  While the market for pictures of shoes is smaller than that for music, it obviously exists. Otherwise these pictures wouldn't have been taken in the first place, and the police would not have wanted copies of them (that's the definition of a market, after all).
  Is there some magic clause somewhere which says that copyright infringement only becomes a crime if your estimated target audience exceeds a certain number?
  And for the record, I'm a Swedish resident. I think our police have done the morally right thing in this case, but that aspect has never been relevant when it comes to copyright law, and in particular not the Swedish police's behavior in regards to it. If there's any organisation I expect to follow the letter, rather than the spirit of the law, it's the police.
  
  --
  May we live long and die out
33. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by rolfwind · 2010-09-09 23:07 · Score: 1
  
  But isn't what everything the US government produces public domain? (Yes, this is Sweden and top secret is another issue but let's just assume for your argument.) So, are you saying that the government ignore copyright and essentially make a photographer's work (who isn't working for contracted by the government) public domain at will? Are you saying that Government material become a mishmash of IP licenses? What?
34. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by delinear · 2010-09-09 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  The point is the police are active in pursuing people who are guilty of the same "crime" of infringing other people's IP rights that it appears they themselves are committing. We either accept that it's a police matter, in which case I hope we see some investigations, confiscated equipment and potentially further action against individuals within the police force, or the police admit that going after IP infringers who are not seeking to profit through sale the content they acquire is actually not in their remit, or the police/government explain what legal exemption applies to place the police above the rule of law.
35. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by delinear · 2010-09-10 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  The company where I work has previously had to buy stock photography of just about everything imaginable, yes including shoes, for use in campaigns - or did you imagine professional photographers work for free?
36. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by delinear · 2010-09-10 00:10 · Score: 1
  
  Well the big shoe companies would probably just cooperate with the police, but assuming the photographer owns the IP (and the shoe company only the rights to use the image in a specific manner that doesn't include building a police database), what's the betting that IP troll lawyers are already firing off emails to solicit the business of shoe photographers, or just outright offering them cash for the IP rights?
37. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 01:40 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  When was the last time someone tried to sell you a picture of a shoe?
  Today.
38. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by FrozenFOXX · 2010-09-10 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  When was the last time someone tried to sell you a picture of a shoe?
  About two hours ago when I was at a stop light.
  
  --
  "Just a fox, a whisper."
39. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by FrozenFOXX · 2010-09-10 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the photographer already was. To understand your argument properly I've modified your argument to fit the music industry:
  
  What the hell are you smoking? The artist was already paid by the record label, you dope, at least in cases where the recording was made at a record company's site. The record label gets their return by having a short audio clip/radio play/online download/other advertisement of the song or album for people who want one and consider a purchase. How in the HELL does an internal database of these in ANY way impact that business?
  The problem with this argument is that it makes the assumption that private, non-commercial use of a professional work (in this case the artwork or song clip...both of which ARE works made by professionals) is "okay," which it is not. If for some bizarre reason I made a database of all the clips on Amazon.com I'd *still* be sued because I didn't pay to use them. This is further complicated by the fact that the Police in most first-world countries are a PUBLIC organization, as in not private.
  
  I think the claim is ridiculous but well-justified by the law. If the officers charged with upholding that law cannot abide by it how do you expect a lowly citizen to?
  
  --
  "Just a fox, a whisper."
40. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by cdrguru · 2010-09-10 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if it is posted on the Internet then yes, I expect they now work for free. If it is on the Internet then it is available for anyone to use in any manner they see fit.
  Lots of professional photographers have figured this out, sometimes from posting samples of their work.
41. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  What they really need is a tread equivalent of Shazam, where the police can point their phone camera at a tread and have it tell them the shoe brand, size, distribution and sales window. Such a program could also automatically pull out identifying traits such as debris stuck in tread, wear marks, impression angle, etc. Using this data, it should be pretty easy to profile a suspect.
  Back on topic, I'm curious how they're using this database... is it like a police lineup where they just search for treads that most closely match the one in question and then ID the shoe brand and make? Seems to me that for anything more, they should really be getting vector images from the manufacturers with detailed specs around that tread. After all, the same tread is used on multiple shoes within a brand, and even sometimes across brands -- but only for shoes sold in a certain season. Shoe companies like to keep "refreshing" their tread lines, so each season, the tread will be slightly different.
  This means that just pulling random tread pictures off the internet will not be all that useful for them in the long run.
42. Re:Compilation of facts are protected by bennomatic · 2010-09-19 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  True, true. But you wouldn't want to go running in climbing shoes. The material gives you too much grip; great for being sticky while moving slowly on a vertical surface, not so great for evading the long arm of the law.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
Process by rjstanford · 2010-09-09 11:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

Had they just requested sample prints, many (most?) shoe companies would probably have been happy to provide them with a full list - not because they had to, but because its a simple enough request to comply with. By doing the work themselves they ended up with less useful data that's, quite possibly, illegal to use.
Sigh...

--
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
1. Re:Process by ScrewMaster · 2010-09-09 11:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Had they just requested sample prints, many (most?) shoe companies would probably have been happy to provide them with a full list - not because they had to, but because its a simple enough request to comply with. By doing the work themselves they ended up with less useful data that's, quite possibly, illegal to use.
  Sigh...
  Well, I'm not a lawyer (certainly not a Swedish lawyer) but it seems likely that if the cops used a database that was illegally garnered, they might find any cases using that information compromised in some way. Not very smart on their part, any way you look at this.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
2. Re:Process by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 11:56 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  UK copyright law has an exemption for anything involve the justice system (including police activities). I'd be very surprised if other countries didn't have similar provisions. Otherwise you'd get the ridiculous situation of criminals suing the police for copyright violation when they took copies of evidence.
  This is very likely a non-story.
3. Re:Process by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 12:31 · Score: 0
  
  as a matter of fact, how evidence comes into the possession of an investigator does not matter to the court - if there's something suspicious about some piece of evidence, say it's planted, that becomes a crime which is investigated. If the second investigation concludes that the evidence was falsified or w/e, any person it was used to framed may appeal their conviction..
4. Re:Process by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:01 · Score: 0
  
  Interesting.
  That might be a too-long timecycle on actual framing, but it would also seemingly prevent "actual bad guy got off because of procedural police error" problems.
  ~ KingAlanI
5. Re:Process by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 23:59 · Score: 0
  
  In Sweden any evidence is allowed even if the evidence is from a crime. That is if a policeman would torture a suspect and the suspect then produces evidence only the perpetrator of the crime could have known it will be usable in court. If a burglar breaks into a house and finds evidence for a murder it's allowed. If someone wiretaps a competitors business and records information that indicates criminal activity it would be allowed as evidence.
  In all the above cases the ones finding the information would of course also be guilty of crimes.
6. Re:Process by delinear · 2010-09-10 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is that they are compiling data and keeping it on record for the possibility of future crime - that's a lot different to collecting evidence in an ongoing investigation.
7. Re:Process by ScrewMaster · 2010-09-12 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  In Sweden any evidence is allowed even if the evidence is from a crime
  Okay. I learned something new today.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Witty title by chemicaldave · 2010-09-09 11:25 · Score: 3, Funny

kudos to you
1. Re:Witty title by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 12:27 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  If you enjoyed Swedish Police Shoe Database May Tread on Copyright you may also enjoy:
  Swedish Police Shoe Database Steps Over the Line
  Cops Heels, Won't Toe the Line
  Swedish Police Trample Copyright Law
  Police Shoe Database Doesn't Foot With Swedish Copyright Law
  Cops Caught, Read Footed
2. Re:Witty title by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 16:53 · Score: 0
  
  Swedish police: Boot Party Riot
3. Re:Witty title by Kr4u53 · 2010-09-09 18:50 · Score: 0
  
  I suppose you could say their database got the boot.
how is this helpful? by metalmaster · 2010-09-09 11:26 · Score: 1

Aside from stepping on the toes of copyright law, i fail to see how this would be helpful for an investigation.

Any place that sells shoes likely sells quite a bit of any type out there. Even finding an uncommon shoe print isnt necessarily helpful, unless they have already narrowed down their list of suspects. If you've accomplished that, theres probably something more useful than a shoe print to go on. On the contrary, a database of tire treads is a bit more useful. Vehicles are somewhat limited to the tires they are fitted with.
1. Re:how is this helpful? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 11:40 · Score: 0
  
  If the police know what design of shoes were used in a crime they can sieze matching items found during a search. Or it could be used to infer the shoe size of the suspect even if the shoe itself is never recovered.
2. Re:how is this helpful? by bennomatic · 2010-09-09 11:46 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If an unusual shoe print is discovered at multiple crime scenes within a certain location range and time span, it may lead investigators to look for connections between those crimes which may help identify an individual associated with all of them. Without something to connect the different crimes, it may be more likely that the an individual responsible for or at least involved in all of them would be more difficult to identify.
  
  There are up sides and down sides to what I describe here, but it's silly to suggest that being able to cross-reference shoe prints AND identify their make/model is not a good idea for law enforcement.
  
  Heck, they still use blood type to narrow suspect lists, if I understand correctly. And each blood type accounts for a much wider swath of the population than, I would assume, almost any shoe print. Maybe Converse Chucks, which have pretty much remained the same over the last 50 years, would have enough presence among wearers to be no more common than, say, O- blood, but otherwise, active wearers of any given shoe print probably number in the millions at any given time, not the hundreds of millions.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
3. Re:how is this helpful? by misexistentialist · 2010-09-09 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Could help distinguish between small-footed males and females. And I suppose the model of shoe could provide some unreliable information about income-level and profession.
4. Re:how is this helpful? by SleazyRidr · 2010-09-10 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  Crime isn't like of CSI, they don't just find one piece of evidence and say "OMG, Doug did it!"
  The fact that you happen to own a pair of shoes in the size that match footprint at the scene of the crime, combined with other evidence might make life a little difficult for you.
  Of course the next step could be a national shoe database, where you have to present ID to buy shoes, and borrowing someone else's shoes becomes an offense. That would be crossing the line.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
Glad to know... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 11:31 · Score: 1, Funny

Glad to know that the the US isn't the only country throwing money away on invasive, quasi-legal and ridiculously redundant databases in the name of SOLVING CRIME.
This is not news by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 11:32 · Score: 1, Insightful

Its just bait for people who are anal about their data privacy and people who think they're so important that the big brother is looking at them and singling them out. Remember, you're 1/6,000,000,000. You pretty much don't exist.
So... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 11:33 · Score: 0

Now the shoe is on the other foot?
1. Re:so... by X0563511 · 2010-09-09 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, that's easy. They don't download the images and store them on their servers along side the nifty database!
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
2. Re:so... by yyxx · 2010-09-09 19:53 · Score: 1
  
  They certainly download thumbnails.
3. Re:so... by X0563511 · 2010-09-09 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  Which is a lot harder to claim copyright violation against.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Dr Strangelove by AHuxley · 2010-09-09 11:34 · Score: 1

I guess now we really do live in a world where the Colonel "Bat" Guano's line: "You're gonna have to answer to the Coca-Cola company." is the correct thought
The idea "Can you possibly imagine what is going to happen to you, your frame, outlook, way of life, and everything, when they learn that you have obstructed a ... " [shoe print] lost out.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
GREAT! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 11:37 · Score: 0

Maybe NOW they'll get a piece of their own medicine. Of course, everyone HERE already KNOWS copyright law is a joke these days...
Why didn't the rooster cross the road? Because the chicken joke was copyrighted...
1. Re:GREAT! by icebraining · 2010-09-09 15:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, because it's the cops (especially Swedish) who pushes for and implements stronger copyright legislation. sigh.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
Copyright by Reikk · 2010-09-09 11:42 · Score: 0

I'm pretty sure police have the copyright on gumshoes
so... by yyxx · 2010-09-09 11:54 · Score: 1

Let's see: downloading publicly accessible images from the Internet in order to build a searchable database is now illegal in Sweden? How do Google and Bing do it then?
Swedish has copyrights? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 12:14 · Score: 0

I didn't know Sweden had copyright laws; see piratebay.org
1. Re:Swedish has copyrights? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 15:13 · Score: 0
  
  piratebay gets off because linking to stuff they don't actually host is legal under the technicalities of Swedish copyright law. (or something of that sort)
  ~KingAlanI
So today copyrights are "good"?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 12:31 · Score: 0

Seriously Slashdot, make up your minds. Either copyright is evil or good. You can't have it both ways. What happened to "fair use"? Or did you conveniently forget about that, today?
1. Re:So today copyrights are "good"?!? by h4rr4r · 2010-09-09 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  Here are a couple fun facts for you:
  1. slashdot is not just one person
  2. This is news because the very group arresting people for breaking the law related to copyright is breaking the same laws.
2. Re:So today copyrights are "good"?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-09 14:39 · Score: 0
  
  On the other hand, the police lawyer says it's legal.
  I guess that's for a court to decide, if it ever comes to that.
3. Re:So today copyrights are "good"?!? by vadim_t · 2010-09-09 20:49 · Score: 1
  
  It's very simple. When somebody pushes an overbearing amount of rules on you, it can be a very effective tactic to simply follow each and every one to the letter.
  It doesn't matter it's silly. It doesn't matter nobody loses any money because of it. Make sure it's applied strictly in all cases, until even the people who push for it start screaming from the frustration, and then they might finally get the hint.
4. Re:So today copyrights are "good"?!? by scosco62 · 2010-09-10 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, because Police Lawyers are really the ultimate arbitrator.
Just pay it by Joebert · 2010-09-09 12:47 · Score: 1

Just pay the fuckers before they realize it's coming out of their taxes anyways.

--
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Cousin to the Swedish Chef by zooblethorpe · 2010-09-09 13:30 · Score: 2, Funny

Hur, de hur de hur, dee dee boom -- Tort! Tort! Tort!
If only.
Cheers,

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
fetish by malraid · 2010-09-09 13:59 · Score: 1

I'm sure there's already a fetish for shoe soles. They could just go online and torrent somebody's archive of photos.... upps...

--
please excuse my apathy
Of course it is a copyright violation by humblecoder · 2010-09-09 14:15 · Score: 1

They copied this idea from _Law and Order_.

--
------
www.moneybythenumbers.com
SCTV sketch "Klaag" by Latent+Heat · 2010-09-09 14:38 · Score: 1

I am not finding it, but I swear there was an SCTV sketch of a Swedish detective "Klaag", not armed with a gun but with a signature heel-less shoe, taking his adversary out by conking him on the head. Of course the "promo" for the TV series shows SCTV actor Joe Flaherty kicking, such shoe flying through the air, and then the would-be criminal on the ground, holding his head in pain.
1. Re:SCTV sketch "Klaag" by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-10 01:25 · Score: 0
  
  Here:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUuve-JjgXo
  It's Harold Ramis BTW, now Joe Flaherty.
2. Re:SCTV sketch "Klaag" by GameboyRMH · 2010-09-10 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  LOL cool hairstyle on that guy XD
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Shoe Companies??? by VTI9600 · 2010-09-09 14:45 · Score: 1

The Swedish police, who have been instrumental in various raids against file-sharing sites, may have a bit of a piracy problem [...] people (and some shoe companies) are pointing out that creating a database isn't about an investigation.
I'd like to see a list of the shoe companies that are objecting to this. I suspect there are none, and that this is simply the futile ranting of an intellectual property professor (RTFA) who is sore over his favorite torrent site getting raided. Nothing to see here...move along. This should not have made it to the front page on /.
But ... by wtansill · 2010-09-09 16:45 · Score: 1

it's different when the "Authoritez" do it! Really! And it's for the children!!!!!

--
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
So what does the Pirate Party have to say? by OnePumpChump · 2010-09-09 19:01 · Score: 1

I mean, this seems like an opportunity for them to make nice with The Man.
CSI Enhance! by mutube · 2010-09-09 23:12 · Score: 1

Who needs a database of shoe types?
Instead, zoom in on an image of the footprint and extract the fingerprint of the worker that made the sole. Feed this into the international shoe-maker database to get a positive ID on who did the shoe. Find out he/she works and get the batch numbers of the soles made and consult the FBI shoe distribution database to see where they ended up. Get CCTV footage from the store showing the correct shoe type being sold. If the customer faces are obscured get extra CSI brownie points by using a reflection in a well polished shoe. Analyse the walking patterns of the customer as they leave the store, create an extraneous 3D model, then match the gait to the crime scene by the weight distribution in the original print. You now have your suspect.
Bring them in for questioning and they will undoubtedly confess dramatically under minimal interrogation. For extra CSI brownie points record the confession via the refraction of light in their own fake tears. Create an extraneous 3D model.

--
Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer
The Swede Police, they live inside of my head..... by scosco62 · 2010-09-10 00:31 · Score: 1

Yeah, for all those Abba related thefts.......
Intranet by Halifax+Samuels · 2010-09-10 01:44 · Score: 1

Really, if someone's making a stink over it just restrict the database to an intranet, or have it be in a secured internet site. I'm assuming that's their big huff over this. "Oh no someone can see the bottoms of our shoes! CALL THE LAWYERS!"
Is this the point where someone says ... by Trevin · 2010-09-10 01:45 · Score: 1

"I guess the shoe is on the other foot now!"
Bah... by Aaron.SD · 2010-09-10 05:12 · Score: 1

Solve crimes with more efficiency? Not on my dime! No, lets make the police go out and make their own photos of the shoes, of course they'll have to buy some and there's travel involved... Who's paying for that you say? Me? Oh...