3 ms·

It's a good example, but it's a better fodder for argument if you take out the word "intimate" I don't want my grandchildren or anyone else to have or reproduc

by yebyen 8y ago

It's a good example, but it's a better fodder for argument if you take out the word "intimate" I don't want my grandchildren or anyone else to have or reproduce intimate photos of me, sure, but I do want the progeny to be able to freely make copies of photos of me in my glory days, for a school project or shrine or whatever. Meanwhile, say, I would like to be able to tightly control distribution of my own image as long as I am alive. If I used one of the DRM mechanisms available today to add a technical protection preventing unauthorized reproductions of my image, ... I don't think I have to say any more, you get the point right? Whatever incentives you have today, Copyright was never meant to protect them exclusively, forever (but the current law, since DMCA and Sonny Bono/Mickey Mouse, does essentially allow for this, protection in perpetuity and without exclusion.) Fair Use was a protection introduced in 1976 extension of US Copyright law specifically with the idea of preserving for posterity and other uses with a social benefit in mind. Until much more recently, honoring posterity was always an explicit part of the "social contract" provided by copyright protections. After a reasonable span of time has passed, those protections should expire so that future generations (or even sooner, other cases provided for by fair use) can benefit from the work, in a historical perspective, or any other "fair" context. At one time, nobody could stop you from traveling across a border with a copy or original of some artwork without physically standing in the way. There was also a time when "exploding copies" were science fiction, or maybe the stuff of spy movies. None of these protections for public domain are effective now in an era where these capabilities are real and available to the masses for general use.

sokoloff 8y ago
Fair point on confusing people with specifically intimate. Thanks. But what if someone else didn't want their photos from their "glory days" to be available? Shouldn't they have the right just as much as you have the right to decide you do? Maybe they have a religious or spiritual objection to it... I personally tend to favor control of duplication rights being under the control of the creator of the work. If I have a right to be forgotten while alive, I think I also have a right to be forgotten after my death.
- yebyen 8y ago
  I hope for the sake of my own family and the memory of our ancestors that we haven't really found ways yet to make that technically possible. I think the use of a person's image is a bit tortured too compared to other kinds of media you might copy and employ fair-use on, but I'll admit that with "a bit tortured" maybe I'm being willfully obtuse if I ever tried to argue that no person's image is present in any entertainment forms that were recorded, like movie or song. I can always burn some embarrassing photo if it's on film, well or say, embarassing blog post, ... there are technical means to signal to web service providers like archive.org that act as public archivers that they should forget their remembrance of your broadcast (via robots.txt or other means - it's actually very easy to automatically disappear yourself off the internet so that Archive.org won't even remember you, if you operated your own domain and knew how to make that request to cease retention well-formed.) I don't know if robots.txt has anything like force of law, but you can use it and honorable, responsive service providers may all honor it. But I don't think that anybody has a right to be forgotten, in the mind of any public citizen, (and other than with respect to any service providers.) If you broadcast your ideas to me, and in the process of my lawful consumption a copy is made, or in the case of a piece of code that runs in my browser for example, I believe that I should absolutely be permitted to take a copy for my own remembrance, or analysis (given it is done without intent of reproduction or for immediate re-distribution), and inclusive of the idea that I may intend a lawful preservation for reproduction in the public commons when the copyright has expired. The law as I understand it agrees, these are all permitted copies. There are even more separate protections for patents and protected trade secrets. Any technical means you can employ that prevents this lawful exchange I view as evil, and to me that's not up for debate. There are separate (legal) protections that you can enact if you are concerned about commercial uses, or wholesale ripoffs, or like, say, the disclosure of a trade secret by some trusted (contracted) party that diminishes your market value – those are all considerations that exclude a copy-ier from protections under fair use. But those are the limits of your legal protections as I understand it, and if I stand behind that line, the law should always tilt in my favor. If I'm not diminishing the value of your work by taking a copy when you offer it, and keeping it, then I think I can tell you to pound sand. The most you can do, as a private citizen, is ask me to forget you, ... and I hope I can always say no! (Of course, if you've used DRM technology to prevent taking the copy, then the law is actually on your side today notwithstanding fair use.)

by yebyen 8y ago

sokoloff 8y ago

Fair point on confusing people with specifically intimate. Thanks. But what if someone else didn't want their photos from their "glory days" to be available? Shouldn't they have the right just as much as you have the right to decide you do? Maybe they have a religious or spiritual objection to it... I personally tend to favor control of duplication rights being under the control of the creator of the work. If I have a right to be forgotten while alive, I think I also have a right to be forgotten after my death.

yebyen 8y ago
I hope for the sake of my own family and the memory of our ancestors that we haven't really found ways yet to make that technically possible. I think the use of a person's image is a bit tortured too compared to other kinds of media you might copy and employ fair-use on, but I'll admit that with "a bit tortured" maybe I'm being willfully obtuse if I ever tried to argue that no person's image is present in any entertainment forms that were recorded, like movie or song. I can always burn some embarrassing photo if it's on film, well or say, embarassing blog post, ... there are technical means to signal to web service providers like archive.org that act as public archivers that they should forget their remembrance of your broadcast (via robots.txt or other means - it's actually very easy to automatically disappear yourself off the internet so that Archive.org won't even remember you, if you operated your own domain and knew how to make that request to cease retention well-formed.) I don't know if robots.txt has anything like force of law, but you can use it and honorable, responsive service providers may all honor it. But I don't think that anybody has a right to be forgotten, in the mind of any public citizen, (and other than with respect to any service providers.) If you broadcast your ideas to me, and in the process of my lawful consumption a copy is made, or in the case of a piece of code that runs in my browser for example, I believe that I should absolutely be permitted to take a copy for my own remembrance, or analysis (given it is done without intent of reproduction or for immediate re-distribution), and inclusive of the idea that I may intend a lawful preservation for reproduction in the public commons when the copyright has expired. The law as I understand it agrees, these are all permitted copies. There are even more separate protections for patents and protected trade secrets. Any technical means you can employ that prevents this lawful exchange I view as evil, and to me that's not up for debate. There are separate (legal) protections that you can enact if you are concerned about commercial uses, or wholesale ripoffs, or like, say, the disclosure of a trade secret by some trusted (contracted) party that diminishes your market value – those are all considerations that exclude a copy-ier from protections under fair use. But those are the limits of your legal protections as I understand it, and if I stand behind that line, the law should always tilt in my favor. If I'm not diminishing the value of your work by taking a copy when you offer it, and keeping it, then I think I can tell you to pound sand. The most you can do, as a private citizen, is ask me to forget you, ... and I hope I can always say no! (Of course, if you've used DRM technology to prevent taking the copy, then the law is actually on your side today notwithstanding fair use.)