5 ms·
"Maybe they’re both guilty of wrongdoing." If she had personal photos on the phone, she had copyright on those and Google flat-out violated that specific right
by lightedman 7y ago
"Maybe they’re both guilty of wrongdoing."
If she had personal photos on the phone, she had copyright on those and Google flat-out violated that specific right by denying her access to her works.
Remember, what's written in a contract cannot go against the law. Copyright is very firmly enshrined in our legal system.
- cameldrv 7y agoCopyright says that Google can't copy her photos without her permission. It creates no obligation for them to not delete them or provide any kind of access.
- wnoise 7y agoCopyright is not deleteright.
- ddalex 7y agoOr non delete right.
- nkrisc 7y agoThat's the strangest interpretation of copyright law I've ever seen.
- lightedman 7y agoYou're destroying property and work. Denying someone access to their work is just as bad as usurping control over it. Remember, copyright gives the owner of the work full control over it. For Google to remove that specific control without a court order means they're violating the law. Go read chapters 2 and 5 of Title 17. This makes it abundantly clear.
- shadowgovt 7y agoIf you store your copyrighted paintings in a storage unit, cease to pay for that unit, and fail to clear that unit, the owner of the storage company has the right to dispose of your personal belongings. It's understood in the contracts one signs when renting a storage unit. There is similar understanding about how de-corpification works if someone's phone gets de-corped (though I doubt most employees read the fine print).
- dekhn 7y agoThis claim is a real stretch.
- lightedman 7y agoGo read chapters 2 and 5 of Title 17.