[q] Well at least not all of us. I am very sorry for those who bought HD-DVD players and feel cheated but come on, early adopters should damn well know the risk. Especially since it was obvious that sooner or later one format would bite the dust. [/q]
I feel worse for those who purchased a GEN1 BR player that isn't a PS3. Since, in order to get the most, they still have to purchase a new one if they want to get to use all the features of BD Profile 2.0
Sorry, but you're wrong. The creator of the work holds the copyright. In copyright law "copy" refers to the original work as well as physical copies of it.
-Wouldn't a "physical copy" technically mean a 3 demensional object...let's say a 1/64 scale paperweight.
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
Isn't a photograph an "original"? There is no way to make an exact "copy" of 3 dimentional object (sculpture), since a photography is only 1 dimensional.
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
This would mean taking a photo (or series of photos) in order to make another sculpture based on the original sculpture, in this case, "The Bean". So, unless you can forsee into the future, this should not apply to photography.
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
Well, I don't think this would apply to the majority of photographers, since the photograph would be for private use (not profiting from the image and in no way affecting the welfare of the artist, since said artist already got paid for the work and is not receiving royalties [as far as I know]). If the photos were for commercial, I might see the need for a permit.
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
This part does not apply.
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
I don't believe this can be determined before such incidence, meaning knowing the person would try to display the photo publicly until after such person takes the photo.
And, still, that would be public display of the photo, not the sculpture which is already on public display.
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."
Does not apply to photography.
I maybe wrong, sine I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty good at interpretation. Let me know if I am wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
[q]
Well at least not all of us. I am very sorry for those who bought HD-DVD players and feel cheated but come on, early adopters should damn well know the risk. Especially since it was obvious that sooner or later one format would bite the dust.
[/q]
I feel worse for those who purchased a GEN1 BR player that isn't a PS3. Since, in order to get the most, they still have to purchase a new one if they want to get to use all the features of BD Profile 2.0
Sorry, but you're wrong. The creator of the work holds the copyright. In copyright law "copy" refers to the original work as well as physical copies of it.
-Wouldn't a "physical copy" technically mean a 3 demensional object...let's say a 1/64 scale paperweight.
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
Isn't a photograph an "original"? There is no way to make an exact "copy" of 3 dimentional object (sculpture), since a photography is only 1 dimensional.
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
This would mean taking a photo (or series of photos) in order to make another sculpture based on the original sculpture, in this case, "The Bean". So, unless you can forsee into the future, this should not apply to photography.
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
Well, I don't think this would apply to the majority of photographers, since the photograph would be for private use (not profiting from the image and in no way affecting the welfare of the artist, since said artist already got paid for the work and is not receiving royalties [as far as I know]). If the photos were for commercial, I might see the need for a permit.
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
This part does not apply.
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
I don't believe this can be determined before such incidence, meaning knowing the person would try to display the photo publicly until after such person takes the photo.
And, still, that would be public display of the photo, not the sculpture which is already on public display.
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."
Does not apply to photography.
I maybe wrong, sine I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty good at interpretation. Let me know if I am wrong.