3 ms·
If Cater's argument is correct, then surely Cater should also remove the photos because Cater also doesn't own the copyright.
by anamax 15y ago
If Cater's argument is correct, then surely Cater should also remove the photos because Cater also doesn't own the copyright.
- bradleyland 15y agoHis core argument is that their use falls under "fair use", so there is still no need to remove the photos.
- wisty 15y agoIn legal situations, you don't have a "core argument". You have as many parallel arguments as possible, even if they are somewhat contradictory. One argument is that the photos are un-copyrightable (public domain), as they are not the creative works of a human. Another argument is that if the photos are copyright, it's "fair use". He's keeping one foot on both boats, in case one of them sinks.
- anamax 15y agoAnother argument is that neither Cater nor the camera's owner own the copyright. As a result, neither one can demand a takedown.
- btilly 15y agoSurely not. Copyright means that someone has the right to sue you. If there is no copyright, then it is public domain and anyone can do anything that they want.
- polynomial 15y agoCater's putative argument is that they the means by which they came into possession of the photos is somehow more legitimate than TD who must have 'lifted' the photos without asking. Mike effortlessly notes the obvious flaw in that argument.