5 ms·

Any philosophers here? I was just wondering if anyone wants to discuss what copyright law should be, rather than what it is. On the one hand, if I had taken so

Any philosophers here? I was just wondering if anyone wants to discuss what copyright law should be, rather than what it is. On the one hand, if I had taken some photographs of VHS tapes and then found that a multibillion-dollar company had used them, without telling me, I would feel violated. And I would want some money --- if for no other reason than, hey, Netflix can spare it. On the other hand, it seems overblown, especially considering: 1. The image shows up on many sites, having already been ripped off many times, according to another comment here. So it would have been hard for Netflix to know it was some photographer's treasure. 2. The images are plain shots of different sides of a VHS tape. Netflix could easily have done it themselves, and I'm sure at this point they wish that they did. Now if they did, then Netflix would have wasted a few hours, Gough Lui would be no richer, and the box would have looked the same. 3. I'm convinced more and more that nothing is totally original. Take Gough Liu's photographs. He could not have done them if Fuji hadn't manufactured the tapes. Did he get Fuji's permission to use their product's likeness? https://vimeo.com/139094998 https://vimeo.com/139094998 There is a feeling that copyright is an absolute, natural right. But it is said that it didn't exist anywhere until 1710. And it wasn't because we thought people deserved it, like we think they deserve the right to life or due process. It was completely pragmatic, a supposedly artifical law, "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." In today's digital age, it seems more profitable for society to use each other's works freely --- at least as far as it goes in "the progress of science and the useful arts." We get way more out of building on past inventions and source code than restricting it to a few people or companies. Now if you think it would be more beneficial "to the progress of science and the useful arts" to preserve copyright, please argue your point, along with how strict you think copyright should be, how long it should last, etc. Also, if you think copyright should exist for some other reason besides mere practicality in advancing science and the useful arts, please argue that. Again clarify whether you think copyright strictness and duration is fine as it is or should be implemented differently.

mljoe 9y ago
>He could not have done them if Fuji hadn't manufactured the tapes. Did he get Fuji's permission to use their product's likeness? This is actually a huge issue here, since the photo is a perfect replica of their tape design with very little additional creativity. Photographers do have to get rights if the stuff they photograph is the creative expression of others.
- ajross 9y ago
  Except in this case it's pretty clear the photo was taken as a diagram: he wasn't trying to get benefit from the VHS tape box designers brand and image, he was trying to explain how the device works. Consider all the youtube videos of how to change the oil in your car or whatever. Yes, there is copyright somewhere, but no: how-to informational stuff is clearly fair use. But at the same time: yeah, the guy took a picture of someone else's box design and Netflix used it. Where's the damage here?
- peterburkimsher 9y ago
  It sounds like the whole thing is making a mountain out of a molehill, but even more absurd claims were made in the Apple/Samsung lawsuits.
vadimberman 9y ago
Thank you. Honestly, it's not like the author worked 10 years on a Mona Lisa painting. It's a plain shot of a tape. Boohoo.
- function_seven 9y ago
  That Netflix could have shot themselves. But they didn’t. It was easier (cheaper) to use someone else’s work for free.
  - vadimberman 9y ago
    So if the Netflix shot it, the author would not be compensated. In the current situation, he wasn't compensated. Is there a tangible difference for the "victim"?
    - function_seven 9y ago
      If Netflix did their own creative work, the author would not be compensated. But they appropriated his work instead, without paying or even asking. That’s not ok. Especially for a company who relies on copyrights to secure their own profits.
      - vadimberman 9y ago
        So you agree that there is no difference for the author.
        function_seven 9y ago
        No I don’t. Maybe no difference in his bank account, but morally speaking it’s the difference between being taken advantage of and being respected. Also, there’s a 3rd option Netflix could have chosen: licensing the author’s work.
        bkor 9y ago
        He just explained the difference. Using someones work vs creating your own work is different.
wpietri 9y ago
Netflix is 100% in the business of using copyright to charge for things. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Regarding point 1, that's now how copyright works. All they have to know is that they don't have a license for the photos. Regarding point 2, yes, that's how commerce works. People do things for other people; one saves labor and the other gets paid. Regarding 3, under US law the videotape is likely a "utility object", meaning Fuji can't assert a copyright claim. As to your questions on copyright, there are many reasonable solutions, and I think our current copyrights are far longer than necessary to reward creators. However, I don't think anybody would suggest that photos have a copyright of just 3 years, as would be the case for these photos to have an expired copyright.

mljoe 9y ago

>He could not have done them if Fuji hadn't manufactured the tapes. Did he get Fuji's permission to use their product's likeness? This is actually a huge issue here, since the photo is a perfect replica of their tape design with very little additional creativity. Photographers do have to get rights if the stuff they photograph is the creative expression of others.

ajross 9y ago
Except in this case it's pretty clear the photo was taken as a diagram: he wasn't trying to get benefit from the VHS tape box designers brand and image, he was trying to explain how the device works. Consider all the youtube videos of how to change the oil in your car or whatever. Yes, there is copyright somewhere, but no: how-to informational stuff is clearly fair use. But at the same time: yeah, the guy took a picture of someone else's box design and Netflix used it. Where's the damage here?
peterburkimsher 9y ago
It sounds like the whole thing is making a mountain out of a molehill, but even more absurd claims were made in the Apple/Samsung lawsuits.

vadimberman 9y ago

Thank you. Honestly, it's not like the author worked 10 years on a Mona Lisa painting. It's a plain shot of a tape. Boohoo.

function_seven 9y ago
That Netflix could have shot themselves. But they didn’t. It was easier (cheaper) to use someone else’s work for free.
- vadimberman 9y ago
  So if the Netflix shot it, the author would not be compensated. In the current situation, he wasn't compensated. Is there a tangible difference for the "victim"?
  - function_seven 9y ago
    If Netflix did their own creative work, the author would not be compensated. But they appropriated his work instead, without paying or even asking. That’s not ok. Especially for a company who relies on copyrights to secure their own profits.
    - vadimberman 9y ago
      So you agree that there is no difference for the author.
      - function_seven 9y ago
        No I don’t. Maybe no difference in his bank account, but morally speaking it’s the difference between being taken advantage of and being respected. Also, there’s a 3rd option Netflix could have chosen: licensing the author’s work.
      - bkor 9y ago
        He just explained the difference. Using someones work vs creating your own work is different.

wpietri 9y ago

Netflix is 100% in the business of using copyright to charge for things. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Regarding point 1, that's now how copyright works. All they have to know is that they don't have a license for the photos. Regarding point 2, yes, that's how commerce works. People do things for other people; one saves labor and the other gets paid. Regarding 3, under US law the videotape is likely a "utility object", meaning Fuji can't assert a copyright claim. As to your questions on copyright, there are many reasonable solutions, and I think our current copyrights are far longer than necessary to reward creators. However, I don't think anybody would suggest that photos have a copyright of just 3 years, as would be the case for these photos to have an expired copyright.