3 ms·

If I take a photo of an original work of sheakespear, then I own the copyright on the photo. And i could license the usage of my photo. If I make a copy of anyt

by sbhn 8y ago

If I take a photo of an original work of sheakespear, then I own the copyright on the photo. And i could license the usage of my photo. If I make a copy of anything, then I own the copyright on the copy. What if, in time, the only copy you could get hold of was my copy. My copy would be copyright me and you’d need to wait for it to become public domain before you could use it under your terms

ufo 8y ago
The difference is that picture is a derived work. When you just make a copy you don't get copyright over the copy.
asdsa5325 8y ago
> If I take a photo of an original work of sheakespear, then I own the copyright on the photo. And i could license the usage of my photo. That's 100% not true. Please stop spreading misinformation because you have no idea what you are talking about. "According to a landmark 1999 federal district court ruling, The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd., Plaintiff v. Corel Corporation, 'exact reproductions of public domain artworks are not protected by copyright.'" https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/museum-paintings-copyright_b_1867076.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/museum-painting...
- sbhn 8y ago
  The important word is ‘exact’. Non exact means the copy contains copyrightable differences.
  - JackCh 8y ago
    You're just flat out wrong dude. You've got some very bizarre believes about copyright law and I can't fathom where you got them. Whoever you learned from did you a great disservice, or if you 'taught' yourself then you didn't do a very good job at reading.
    - dc_gregory 8y ago
      Thats a bit unfair; copyright is a fairly unintuitive concept if you haven't been exposed to it.
      - JackCh 8y ago
        That's a fair point, but somebody without much exposure to copyright law should avoid saying inflammatory things like: >"The internet wayback machine is one of the biggest copyright thiefs in my opinion." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17220943 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17220943)
        dc_gregory 8y ago
        Hah, I stand corrected
        sbhn 8y ago
        If I take a video of jimi Hendrix improvising guitar, then he owns the copyright on the music, but I own the copyright on the recording
  - mgbennet 8y ago
    I believe that in the context of copyright, 'exact' doesn't mean a 100% perfect copy. If I make a film, I hold the copyright for it whether its distributed on VHS, DVD, or online streaming, even if the quality on VHS is different than the film shown in theaters. It'd be like if changing an image from jpeg to tif changed its copyright status. Your example elsewhere of correcting a few typos and saying it's a different work is similar: it's still the same work, even with the minor tweaks. Anyways, copyright is weird and complicated and there are many people who don't really understand it. But your theory that archive.org is going to get a copyright on everything they scan and store is not rooted in any sort of legal reality.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> If I take a photo of an original work of sheakespear, then I own the copyright on the photo. If the photo meets the requirement for independent copyright ability, which requires being a distinct creative work, that's true, and for a photo that would often but not always be the case. For a simple non-transformative digital copy, there's no copyrightable new work and no copyright in such a work. > What if, in time, the only copy you could get hold of was my copy. My copy would be copyright me and you’d need to wait for it to become public domain before you could use it under your terms If someone was copying elements that were original in your work of the photograph, true, but if they were merely copying the pubkic domain text of which you had taken a photograph, no, not true at all. Copyright protects your original work.

by sbhn 8y ago

ufo 8y ago

The difference is that picture is a derived work. When you just make a copy you don't get copyright over the copy.

asdsa5325 8y ago

> If I take a photo of an original work of sheakespear, then I own the copyright on the photo. And i could license the usage of my photo. That's 100% not true. Please stop spreading misinformation because you have no idea what you are talking about. "According to a landmark 1999 federal district court ruling, The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd., Plaintiff v. Corel Corporation, 'exact reproductions of public domain artworks are not protected by copyright.'" https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/museum-paintings-copyright_b_1867076.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/museum-painting...

sbhn 8y ago
The important word is ‘exact’. Non exact means the copy contains copyrightable differences.
- JackCh 8y ago
  You're just flat out wrong dude. You've got some very bizarre believes about copyright law and I can't fathom where you got them. Whoever you learned from did you a great disservice, or if you 'taught' yourself then you didn't do a very good job at reading.
  - dc_gregory 8y ago
    Thats a bit unfair; copyright is a fairly unintuitive concept if you haven't been exposed to it.
    - JackCh 8y ago
      That's a fair point, but somebody without much exposure to copyright law should avoid saying inflammatory things like: >"The internet wayback machine is one of the biggest copyright thiefs in my opinion." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17220943 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17220943)
      - dc_gregory 8y ago
        Hah, I stand corrected
        sbhn 8y ago
        If I take a video of jimi Hendrix improvising guitar, then he owns the copyright on the music, but I own the copyright on the recording
- mgbennet 8y ago
  I believe that in the context of copyright, 'exact' doesn't mean a 100% perfect copy. If I make a film, I hold the copyright for it whether its distributed on VHS, DVD, or online streaming, even if the quality on VHS is different than the film shown in theaters. It'd be like if changing an image from jpeg to tif changed its copyright status. Your example elsewhere of correcting a few typos and saying it's a different work is similar: it's still the same work, even with the minor tweaks. Anyways, copyright is weird and complicated and there are many people who don't really understand it. But your theory that archive.org is going to get a copyright on everything they scan and store is not rooted in any sort of legal reality.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> If I take a photo of an original work of sheakespear, then I own the copyright on the photo. If the photo meets the requirement for independent copyright ability, which requires being a distinct creative work, that's true, and for a photo that would often but not always be the case. For a simple non-transformative digital copy, there's no copyrightable new work and no copyright in such a work. > What if, in time, the only copy you could get hold of was my copy. My copy would be copyright me and you’d need to wait for it to become public domain before you could use it under your terms If someone was copying elements that were original in your work of the photograph, true, but if they were merely copying the pubkic domain text of which you had taken a photograph, no, not true at all. Copyright protects your original work.