Having done museum copywork in the past, I can assure you that getting high-quality images of paintings is NOT simple - lighting is critical to capture the texture, color, and avoid reflections and shadows. It's not just point-and-click. I'd side with the museum here, sorry!
The WP entry for the case linked in the summary states that "Even if accurate reproductions require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element for copyrightability under U.S. law is that copyrighted material must show sufficient originality." We did not cover this case in my IP law class, so I won't vouch for the accuracy of the WP article; however, I will note that it's an interesting exception to general copyright rules.
The watershed case for copyrightability of photographs was Burrow-Giles, wherein photography was viewed as an art, rather than a mechanical process, thus possessing the requisite modicum of originality for copyright. Since then, pretty much all photography (or videography) has been deemed copyrightable. What was never clear to me, even after taking an IP course, was whether things like automated cameras or security videotapes would qualify for copyright protection. I asked my professor about it, and he hemmed and hawed for a bit, and suggested that courts might view the mere act of setting up the equipment as enough "originality."
Now I run across this case, which indicates that such effort doesn't bestow copyright when the subject is in the public domain (nor should it - "effort" is like "sweat of the brow", which has been discarded). But this makes me think that perhaps not all photography should automatically qualify for copyright anyway, or at least it shouldn't be assumed to.
Also, don't expect politicians to actually care about taxing you for driving on non-public roads. In my state this year, they introduced a bill to charge title taxes on off-road vehicles. Go figure.
The issue is a familiar one and the language perfectly grammatical. What's the problem?
The stinky cloud thought to herself, "I'm hungry."
That language is perfectly grammatical, but also nonsensical. I'd also question whether "challenging the idea of free" is a familiar issue... challenging the idea that information or music should be free, maybe, but not challenging the idea itself, which is what the headline says.
There was a bill introduced in the Maryland General Assembly this session that sought to charge title taxes on off-road vehicles - figure that one out!
Really, though, we should all just realize that for the most part these kinds of taxes aren't supposed to make sense, they are just supposed to raise revenue.
Often? To do the patent bar, you need an engineering or science undergrad degree, or one that was very heavy in those areas. There are some minor exceptions to that rule, but yeah, most patent attorneys have an engineering or science degree.
Well, since Posner is an appeals court judge, she'd first have to file suit in his circuit, which may or may not even be possible. Then her case would have to be appealed up to his level.
Posner is part of the "law and economics" community, a community that is fond of introducing economic ideas into law. One of Posner's famous books, after all, is "The Economic Analysis of Law."
Anyway, the GP wasn't throwing in with Posner (he explicitly said he leans the opposite way), but rather noting that Posner is an extremely powerful and well-respected legal authority, so that if he says something, it at the very least means we should think hard about it before discarding it.
I sort of feel similarly. Posner is obviously brilliant, but I often find myself wanting to hit whatever work of his I'm reading.
Are there really a lot of sites that copy articles like that? I see it happen with Wikipedia content a lot, but not with real news sites. And why would someone prefer the copied site over the real one?
Ironically that is basically what most newspapers do with AP/Reuters content (though of course they pay for it).
You're absolutely right. The boundaries in copyright law are pretty fuzzy when it comes to things like this.
Maps were almost certainly included in the original act purely to appease mapmakers, not for any principled theory of what copyright should or should not apply to. Retrospectively, however, people justify maps by saying that they do involve artistry, and it's not totally unreasonable. You could even argue that more artistry is involved in making a map than in taking a photograph.
The most well-known case dealing with whether a collection of facts can be copyrighted is Feist. But the issue is complex, because while facts themselves aren't copyrightable, enough selection of facts can produce a result that is. What is "enough" is usually determined by a court case (or a settlement).
In any case, it is highly unlikely anyone could copyright the data. Copyright requires at least minimal creativity. Data produced automatically requires no creativity.
True, but the "minimal" creativity is extremely minimal. Meaning that if anyone did any selection or editing or massaging of the information in any way, it might pass the threshold.
I once asked my IP law prof if images captured by automated cameras (e.g. from toll booths) could be copyrighted, since there was no human involvement, and it was basically a purely mechanical process, devoid of creativity. He agreed with me in spirit, but said that even the act of installing a camera, or setting up an automated camera, would likely qualify as enough creativity in courts these days.
In addition, works produced by the government (ie. by the public for their own good via their chosen representatives) cannot be copyrighted.
That only applies to works of the federal government. State laws vary. (An added caveat is that the federal government can acquire copyrighted works).
but ANYTHING I did outside of work, even if in a completely unrelated field, for a period of FIVE YEARS after I left their employment.
Depending upon what state you live in, that kind of no-compete contract could very well be illegal, or at least unenforceable (IIRC California basically doesn't enforce these at all). Five years is a long time, too! I could understand 6 months or a year...
Not in copyright lingo they aren't. Interestingly, maps were one of the original works mentioned in the earliest federal copyright act. "Databases" has a very different meaning; US copyright law has been loathe to grant protection to facts themselves. IIRC, the EU does have copyright protection (or some kind of protection) for databases.
"ALSO says no to web browsing?" I got that right? Absolutely no intent to misrepresent for the purposes of arguing the man, not the message?
Yes. The reason I worded it like that is because of the title of this article.
Well, maybe that is what you meant. But the moderators don't seem think so any more than I do.
Well, right now I'm looking at a +5 Interesting, so at least some of them agree with me.
And, no he absolutely does not "quite literally says no" - the link you posted did not have him saying "no" at all, just explaining that he uses another method on a system other than his computer.
Hm, let me get this straight... A few posts above, you compare me to George Bush for pointing out the fact that I didn't actually attack/insult RMS, and now you're the one whose splitting hairs with language? The post I linked has Stallman saying "...I do not browse the web..."; if someone said to you "I don't smoke pot", it would be fair to say that that person "says no to pot."
Look up the word literal, and you will find my usage perfectly acceptable. But you're probably one of those people who goes around whining that "the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy." I've wasted way too much time responding to you, though, so don't expect any more replies. If you want to try and substantiate your conspiracy theory, you're free to read through my other posts in this thread, and my comment history on/. Good luck.
Please see my post here about why my simple statement of fact is not an ad hominem attack, or a suggestion that Stallman is incompetent, or really anything other than an interesting tidbit of information.
For me, it's been interesting to see how many people have responded to my original post by accusing me of attacking Stallman. (One response even likened me to George Bush).
Does that also mean that, like what you are insinuating about Richard Stallman, he is somehow incompetent in the field of CS and IT? What does that mean, actually?
I think if you re-read my comment, you'll see that I was insinuating nothing of the sort. See how you linked to an interesting fact about Knuth? Now, imagine that you just provided the link, without the accompanying commentary. Would that mean you were insinuating that Knuth was incompetent?
I hope this clears things up. If not, please see my severalothercomments to posters who misinterpreted my original post.
It doesn't make him a weirdo as you like to show RMS.
First of all, RMS is a weirdo. I bet if you asked him, he'd say so himself. I've had the opportunity to meet him as well, and he is pretty weird in person. Interesting, though.
I am sure if I checked enough, I would come up with something showing why you may have posted this comment right under +5 funny post
Feel free to search through my comment history for that, because you won't find jack shit.
Then, when you're done that, you'll realize that you misread my comment, took it the wrong way, and assumed that I was bashing RMS, open source, or whatever.
For the record, my offhand comment spawned some 76 comments underneath it at the time of this post, and I learned something interesting from one of them.
Y'all really need to take a chill pill - I'm fine with being modded down by people who thought I was trolling, but I don't care for comments in which the poster assumes I have some unstated agenda when that's completely absent from the original post.
Guy made a good joke and you tail at his comment with a completely irrelevant thing which you misunderstood from the beginning.
Are we doing basic politics on slashdot now?
Inform me how I "misunderstood" what Stallman said?
Jesus Christ people, all I do is link to an interesting tidbit about Stallman not using web browsers, and you want to crucify me for it.
Remind me again of the part of my post where I say that Stallman's views should be discounted because he doesn't browse the web? Oh, that's right. You can't, because it's not there.
Slashdot Mirror
At least Molex is on the way out since SATA. I can't tell you how many knuckles I've cut up trying to get out stubborn Molex connectors.
Having done museum copywork in the past, I can assure you that getting high-quality images of paintings is NOT simple - lighting is critical to capture the texture, color, and avoid reflections and shadows. It's not just point-and-click. I'd side with the museum here, sorry!
The WP entry for the case linked in the summary states that "Even if accurate reproductions require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element for copyrightability under U.S. law is that copyrighted material must show sufficient originality." We did not cover this case in my IP law class, so I won't vouch for the accuracy of the WP article; however, I will note that it's an interesting exception to general copyright rules.
The watershed case for copyrightability of photographs was Burrow-Giles, wherein photography was viewed as an art, rather than a mechanical process, thus possessing the requisite modicum of originality for copyright. Since then, pretty much all photography (or videography) has been deemed copyrightable. What was never clear to me, even after taking an IP course, was whether things like automated cameras or security videotapes would qualify for copyright protection. I asked my professor about it, and he hemmed and hawed for a bit, and suggested that courts might view the mere act of setting up the equipment as enough "originality."
Now I run across this case, which indicates that such effort doesn't bestow copyright when the subject is in the public domain (nor should it - "effort" is like "sweat of the brow", which has been discarded). But this makes me think that perhaps not all photography should automatically qualify for copyright anyway, or at least it shouldn't be assumed to.
Right, because what this world needs is a bunch of Slashdotters reproducing :-P
Oh, I'd love it if they did it during "emmissions checking." I live in Indiana, where we don't such a "big brother" concept.
Does Indiana also not require car registrations? 'Cause that has about the same "big brother" effect as emissions testing.
Also, don't expect politicians to actually care about taxing you for driving on non-public roads. In my state this year, they introduced a bill to charge title taxes on off-road vehicles. Go figure.
The issue is a familiar one and the language perfectly grammatical. What's the problem?
The stinky cloud thought to herself, "I'm hungry."
That language is perfectly grammatical, but also nonsensical. I'd also question whether "challenging the idea of free" is a familiar issue... challenging the idea that information or music should be free, maybe, but not challenging the idea itself, which is what the headline says.
Clearly you're looking for UDP. Next question.
Stop. Just stop. You're making too much sense.
There was a bill introduced in the Maryland General Assembly this session that sought to charge title taxes on off-road vehicles - figure that one out!
Really, though, we should all just realize that for the most part these kinds of taxes aren't supposed to make sense, they are just supposed to raise revenue.
Often? To do the patent bar, you need an engineering or science undergrad degree, or one that was very heavy in those areas. There are some minor exceptions to that rule, but yeah, most patent attorneys have an engineering or science degree.
Well, since Posner is an appeals court judge, she'd first have to file suit in his circuit, which may or may not even be possible. Then her case would have to be appealed up to his level.
Posner is part of the "law and economics" community, a community that is fond of introducing economic ideas into law. One of Posner's famous books, after all, is "The Economic Analysis of Law."
Anyway, the GP wasn't throwing in with Posner (he explicitly said he leans the opposite way), but rather noting that Posner is an extremely powerful and well-respected legal authority, so that if he says something, it at the very least means we should think hard about it before discarding it.
I sort of feel similarly. Posner is obviously brilliant, but I often find myself wanting to hit whatever work of his I'm reading.
Are there really a lot of sites that copy articles like that? I see it happen with Wikipedia content a lot, but not with real news sites. And why would someone prefer the copied site over the real one?
Ironically that is basically what most newspapers do with AP/Reuters content (though of course they pay for it).
You're absolutely right. The boundaries in copyright law are pretty fuzzy when it comes to things like this.
Maps were almost certainly included in the original act purely to appease mapmakers, not for any principled theory of what copyright should or should not apply to. Retrospectively, however, people justify maps by saying that they do involve artistry, and it's not totally unreasonable. You could even argue that more artistry is involved in making a map than in taking a photograph.
The most well-known case dealing with whether a collection of facts can be copyrighted is Feist. But the issue is complex, because while facts themselves aren't copyrightable, enough selection of facts can produce a result that is. What is "enough" is usually determined by a court case (or a settlement).
In any case, it is highly unlikely anyone could copyright the data. Copyright requires at least minimal creativity. Data produced automatically requires no creativity.
True, but the "minimal" creativity is extremely minimal. Meaning that if anyone did any selection or editing or massaging of the information in any way, it might pass the threshold.
I once asked my IP law prof if images captured by automated cameras (e.g. from toll booths) could be copyrighted, since there was no human involvement, and it was basically a purely mechanical process, devoid of creativity. He agreed with me in spirit, but said that even the act of installing a camera, or setting up an automated camera, would likely qualify as enough creativity in courts these days.
In addition, works produced by the government (ie. by the public for their own good via their chosen representatives) cannot be copyrighted.
That only applies to works of the federal government. State laws vary. (An added caveat is that the federal government can acquire copyrighted works).
but ANYTHING I did outside of work, even if in a completely unrelated field, for a period of FIVE YEARS after I left their employment.
Depending upon what state you live in, that kind of no-compete contract could very well be illegal, or at least unenforceable (IIRC California basically doesn't enforce these at all). Five years is a long time, too! I could understand 6 months or a year...
Are you sure about that? Maps are databases.
Not in copyright lingo they aren't. Interestingly, maps were one of the original works mentioned in the earliest federal copyright act. "Databases" has a very different meaning; US copyright law has been loathe to grant protection to facts themselves. IIRC, the EU does have copyright protection (or some kind of protection) for databases.
"ALSO says no to web browsing?" I got that right? Absolutely no intent to misrepresent for the purposes of arguing the man, not the message?
Yes. The reason I worded it like that is because of the title of this article.
Well, maybe that is what you meant. But the moderators don't seem think so any more than I do.
Well, right now I'm looking at a +5 Interesting, so at least some of them agree with me.
And, no he absolutely does not "quite literally says no" - the link you posted did not have him saying "no" at all, just explaining that he uses another method on a system other than his computer.
Hm, let me get this straight... A few posts above, you compare me to George Bush for pointing out the fact that I didn't actually attack/insult RMS, and now you're the one whose splitting hairs with language? The post I linked has Stallman saying "...I do not browse the web..."; if someone said to you "I don't smoke pot", it would be fair to say that that person "says no to pot."
Look up the word literal, and you will find my usage perfectly acceptable. But you're probably one of those people who goes around whining that "the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy." I've wasted way too much time responding to you, though, so don't expect any more replies. If you want to try and substantiate your conspiracy theory, you're free to read through my other posts in this thread, and my comment history on /. Good luck.
Please see my post here about why my simple statement of fact is not an ad hominem attack, or a suggestion that Stallman is incompetent, or really anything other than an interesting tidbit of information.
For me, it's been interesting to see how many people have responded to my original post by accusing me of attacking Stallman. (One response even likened me to George Bush).
Does that also mean that, like what you are insinuating about Richard Stallman, he is somehow incompetent in the field of CS and IT? What does that mean, actually?
I think if you re-read my comment, you'll see that I was insinuating nothing of the sort. See how you linked to an interesting fact about Knuth? Now, imagine that you just provided the link, without the accompanying commentary. Would that mean you were insinuating that Knuth was incompetent?
I hope this clears things up. If not, please see my several other comments to posters who misinterpreted my original post.
he's [sec] seems to have spent most of his career writing position papers for economics think tanks
[sic]
It doesn't make him a weirdo as you like to show RMS.
First of all, RMS is a weirdo. I bet if you asked him, he'd say so himself. I've had the opportunity to meet him as well, and he is pretty weird in person. Interesting, though.
I am sure if I checked enough, I would come up with something showing why you may have posted this comment right under +5 funny post
Feel free to search through my comment history for that, because you won't find jack shit.
Then, when you're done that, you'll realize that you misread my comment, took it the wrong way, and assumed that I was bashing RMS, open source, or whatever.
For the record, my offhand comment spawned some 76 comments underneath it at the time of this post, and I learned something interesting from one of them.
Y'all really need to take a chill pill - I'm fine with being modded down by people who thought I was trolling, but I don't care for comments in which the poster assumes I have some unstated agenda when that's completely absent from the original post.
Guy made a good joke and you tail at his comment with a completely irrelevant thing which you misunderstood from the beginning. Are we doing basic politics on slashdot now?
Inform me how I "misunderstood" what Stallman said?
Jesus Christ people, all I do is link to an interesting tidbit about Stallman not using web browsers, and you want to crucify me for it.
Remind me again of the part of my post where I say that Stallman's views should be discounted because he doesn't browse the web? Oh, that's right. You can't, because it's not there.
Yes, he does:
For personal reasons, I do not browse the web from my computer.
He quite literally says no to web browsing. Which is what I said he said. I didn't say he went around advocating that no one else use web browsers.
Stallman also says no to web browsing.