5 ms·

> This process involves taking many photographs and computing them into a single work using a complex algorithm, with minimal human involvement. Well, the huma

> This process involves taking many photographs and computing them into a single work using a complex algorithm, with minimal human involvement. Well, the human involvement took place earlier. If you're building a system like this it's a mix of off-the-shelf software and plenty of creativity from the folks involved in each step. I can't imagine trying to pick a point where your involvement in the process wouldn't matter. I also can't imagine having this conversation with someone who doesn't appreciate beauty in code.

littlestymaar 4y ago
Am I misunderstanding or are you implying that Adobe should get copyright for pictures edited on Photoshop?
- gopher_space 4y ago
  I'm implying that there are a lot of steps in the process where point of view matters. Less saying that something "should" happen and more describing a can of worms nobody wants to open.
  - littlestymaar 4y ago
    Fortunately for everyone, the question of whether the author of copyrighted software should get copyright about a creative work performed by a user of a software isn't a “can of worm nobody wants to open”, it is a clear an unambiguous “hell no”. And that's quite fortunate actually, since otherwise Sony, Canon and Nikon would have copyright over the entirety of photographs since the invention of digital photography, shared with the authors of jpeg of course… Copyright issues are complicated enough, no need to mix things up with your imagination.
    - gopher_space 4y ago
      We're missing each other a bit here. I'm not saying that copyright law is unambiguous functionally, I'm saying that from my point of view in the process there are a lot of issues that people simply haven't considered. Think about the line between craft and art when it comes to something like woodworking, and you might see what I'm getting at a bit.

littlestymaar 4y ago

Am I misunderstanding or are you implying that Adobe should get copyright for pictures edited on Photoshop?

gopher_space 4y ago
I'm implying that there are a lot of steps in the process where point of view matters. Less saying that something "should" happen and more describing a can of worms nobody wants to open.
- littlestymaar 4y ago
  Fortunately for everyone, the question of whether the author of copyrighted software should get copyright about a creative work performed by a user of a software isn't a “can of worm nobody wants to open”, it is a clear an unambiguous “hell no”. And that's quite fortunate actually, since otherwise Sony, Canon and Nikon would have copyright over the entirety of photographs since the invention of digital photography, shared with the authors of jpeg of course… Copyright issues are complicated enough, no need to mix things up with your imagination.
  - gopher_space 4y ago
    We're missing each other a bit here. I'm not saying that copyright law is unambiguous functionally, I'm saying that from my point of view in the process there are a lot of issues that people simply haven't considered. Think about the line between craft and art when it comes to something like woodworking, and you might see what I'm getting at a bit.