5 ms·

Wow, someone needs to notify photographers about this immediately. No more copyright for them.

s1mon 4y ago
The notice explicitly covers photography. > In Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, a defendant accused of making > unauthorized copies of a photograph argued that the expansion of copyright > protection to photographs by Congress was unconstitutional because “a > photograph is not a writing nor the production of an author” but is instead > created by a camera. > The Court disagreed, holding that there was “no doubt” the Constitution's > Copyright Clause permitted photographs to be subject to copyright, “so far > as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the > author.”
- smeagull 4y ago
  Much like the writer of a prompt. The notice is stupid.
kccqzy 4y ago
Did you read the linked article? > In Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, a defendant accused of making unauthorized copies of a photograph argued that the expansion of copyright protection to photographs by Congress was unconstitutional because “a photograph is not a writing nor the production of an author” but is instead created by a camera. The Court disagreed, holding that there was “no doubt” the Constitution's Copyright Clause permitted photographs to be subject to copyright, “so far as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the author.”
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  "so far as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the author." "representatives of original intellectual conceptions"? Wouldn't that only to apply to photos made with some preconceived idea of what you wanted the photo to look like? What about spontaneous, "point and shoot" photos? What about a photo that I take with my eyes closed, without intent? And how original is your typical family snapshot or wedding photo? They're about as generic and unoriginal as you can get, yet there's no doubt they're copyrightable.
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    point and shoot is almost certainly copyrighted. eyes closed might not be, (I kind of doubt there's case law here). the bar for originally is pretty low for copyright but it's not zero.
    - gwd 4y ago
      What if someone who's blind just randomly pulls out a camera and takes some snaps (without knowing anything about what might be going on). Do they get a copyright on their photos?
      - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
        probably not
        NexRebular 4y ago
        Then Lomography can't be copyrightable, especially if "shooting from the hip" (rule #4)? [1] [1] https://www.lomography.com/about/the-ten-golden-rules https://www.lomography.com/about/the-ten-golden-rules
  - zamnos 4y ago
    Interestingly is the case of a monkey taking a selfie. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disp...
- smeagull 4y ago
  > “so far as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the author.” Yeah, much like a person using an AI. Do you understand the debate happening here at all?

The notice explicitly covers photography. > In Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, a defendant accused of making > unauthorized copies of a photograph argued that the expansion of copyright > protection to photographs by Congress was unconstitutional because “a > photograph is not a writing nor the production of an author” but is instead > created by a camera. > The Court disagreed, holding that there was “no doubt” the Constitution's > Copyright Clause permitted photographs to be subject to copyright, “so far > as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the > author.”

smeagull 4y ago
Much like the writer of a prompt. The notice is stupid.

kccqzy 4y ago

Did you read the linked article? > In Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, a defendant accused of making unauthorized copies of a photograph argued that the expansion of copyright protection to photographs by Congress was unconstitutional because “a photograph is not a writing nor the production of an author” but is instead created by a camera. The Court disagreed, holding that there was “no doubt” the Constitution's Copyright Clause permitted photographs to be subject to copyright, “so far as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the author.”

pmoriarty 4y ago
"so far as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the author." "representatives of original intellectual conceptions"? Wouldn't that only to apply to photos made with some preconceived idea of what you wanted the photo to look like? What about spontaneous, "point and shoot" photos? What about a photo that I take with my eyes closed, without intent? And how original is your typical family snapshot or wedding photo? They're about as generic and unoriginal as you can get, yet there's no doubt they're copyrightable.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  point and shoot is almost certainly copyrighted. eyes closed might not be, (I kind of doubt there's case law here). the bar for originally is pretty low for copyright but it's not zero.
  - gwd 4y ago
    What if someone who's blind just randomly pulls out a camera and takes some snaps (without knowing anything about what might be going on). Do they get a copyright on their photos?
    - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
      probably not
      - NexRebular 4y ago
        Then Lomography can't be copyrightable, especially if "shooting from the hip" (rule #4)? [1] [1] https://www.lomography.com/about/the-ten-golden-rules https://www.lomography.com/about/the-ten-golden-rules
- zamnos 4y ago
  Interestingly is the case of a monkey taking a selfie. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disp...
smeagull 4y ago
> “so far as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the author.” Yeah, much like a person using an AI. Do you understand the debate happening here at all?