5 ms·

Its stupid to try and assign copyright to things that aren't legal persons. At the end of the day, copyright holders have to make decisions about how to exerci

Its stupid to try and assign copyright to things that aren't legal persons. At the end of the day, copyright holders have to make decisions about how to exercise their rights, which makes no sense for a tree. Instead people should just assign the copyright to some sort of trust or non-profit dedicated to the forest.

fsckboy 2y ago
it's not just what to do with their rights, but the creative effort to create a work that deserves copyright. Trees don't make choices and engage in that type of creativity, nor does the forest floor or canopy.
- rlupi 2y ago
  > Trees don't make choices and engage in that type of creativity, nor does the forest floor or canopy. From a philosophical point of view, I'd argue that trees and life have much more of the ability to make choices and even express creativity than inanimate objects like a rock or even a computer. IIRC in some courts recently, it was decided that the output of LLMs cannot be copyrighted. It will be interesting to see how this legal case goes.
deepfriedchokes 2y ago
Perhaps forests should be legal persons?
- latexr 2y ago
  And this one is, as per the article.
- osigurdson 2y ago
  All of the animals, the flora and the rocks should be legal persons. The only entities that should not be legal entities are the humans (at least humans that I don't know personally) since they cause all of the problems.
latexr 2y ago
> Its stupid to try and assign copyright to things that aren't legal persons. Good thing they got that covered, then. As per the article: > In a historic ruling, the legal personhood of the Los Cedros biological reserve was recognised by Ecuador’s constitutional court in 2021, when it determined to cancel mining permits in the reserve. > Instead people should just assign the copyright to some sort of trust or non-profit dedicated to the forest. People can be corrupted and bought. Someone who acts on behalf of another can betray the latter for personal gain. See for example the stories of Britney Spears and Brain Wilson. On the other hand, if the entity owns itself, you can’t legally harm it without consent, which can’t be given. See also The Tree That Owns Itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_That_Owns_Itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_That_Owns_Itself
- bawolff 2y ago
  > On the other hand, if the entity owns itself, you can’t legally harm it without consent, which can’t be given. By the same token, the forest can't exactly start a lawsuit either (unless someone acts on its behalf, in which case we are back at the same person). Just because they declared it a legal person, doesn't mean it actually is, in terms of how that phrase is normally used. At the very least a legal person normally can enter into contracts, buy and dispose of property. Like you said, the forest can't consent, and being able to consent is what it means to be a person.
  - Teever 2y ago
    The implication of what you're saying is that medically incapacitated individuals can't have legal representation.
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      On the contrary: it means that incapacitated individuals must have legal representation. A forest is like an incapacitated individual: you can assign a legal representative to it (which was exactly what was suggested upthread) but you can't expect it to actually take legal matters into itself.

fsckboy 2y ago

it's not just what to do with their rights, but the creative effort to create a work that deserves copyright. Trees don't make choices and engage in that type of creativity, nor does the forest floor or canopy.

rlupi 2y ago
> Trees don't make choices and engage in that type of creativity, nor does the forest floor or canopy. From a philosophical point of view, I'd argue that trees and life have much more of the ability to make choices and even express creativity than inanimate objects like a rock or even a computer. IIRC in some courts recently, it was decided that the output of LLMs cannot be copyrighted. It will be interesting to see how this legal case goes.

deepfriedchokes 2y ago

Perhaps forests should be legal persons?

latexr 2y ago
And this one is, as per the article.
osigurdson 2y ago
All of the animals, the flora and the rocks should be legal persons. The only entities that should not be legal entities are the humans (at least humans that I don't know personally) since they cause all of the problems.

latexr 2y ago

> Its stupid to try and assign copyright to things that aren't legal persons. Good thing they got that covered, then. As per the article: > In a historic ruling, the legal personhood of the Los Cedros biological reserve was recognised by Ecuador’s constitutional court in 2021, when it determined to cancel mining permits in the reserve. > Instead people should just assign the copyright to some sort of trust or non-profit dedicated to the forest. People can be corrupted and bought. Someone who acts on behalf of another can betray the latter for personal gain. See for example the stories of Britney Spears and Brain Wilson. On the other hand, if the entity owns itself, you can’t legally harm it without consent, which can’t be given. See also The Tree That Owns Itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_That_Owns_Itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_That_Owns_Itself

bawolff 2y ago
> On the other hand, if the entity owns itself, you can’t legally harm it without consent, which can’t be given. By the same token, the forest can't exactly start a lawsuit either (unless someone acts on its behalf, in which case we are back at the same person). Just because they declared it a legal person, doesn't mean it actually is, in terms of how that phrase is normally used. At the very least a legal person normally can enter into contracts, buy and dispose of property. Like you said, the forest can't consent, and being able to consent is what it means to be a person.
- Teever 2y ago
  The implication of what you're saying is that medically incapacitated individuals can't have legal representation.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    On the contrary: it means that incapacitated individuals must have legal representation. A forest is like an incapacitated individual: you can assign a legal representative to it (which was exactly what was suggested upthread) but you can't expect it to actually take legal matters into itself.