5 ms·
It doesn't matter how generic the object is, it's the fact that this person was not paid for the effort put into taking the photo
by webkike 9y ago
It doesn't matter how generic the object is, it's the fact that this person was not paid for the effort put into taking the photo
- leohutson 9y agoNo that's not true. Facts for instance are usuallly not copyrightable, regardless of how much effort goes into gathering them. Photographs of artworks that are in the public domain often aren't copyrightable for instance, if they are exact reproductions. How much effort goes into pressing the button is completely irrelevant to copyright law, creating an uncopyrightable photograph is likely a great deal more strenuous than a copyrightable one.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- anigbrowl 9y agoWhich is exactly why I mentioned Bridgeman-Corel, though I admit that's a bit of a legal leap. I find it terribly amusing how HN consistently jumps on these stories to vent its outrage but the same people don't think independent filmmakers and musicians should be able to control distribution if people want to torrent/stream their stuff.
- leohutson 9y agoYes, I was agreeing with you, I don't think down-voters read your comment properly. I really don't think the outrage here on HN or the original post is in any way justified, legally the image may or may not be subject to copyright, but it is clearly of extremely low value. It's actually kind of funny to think the legal system is actually more pragmatic than the commenters here.
- DanBC 9y ago> HN consistently jumps on these stories to vent its outrage but the same people don't think independent filmmakers and musicians should be able to control distribution if people want to torrent/stream their stuff. What makes you think these are the same people?
- anigbrowl 9y agoJust a hunch based on past conversations
- Teeer 9y agoYou clearly do not understand fair use law.
- webkike 9y agoThis isn't educational, it's a product intended on making money.