Claims of copyright infringement are specific to each case. Is the photograph or painting a landscape in which there is an artwork or simply the artwork with a tree or building nearby? Was the photograph taken purely for personal use or to sell?
Remakes are a cheap, lazy way to make money. The majority of the intellectual work has already been done. Most remakes today are the older version on steroids.
I say, let 'em come up with something new.
That would certainly make entertainment less bleak.
In the US, objects exposed to public view are fair game as centerpieces or collateral objects in photography with at least the following two exceptions:
- Government installations where signs alert the photographer. I take photos down by the port here, and it's cool as long as I shoot pictures with the port to my back. I often get a visit by the port authorities warning me of the restriction. The security fence carries posters declaring the prohibition.
- "Managed" public places (zoos, water parks, swimming pools, play grounds, outside art installations, etc.) where photography is prohibited either by notice or by the "manager." For instance, when I shoot the local water park, where no signs prohibit photography, an attendant or life guard asks me if I have a relative or friend actually taking advantage of the park as I shoot. If I answer, "no," the manager will ask me to please refrain. If I refuse, I am asked to leave. If I refuse, they can call the cops and the cop will ask me to leave or be ticketed for trespassing. No one can examine or confiscate my camera or erase photos (without probable cause), but I must leave or be charged with trespassing. I took a photograph of an oil tanker heading out to sea and posted it on the interwebs and received a take down notice from the owner on the grounds that the ship was a private artifact and I needed their permission to use its likeness, I told them to get screwed or put a shroud over the damn thing.
I'm just more familiar with the patent side of IP law,...
You are familiar with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and light reading will inform you of the U.S. Copyright Office, and the reason why the analogy breaks down rather quickly.
They probably mention this in the fine print of the TV ad.
Electronic payment service BitPay this week launched a campaign aimed at making Bitcoin transactions more appealing to mainstream business owners — the first time Bitcoin has been featured in a TV spot. Conceived by Felton Interactive Group, the two new ads promote Bitcoin and BitPay as a secure alternative to traditional credit-card transactions.
All filmmakers who copied William Shakespeare's works would get sued if William Shakespeare's descendants still owned the copyright to his plays and they felt inclined to sue.
I agree with you and, following that thought to its logical conclusion, I offer this: The people will rise up in packet protest.
I had the TRS-80 computer from Radio Shack back in 1978. Nerds like me were extremely rare and hardly anyone understood anything I had to say relating to the hobby.
In 1982, I got my first professional gig and my technical advantage over the general population was enormous.
That lead started eroding in the 1990s when people embraced home computers to the point where they had to learn some stuff just to keep their computers out of the ditches.
The ability for IT to bullshit management and users diminished greatly by the 2000s as more and more people embraced the concepts. Kids grew fearless and experimented with the knobs and soon some of them were teaching me things I didn't know.
Look at the big stories today... you mentioned two of them whereby people close to the clandestine operations are ratting the government out.
Other stories demonstrate the narrowing digital divide between government experts and the pool of hackers available among the unwashed.
... I downloaded the Tor browser and I'm, like going to cnn, disney, xvideos, and then I try going to my Facebook page and WHAM!!!!
I'm in validation mode,
That's much better than the "command mode" ("commode" for short), but I had to prove I am me by sending Facebook my passport and giving them my phone number.
The fucking NSA isn't allowed to blow their cover and stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
For a more relevant point of view ...
Claims of copyright infringement are specific to each case. Is the photograph or painting a landscape in which there is an artwork or simply the artwork with a tree or building nearby? Was the photograph taken purely for personal use or to sell?
Or you could simply have the copyright laws as they are today and stuff.
I'd argue the opposite.
Remakes are a cheap, lazy way to make money. The majority of the intellectual work has already been done. Most remakes today are the older version on steroids.
I say, let 'em come up with something new.
That would certainly make entertainment less bleak.
In the US, objects exposed to public view are fair game as centerpieces or collateral objects in photography with at least the following two exceptions:
- Government installations where signs alert the photographer. I take photos down by the port here, and it's cool as long as I shoot pictures with the port to my back. I often get a visit by the port authorities warning me of the restriction. The security fence carries posters declaring the prohibition.
- "Managed" public places (zoos, water parks, swimming pools, play grounds, outside art installations, etc.) where photography is prohibited either by notice or by the "manager." For instance, when I shoot the local water park, where no signs prohibit photography, an attendant or life guard asks me if I have a relative or friend actually taking advantage of the park as I shoot. If I answer, "no," the manager will ask me to please refrain. If I refuse, I am asked to leave. If I refuse, they can call the cops and the cop will ask me to leave or be ticketed for trespassing. No one can examine or confiscate my camera or erase photos (without probable cause), but I must leave or be charged with trespassing. I took a photograph of an oil tanker heading out to sea and posted it on the interwebs and received a take down notice from the owner on the grounds that the ship was a private artifact and I needed their permission to use its likeness, I told them to get screwed or put a shroud over the damn thing.
Consider:
If every piece of art created in our lifetimes is locked down, then we don't have the freedom to create anything new.
Not so. We have the freedom to create all kinds of new stuff and lock it down for ourselves (or not).
Therefore, the analogy that attempts to equate patents with copyright is fallacious.
I do not agree to disagree.
The scopes of copyright and patent do not overlap. They are so different that they have their own bureaucracies.
Because the two concepts are radically different, they do not lend themselves as objects for comparison in an analogy.
I'm just more familiar with the patent side of IP law, ...
You are familiar with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and light reading will inform you of the U.S. Copyright Office, and the reason why the analogy breaks down rather quickly.
The reason for dismissal is compelling because the analogy breaks down immediately upon casual inspection of the laws regulating both.
They probably mention this in the fine print of the TV ad.
Electronic payment service BitPay this week launched a campaign aimed at making Bitcoin transactions more appealing to mainstream business owners — the first time Bitcoin has been featured in a TV spot. Conceived by Felton Interactive Group, the two new ads promote Bitcoin and BitPay as a secure alternative to traditional credit-card transactions.
That is not an expiry date issue; that's a "photographs are prohibited," issue enforced by notice or a shroud.
All filmmakers who copied William Shakespeare's works would get sued if William Shakespeare's descendants still owned the copyright to his plays and they felt inclined to sue.
What's your point?
Because I asked them to.
Mod +1, (Funny)
Patent law and copyright extensions are too dissimilar to support a comparative argument.
... why we should give a shit?
Copyrighted material is not mine and I don't need it and I am not feeling the sense of entitlement to copyrighted works.
I am a photographer and I certainly support copyright protection but I don't understand the hysteria over the expiry date issue.
I agree with you and, following that thought to its logical conclusion, I offer this: The people will rise up in packet protest.
I had the TRS-80 computer from Radio Shack back in 1978. Nerds like me were extremely rare and hardly anyone understood anything I had to say relating to the hobby.
In 1982, I got my first professional gig and my technical advantage over the general population was enormous.
That lead started eroding in the 1990s when people embraced home computers to the point where they had to learn some stuff just to keep their computers out of the ditches.
The ability for IT to bullshit management and users diminished greatly by the 2000s as more and more people embraced the concepts. Kids grew fearless and experimented with the knobs and soon some of them were teaching me things I didn't know.
Look at the big stories today ... you mentioned two of them whereby people close to the clandestine operations are ratting the government out.
Other stories demonstrate the narrowing digital divide between government experts and the pool of hackers available among the unwashed.
An obvious indicator that this is a problem is the military's willingness to waive combat training to tap into the civilian hacker pool.
The takeaway is that We The People are becoming just as savvy as the government and elections be damned ... packet protest is the way to go.
... lost any bitcoins and stuff.
So your understanding is that an NSL is a voter-mandated process?
Kinda like AC is, right?
Citizens would never let an NSL stand in their way of their Constitutional Rights.
Instead, citizens would ________________.
Please elaborate and stuff.
This.
Who in Sam Hill gives a shit about ANY characteristics of a hacker other than the ability to hack?
This opens the door for the physically and mentally challenged, as well as being gender-neutral, sexual-orientation irrelevant, and religion proof.
... I downloaded the Tor browser and I'm, like going to cnn, disney, xvideos, and then I try going to my Facebook page and WHAM!!!!
I'm in validation mode,
That's much better than the "command mode" ("commode" for short), but I had to prove I am me by sending Facebook my passport and giving them my phone number.
The fucking NSA isn't allowed to blow their cover and stuff.
... it's a code name for FBI sting op.
Anonymous did what?
sunk