4 ms·

Is ‘creative expression’ somehow defined? I could creatively express myself by wiring up a camera and filming a public place, no? Edit: I do think it would be

Is ‘creative expression’ somehow defined? I could creatively express myself by wiring up a camera and filming a public place, no? Edit: I do think it would be good taste to censor death/murder footage in some cases such as this, I’ve not thought about it a tonne because I assume there’s a legitimate public interest case in some scenarios (political oppression footage, etc)

jazzyjackson 2y ago
> I could creatively express myself by wiring up a camera and filming a public place, no? Certainly. My layperson view is it would depend on intent. If you were to use trafficcamphotobooth.com to take a selfie on 14th Street, I think the fact that you went out in front of a particular surveillance cam and hit the save button would count as a copyrighted photo even tho the camera belongs to some other entity and was going to take the photo with or without you. (Edited) Edit: going back to remind myself of the basics, creative expression is not the basis for copyright, but "original works of authorsbip', although '''The Supreme Court has said that, to be creative, a work must have a “spark” and “modicum” of creativity.''' - this in the case determining that phonebooks are merely collections of facts and therefore not protected works. https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/
gruez 2y ago
>Is ‘creative expression’ somehow defined? I could creatively express myself by wiring up a camera and filming a public place, no? Not tested in court. >Security cameras, webcams, camera traps and other pre-positioned recording devices capture whatever happens to take place in their field of view. This raises the question as to whether their recordings are an original and therefore copyrighted work. For example, "[i]f a security camera mounted in a lobby, recording 24 hours a day, captured a dramatic event, the video could be uncopyrighted."[2] >This question remains untested in the United States. In the 2008 United States district court case Southwest Casino and Hotel Corp. vs Flyingman, the casino filed suit for copyright infringement on the use of their surveillance video, but the defendant argued in a motion that the surveillance video lacked the sufficient creativity needed to secure copyright protection.[3][4] However, the case was never heard as a separate tribal court ruled that the tribes, rather than the casino, owned the footage.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  Well that settles it, the matter is unsettled! Thanks for the pointer.
- mh- 2y ago
  Southwest v Flyingman sounds like a parody case from the Grand Theft Auto universe.

jazzyjackson 2y ago

> I could creatively express myself by wiring up a camera and filming a public place, no? Certainly. My layperson view is it would depend on intent. If you were to use trafficcamphotobooth.com to take a selfie on 14th Street, I think the fact that you went out in front of a particular surveillance cam and hit the save button would count as a copyrighted photo even tho the camera belongs to some other entity and was going to take the photo with or without you. (Edited) Edit: going back to remind myself of the basics, creative expression is not the basis for copyright, but "original works of authorsbip', although '''The Supreme Court has said that, to be creative, a work must have a “spark” and “modicum” of creativity.''' - this in the case determining that phonebooks are merely collections of facts and therefore not protected works. https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/

gruez 2y ago

>Is ‘creative expression’ somehow defined? I could creatively express myself by wiring up a camera and filming a public place, no? Not tested in court. >Security cameras, webcams, camera traps and other pre-positioned recording devices capture whatever happens to take place in their field of view. This raises the question as to whether their recordings are an original and therefore copyrighted work. For example, "[i]f a security camera mounted in a lobby, recording 24 hours a day, captured a dramatic event, the video could be uncopyrighted."[2] >This question remains untested in the United States. In the 2008 United States district court case Southwest Casino and Hotel Corp. vs Flyingman, the casino filed suit for copyright infringement on the use of their surveillance video, but the defendant argued in a motion that the surveillance video lacked the sufficient creativity needed to secure copyright protection.[3][4] However, the case was never heard as a separate tribal court ruled that the tribes, rather than the casino, owned the footage.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality

jazzyjackson 2y ago
Well that settles it, the matter is unsettled! Thanks for the pointer.
mh- 2y ago
Southwest v Flyingman sounds like a parody case from the Grand Theft Auto universe.