Image Lifted From Twitter Leads to $1.2M Payout For Haitian Photog

magic maverick writes "A U.S. federal jury has ordered Agence France-Presse and Getty Images to pay $1.2 million to a Daniel Morel, Haitian photographer, for their unauthorized use of photographs, from the 2010 Haiti earthquake. The images, posted to Twitter, were taken by an editor at AFP and then provided to Getty. A number of other organizations had already settled out of court with the photographer."

Comments

He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Anonymous Coward]

- But they didn't understand how the law works

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[roc97007]

Well, speaking as a photographer, the thing about selling photographs on the internet is that you generally have to show people what they're about to buy. So right click and save image is always a possibility. (There are coding ways around this, most of which are trivial to break. That's why the solutions are legal instead of technical.)

I generally have to put up with some amount of "fair use", especially for events, and usually don't make an issue of it, especially if I get a photo credit. But sell one of my photos without my permission and the law will get involved.

Point is, it's possible he knew exactly how the internet works, but with the expectation that he can display his works without having them ripped off, any more than you'd take photos of paintings in a gallery and then sell prints of art you didn't own.

...so this facebook and google thing, where they mine photos and use them as advertisements, is going to get interesting if they use a copyright work from a pro. IANAL, but I don't think a TOS will help them there.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, speaking as a photographer, the thing about selling photographs on the internet is that you generally have to show people what they're about to buy. So right click and save image is always a possibility. (There are coding ways around this, most of which are trivial to break. That's why the solutions are legal instead of technical.)

I generally have to put up with some amount of "fair use", especially for events, and usually don't make an issue of it, especially if I get a photo credit. But sell one of my photos without my permission and the law will get involved.

Point is, it's possible he knew exactly how the internet works, but with the expectation that he can display his works without having them ripped off, any more than you'd take photos of paintings in a gallery and then sell prints of art you didn't own.

...so this facebook and google thing, where they mine photos and use them as advertisements, is going to get interesting if they use a copyright work from a pro. IANAL, but I don't think a TOS will help them there.

I'm curious, how do you define "sell" when a website uses your work on a page riddled with ads? You seem to think all those ads are there just for show, and they're somehow not "selling" or turning a profit by driving more traffic to their site with your awesome imagery.

Also, should imagery by a "pro" be treated any differently than from an amateur or do the big boys know they're breaking the law and assume you don't give a shit enough to sue? With the world flooded with the new de facto iCamera as the golden standard of photography, are only pictures taken with "professional" equipment affected by copyright, or would it only count if you handed your iPhone to Terry Richardson to take the shot? IANAL either, so just curious how (or why) we're drawing the line here based on who was behind what lens.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Firethorn]

Well, speaking as a photographer, the thing about selling photographs on the internet is that you generally have to show people what they're about to buy. So right click and save image is always a possibility. (There are coding ways around this, most of which are trivial to break. That's why the solutions are legal instead of technical.)

Yeah, use a browser other than IE and/or some sort of flashblock.

I make a point of saving any images on websites that attempt to block 'save as' by disabling the right mouse click. I normally find this out when I'm trying to either open up a link in a new tab or go back one handed (so no ctrl-click). If the site is 'personal' enough that they're probably paying attention, I sometimes email it to them going in a polite way 'Your protection is both a failure and an annoyance'.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, speaking as a photographer, the thing about selling photographs on the internet is that you generally have to show people what they're about to buy. So right click and save image is always a possibility. (There are coding ways around this, most of which are trivial to break. That's why the solutions are legal instead of technical.)

WTF? WTFF? Haven't you heard of watermarking? I have recently had to look through a great deal of stock photos to get for a website and virtually every site selling those have watermarked previews or sometimes low-resolution photos are free to use and if you want the high-res, you have to buy it. What idiot would waste time on any other technical solution than that when imagemagick can watermark and/or reduce resolution faster than you've set your camera shutter to.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Joining Yet Again]

This so much.

1) Google is as good as selling photographs with its news aggregation;

2) 99% of all photography may be shit, but "pros" don't deserve any special treatment.

On the other hand, I don't care much about intellectual property. I have one possible solution: an agreement to opt in or opt out of the intellectual property system. If a company opts in, it is required to pay royalties for all the IP it uses, with no exceptions or other get-out clauses. Anyone who is not in the system is free to use others' IP as they wish, BUT ALSO has no protection over their own IP.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Anonymous Coward]

you'd take photos of paintings in a gallery and then sell prints of art you didn't own

For many old paintings, that would be perfectly legal. I could take a photograph of the Mona Lisa and sell prints based on that picture.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Anonymous Coward]

As a buyer, a watermarked or shrunk image isn't acceptable because it's not exactly what is for sale. I need to see the real picture before I hand over my hard earned cash.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[mysidia]

Well, speaking as a photographer, the thing about selling photographs on the internet is that you generally have to show people what they're about to buy. So right click and save image is always a possibility.

It doesn't work so well; if you use a small image size for sample purposes, and calculate the lowest resolution that is transparent for the size and sample medium selected, and then, you watermark your image samples. You can look at the sample, but not easily reuse it for publication --- as soon as you need to push it to a new medium, and expand the size; there will be quality issues.

any more than you'd take photos of paintings in a gallery and then sell prints of art you didn't own.

Makes sense that the curators don't allow cameras in art galleries, anyways

is going to get interesting if they use a copyright work from a pro. IANAL, but I don't think a TOS will help them there.

If the photographer uploaded the photo to facebook, then the TOS will allow the social network company to use the photo, for sure.

Otherwise, they may use the TOS to try to transfer responsibility to a user that uploaded the photo.

I'm pretty darn sure, some Facebook or Google user, will eventually scan a print they had purchased of a photo of themselves as their profile image that was taken by some portrait photographer, or their school photo, without the right permission, it's probably already happened many of times; and judging by the apparent attitude of some photographers, one of the user's will probably wind up getting sued over uploading their own portrait, eventually.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[mysidia]

Yeah, use a browser other than IE and/or some sort of flashblock.

Ahah! Check-mate! Flash-based / JavaScript-based image viewer; that renders the image, without your browser having access to a JPEG formatted file ---- complete with DRM; so if you use screencast / screenshot software to snap a picture of the display; your screen capture will show a little black box, instead of the image.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Anonymous Coward]

complete with DRM; so if you use screencast / screenshot software to snap a picture of the display; your screen capture will show a little black box, instead of the image

Even if that were possible, which it's not, a camera would easily defeat it.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[mi]

I generally have to put up with some amount of "fair use", especially for events, and usually don't make an issue of it, especially if I get a photo credit. But sell one of my photos without my permission and the law will get involved.

Wow, a highly-moderated account of an evil holder of the dreaded copyright — a profiteer on the information, that Wants To Be Free[TM]! On Slashdot!

What's the world coming to? Next we'll start using terms like "theft" and "stealing" when talking about digital photographs, even though you still have your file on your computer, when I do right-click->Save Image on mine.

Well, maybe, it is Ok for you to be doing this by yourself. But the second you decide to delegate the pursuit of thieves to someone else (like PhAA, perhaps?) , then we'll denounce both you and that delegate (MafiAA!!) as "greedy" producers of "trash", which nobody would be buying anyway.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Well, speaking as a photographer, the thing about selling photographs on the internet is that you generally have to show people what they're about to buy.

...whereas before the Internet, people first paid and only then were shown the photos...?

So right click and save image is always a possibility. (There are coding ways around this, most of which are trivial to break. That's why the solutions are legal instead of technical.)

I definitely wouldn't want to live in a jurisdiction that would legally prohibit mere saving a picture from a web page. Are you insinuating that there is indeed such a horrible place in the world?

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Just fetch a copy from your caching proxy, then.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Applehu Akbar]

Better than DRM: export "web resolution" JPG for online viewing. Everyone can see your pictures, but if they want publication quality, they have to come to you.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Anonymous Coward]

'Your protection is both a failure and an annoyance'.

It's an annoyance, but is it a failure? What if the goal wasn't to completely prevent the image from being copied?

Let's say 95% of people don't know how to do what you've just described. This reduces the odds that any given person will distribute the photo.

It's like a chain and lock on a bicycle. It won't deter someone who's determined to get the bicycle. But it will deter almost everyone who might think about it. It's not preventing the theft; it's greatly reducing the odds of that happening.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Anonymous Coward]

First: As I said, I'm a buyer too. Second: I repeat that shrunk images are usually free so you cannot claim to be a buyer then because if you use those, you're not paying anything. Watermarking can be disturbing but doesn't have to be. How does a tiny semi-transparent text somewhere prevent you from evaluating if a picture is worth buying?

I strongly suspect that you're bullshitting because (1) photos are very cheap, (2) an expression like "hard earned cash" is too weird in corporate use and (3) there are very few cases where an individual buys photos for any use.

Oh and I also think you're posting anonymously because you have modded my post down. There's absolutely no valid reason to do so.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[jythie]

I think the point is not that it should be illegal to save an image from a website, but that preventing companies from lifting people's work and reselling it is something that requires a legal response rather then a technological one.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Firethorn]

Then I don't see your image at all, you have no potential for a sale.

Plus, well, it might be a touch more of a pain, but I have non-standard image capture software and access to my cache. At some point it becomes a challange. ;)

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Anonymous Coward]

All I'll say in response is:

1) You're paranoid
2) You assume too much
3) You've never worked independently
4) You're an idiot

I'll let you work out where and why.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Wootery]

an agreement to opt in or opt out of the intellectual property system. If a company opts in, it is required to pay royalties for all the IP it uses, with no exceptions or other get-out clauses. Anyone who is not in the system is free to use others' IP as they wish, BUT ALSO has no protection over their own IP.

I know you're just throwing an idea out there, but, really?

Imagine you run a company that makes a popular CAD/CAM product. Obviously, to enable copyright protection, you'd want to opt-in.

Now imagine you run a company that uses that CAD/CAM software, to produce plastic thingumies. Why would you opt-in? Why would any such company opt to pay for the CAD/CAM software, other than for support?

Also, even if it's in your company's interests to opt-in, you could always have a buddy set up another company which doesn't opt-in, and have them do the work that necessitates using the expensive software.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Anonymous Coward]

5.) Funny how I got under your skin.
6.) You mistakenly assume that I care.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Joining Yet Again]

Now imagine you didn't opt in, and the plastic thingummy design/factory process/etc. was borrowed by a competitor...

What does e.g. Foxconn have going for it? Well, it has a lot of capital, but mostly it has secrets! secrets to running a highly efficient build process. If it were entitled to no protection for these secrets, because there was no method in law of recognising them, anyone with enough capital would be able to poach Foxconn's employees and build an equally efficient competitor.

Artificial creation of companies to escape duties or take advantage of the system is nothing new. Here, the "buddy"'s soul task is producing IP using the CAD/CAM software.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[AJH16]

Under this system, many companies would pop up electing to not create content and simply use others. If you could only use the content released by other companies in that system, such systems already exist. It's called Public Domain and you are free to release work in to it. Similarly, you can use other licenses such as Creative Commons Share Alike to require your work and all derivatives be shared. It wouldn't be hard to make a license that required all IP produced by the entity to follow the same, though it could be gamed by having a separate legal entity to handle that material.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Anonymous Coward]

*facepalms* Either this is really funny, and I am hanging too close on the border between not missing it, and missing it, or this is insanely stupid "miss what is being said and characterize an entire group based on a misinterpretation of an argument some percentage have made"

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[ottothecow]

When their publication destination is a website (or even newsprint), "web resolution" is also publication quality.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[roc97007]

> I'm curious, how do you define "sell" when a website uses your work on a page riddled with ads?

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but the phrase "directly or indirectly" probably applies. If a content provider takes one of my photos and puts it on a website "riddled with ads", they're at very least getting indirect financial gain from the photo being on the site. (Else, why put it there?)

> Also, should imagery by a "pro" be treated any differently than from an amateur or do the big boys know they're breaking the law and assume you don't give a shit enough to sue?

This is my opinion, but I don't think it makes any difference. For instance, before I turned pro, I happened to be at the scene with my camera during a major flood. (Levee break.) At the time I didn't understand that the photos I took were unique, and this was before sharing photos on the internet was common, so the question never came up. But there's no question that me, as an amateur, owned those photos, and would expect compensation if someone used them for financial gain. (Appearing in a newspaper in conjunction with a news item is financial gain, because it helps sell advertising space.)

This is not an amateur vs pro thing. Merely that a pro is probably more conversant with his rights and how to pursue them, (and with the means to pursue same) because it's part of the skill set. If Facebook/Google uses your photos to attract ad space without compensation, I'd call that theft regardless of whether you offered your photos up for sale or not. (The exception is if you were asked and had consented to have your photos used.) A difference, as you pointed out, is that an amateur is less likely to care.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[roc97007]

I generally have to put up with some amount of "fair use", especially for events, and usually don't make an issue of it, especially if I get a photo credit. But sell one of my photos without my permission and the law will get involved.

Wow, a highly-moderated account of an evil holder of the dreaded copyright — a profiteer on the information, that Wants To Be Free[TM]! On Slashdot!

What's the world coming to? Next we'll start using terms like "theft" and "stealing" when talking about digital photographs, even though you still have your file on your computer, when I do right-click->Save Image on mine.

Well, maybe, it is Ok for you to be doing this by yourself. But the second you decide to delegate the pursuit of thieves to someone else (like PhAA, perhaps?) , then we'll denounce both you and that delegate (MafiAA!!) as "greedy" producers of "trash", which nobody would be buying anyway.

You realize that resell vs fair use invalidates most of your argument?

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[roc97007]

Well, speaking as a photographer, the thing about selling photographs on the internet is that you generally have to show people what they're about to buy.

...whereas before the Internet, people first paid and only then were shown the photos...?

You know what I mean. If someone is exhibiting photos in a storefront, you would be accused of theft if you took one and walked out. Moreover, photographing art in a gallery is almost always forbidden. (Exceptions are made for public domain art.)

So right click and save image is always a possibility. (There are coding ways around this, most of which are trivial to break. That's why the solutions are legal instead of technical.)

I definitely wouldn't want to live in a jurisdiction that would legally prohibit mere saving a picture from a web page. Are you insinuating that there is indeed such a horrible place in the world?

You're taking my words out of context. This is not that hard to understand. I have a website. I sell photos directly from the website. Yes, you can right click and save a (generally smaller, lower quality) copy of a photo I have for sale. I can't stop that and don't really try. But if you sell the photo or use it to draw eyes to a website without my permission, that is theft and I will pursue it.

Moreover, I try to make it easy to do the right thing by keeping my prices reasonable. A digital copy for personal use is typically a couple of bucks. Prints cost a little more, (you're essentially paying for the convenience of having it printed and/or framed for you) and commercial reuse costs significantly more. I allow non-profit reuse for free, if I get a photo credit. If you are the subject of a candid (event, street photo) I will always ask permission first, and I will give you a copy for free if asked.

I have incorporated other people's photos into commercial websites. I always pay for commercial use of the photo, and provide attribution if asked. I expect people to treat me as I treat them.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[roc97007]

I did not mean to insinuate that pros deserve special treatment. I do think that pros are more likely to have the connections and knowledge to pursue the issue. On the other hand, I fully expect that somewhere there's a mom that says "oh, look, there's little Mary in the yellow bikini we bought last week. Wait, that's an ad for a Nexus 5... Henry, call the cops!" And in my opinion, Mom would have a perfect right to do so.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[roc97007]

This.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Quila]

They understood how the law works. That is why they are so surprised right now. Infringement payments are for the little guy sharing songs or movies in order to protect corporate profit, not for the corporations that use images for profit without permisison. The little guy isn't supposed to have any recourse.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Wootery]

Now imagine you didn't opt in, and the plastic thingummy design/factory process/etc. was borrowed by a competitor...

I was thinking of a commodity product with little innovation involved. Maybe 'thingummy' wasn't precise enough :-P

Artificial creation of companies to escape duties or take advantage of the system is nothing new. Here, the "buddy"'s soul task is producing IP using the CAD/CAM software.

I know, that was the point. It's a massive loophole. All you've really said is 'Yes, companies have been known to exploit loopholes'.

You may be right about the specific CAD/CAM example, so I'll rephrase: your idea would be a death-blow to the producers of software used by industries which are not themselves benefited by intellectual property law. Unless you are suggesting there are no such industries, then we have a problem.

Also, what about individuals? Can a person just opt-out of copyright and download all the movies they like?

Anyway, what's the upside of all this? What advantage could it have over the current rule-of-law implementation where it applies equally, in theory, to everyone?

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Anonymous Coward]

Wireshark and get the actual URL of the image. Works great.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Anonymous Coward]

Turn off hardware-based rendering and it'll be rendered by software in such a way that DRM tends to break.

Or just use the 'analog hole' of taking a picture of your screen.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[grcumb]

Well, speaking as a photographer, the thing about selling photographs on the internet is that you generally have to show people what they're about to buy. So right click and save image is always a possibility.

It doesn't work so well; if you use a small image size for sample purposes, and calculate the lowest resolution that is transparent for the size and sample medium selected, and then, you watermark your image samples. You can look at the sample, but not easily reuse it for publication --- as soon as you need to push it to a new medium, and expand the size; there will be quality issues.

I prefer to throw acid in my models' faces to ensure nobody will ever copy me again.

Okay seriously: I will never ever understand why photographers deliberately degrade their work in order to prevent copying. I say this as a photographer myself. I get a lot of business by sharing freely. Look, I get that we have to make a living, but defacing your own work is hardly the best way to advertise it. Musicians don't introduce noise or random silences in the MP3s they share. Writers don't include random gibberish in the middle of their online pieces*.

How hard is it to get that when you post something online, you have decided to share it? You can have any number of motivations: You might want to get exposure and publicity; you might want to get news services to pick it up; you might want to sell it as art. The first is free. The second, as this story makes clear, is easily managed via legal, not technical, means. The third... well, it's sufficient unto the day to solicit payment for the actual poster/book/print. If someone's too chintzy to lay out a few bucks for the real thing - they weren't your customer anyway.

any more than you'd take photos of paintings in a gallery and then sell prints of art you didn't own.

Makes sense that the curators don't allow cameras in art galleries, anyways

In what world does it make sense? Does anyone actually believe that, just because I've seen a photo of Monet's Waterloo Bridge, I won't ever again go to the National Gallery in London? Hint: Seeing the photo makes me more likely to want to go, not less.

-----------
* Brett Easton Ellis notwithstanding. But he's hardly a real writer.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[mysidia]

Musicians don't introduce noise or random silences in the MP3s they share.

No... but the free MP3s they are sharing will probably be sharing low bitrate MP3s, and they might insert an Ad/blurb in there. They don't need to post the high-BR/lossless MP3s; for buying the product, you get certain privileges.

Writers don't include random gibberish in the middle of their online pieces*.

Writers often make the 'online' version an excerpt, of what you get if you buy the full book. There may be no gibberish, but it's not the same as the FPP, either.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[Anonymous Coward]

I will never ever understand why photographers deliberately degrade their work in order to prevent copying

Because they aren't real photographers, they just got a few nice shots by accident and want to milk them for everything they can. A real photographer wouldn't care, because he/she knows how to take perfect pictures every time.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[mi]

You realize that resell vs fair use invalidates most of your argument?

It does not. Though my (over?)quote of you included the words "fair use", I I was concentrating on the "sell" part — and how you seek to prevent that.

Re:He didn't understand how the Internet works

[RockDoctor]

2) 99% of all photography may be shit, but "pros" don't deserve any special treatment.

The pros aren't asking for special treatment. Just for the control of reproduction (of images) rights that everyone else has.

Just because you don't use it, doesn't mean that it's not real.

Sweet sweet copyright justice

[assemblerex]

Big business "borrows" images all the time. Nice to see they have to pay the working man (photographer) for once.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

Information wants to be free for me, but not for thee.

Was AFP wrong to take the images because it violated the profoundly-honored institution of copyright, which everyone on Slashdot naturally adores (heh), or because they're a rich corporations, and rich corporations are always wrong compared to "working men"?

I eagerly awate assemblerex's demand for Voltage Pictures to be compensated millions of dollars for the bittorrented distribution of The Hurt Locker. I bring this up as someone who was employed on that film, and note that that money pays my salary on the next film...

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[rmdingler]

This is a big day for me on /. I have long awaited the moment I could point out a poster with a vested interest in his/her opinion.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

I eagerly awate assemblerex's demand for Voltage Pictures to be compensated millions of dollars for the bittorrented distribution of The Hurt Locker. I bring this up as someone who was employed on that film, and note that that money pays my salary on the next film....

But Mike Masnick says that you're welcome to copy and redistribute all of his painstaking work on Techdirt without compensating him, b/c that will help him! Besides, as he explains the "marginal cost of an infinite good is zero", so therefore the price should be zero.

BTW Mike holds a college degree in economics!

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[able1234au]

Was he expecting to make $1.2m on the photos in the original place? How much of that goes to lawyers on his side and how much did the other lawyers get paid?

Did AFP have suitable mechanisms to identify the source or the photos or did they have fixed compensation in place where a source is later found?

Everyone cheers these big payouts but forgets that in the end we pay. When a large insurance payout goes to someone of something ridiculous like $50 million, to people who would be lucky to make a million in their lifetime, people cheer, yet complain when it means their medical costs go up to cover the doctors insurance premiums.

It is good that the correct source was found and that he won the court case but this is not the correct way to solve these problems.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Zaelath]

I haven't seen it, should I torrent it?

It seemed to be over-hyped US-centric masturbatory fan fiction from what I saw in the press.

Can I pay you not to make another one? Like those grinning idiots with their violins at touristy restaurants.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[MacDork]

which everyone on Slashdot naturally adores (heh)

You must be new here. GPL only works because of copyright.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

The Hurt Locker??

I downloaded it. It wasn't that good. Maybe your next film will be better. Best of luck!

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there should be a 100x multiplier due to the hypocrisy of a major media company stealing when they so aggresively pursue "pirates". Remember, that in general, the music studios effectively steal from the musicians, and big media, in totality, have earned the emnity they got by so aggresively stealing our rights to own our equipment.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

What does stealing an image from someone on Twitter have to do with doctors insurance, again?
Surely, I must have missed an important step there or something.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[ShanghaiBill]

GPL only works because of copyright.

Without copyright, there would be no need for the GPL.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Okian Warrior]

I eagerly awate assemblerex's demand for Voltage Pictures to be compensated millions of dollars for the bittorrented distribution of The Hurt Locker. I bring this up as someone who was employed on that film, and note that that money pays my salary on the next film...

You seem to be implying that we have a double standard in judging the moral position of copyright litigants.

Let me ask you something: do the "Voltage Pictures" standard contracts in any way, shape, or form conform to the common definition of Hollywood Accounting?

It's not that we always side with "the little guy" - we frequently side against small vendors making money off of illegal copying, such as Chinese illegal DVD vendors or businesses who sell open-source software.

The rule is this: we generally side against evil, in all its predatory, corrupt, and dishonourable ways.

What's your take on the "Voltage Pictures" contracts, BTW? I think people here would enjoy your views.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

The people who torrent wouldn't have likely paid to see it at all. Would you rather your work of art be viewed by more than it would have been otherwise or fuck them they didn't pay.

Not to mention that after seeing the first for free, and if they liked it, they may PAY to see more films by the same director/in the same genre

Food for thought.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[gl4ss]

I think the big deal is that they put the images on Getty..

so it's like someone taking somebodys music performance from youtube and putting it on spotify and for sale on itunes... rather than someone taking that music from youtube and putting it on vimeo.

they weren't trying to redistribute it for free, they were trying to get a fee for redistributing it.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Okian Warrior]

When a large insurance payout goes to someone of something ridiculous like $50 million, to people who would be lucky to make a million in their lifetime, people cheer, yet complain when it means their medical costs go up to cover the doctors insurance premiums.

It is good that the correct source was found and that he won the court case but this is not the correct way to solve these problems.

You make a good point, but I'm not sure what can be done about it. Others would use that same point to defuse righteous cheering and encourage solemnity at the outcome, and maybe imply that it is in our best interest *not* to encourage such outcomes. Not holding the perpetrators' feet to the fire would be a worse alternative.

Do you have an alternative? What do you propose?

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[assemblerex]

The Hurt Locker made a profit as intended,but Voltage Pictures and are suing because they feel they are making less money than entitled. The guy in Haiti made no money at all, they just stole his images. So big business wanting every drop of blood versus a man who just wants a piece of the pie is an entirely different situation entirely. Public domain is saying you made enough money , now it belongs to everyone. This idea and public domain is under assault by companies like Voltage Pictures that want to make money forever.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Pseudonym Authority]

How so? Just because there is a lack of copyright, that doesn't prevent me from distributing a binary of whatever source code I found without releasing my changes to the source code as well.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Pseudonym Authority]

Nice try, but that rarely ever happens.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[phantomfive]

This isn't medicinal malpractice. Calm down, your insurance prices aren't going up. All it means is a couple companies have to pay some money, and every other media company will be more careful lifting pictures they don't own.

I have trouble seeing how that's a bad thing; people should be compensated for their work.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

It's good, it's pretty ambivalent, if you come out of that thing feeling good about the Iraq War, you're a moron.

Can I pay you not to make another one?

It's too late, I worked on Zero Dark Thirty too :P

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

this is not the correct way to solve these problems.

The spectre of punitive damages is supposed to deter malfeasance. If anything, the payouts should be higher, since they don't appear to be a big enough deterrent.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

I would strongly agree with this, and I've been here for 15 years. I'm willing to accept this fact about the GPL— smartasses will however argue that the GPL is actually a kind of culture jamming, or "taking the system down from the inside." Casuistry I say.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[gl4ss]

with lack of copyright there would be nothing from stopping reverse engineering and modifying the programs. that field would be far more advanced by today if we didn't have copyright(and already, despite copyrights, we're seeing hobby projects which disassemble amiga code and turn it into x86 binaries with added functionality like opengl graphics).

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[gman003]

Copyright, in and of itself, is a good idea. I have nothing wrong with the concept of a person having a degree of control over that which they produce.

The current system is absolutely broken. The punishment is completely out of proportion - it's like having the death penalty for jaywalking. It interferes with legitimate use and with security research. And it lasts long enough that some artists (or rather, the corporations that bought their rights) are effectively stealing from the public, not the other way around. We need ten-year copyrights, not seventy. And "personal-consumption piracy" needs to be separated from corporate hijacking of someone's work, what happened right here.

What Slashdot hates is not copyright, it is the abuse of power by the wealthy and the corporations. Which is EXACTLY what this was - rich corporations outright stole someone's work, and were directly profiting off it. If anything, there's two or three zeroes missing from their fine - when home users have been sued for millions over downloading one album, a complete abuse of copyright by a corporation shouldn't be just a million or two.

FWIW, I haven't watched your movie, probably never will. And I consider your studio's attempt to blackmail people they suspected of piracy to be little better than thuggish banditry.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Pseudonym Authority]

Those damages are punitive, to provide incentive to never do it again. If it only covered costs, then it would still be profitable to do it because not everyone is going to waste their time suing over $2K.

Everyone cheers these big payouts but forgets that in the end we pay.

Tough shit. Let me guess, libertarian? I love it when they preach freedom, but get pissy whenever someone else's exercise in freedom ends up costing them.

to people who would be lucky to make a million in their lifetime

How dare they aspire to anything above their station.

yet complain when it means their medical costs go up to cover the doctors insurance premiums.

And insurance companies that regularly insure shitty doctors will go out of business and the quacks can't practice anymore, raising the quality of healthcare provided for all.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the court is saying that downloading the pictures is what was wrong. Otherwise the rest of the people viewing those pictures would be liable as well.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

Let me ask you something: do the "Voltage Pictures" standard contracts in any way, shape, or form conform to the common definition of Hollywood Accounting?

What's the problem with Hollywood Accounting? Do you have any actual complaint here? The way writers are paid for work is completely regular and legal, and all people outside the business ever hear are the stories, heavily promoted, of certain individuals who thought they could get a better deal by taking their case to the press. They always lose, but behold, a new "evil" has been created, completely out of whole cloth. I have many writer friends and I can tell you the entire critique of "Hollywood Accounting" profoundly ignorant. In the specific case of Art Buchwald, he wasn't screwed by Hollywood Accounting, he was screwed by Eddie Murphy stealing his story.

Tell me this: by what right does a screenwriter deserve more than the wages of "Hollywood Accounting"? How is Hollywood Accounting more fair than, say, the common dot-com tactic of paying an employee with stock options and then diluting them? Or the technology company policy of paying a patent filer with a flat bonus? The difference is moral opprobrium and marketing, nothing more.

The entire concept is fatuous; and the name "Hollywood Accounting" is meant to appeal to naive, parochial prejudices of Americans who assume that LA is filled with effeminate phonies, sin, whores and exploiters. I could call the GPL "Berkeley Dope-Smoker Copyright" by the same turn and be just as right.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

So big business wanting every drop of blood versus a man who just wants a piece of the pie is an entirely different situation entirely.

So people are only entitled to royalties if they really really need them? Thus, no rich person (or entity) should ever collect a royalty?

Hurt Locker really didn't profit.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[artor3]

The rule is this: we generally side against evil, in all its predatory, corrupt, and dishonourable ways.

Hahahahaha.... you side against "evil", eh? You torrent movies as some noble war against Hollywood accounting? Wherever would we be without our Honorable Okian Warrior to lead the charge against everything he determines is evil?

Quit masturbating to how wonderful you are, and just admit that you torrent movies because you want to and no one can stop you. It's okay, you won't get in trouble for it. And you'd certainly have a lot more credibility.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

FWIW, I haven't watched your movie, probably never will. And I consider your studio's attempt to blackmail people they suspected of piracy to be little better than thuggish banditry.

Voltage Pictures is a production company, not a studio. Kathryn Bigelow actually produced her following picture with Annapurna Pictures, which is funded by one of Larry Ellison's kids.

My actual studio is Sony Pictures. You guys are cool with Sony, right? =D

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Zaelath]

Did you just burn your straw man? ;)

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[artor3]

Everyone has a vested interest in their opinion. So what? It doesn't make them wrong. Seems like you just don't want to acknowledge the hypocrisy he's pointing out.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[sumdumass]

I strongly think it was just because of all the copyright enforcement France has engaged in with the attempts to protect their own media companies.

It is only fitting that French companies play by the same rules they and the French government attempt to force others to play by.

And I say that after watching movies all night on pirate websites that I would never pay to see in the first place.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

We need ten-year copyrights, not seventy. And "personal-consumption piracy" needs to be separated from corporate hijacking of someone's work, what happened right here.

How did you arrive at that number? Kinda arbitrary. I'd agree that the present system is pretty unworkable, though.

I don't agree that "what Slashdot hates is not copyright, it is the abuse of power by the wealthy and the corporations." I know a lot of people just squeaking by, and hoping that their next project hits, and if it does, copyright will be how they benefit. I think what Slashdot hates is certain ways of making money, I think Slashdot is producerist and technophilic: they think creative artists are phonies and not real creators, that people who do marketing and promotion are rentiers, and that the only people actually earning their wealth are coding, doing tech support, and possibly 3D printing Kickstarter prototypes.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Pseudonym Authority]

Clean room reverse engineering is already legal (patents not withstanding). WIne hasn't gotten any lawsuits from Microsoft.

Also, copyright is a lazy protection. If it weren't there and I absolutely had to keep you out, I could do things like encrypt the binary in parts so that it never appears in memory in it's entirety. It wouldn't stop anyone dedicated, but it'd keep out 99% of people.

that field would be far more advanced by today if we didn't have copyright

Doubt it. It's not advanced because it's not that interesting. Everyone can write code and share code and be sure that, because of copyright protection and whatever OSS license, it will be returned to the public. Surely this is better than having to fiddle with hex dumps for ten hours just to understand that they changed that int to a float.

(and already, despite copyrights, we're seeing hobby projects which disassemble amiga code and turn it into x86 binaries with added functionality like opengl graphics)

68K isn't the most complex processor in the world; it's pretty easy to understand. Slogging through disassembly of modern x86 produced by a compiler is a total bitch, (like when you first see a COBOL program that was written by multiple people over 20 years). Seriously, what the fuck is the instruction `CVTTPS2PI' supposed to be? Well, it converts two single floats to two signed integers by truncating the fractional part. Obvious, right?

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[citizenr]

Information wants to be free for me, but not for thee.

Was AFP wrong to take the images because it violated the profoundly-honored institution of copyright, which everyone on Slashdot naturally adores (heh), or because they're a rich corporations, and rich corporations are always wrong compared to "working men"?

because they made money from it

I eagerly awate assemblerex's demand for Voltage Pictures to be compensated millions of dollars for the bittorrented distribution of The Hurt Locker. I bring this up as someone who was employed on that film, and note that that money pays my salary on the next film...

Look into your contract sucker, do you really believe your payment was somehow related to how much money movie made? I wont even mention hollywood accounting.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[able1234au]

Big payouts like this are not in line with the actual loss. Was the image worth $1.2m? perhaps but i doubt it. Particularly with this being just one of many outlets that used the image. Do other photographers get that much? no. So it makes us all feel good until we realise that ultimately the costs are passed onto us. Instead the lawyers get rich and that just breeds more lawyers.

Big payouts for medical problems act as a lottery and while they look like they penalise the doctors they just penalise the rest of us. Instead provide payouts in a manner that alleviate the problems, with free medical and income replacement, instead of a massive, instant multi-millionaire payout. Which also pays for the big lawyer fees.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

they weren't trying to redistribute it for free, they were trying to get a fee for redistributing it.

With respect, nobody is trying to redistribute anything for free. Either the creator distributes it and gets paid admission, or Kim Dotcom distributes it and gets millions in ad impressions. Ad revenue pays for the "free media revolution".

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote from article: "The AFP editor, Mr Kaufman, said he believed the pictures were posted for public distribution."

If AFP won the case, then every person downloading things from bit torrent could claim they believed that movie, game, or whatever was posted there for public distribution. I've never seen a file with a visible copyright notice before downloading it, thus it's all freely available and put there by the publisher else it would be illegal and would have already been taken down by a take-down notice.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[able1234au]

I am not a libertarian and don't care about people getting "above their station". This gives more insight into you, than me. And if you think insurance companies get rid of quacks then you truly are delusional. This is also a reason why the U.S. has much more expensive medical care than most other comparable countries. And more lawyers than other countries too. And it just encourages people to do frivilous lawsuits hoping to win the big lottery.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

Zero Dark Thirty was paid for by Larry Ellison's daughter. Different company. Voltage has gone back to producing million dollar genre films and international acquisitions, which is to say, producing a Oscar winner for best picture has gotten them absolutely nowhere, but for the money, of which there was very little.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[suutar]

The problem I have with Hollywood Accounting is that I consider it very dishonest, to the point of fraud, for the producers/studio to imply that the movie might make a profit (by offering profit-based compensation) when history shows that the only part of the studio that makes a profit is marketing and distribution, by charging insane margins.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[able1234au]

Payouts to the victims should reflect the loss. Punitive damages should not be in cash or if in cash should be paid to the state, just as normal fines are. The focus should be on what is being done to avoid this problem in the future. So in this case AFP would have to show that they have the process and steps in place to ensure that the issue is not repeated. Punitive damages could be in the form of them doing charity work or other non-cash forms. If the directors have to give up every saturday for a year you can bet this will never happen again, if it is cash, then the insurance company pays or it comes from profits and nothing much changes.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Hurt Locker really didn't profit.

i'm sure that had nothing to do with it being a shitty movie.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

Can't decide if you forgot a smiley at the end or not.

My argument's quality is orthogonal to my employment.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[XaXXon]

I believe there is a strong difference between commercial and non-commercial copyright violations.

When you take what someone is trying to sell and sell it yourself, you've clearly crossed all moral boundaries. You've removed people who demonstrably will pay for the content from the pool of people to pay the creator.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

I think you need to do some more reading. No one is promised a profit in the situations you're talking about. Have you ever read a screenwriters contract? Or participated in WGA arbitration?

How would you feel if I told you I thought you weren't being paid enough at your job, therefore I was morally entitled to steal from your boss?

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Doubt it. It's not advanced because it's not that interesting. Everyone can write code and share code and be sure that, because of copyright protection and whatever OSS license, it will be returned to the public. Surely this is better than having to fiddle with hex dumps for ten hours just to understand that they changed that int to a float.

I think it would be just because of the sheer profit involved in doing so would be great. Take for example how some Chinese company wrote their own World of Warcraft client from scratch (deliberately sans the graphics) that blizzards servers can't distinguish from a real client so that they could run multiple instances of bots on fewer machines for gold farming.

However on that same token, anti-debugger code would probably become a lot more advanced as well.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[gman003]

My actual studio is Sony Pictures. You guys are cool with Sony, right? =D

Ha.

Haha.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[0123456]

How is this any different to the vast fines the IP Barons demand when someone downloads a song? Except that, in this case, they actually profitted from his work rather than just downloaded it to look at.

So long as copyright exists, media corporations should pay far more for violating it for commercial use than any individual for private use.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[0123456]

Voltage has gone back to producing million dollar genre films and international acquisitions, which is to say, producing a Oscar winner for best picture has gotten them absolutely nowhere, but for the money, of which there was very little.

Probably because it was a really crappy movie.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

2012 was a movie, some would call "shitty," that made $700 million. Shitty subjective quality is not, nor has ever been, a valid freetard alibi.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[suutar]

I realize nobody is promised a profit. My opinion has nothing to do with screenwriters in particular. I believe http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/ (particularly the balance sheet) explains my point of view sufficiently. After all, if big movies are so unprofitable, why do they keep making them?

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

Look into your contract sucker, do you really believe your payment was somehow related to how much money movie made?

I'm very grateful I don't pay my rent with that kind of deal — no one does, though some producers would love to switch to that model. They call it "innovative" and dangle tales of Kickstarter millionaires in front of the desperate and stupid. I read my deal memo very carefully.

I have a union, thank god. Actually my pension is paid by profit sharing that counts as a "cost" from a "net" writer's profit computation (tee hee).

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[able1234au]

Because we dont pass the costs on...

And in any case i dont agree with the IP Barons exploiting us any more than i agree with lawyers exploiting anyone.

These payouts get positioned as "justice" but they are not really.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[crioca]

I eagerly awate assemblerex's demand for Voltage Pictures to be compensated millions of dollars for the bittorrented distribution of The Hurt Locker. I bring this up as someone who was employed on that film, and note that that money pays my salary on the next film...

Well how about you get 50% of the profits that were made by everyone who distributed The Hurt Locker over BitTorrent.

That would come to... carry the one... uh, nothing. You get zero dollars. Wow, Who'da thunk it that there's a difference between pirating something for profit and pirating something for personal use.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[EdIII]

There is far less hypocrisy than you think around here regarding copyright.

I respect copyright. Specifically, I respect that idea that on a very temporary basis you are afforded some legal rights that allow you to profit from the work. Obviously, you're doing this as part of a group and that applies as well.

What I do not respect, and you can go suck a big bag of dirty dicks for, is any kind of support for:

- The curtailment and abrogation of my rights and freedoms in order to suit your agenda in any way, shape, or form.
- You're bullshit tendencies towards insane entitlement. Such as, I don't like homosexuals or pink unicorns. You can't have my art anywhere near that. You don't care if I did pay for it. You demand that your rights far exceed the scope of copyright and enter the realm of megalomania.
- Any tripe that exits your pie hole about how ideas and expressions are property and treated as if they are physical.
- The complete and utter disregard for the truth when arguing about copyright, the economy, and it's vital role in a society.
- The complete and utter disregard for the sanctity of privacy and anonymity as a basic human right in the most selfish way possible. To further your own enrichment, create false property, and attempt to create dynasties (pseudo or otherwise) founded upon said false property.
- The ridiculous sense of entitlement that you be compensated richly for intellectual property you never even contributed to at all. It was daddy that made those contributions 50 years ago and you want to ride his accomplishments for the rest of your life.

Other than that, I have no problem shelling out a couple of bucks to compensate you for your work. Thanks for helping make those movies. Seriously.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

Right, I mean with that Harry Potter statement, the word "profit" appears nowhere on it. Net participants don't get "profit," they get "proceeds," as you can clearly see there.

Movies can be very profitable, and studios, where publicly traded, report their profits pursuant to completely legitimate GAAP standards (which suck and are gamed by all corporations, not just "Hollywood studios").

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be implying that we have a double standard in judging the moral position of copyright litigants.

AHHAHAHAHHAHAH

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. I've been reading Slashdot basically since it started, and it's so far beyond a double standard it's not even funny. Techies on Slasdot and other similar boards do not care about the "moral position" of anyone. There is one, and only one, consideration when it comes to Slashdot users evaluating how copyrights should be enforced. That consideration is: "do I get free stuff out of this"? If the answer is yes, then copyrights are evil, shouldn't exist and shouldn't be enforced, information wants to be free, blah blah blah. Otherwise, the position wavers between complete indifference and mild amusement at third parties attacking each other, much like kids on the playground laughing at a slap fight (especially when a littler kid beats a bigger kid, as is the case here).

To reiterate, no one on this board, not one single person, gives a FLYING FUCK about the "moral position" of ANYTHING. They just want their free stuff. That's it.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a lot of people just squeaking by, and hoping that their next project hits, and if it does, copyright will be how they benefit.

The world is full of people 'just squeaking by'. What makes you think you're special?

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[russotto]

My actual studio is Sony Pictures. You guys are cool with Sony, right? =D

Is that the Sony of Sony v. Universal, who along with establishing the idea that time-shifting of television programs was fair use, also defeated the idea that manufacture and sale any device which might enable an infringing use was itself a secondary infringement?

Or is that the Sony which put rootkits on their CDs as a copy protection scheme?

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[russotto]

Well how about you get 50% of the profits that were made by everyone who distributed The Hurt Locker over BitTorrent.

Now there's some Hollywood accounting for you.

(BTW, I obtained The Hurt Locker legally, so no checks for $0.00 from me)

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

The complete and utter disregard for the sanctity of privacy and anonymity as a basic human right in the most selfish way possible.

On what ground do you claim this as a right? What is the historical basis for anonymity and privacy as a "right," not just from the government but from others?

- The ridiculous sense of entitlement that you be compensated richly for intellectual property you never even contributed to at all. It was daddy that made those contributions 50 years ago and you want to ride his accomplishments for the rest of your life.

I uh... I don't know how this particular wrong, as egregious as it can be, is particularly exceptional compared to any other abuse of dynastic wealth. I believe in a 90% death tax, but I'm not going to be copacetic with breaking the back of the copyright regime while hedge fund execs get to pass on their billions through trusts. The weird crazy-long limitation on copyrights was demanded by artists (and their corporations, ha ha) in order to keep parity with other bizarre state-supported wealth diversion schemes.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[iluvcapra]

Both!

Or maybe, Neither! This is the Sony that was once called "Columbia Pictures," bought by the Japanese from the Coca-Cola Company in the late 1980s.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Okian Warrior]

What's the problem with Hollywood Accounting? Do you have any actual complaint here? The way writers are paid for work is completely regular and legal, and all people outside the business ever hear are the stories, heavily promoted, of certain individuals who thought they could get a better deal by taking their case to the press.

Hollywood accounting is essentially lying about profits so that the producers don't have to pay "percent of profit" agreements. I think the best example is Forrest Gump, about a year after release it was the third-highest-grossing movie of all time, having taken in around $661 million against a $55 million cost to produce and (at that time) still sitting at a $65 million loss.

Winston Groom [writer of "Forrest Gump"] was only made whole because he had you guys over a barrel: you couldn't make the sequel without his blessing, and he had been burned by the original movie.

Producers have a well-earned reputation as predatory, greedy, grasping, and immoral. I can remember reading occasional accounts of producer behaviour starting with the Three Stooges, with occasional first-hand and investigatory reports ever since with no change in perspective. A simple Google search exposes your history for all to see. You are widely regarded as bad people.

How is Hollywood Accounting more fair than, say, the common dot-com tactic of paying an employee with stock options and then diluting them? Or the technology company policy of paying a patent filer with a flat bonus? The difference is moral opprobrium and marketing, nothing more.

I think you meant to say "less fair".

We don't support companies that screw with employees either, we're pretty consistent about the "fairness" issue.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[HereIAmJH]

Copyright needs to take into account the type of property being protected. Copyrights should expire at a point where the work is still useful to the public, otherwise it is allowing individuals to take from the public domain and perverting the purpose of copyrights. Does it make sense for software copyrights to have the same duration as movies and books? Patents are only 20 years. As a software developer, my opinion is that 10 or 15 years would be sufficient for software copyright.

As it currently stands, copyright on books and movies will likely never expire in the US. 25 years should be sufficient for their creators to earn a healthy profit. But as long as money talks in Washington we will never see an expiration of copyrights from early 20th century.

Also understand that Slashdot is a diverse community. I personally don't agree with anything that you think 'Slashdot' believes. And I've been here through the discussions of Hurt Locker lawsuits and the Sony rootkits.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[guises]

"Vested interest" != "interest." Either by the dictionary definition or in the way that the grandparent was using the phrase, they are different things. You can easily have an opinion on something in which you have no vested interest.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Zaelath]

Fair enough. Though the difference in financial success between THL and ZDT is the epic level of hype generated for the later, and the support Sony was able to give it.

Admittedly, I haven't seen ZDT either, for much the same reasons.. but a film that opens on nearly 3000 screens is going to gross more than one that opens on 300.

Besides, ZDT benefited from "patriotic fervor". If it followed the usual 2:1 ratio of foreign to domestic grosses it would have made less than half of what it did; instead it has a ratio of 1:3. I'm sure there's a Hollywood accountant somewhere complaining that it lost $250 million in box office due to that :)

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[gman003]

How did we arrive at life of author plus seventy years, or 95 years from publication for "authorless" works? You cannot simply say that my number is wrong - defend your own position.

As for my own, it is partially based on computer history. Ten-year-old software is old enough to be of minimal use for current productive work, but is still important for learning and for maintenance of historical hardware.

However, it is also based on cultural relevance. It's enough time for the original work to be commercially exhausted, but for further adaptations (eg. for music, samples or covers) to remain relevant. This is the approximate amount of time it takes for a series reboot to occur, or for a movie to be remade, if we want to keep it relevant to your particular field instead of mine.

But yes, the ten-year figure was rather arbitrary. I'd be happy with a twenty-year term as well. Just think, for your own use, what would be available. Imagine film students learning their craft by re-editing classics. Imagine films being translated and dubbed into any language with a speaker who cares enough to translate it. And instead of these things happening in the shadows, hushed up for fear of lawyers, it being done out in the open for all to see and benefit from.

Or, for your own benefit, imagine you could use any song over ten years old in your soundtrack? Go ahead, think of whatever song would be just *perfect* for whatever moment in whatever film you're currently working on - nine times out of ten, it will be out of copyright under a ten-year term.

How much profit do you think Return of the King is still making? The Last Samurai? Finding Nemo? What about the 2003 movies that weren't top-grossing already - say, 2 Fast 2 Furious, Dreamcatcher and The Room?

Let's go back to 1993 then - are Jurassic Park, Mrs. Doubtfire and Schindler's List still making much money? If we made those films absolutely free, would any of the people involved be noticeably affected? And those are from the top five highest-grossing films from that year, the ones most likely to have a long profitable period.

So it's a reasonable statement to claim that artists would not be seriously affected by a significantly reduced copyright, save for those that are coasting off work done decades ago and have done nothing worthwhile in a decade. And it's also reasonable to claim that a reduced copyright would drive creativity, by opening decades of masterpieces to new use. Remasters of old movies and songs will be ubiquitous, not something done only for the commercial cream-of-the-crop.

And what's more, True Art, capital A, has a message, something its creator wanted to say to the world. Reducing copyright lets that message be heard while it is still relevant - and is that not worth doing?

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[whoever57]

Winston Groom [writer of "Forrest Gump"] was only made whole because he had you guys over a barrel: you couldn't make the sequel without his blessing, and he had been burned by the original movie.

At this point, any agent who recommends that his client accepts a contract that promises a percentage of the net profits should be dismissed immediately (as incompetent), or perhaps sued for not acting in his/her client's best interests.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Now the other Party says that we are two Americas. Don't you believe that either.

I have visited our troops in Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia, Germany and all over the world. I've visited our troops in California, where they train before they go overseas. I have visited our military hospitals. And I tell you this: that our men and women in uniform do not believe there are two Americas. They believe there's one America and they are fighting for it!

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Theaetetus]

with lack of copyright there would be nothing from stopping reverse engineering and modifying the programs. that field would be far more advanced by today if we didn't have copyright(and already, despite copyrights, we're seeing hobby projects which disassemble amiga code and turn it into x86 binaries with added functionality like opengl graphics).

With lack of copyright, there would be major non-disclosure agreements and contractual restrictions against reverse engineering and modifying the programs. Sure, you could reverse engineer something without running afoul of copyright law, and they'd take your house and garnish your wages for the next hundred years since it may not necessarily be dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Theaetetus]

However, it is also based on cultural relevance. It's enough time for the original work to be commercially exhausted

Mix stations, broadcasting "the greatest hits of the 70s, 80s, 90s, and today!" frown at your shenanigans.

but for further adaptations (eg. for music, samples or covers) to remain relevant. This is the approximate amount of time it takes for a series reboot to occur, or for a movie to be remade, if we want to keep it relevant to your particular field instead of mine.

But you have a point here, but your solution isn't tailored to your point. Copyright involves a bundle of rights - the right to copy and distribute, as well as the right to make derivative works. There's a huge argument to be made that the exclusive period for making derivative works should be less, as you point out - there are series reboots, remixes, sampling, etc. and if the original author isn't going to do it, then we shouldn't have to wait a century. Where would electronica or hip hop be without sampling?
But that's sampling and reboots and the like... Copying and distribution of the original work? That doesn't have the same moral argument for the creation of new works... If you want to copy and redistribute Star Wars - and mind you, the original Star Wars, not your Minecraft-based recreation that replaces stormtroopers with zombies- then why should you get to do so for free, merely because a decade has passed? The original is certainly still in publication, and there's a market for it.

Basically, it's the difference between an homage and parody, and plagiarism. We do want to protect people who make something new based on the bones of something that existed before. But simply copying something and presenting it as your own? Why should we give you any protection, and why should we harm the original author when you're just a copycat?

That's why I'd advocate a split copyright term. Life+70 if you want for the copying and distribution of the original work, or whatever other term makes sense. 5-10 years for derivative works. It even fits with many of your justifications that aren't based on just a "why should people make money from their creations for years" complaint:

Imagine film students learning their craft by re-editing classics. Imagine films being translated and dubbed into any language with a speaker who cares enough to translate it.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Nyder]

Information wants to be free for me, but not for thee.

Was AFP wrong to take the images because it violated the profoundly-honored institution of copyright, which everyone on Slashdot naturally adores (heh), or because they're a rich corporations, and rich corporations are always wrong compared to "working men"?

I eagerly awate assemblerex's demand for Voltage Pictures to be compensated millions of dollars for the bittorrented distribution of The Hurt Locker. I bring this up as someone who was employed on that film, and note that that money pays my salary on the next film...

I'm going to point out that due to Hollywood accounting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting that any money you were promised on sales of the movie, you were never getting anyways. In fact, the Hurt Locker sucked so bad, no one wanted to pay to see it in the theaters and no one wants DVD's or Bluerays of it.

Rest of your comment is typical of people who don't understand how corporations are raping the public domain in the name of profit.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[roc97007]

> Was AFP wrong to take the images because it violated the profoundly-honored institution of copyright, which everyone on Slashdot naturally adores (heh), or because they're a rich corporations, and rich corporations are always wrong compared to "working men"?

AFP was wrong to take the images because they didn't own them. As a professional photographer, I expect to be paid for my work, unless I choose to give it away. (Which I have chosen to do on occasion, usually requiring a photo credit.) Using my work for financial gain without my permission is theft, plain and simple. On the other hand, I photograph events, and I allow a reasonable amount of "fair use", as long as the user does not profit from the work and I get a photo credit.

My website has incorporated into it artwork that it so happens I did not create. And I paid the owner for the right to use those works, because I did not own them. As I treat others, so I expect to be treated. This is not hard to understand. It's not a matter of "the honored institution of copyright" (which is arguably broken) it's a matter of taking something without permission and using it for your own financial gain. If you want pictures of the flood, go out and take your own damned pictures, or pay me for mine. (I haven't photographed a flood since the Feather River, CA levee break in 1986 -- floods are not my thing -- but the point still stands.)

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Nyder]

Hollywood accounting is essentially lying about profits so that the producers don't have to pay "percent of profit" agreements.

If you can show me a writer's contract that says "percent of profit," I'll surrender my account.

The entire "Hollywood Accounting" narrative was invented by the lawyers of disgruntled writers.

Here you go:

Winston Groom's price for the screenplay rights to his novel Forrest Gump included a share of the profits; however, due to Hollywood accounting, the film's commercial success was converted into a net loss, and Groom received nothing.[7] That being so, he has refused to sell the screenplay rights to the novel's sequel, stating that he "cannot in good conscience allow money to be wasted on a failure".

Stan Lee, co-creator of the character Spider-Man, filed a lawsuit after the producers of the movie Spider-Man (2002) did not give him a portion of the gross revenue.[8]

The estate of Jim Garrison sued Warner Bros. for their share of the profits from the movie JFK, which was based on Garrison's book On the Trail of the Assassins.[9]

Art Buchwald received a settlement after his lawsuit Buchwald v. Paramount over Paramount's use of Hollywood accounting. The court found Paramount's actions "unconscionable", noting that it was impossible to believe that a movie (1988's Eddie Murphy comedy Coming to America) which grossed US$350 million failed to make a profit, especially since the actual production costs were less than a tenth of that. Paramount settled for an undisclosed sum, rather than have its accounting methods closely scrutinized.

The film My Big Fat Greek Wedding was considered hugely successful for an independent film, yet according to the studio, the film lost money. Accordingly, the cast (with the exception of Nia Vardalos who had a separate deal) sued the studio for their part of the profits. The original producers of the film have sued Gold Circle Films due to Hollywood accounting practices because the studio has claimed the film, which cost less than $6 million to make and made over $350 million at the box office, lost $20 million.[10]

Hollywood accounting is not limited to movies. An example is the Warner Bros. television series Babylon 5 created by J. Michael Straczynski. Straczynski, who wrote 90% of the episodes in addition to producing the show, would receive a generous cut of profits if not for Hollywood accounting.[citation needed] The series, which was profitable in each of its five seasons from 1993–1998, has garnered more than US$1 billion for Warner Bros., most recently US$500 million in DVD sales alone. But in the last profit statement given to Straczynski, Warner Bros. claimed the property was $80 million in debt. "Basically," says Straczynski, "by the terms of my contract, if a set on a WB movie burns down in Botswana, they can charge it against B5's profits."[11]

Peter Jackson, director of The Lord of the Rings, and his studio Wingnut Films, brought a lawsuit against New Line Cinema after "an audit... on part of the income of The Fellowship of the Ring". Jackson stated this is regarding "certain accounting practices", which may be a reference to Hollywood accounting. In response, New Line stated that their rights to a film of The Hobbit were time-limited, and since Jackson would not work with them again until the suit was settled, he would not be asked to direct The Hobbit, as had been anticipated.[12] Fifteen actors are suing New Line Cinema, claiming that they have never received their 5% of revenue from merchandise sold in relation to the movie, which contains their likeness.[13] Similarly, the Tolkien estate sued New Line, claiming that their contract entitled them to 7.5% of the gross receipts of the $6 billion hit.[14] Overall according to New Line's accounts the trilogy made "horrendous losses" and no profit at all.[15]

According to Lucasfilm, Return of the Jedi despite having earned $475 million at the box-office against a budget o

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Xeno man]

They just want their free stuff. That's it.

No, that is how you justify your arrogance and and why you act so condescending. No true understanding of whats going on, you just simplify everyone as kids wanting free stuff. I bet when you saw the title you got so hard thinking about screaming "double standards" at the users and how morally superior you think you are.

I considered at this point explaining everything but frankly it would fall of deaf ears.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[FuzzNugget]

It's about usage and proportionality.

This was wide scale COMMERCIAL usage. Were all the licensing paid out appropriately, it may well have reached that number (I don't necessarily agree that "licensing" is right, but that's another issue for another day)

Large corporations can afford a huge payout and they should also have to play by different rules because of how said largeness affords them power and control that you and I can only dream of.

Individuals can't be expected to play by the same copyright rules and owe millions for downloading a movie for personal viewing. Kind of like how you aren't expected to file paperwork and require oversight from the SEC when you buy lunch for a friend. Both are be equally incredulous.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

If a few million dollars start falling from the sky, perhaps there will be more noise about a movie originally named The Something Jacket from someone (other than Sarver) that comes out of the woodwork...

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Yvanhoe]

I'll be happy with this photographer getting zero dollars from his work when any copyrighted work can be copied without problem.

Actually, I endorse a return to a sane copyright law: 5 to 20 years from first publication, then it becomes public domain.

Copyright laws suck, because indeed information wants to be free. Today, however, it is not. So if someone makes money by claiming property over some information, at least do it by giving a part of the money to the guys with a minimum of merits.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[slew]

Q: if it is common knowledge of Hollywood accounting tactics, why do people still make deals that depend on it not being the way it commonly is?

I asked this question once to my cousin who is in the business (actor, writer and is dating a director) who basically told me that this is mostly something that everyone knows about but must live with (if you don't take the deal they offer, they will find someone else). Most contracts are apparently standard SAG negotiated rates so are roughly based on the gross (albeit a small percentage, minus some hefty, but standard deductions). If you somehow get a residual check, it was "Mailbox Magic" (or something like that).

Apparently the ones you hear about mostly the press are separate non-standard contracts with individual talent that are apparently poorly negotiated and/or executed by agents. I have no knowledge of the details of such contracts, but I'm guessing that they more closely resemble hand-shake deals more than a legal treatise (which makes it unsurprising that one of the parties can drive trucks through the contract)...

IANAL, but my understanding is that it's easier to claim both sided must have agreed to common-sense understanding of a clause of a well-trodden standard-issue contract than a one-off contract which is why the rank-and-file gets the standard-issue one.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words, you refuse to answer his question, using the defense 'but he wasn't going to make money anyways... so it's not like it was wrong'.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[TechyImmigrant]

>With lack of copyright, there would be major non-disclosure agreements and contractual restrictions against reverse engineering and modifying the programs.

There are major non-disclosure agreements and contractual restrictions against reverse engineering and modifying the programs.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Maxo-Texas]

There really is no morality.

Only power struggles between different interests groups.

The power can take different forms- up to and including violence/murder/mass murder.

The current "war" around copyright is a war of persuasion.

But neither copyright violation nor copyright support have valid claims to inherent morality or moral superiority.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[gl4ss]

your comment makes no sense and is not relevant.

"Either the creator distributes it and gets paid admission" how about creator distributes and pays for the hosting costs? that's pretty usual after all.

I don't think you quite grasp what getty is, it's an image bank you can buy pictures from for publishing(so you can have legit pictures which supposedly pay money to the author of the picture).

for free in case of AP would have been just publishing it as part of publishing news about the countrys crisis. many photographers want their stuff to be used in this way. very few photographers however want someone else to be uploading their pictures into an image bank to be sold for money they never see.

but you left out conviniently a quite common way to distribute media. what if I took a picture and bought server time and bandwidth to distribute my pictures? I wouldn't be getting paid. even besides that the "free media revolution" is more about not having to pay extra money on top of transmission and copying costs - the way it used to be in 16th century with their media revolution so cost of distribution becomes the limiting factor in distributing information - and the revolution stems from that cost being so low - so you can have things like wikipedia, linux distributions you don't have to buy on cd's and so forth..

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[InsightfulPlusTwo]

Well, I for one agree with what you are saying. Slashdot's opinion on copyright issues is mostly ignorant, inconsistent, populist BS, as the comments below abundantly illustrate. However, bear in mind that Slashdot is an entertainment site with no legal standing.

My two cents:

• $1.3 million seems like a lot to be compensated for a couple of pictures.
• 250,000 people died in those earthquakes. All we can think of is the money?

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[gl4ss]

that's because wine is clean room.

the projects I was talking are anything but cleanroom. doing development like that today is a total no no if you expect a possibility to release with your own name and commercial use.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[IRWolfie-]

The GPL exists because, at present, copyright on code etc exists. If copyright did not exist on code, then the GPL would no longer be necessary.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Alioth]

No, I don't think you understand the Slashdotter's complaint in this case.

The issue here is the big copyright holders constantly try to get legislation passed and put in technological means (enforced by legislation) to stop people copying from them. They even go to the extent of trying to introduce "piracy is wrong" lessons in the school curriculum. But at the same time they are quite happy to pirate material off anyone they perceive to be unable to defend themselves, a classic case of "do what I say, not what I do". Quite rightly Slashdotters feel that those who constantly preach the "don't pirate our stuff" message and even go as far as getting legislation passed should be practising what they preach.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

"It's not that we always side with "the little guy" - we frequently side against small vendors making money off of illegal copying, such as Chinese illegal DVD vendors or businesses who sell open-source software."

Businesses are allowed to sell open-source software, at least by the two most popular types of free/open-source licenses, BSD and GPL.

Even morally, which is different from what's legally allowed, it's okay to sell open-source software, provided you give something back to the open-source developers, in terms of code or money. That's how the Wine (GPL) project is funded. What most free software developers hate are "freeloaders" who rebrand a program by making only trivial changes to it or, worse, vendors who ruin a program's "reputation" by adding adware and other crap (usually but not always wrapped around installers of dubious quality).

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[sjames]

You are discounting several factors in the decision making process. One, the corporation that got busted (getty) has never hesitated to enforce it's own copyrights, so there's a strong element of hypocrisy when they lift someone else's copyrighted works. Next there is the commercial vs. personal use difference.

I eagerly await Getty announcing that if you see their works online somewhere it's fair game for commercial use.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[sjames]

Hollywood Accounting is fraud at it's finest. According to Hollywood, no movie in their entire history has ever turned a dime of profit yet they don't seem to be sitting on the corner with 'will work for food' signs.

When people figured out that you have to demand a percentage of the gross, they invented a new term that means what everyone calls gross and then re-defined gross to mean after deducting an amazing variety of trumped up expenses that funnel back through under the table ownership.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[mcgrew]

Copyright worked as intended in this case. They were new works rather than some fifty year old song, and the pirates appropriated the work for commercial use. They were getting money that should have gone to the photographer.

In your case, someone DLing "The Hurt Locker" costs you nothing, the uploader gains nothing, and the downloader might think "hey, great movie" and see the sequel in the theater.

BTW, Read my book. For free. Yes, you can buy it, too; the printed version is superior -- typeface, etc. That's in stark contrast to your movie. The download is a superior product to the sold copy, which makes you sit through copyright warnings and maybe even advertisements.

Your employers are stupid. People will pay for quality.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Joining Yet Again]

If oxygen were privatised, then a lot of oxygen billing agent job positions would suddenly be filled.

The right for people to breathe air freely would not be trumped by the right for oxygen billing agents to keep being paid.

Newayz, the immoral act here is greed.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Hydian]

It made $49mil theatrically worldwide on a $15mil budget. Profits were probably hurt by the distribution issues, releasing an independent during summer blockbuster season, negative response from vets, and (later) the lawsuit against the film. File sharing did not really impact the theatrical release. It only made $145k on its opening weekend which is before file sharing would even be able to kick in. Catching Fire opened to $161mil this past weekend and file sharing hasn't gone away, so obviously that wasn't the problem.

They sold over $30mil in DVDs in the US in the first 8 months (a DVD that was very light on features by the way.) I'm sure that the DVD sales were negatively impacted by the filesharing lawsuits (I bought it on DVD and promptly got rid of it without even watching the movie as soon as the news broke.) Even people I know who aren't in touch with such topics were aware that people were getting sued for "watching" the Hurt Locker. The lawsuits killed any and all potential that the movie had to resurrect itself on DVD and destroyed the momentum that it had gained during the awards season.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

compensated by whom? who made millions off the torrents of the hurt locker? where's your simple profit taking as you had in this case with a third party reselling a copyrighted work for profit?

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[fa2k]

I eagerly awate assemblerex's demand for Voltage Pictures to be compensated millions of dollars for the bittorrented distribution of The Hurt Locker. I bring this up as someone who was employed on that film, and note that that money pays my salary on the next film...

Good to point out hypocricy, but BAD to bring up "The Hurt Locker". The company made absolute arses of themselves with their rhetoric against file sharers. Most of Hollywood manages to somewhat maintain their dignity while speaking out against piracy.

As for slashdot being hypocrites (ignoring that the people commenting pro-Morel in this story aren't necessarily the same as those who come out against Hollywood), I think it's mainly a subjective moral judgement. There are many substantive differences between the cases, like the pirates doing individual infringement vs. Getty selling the image, and the predatory practices of Hollywood companies, but in the end it may not be possible to construct an all-encompassing slashdot-approved framework for what is bad infringement and what is bad enforcement. I known it when I see it. Sorry, I don't like these fuzzy standards either, but it's not like it mattters, the law is the law.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[mysidia]

How about this then... instead of negotiating for percent of gross; negotiate for Greater of a percentage of the gross, and percentage paid out to the studio and investors.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[mi]

But Mike Masnick says that you're welcome to copy and redistribute all of his painstaking work on Techdirt without compensating

That's his decision — and he is entitled to it.

Besides, as he explains the "marginal cost of an infinite good is zero", so therefore the price should be zero.

I fail to see the logic here. Why does the price have to be zero? Marginal cost may be getting ever closer to zero — sure, with every item sold (err, downloaded), the hyperbola gets lower and lower. But meanwhile the maker needs to eat and a raise family. And he still needs to recoup the original — not marginal — costs sunk into production.

That's if you are past the ethical problems of counting other people's monies — as Mr. Masnick, evidently, is...

BTW Mike holds a college degree in economics!

So did Karl Marx... If not a formal degree, then surely an equivalent.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I have long awaited the moment I could point out a poster with a vested interest in his/her opinion.

He said he's paid a salary, not a share of the movie revenue. That's a bit lame for a "vested interest".

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[bsane]

So SAG isn't doing their job? Or they negotiate for the 99%s and when the 1% writes gold, they get screwed?

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[mi]

You must be new here. GPL only works because of copyright.

Except GPL calls itself "copyleft" and talks rather disparagingly about any other kind:

The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works. [...] To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights.

It works, because the rest of society respects copyrights — even of those people, who do not themselves respect them. But the photographer described in TFA is exactly the evil greedy kind of character, who'd gladly deny you certain rights (like right-click->Save Image), if he could.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Was AFP wrong to take the images because it violated the profoundly-honored institution of copyright, which everyone on Slashdot naturally adores (heh), or because they're a rich corporations, and rich corporations are always wrong compared to "working men"?

The MegaCorps want "consumers" to play and pay by the copyright rules. Fair enough. Then they should play and pay by them as well.

In the modern age it seems that the only "sin" left is being an hypocrite, which AFP/Getty were in this case.

As for the idea of copyright in general: there (used to?) be a social contract where your idea was protect for a "limited" time so you could make a profit from making it, and then it went into the public domain so that society could use it to build/create new things. The MegaCorps convinced/paid the legislatures to extend that time to be many decades. To me they broken the social contract of the "limited" part, and so I have no problem with making a copy of an idea.

If the MAFIAA were reasonable in their desires for profit, I would be reasonable in my desires for spreading ideas.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Charliemopps]

This is what copyright and patents are for... Protecting small inventors/artists from having their work stolen by someone that already has the infrastructure to take their product to market so fast that the original producer of the work has no conceivable chance of competing. So this is a rare instance where we get to see it work as it was intended. In most cases today, copyright and patents are used to stifle innovation, prevent progress and keep alive decades old business models that should have gone extinct ten years ago. Yes, Slashdot visitors have no love for the abuse of copyrights and patents, but that doesn't mean they oppose the entire concept.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there's a sucker born every minute, and it's not always widely known until after you've fallen for it. Especially for the younger artists/musicians/actors/etc out on their first big promotion.

In the music industry new bands tend to be scouted out and tricked into signing a rather informal looking "intent to produce an album" agreement with a record label only to find out it has all the legal force of a contract - where the contract's abusive nature isn't given out until later.. which they may certainly refuse, but will then be unable to perform/make music/be a fucking band until after they agree to a future contract offer. Of which they notice each following contract is worse than the previous and often forces them to agree to make more than one album.

My sister's trying to get into get into being a published author. I use to tell her all about the music industry and others that would do all these slimy backhanded tricks and she essentially wouldn't listen/believe it. Nowadays I'm the one listening to her about how all these very same tricks are used against authors. Luckily she's doing a lot of research beforehand. There's lots of people who are too excited to getting their first big break to realize what they're signing away on the dotted line.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

parochial prejudices of Americans who assume that LA is filled with effeminate phonies, sin, whores and exploiters

I lived in LA for 10 years and I can confirm this assessment to be mostly true. The only dirtier, seedier place I have ever lived is NYC and I've lived all over the world.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Jason Levine]

Few on Slashdot actually think that Copyright should be killed off entirely. Most would like to see it modified such as a reduction in copyright length and lower penalties for non-commercial infringement. (I think that the few who would want it killed off completely haven't thought through what that would mean - such as companies being able to take any open source code and use it as their own without any license restrictions.) In this case, though, the copyright was clearly still in effect *and* it was used for commercial purposes therefore the photographer was entitled to compensation.

As for the example you brought up, I would never defend someone for pirating music/movies. If you like it enough, buy it. If you can't afford it or think the price is too high, don't buy it. (It's not like we're living in an age where there isn't a ton of content to consume.) My only quibble with movie companies going after pirates are the items I mentioned before: copyright term length and penalties for non-commercial infringement. Retaining copyright for 100+ years completely destroys the Public Domain which was the bargain that we were supposed to gain by allowing copyright in the first place. In addition, having a $150,000 fine for one instance of an unauthorized movie/music download seems excessive. This winds up could bankrupt people which, in turn, means that people can be accused and forced to settle even if they are innocent because the penalties are too high to risk. Something more along the lines of ten times market value of the item seems more appropriate. It would still be high, but not "bankrupt you for life" high.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Somebody Is Using My]

At this point, any agent who recommends that his client accepts a contract that promises a percentage of the net profits should be dismissed immediately (as incompetent), or perhaps sued for not acting in his/her client's best interests.

While this is true, it also condemns the "accounting" used by Hollywood in the same breath.

Just because "that's the way it is" doesn't mean it is right.

Movies are incredibly profitable for the Hollywood corporations. If their accounting methods were fair and above board, requesting a percentage of the net profits would be an equally fair way to distribute the monies of a successful movie. The salaried workers of the studios would get their weekly pay-check, and the contracted directors, actors, etc. would get paid based on the quality of their work, encouraging them to make the best movie they can.

That lawyers and agents have to demand a piece of the gross is a symptom of the problem, not the solution.

The Hollywood system is corrupt to its core, so it is no wonder it garners so little sympathy from Slashdot, even when it sometimes is in the right. Having bilked so many people out of billions over the years, few feel any hypocrisy in rooting for their opponents if it means Hollywood gets some long overdue comeuppance.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[dbIII]

What's the problem with Hollywood Accounting?

All that and no mention of the major reason blockbusters make a loss on paper - tax avoidance.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[IndustrialComplex]

I'll quit complaining when I can easily find a card which allows me to capture HDMI audio/video into my PC. I'm tired of having to rely on the functionality of HDMI (and HDCP) supporting boxes in order to manage my AV systems.

Seriously, if someone has a good suggestion for an HDMI input card...

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Theaetetus]

>With lack of copyright, there would be major non-disclosure agreements and contractual restrictions against reverse engineering and modifying the programs.

There are major non-disclosure agreements and contractual restrictions against reverse engineering and modifying the programs.

There, fixed that for you.

Customers aren't generally required to sign NDAs, because copyright law provides protection without requiring them. Sorry that point went so far over your head.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[operagost]

You assume the average Slashdotter (in 2013) understands that. On Slashdot 2003, this was expected.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Travelsonic]

*yawns* usual misinterpretation of an argument some make, and misapplication of that misinterpretation to everybody creating a false contradiction/double standard that ignores that Slashdot is not a singular hive-mind entity, but a site made up of lots of people with opinions - shared, similar, and completely different about different matters.

Remind me again, how in the fuck is this insightful?

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[TechyImmigrant]

They are often required to sign non reversing engineering requirements and non-review agreements, which is an NDA by another name.

CAD tools are notorious for this.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[sjames]

They're well ahead of you. The cost of making the movie will soar. They'll pay $1000 each for sandwiches served on location (to the catering service owned by studio exec A) and rent personal vehicles for $10,000/day (from the rental company owned by studio exec B). etc.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Theaetetus]

They are often required to sign non reversing engineering requirements and non-review agreements, which is an NDA by another name.

CAD tools are notorious for this.

Yes, but you're not typically required to do so when you purchase the latest Batman movie.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[mcgrew]

If copyright were only ten years, Asimov wouldn't have made a dime from the Foundation trilogy. An editor at Doubleday was flabbergasted that Asimov hadn't received a single royalty in ten years (the books didn't sell, the publisher was weak in marketing) and only after Doubleday bought publication rights from Gnome did Asimov see any money.

I'm just now getting Nobots published, your ten year time period would limit my protection to six years, since I starteed working on it in 2009 (it started with a slashdot comment).

That said, twenty years is plenty of time (especially if an extension could be granted) and for software, ten would probably be more appropriate. The present length is absurdly long and harms creativity -- art is like science, in that everything new comes from the old.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[TechyImmigrant]

Right. Two things that won't happen: Me signing an NDA for a Batman movie or me purchasing a Batman movie.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[lgw]

if you come out of that thing feeling good about the Iraq War, you're a moron.

So, "yes" to the masturbatory fan-fiction then. A bold, shocking, profound artistic statement would show only the good things that came of some war - every critic would trash it, but it might make people think. A moving showing "war is bad, mmmmkay" is just expected and vulgar.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[lgw]

Explain to me how me downloading a copy of Hurt Locker, which I wouldn't never spend money to watch, own, or rent, is going to affect your bottom line?

Did you watch it? Then it reduced your appetite for paid films. OTOH, many, many people torrent 10x as many films as they will ever watch, at which point the torrenting really is irrelevant to anything except hard drive sales.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[slew]

So SAG isn't doing their job? Or they negotiate for the 99%s and when the 1% writes gold, they get screwed?

Actually, SAG isn't doing their job** and they negotiate for the 99%.
The 1% isn't doing any better, but the 1% has better PR.

**Example, SAG negotiated to give away 80% of the DVD revenue (the formula only applies to 20% of the gross). Maybe they'll do better at the New Media negotiations... or not...

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[im_thatoneguy]

Movies though get sold for TV all the time. You could say that people who go to an ad supported website to download a film are the same people who demonstrably would watch an ad to see the film for free on TNT etc.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

I eagerly awate assemblerex's demand for Voltage Pictures to be compensated millions of dollars for the bittorrented distribution of The Hurt Locker. I bring this up as someone who was employed on that film, and note that that money pays my salary on the next film...

Did someone take "The Hurt Locker", claim they made the movie instead of yourselves, and then passed it off as an original work? that's what the complaint said.
 
    feel free to use this as a soapbox for your own personal crusade for your own personal, shitty movie, but what happened to the Hurt Locker is completely different from what happened here, and your comment should be offtopic, not insightful.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Mix stations, broadcasting "the greatest hits of the 70s, 80s, 90s, and today!" frown at your shenanigans.

They rely on compulsory licensing, which is another topic entirely.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

>hex dumps

Ah yes, microfiche...

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[mdielmann]

I think the pleasure for many, and certainly for me, is that someone is having to pay for their hypocrisy. Their bread and butter is selling copyrighted works, and they pirated someone else's. It also reduces their credibility with me if they complain about other pirates in the future.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Hollywood accounting is not limited to movies. An example is the Warner Bros. television series Babylon 5 created by J. Michael Straczynski. Straczynski, who wrote 90% of the episodes in addition to producing the show, would receive a generous cut of profits if not for Hollywood accounting.[citation needed] The series, which was profitable in each of its five seasons from 1993–1998, has garnered more than US$1 billion for Warner Bros., most recently US$500 million in DVD sales alone. But in the last profit statement given to Straczynski, Warner Bros. claimed the property was $80 million in debt. "Basically," says Straczynski, "by the terms of my contract, if a set on a WB movie burns down in Botswana, they can charge it against B5's profits."[11]

I believe J. Michael Straczynski was talking about when first released, the Babylon 5 DVDs brought in more than $1 billion just after the DVDs for the fourth season had shown up in stores. The Babylon 5 DVDs were still being sold at gradually decreasing prices in Costco for almost 5 years, so they sold a lot of copies! I imagine the series was profitable for Warner Brothers during the time it aired on television, at which point the DVDs are a massive profit for the series. Both of these are quotes from the same place, so your "[citation needed]" is the same place as the other piece of audio/video/other source.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[mdielmann]

I could call the GPL "Berkeley Dope-Smoker Copyright" by the same turn and be just as right.

That would be the "MIT Alleged Dope-Smoker Copyright" (I can't find any evidence of Stallman doing illicit drugs, and I've never seen him is person so I can't say that he does). If you're going to mock people, inform yourself first and do it with some accuracy. This is like mocking Australians for their goofy British accent.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Smauler]

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. I've been reading Slashdot basically since it started, and it's so far beyond a double standard it's not even funny.

My position is pretty simple... if you profit off of someone else's work (when they don't want you to, implicitly or explicitly), it's bad, mkay. It's _not_ that difficult. Torrenting a film to watch is considered different from torrenting a DVD to sell down the pub. Printing a picture found on the web for your wall is different from printing a picture and selling it.

It really is not that difficult to see the difference, is it? Can you see the difference?

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[mysidia]

They're well ahead of you. The cost of making the movie will soar. They'll pay $1000 each for sandwiches served on location (to the catering service owned by studio exec A) and rent personal vehicles for $10,000/day (from the rental company owned by studio exec B). etc.

Add a clause to the contract promising not to engage in self-dealing: the movie production company will not count any unreasonable expenses used solely to generate revenue for a related entity, for the purposes of calculating revenue share, AND requiring that the taxable portion of any expense that incurs a present or deferred tax liability for the studio or any associated company, is "disallowed" as an expense for the purpose of calculating revenue share.

For example: items such as sandwiches purchased, cannot be at a price disproportionately large compared to the fair market value of the product, as a means of defrauding the signee.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[sjames]

Then you'll have to bring in an army of forensic accountants, and don't let the studio choose the firm, at LEAST.

The point is that some of the biggest cheats in the free world have little hope of getting the public to shed a tear if a few people violate their copyright.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[mcgrew]

Utter bullshit, it happens constantly. I learned not to buy a record album unless it was a best of, greatest hits, live, by a band I knew would have mostly good songs, or had heard the album at a friend's house almost half a century ago. I own over a dozen Isaac Asimov books; were it not for the public library I would likely never have even known he existed. I certainly am not stupid enough to buy a book by an author I hadn't read.

I pirated season 6 of TBBT last May. I bought the boxed set last week.

Tell me, how did I, a completely unknown author, manage to sell copies of Nobots? Simple: the people who bought it already read the first draft at slashdot. Had I not posted them I would not have sold a single copy.

Statistics show that pirates spend more money on media than non-pirates. The studies say exactly the opposite of your misinformed opinion.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, well, jumping out to defend your lover? You're quite eager to wrap your lips around his cock, aren't you Mr. Kai-O-sucky?

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[david_thornley]

In the US, the constitutional justification for copyrights and patents is to give an incentive for people to create. Therefore, the length of copyrights and patents should be long enough to encourage people to create things, but no longer than is useful in doing so.

It seems highly unlikely to me that anybody does any creative work because of money they expect in thirty years. Some people create because they want to. Others create because they think they'll make money for it, but they usually expect money within a few decades at most.

For this reason, I recommend a copyright term of no more than thirty years, and I think twenty probably better. I'm not too fussy about the exact term, as long as it's reasonable, but I believe this to be the proper basis for determining it.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Macgrrl]

Mostly the world is filled with people who aren't squeaking by and live below what we would consider the poverty line, not even making a subsistence living.

Even within the 'first world' there are plenty of people below the poverty line, homeless etc... Just squeaking by or better means you are pretty special, you were lucky enough to be born where you had the opportunity to get an education, support to get a decent job and to have a roof over your head, food and access to technology.

Probably not the answer people were looking for.

Re:Sweet sweet copyright justice

[Macgrrl]

I agree that $1.3 is a lot for a couple of pictures, but I suspect it is supposed to be punitive to tell AP that they can't take someone else's work without permission and try to sell it as their own.

As to your second point, money seems to be the only language AP understands - they were the ones who originally sought to profit from the photos.

So what...

[wbr1]

Getty Images had about $945 million in revenue last year, according to a March credit report by Moody's. That's up from $857.6 million in 2007, the last full year in which the company reported financial results.

That is 2008....do you think they really care about part of 1.2 million? Do you think it will change attitudes and behaviors?

Re:So what...

[Anonymous Coward]

One has to wonder if you know the difference between revenues and profit?

Re:So what...

[91degrees]

This is tort law. It's not really intended to change attitudes or behaviours. It's there to provide restitution for the injured party.

Photog

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to use urban dictionary to understand wtf a "photog" was:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=photog

Slang for Photographer apparently. Although I've never heard or seen anyone use the term and apparently those writing the summary title thought they were being "hip".

Re:Photog

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a douche. Just so you don't have to look it up, that's short for douchebag, and I'm implying that you're only useful for cleaning vaginas.

Re:Photog

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could have just used an actual dictionary and seen the word has been in use since at least 1906 and Google's Ngram viewer has it appearing much earlier. Getting angry at the world about the limitations of your vocabulary probably explains why your vocabulary is limited in the first place. I guess you don't care much for fancy book learnin' and just get angry when people use a word you've never heard before. I'm surprised you've moved past grunting and pointing.

Re:Photog

[Voltara]

I had to use urban dictionary to understand wtf a "photog" was:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=photog

Slang for Photographer apparently. Although I've never heard or seen anyone use the term and apparently those writing the summary title thought they were being "hip".

You might have used the regular dictionary instead, and learned that the word "photog" has been in use for over a century. Congrats, you're one of today's Lucky 10,000!

Re:Photog

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a whole word and it means shower. If you continue in your current belief you will find yourself quite distressed when visiting a French hotel.

When the shoe is on the other foot...

[shameless]

Getty Images makes no bones about asking a lot of money for their images and making sure they get paid. I own a business that among other things produces fine art prints. Some time back a customer asked about a print of a particular Old Master painting that wasn't listed in any publisher's catalog. Tracking down a high-resolution image that I could print myself led me to Getty Images. The minimum royalty for this kind of use was in the $300 range. The rep came right out and said that their royalty structure would not be economical for one-off print like I was seeking.

This, BTW, is for an image that is theoretically in the public domain.

Re:When the shoe is on the other foot...

[Anonymous Coward]

The "image" may be in the public domain but photographs of it are not. It's expensive to get a high quality photo of a well known art piece. Handling and photographing (the lighting) artwork irrevocably damages it a little each time. Museums and galleries are loathe to allow someone to photograph it without a specific reason and a good amount of money..

Re:When the shoe is on the other foot...

[DerekLyons]

The painting is in the public domain - a recently taken photograph is not. The two are not the same thing.

Re:When the shoe is on the other foot...

[Arker]

Actually the photograph is only supposed to be copyrightable if it contains a novel and creative element - i.e. if it's a good straight photo with no funny stuff (like you want for a print) then it is not copyrightable.

Re:When the shoe is on the other foot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the photo isn't copyrightable. That doesn't mean you get to have it though - you'll have to talk to the guy who took it. And he's allowed to set any conditions (price, redistribution) he wants upon your usage of his work.

Don't like it? Take the picture yourself.
Not willing or able to put in the effort? That's why the photographer can ask you for the big bucks - he was able and did put in the effort.

Without copyright, copyleft is unneeded

[tepples]

Without copyright, anybody with more time than money could disassemble, document, and distribute any proprietary fork of a program and turn binaries back into (assembly language) source code useful for cloning the added functionality in the Free branch.

Re:Without copyright, copyleft is unneeded

[EvanED]

Without copyright, anybody with more time than money could disassemble, document, and distribute any proprietary fork of a program and turn binaries back into (assembly language) source code useful for cloning the added functionality in the Free branch.

Being involved in some work that's related to reverse engineering (though I guess unrelated enough that I've never actually tried to do that really), my suspicion is that in most cases, it would be easier to re-implement from scratch whatever functionality you wanted than it would be to reverse engineer an existing binary (at least for your typical C or C++ optimized, stripped binary). Thethe main exception to that would be if you were doing something for compatibility or such and didn't even really know what it was doing in the first place... but most of the time if you said "hey, that feature is a really neat idea, I wish the open version had that", I don't think it'd be worth it.

Re:Without copyright, copyleft is unneeded

[mysidia]

Not so fast.

Without copyright, anybody with more time than money could disassemble, document, and distribute any proprietary fork of a program and turn binaries back into (assembly language) source code useful for cloning the added functionality in the Free branch.

While it would be technically possible; it would be expensive in the sense that it would be labor-intensive. The work would have to be repeated for new releases; which are likely to have very large changes to the assembly code.

Also, as software evolves then --- new releases of future software would likely intentionally amplify the complexity of the machine language, with the express purpose of thwarting such attempts at disassembly.

Combined with encryption, DRM, and debugger blocking techniques designed to limit, deter, and block access to dissassemblable code and underlying details as much as possible.

Locked-down platforms such as iPhone would be immensely popular among vendors; without copyright.

Re:Without copyright, copyleft is unneeded

[tepples]

While it would be technically possible; it would be expensive in the sense that it would be labor-intensive.

Dedicated hobbyists do it underground even today for games like Super Mario Bros.. See SMBDis.

Re:Without copyright, copyleft is unneeded

[praxis]

Those games have been static for a long time, many binary releases of common software changes weekly. Doing the work once is different than doing the work weekly.

Re:Without copyright, copyleft is unneeded

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmm-hmm.

I understood some of these words.

Re:Without copyright, copyleft is unneeded

[mirix]

Not to mention that super mario bros fit on what.. a 4kB ROM? It's absolutely miniscule.

Re:Without copyright, copyleft is unneeded

[Anonymous Coward]

You're off by an order of magnitude. SMB was around 42KB, which is absolutely huge when you consider a much more advanced game like .kkrieger fit in only 96KB.

Maximum Penalty????

[devloop]

How is $1.2m the maximum penalty available under the law for this case, when back in 2009, Capitol vs Thomas, a jury awarded $1.92m to Capitol?

Even at $1.92m, that was NOT the highest they could have gone either, the judge established that each infringement would be penalized at $80k, down from a maximum of $150k per instance!

That would have worked out to $3.6m.

Why weren't AFP et al penalized per infraction, vs having a cap for the whole incident?

Re:Maximum Penalty????

[Anonymous Coward]

How is $1.2m the maximum penalty available under the law for this case, when back in 2009, Capitol vs Thomas,
a jury awarded $1.92m to Capitol?

Even at $1.92m, that was NOT the highest they could have gone either, the judge established that each infringement
would be penalized at $80k, down from a maximum of $150k per instance!

That would have worked out to $3.6m.

Why weren't AFP et al penalized per infraction, vs having a cap for the whole incident?

The maximum penalty of 150k goes cleanly into 1.2m eight times. It would be safe to assume that nothing strange is going on and there was eight infringed works.

Re:Maximum Penalty????

[Pseudonym Authority]

Music and movies have special rules.

Re:Maximum Penalty????

[gl4ss]

if it's the industry suing someone then it's the amount of redistributions that is the amount of infringed works, if someone is suing the industry then it's the amount of copies made that is the multiplier. perfect sense, no?

what should have been the multiplier would have been the amount of times they got paid through getty for the photos..

Re:Maximum Penalty????

[devloop]

The maximum penalty of 150k goes cleanly into 1.2m eight times. It would be safe to assume that nothing strange is going on and there was eight infringed works.

There were 24 works. 24 * 80k = 1.92m.

Re:Maximum Penalty????

[Solandri]

The guy probably didn't register his copyright with the U.S. Library of Congress (who would for pictures posted on twitter?). If you didn't register your copyright, the most you can collect are actual damages suffered. You can't collect attorney's fees or statutory damages. i.e. the $1.2 million represents how much Getty et al wold have had to pay the rightful copyright holder if they had licensed the images in the first place. $1.2 million / $500 which is typical for a headlining photo of a newbreaking event = 2400 infringements, which is probably about the number of news organizations which reproduced the photo.

It's only if you register your copyright that the $150,000 per infringement limit kicks in. That's a statutory damages limit.

Why did the other companies settle?

[Pinky's Brain]

I don't understand why Getty's client settled ... Getty might be aware of the lack of due diligence on AFP's part, but I assume their clients were not. How can they be held responsible?

Re:Why did the other companies settle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tip: Their lawyers have gone to law school and understand how the law works. You haven't and don't.

Re:Why did the other companies settle?

[sumdumass]

I would assume they concluded that settling would be less costly than fighting it. The fact that it was settled for an undisclosed amount probably suggests that the original author was asking something more reasonable then what was awarded in court.

The problem with copyright is that dissemination or distribution in and of itself is a violation so even if I swore to you that I owned the copyright and you could distribute it, you are not entirely off the hook if I was not truthful. Of course any sane court would likely keep any penalties as low as possible if you could prove that. Some juries might even toss it out because of the mens rea involved but it would require going to court and risking losing the case.

Re:Why did the other companies settle?

[SydShamino]

My first guess is that the settlements were reasonable and it meant they didn't have to go to trial. =P

Even if they would win, it would be bad press for them to be dragging a little guy through a trial in which they admitted using his photos without his permission, but instead argued that they were themselves defrauded by a third party. As far as I know, they would be found liable for damages, and then be told to sue the third party (in this case, Getty) themselves to recoup their losses.

For the Haitian photographer, the settlements with the end users likely made their position negotiating with Getty stronger, though Getty seems to have gone to trial anyway.

Re:Why did the other companies settle?

[I'm New Around Here]

They probably settled for a much lower amount, and it was cheaper than fighting in court. Plus, it's bad publicity fighting someone who lived through that earthquake just to have his work stolen by corporations and then used by your own corporation.

Re:Why did the other companies settle?

[Theaetetus]

I would assume they concluded that settling would be less costly than fighting it. The fact that it was settled for an undisclosed amount probably suggests that the original author was asking something more reasonable then what was awarded in court.

The problem with copyright is that dissemination or distribution in and of itself is a violation so even if I swore to you that I owned the copyright and you could distribute it, you are not entirely off the hook if I was not truthful. Of course any sane court would likely keep any penalties as low as possible if you could prove that. Some juries might even toss it out because of the mens rea involved but it would require going to court and risking losing the case.

No, if I can prove you swore to me that you owned the copyright and I could distribute it, I'm entirely off the hook... Or technically I am off the hook, and you're the one who's boned.
The rule is Rule 14, which states that if I'm sued, I can bring you in as a third-party defendant if you're liable for all or part of the claim against me: I infringed the copyright, but because of your fraud, you're responsible for my actions. The best part is, if I can prove that tiny piece of it - show my contract with you, for example - I can walk away from the copyright infringement case and never have to show up in court. If "I" lose that one, then even if I owe the plaintiff a million dollars, you're 100% liable to me, so really, it's you who loses. Hence why I could take a default judgement and not care.

This also comes up in insurance proceedings. If you sue me and I'm fully covered by insurance, I'll just bring in my insurance company and let them defend the suit if they want. I don't care because, win or lose, I don't pay anything.

Re:Why did the other companies settle?

[Kjella]

If "I" lose that one, then even if I owe the plaintiff a million dollars, you're 100% liable to me, so really, it's you who loses. Hence why I could take a default judgement and not care.

But does the claim go through you or past you, that makes a huge difference if your "third party" can't pay or has hidden their assets or they're abroad or whatever. Will they then take your house, car and savings while you're stuck with a valid but useless claim against that third party? Like if your insurance company went bankrupt between the car accident and the payout you're not off the hook, the claim is against you as the driver first and your insurance company second. It's not a big deal with insurance companies, but the average person doesn't have a million dollars and most likely couldn't pay, which makes it very relevant.

Re:Why did the other companies settle?

[sumdumass]

You are forgetting that you still are not off the hook for possible criminal charges. Colyright can have criminal charges also.

Rule 14 is for civil proceeding and while i did not consider it, you still have to invoke it which costs money and time. And all that is considering that i cannot weasle out of it. One of the halmarks of grafters is practicing signing your name differently then you regular signiture. If i attemp to copy your hand writing in my signiture, it may be possible to make it appear as if you forged my signiture.

But i agree, you likely can push it off onto me fromthe way i originally set it up.

Re:next week nigga be dead

[Anonymous Coward]

Hes not just some shmuck who snapped a few photos with a phone. The guys a photojournalist.
http://photomorel.com/

You didn't read a thing

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131122/16151225339/statutory-damages-strike-again-afp-getty-told-to-pay-12-million-using-photo-found-via-twitter.shtml

Start with: AFP sued Morel first. Wait, they sued him for using HIS image? Basically yes, they claimed commercial defamation against him. even though he sent them a letter, and had not gone public...

They claimed Twitter's TOS allowed them to take the image and use it without pay or attribution even.
Then they claim Twitpic's TOS allowed it when that didn't pan out.

After that, rather than trying to settle, they stuck to their guns and took it to trial anyways. And at trial...they lost. And they were penalized with 1.2 million in statutory damages the maximum award of 150,000.00 per infringement (there were several uses of the photo in question apparently) by the jury. Plus an award for DMCA violations (reports are sketchy on the actual amount, but 16 violations with a minimum of 2,500.00 each so its not chump change either), AND attorney's fees.

So, your premise that this guy is a douchebag and sued these guys in court to get a massive payout on some silly little pic is actually factually incorrect and entirely baseless if you had bothered to read either of the stories covering this. AFP and Getty were the dickbags here, and they apparently pissed the jury off. Everyone SHOULD cheers these kinds of payouts, they ARE ridiculous. This level of statutory penalty should make eyes pop and faces redden, and everyone should sit up and take notice when a big company gets hit by them and not just individual citizens who really will never pay even a fraction of these amounts. I hope this slows down the copyright maximalists a little bit, to see that it can and will eventually begin to bite them and with the world at large fairly sick of seeing the big guys push around people, maximum damage awards will be fairly common against them.

Re:You didn't read a thing

[qbast]

Why parent's comment is downvoted? It summarizes the situation much better than story summary.

Re:You didn't read a thing

[phorm]

everyone should sit up and take notice when a big company gets hit by them and not just individual citizens who really will never pay even a fraction of these amounts

Corporations *should* pay more for these damages than average citizens. If I get hit with a $1000 fine, that's enough to hurt my pocketbook and make me re-think what I'm doing. For many larger corporations, even 10x that is barely a pinprick, and often the fine is less than the profit they reap by whatever they were sued over.

Look at the issues with oil spills, banks and financial organizations committing fraud, etc. A fine shouldn't in most cases be enough to ruin somebody's life, but it shouldn't be so small as to go unnoticed either. Putting private citizens in the same categories as large corporations is a bad idea, though thankfully "commercial" infringement is considered a bit harsher the penalties overall for private persons is still obscenely disproportionate.

Interoperability

[tepples]

Thethe main exception to that would be if you were doing something for compatibility or such and didn't even really know what it was doing in the first place

That's exactly the case for the printer driver problem that kicked off the GNU project. Mr. Stallman and friends wanted to interoperate with a printer, and its manufacturer was being obstructive.

Limited subject lengths

[tepples]

The headline of a Slashdot story and the subject of a Slashdot comment are limited in length. Comment subjects are limited to 50 characters. Headlines can be longer, but they still have a limit that I happen not to have tested. Some people have a habit of abbreviating Microsoft as M$ in subjects to save seven characters.

The Getty Images that threatens website owners?

[nctritech]

Seems to me that this is another nail in the coffin. As many small business websites as they have gone after with extortion letters rather than letters trying to convert them to paying customers, I have no problem with Getty being dinged and dinged hard for doing the same that that they go after small businesses for. Getty has been a poor corporate citizen for many years, and at worst we should expect them to strictly abide by the same copyright rules that they are so adamant about.

Re:The Getty Images that threatens website owners?

[jasper160]

You are correct. One would think has RIAA members working for them.

Re:The Getty Images that threatens website owners?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure hitting them with 1/800th of their yearly revenue will hurt. Ouch.

Bridgeman v. Corel; damage

[tepples]

The "image" may be in the public domain but photographs of it are not.

Depends on the country. In the United States, the Southern District Court of New York ruled in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation that faithful photos of a public domain painting aren't original to get their own copyright.

Handling and photographing (the lighting) artwork irrevocably damages it a little each time.

In what way does a camera on a tripod pointed at an exhibit taking a long exposure with the museum's existing light damage the exhibit?

Re:Bridgeman v. Corel; damage

[0123456]

In what way does a camera on a tripod pointed at an exhibit taking a long exposure with the museum's existing light damage the exhibit?

The camera steals its soul.

Re:Bridgeman v. Corel; damage

[SeaFox]

Handling and photographing (the lighting) artwork irrevocably damages it a little each time.

In what way does a camera on a tripod pointed at an exhibit taking a long exposure with the museum's existing light damage the exhibit?

It doesn't. But pictures of artwork professionally taken rarely are done that way. They have light stands and reflectors and the lighting done under the photographer's control, not the museum's. Generally at least two lights, projecting at 45 degree angles to the work to evenly light but bounce in a way that wont cause glare.

Re:Bridgeman v. Corel; damage

[firex726]

Exactly what I was thinking, if you make a near perfect reproduction of an existing work, you cannot then claim it as an original. If that was the case I could make a near perfect reproduction of an mp3 and say it's original. I wonder how the RIAA would feel about that?

Re:Bridgeman v. Corel; damage

[tepples]

If that was the case I could make a near perfect reproduction of an mp3 and say it's original.

If copyright acted on a sweat of the brow basis, then you could claim that your near-perfect reproduction of an MP3 is original only if the original copyright has not expired. Sound recording technology hasn't been around long enough for copyright in notable recordings to have expired.

I smell...

[harvey the nerd]

...an appeal. AFP is not going to take a 1.2m verdict lying down. I might feel a little sorry for the AFP if AFP hadn't filedthe first suit that sounds like they were pre-emptively stripping the photographer of his copyright with an aggressive lawsuit. I worry more that this verdict will ultimately be used by corporations on little people.

Except...

[Anonymous Coward]

Like in the Jammie(sp?) Thomas case she was fined for *EACH DOWNLOAD*, was she not?

If this was 8 works distributed to hundreds of thousands or millions of people, then shouldn't they be penalized a lot more?

Additionally shouldn't there have been further punitive damages since this was willfor and for-profit infringement (while the Thomas case was, AFAIK not?)

Just my 2c

Re:next week nigga be dead

[Anonymous Coward]

How long until your mom catches you using language like that on the internet and grounds you from the computer right before your big World of Warcraft raid?

Most /. opinions have no interest, vested or other

[raymorris]

> You can easily have an opinion on something in which you have no vested interest.

I would venture to say that most opinions posted on Slashdot are from those with little or no interest in the subject.
I say this based on the manifest truth that most have little to no knowledge of the subjects upon which they opine.

For example, everyone on Slashdot has strong opinions on economic theory. Yet, fewer than 1% know the two main branches of economics - something you learn by merely looking looking at the TITLES of economics courses or textbooks, without attending a single day of class.

Still cheaper to settle

[dutchwhizzman]

Showing up in court, bringing a lawyer and all that would most likely cost way over $1000, regardless of what the case was or how much preparation was required. If the original photographer settled for an amount below that, which isn't that uncommon as a publishing fee for news photographs, they'd still be cheaper off than going to court and getting themselves off the hook.

In the USA, you usually can't get your own costs reimbursed for such a case, even if you win. In other countries, you often only get a predetermined fee which seldom covers the full costs but only a standard figure for the things your lawyer did for you. This makes going to court often not worth it, even if you're right, making justice something only the wealthy can afford....

Re:Most /. opinions have no interest, vested or ot

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, everyone on Slashdot has strong opinions on economic theory. Yet, fewer than 1% know the two main branches of economics - something you learn by merely looking looking at the TITLES of economics courses or textbooks, without attending a single day of class.

That's about as relevant to your understanding of economic theory as knowing the names Kurt Godel and Paul Erdos is relevant to your understanding of mathematics. Their discoveries are important, their names are not.

Making money from Disaster

[tommeke100]

At least someone managed to monetize the tragedy that Haiti was.
God (or the spaghetti monster) forbid the money spend on those lawsuits and the payouts would go to, you know, the victims of the earthquake.

The photograph is not in the article

[ggraham412]

Lol- they didn't reprint the photographs in question in the original article. I guess ABC (Australian Broadcasting Service, the company in the URL of the OP) didn't want to pay a random Haitian photographer. They seem to have no problem paying Getty - a search for Getty on their site turns up lots of images.

I guess you have to demonstrate ownership AND be in the special club to get royalty payments.

"Haitian Photog"

[nitehawk214]

I pronounce photog as "pho-tog". I think it is a Vietnamese dish.

ha you're one. like knowing what "arithmetic" is

[raymorris]

If you want to compare it to mathematics, knowing that economics refers to either macroeconomics or microeconomics is more like knowing what "arithmetic" is.

Since you mentioned names, I'm guessing you thought the two main branches are "Keynesian and some other guy". That's fine, nobody is competent in EVERY field.

  If you didn't know the difference between arithmetic and calculus, you wouldn't argue math with mathematicians, would you? If you didn't know the difference between an Ethernet cable and power cable, you wouldn't argue about computer technology.

  Just know that since you clearly haven't so much seen the cover of an economics text, YOU DON'T KNOW ECONOMICS. If you're arguing about economics and you don't know whether you're discussing microeconomics or macroeconomics, you don't know what you're talking about, simple as that.