6 ms·
Based on this reasoning, does that mean that you could not claim copyright over a picture captured by a motion sensor camera. Basically you instructed it to ca
by RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
Based on this reasoning, does that mean that you could not claim copyright over a picture captured by a motion sensor camera.
Basically you instructed it to capture when it determined movement and the camera determined how those instructions are implemented in its output.
- kevingadd 4y agoHas anyone tried to claim copyright over that before? I wouldn't be surprised if it was rejected.
- beerdoggie 4y agoYes, definitely. Trail/nature cam photos fit this description.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- GauntletWizard 4y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disp...
- netr0ute 4y agoI'd think so, considering how security camera installers never put any effort into capturing footage themselves and are usually the only ones to have the opportunity to do so.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- markive 4y agoAlso look at all the post processing and AI that goes into smartphone cameras right now. The human element doesn't even choose which photo this is done algorithmically and the photo is stitched together in lots of different ways. The human just prompted: 'Now!'
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- brookst 4y ago…as long as you don’t count choice of subject matter, shooting angle, composition, crop, or moment to shoot to be creative choices.
- pmoriarty 4y agoWe don't need to invoke smartphones here. There's no more or less creative input from a human in traditional photography.
- Retric 4y agoTiming is only one aspect of creativity. In most settings a video camera’s output is copyrighted because of how you select the location and angel to film. Motion capture has all of those elements, and simply doesn’t capture 99.9% of the possible images. ie: Someone picked a log crossing the river as a place where something interesting will happen and they setup the shot to look interesting. Which is the general argument why such setups fall under copyright. Though as always there are many edge cases.
- World177 4y agoThere was a case last year where a person sued a content creator on YouTube for distributing parts of their accidental livestream. [1] The argument for fair use was that there was no creative input, so fair use. Though, I really do not know, as I think images and videos can be copyrighted exactly for the reason in your comment. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk1Tzqc5vk4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk1Tzqc5vk4
- hammock 4y agoHow is setting up a motion camera on a log not similar to setting up a prompt for ChatGPT?
- brookst 4y agoThe camera doesn’t decide what to put on the picture?
- hammock 4y agoIt does… or at least the human doesn’t.. it’s motion activated
- Retric 4y agoMotion capture rigs are doing capture whatever trees/rocks/buildings etc the person setting it up aimed at. The only thing motion capture does is pick interesting times, but you can write software that does the same thing with a video.
- tantalor 4y agoYou could argue the person who set up the camera chose the angle or frame, just like a normal camera operator.
- Wowfunhappy 4y agoIn the same way that the person using ChatGPT chose the prompt?
- tantalor 4y agoNo.
- Wowfunhappy 4y agoHow are they different?
- throwawaylinux 4y agoI disagree, because instructing the device the circumstances to capture the image, whether it's a timer or motion or some other detector or your direct button press, that is not the only element of photography. They're saying the only creative elements of the work were done by machine. If you asked me to write a poem about copyright law in the style of Shakespeare, is that something you can copyright, or a work derived from something you can copyright? I don't think so. It's not that producing a prompt for a writer might not be a somewhat creative act itself, but that's not really recognized by copyright law. Ideas aren't copyright, works are. Colloquially people might agree that a work could be significantly derived from an idea, but I don't think that's how copyright law itself works. Linux was written from scratch, copying no code from Unix and therefore is not a derived work or infringing on Unix copyright. Unquestionably it faithfully copied many ideas verbatim from Unix, the invention or development or discovery of those ideas were probably the most substantial creative contributions that Ritchie and Thompson had, and the code itself relatively mundane (though expertly written) by comparison. Those ideas/inventions are not classed as copyright works though.
- layer8 4y agoThe concept of “threshold of originality” plays a role in whether something is copyrightable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality Your question therefore cannot be answered a priori. The copyrightability has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
- dukeofdoom 4y agoMade the larger context needs to be considered. Being in a place at the right time. The choice of lens, the type of camera, the direction of the sun. A camera captures a moment in time, and that moment will never be repeated. If AI removes blemishes from a face, it's still a photo of a face, and that face only existed that way in that moment.
- acomjean 4y agoNo. You instructed the camera, placed it and set the angles. If a monkey steals your camera and takes a selfy you can’t copyright that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disp...
- dragonwriter 4y ago> You instructed the camera, placed it and set the angles. And I instructed the model, and set its tuning parameters.
- Jensson 4y agoSomeone else could just use the same prompt and get the same results, would you sue them for copyright infringement then? Do you think that makes sense?