3 ms·
You better be willing to question whether photographs can be copyrightable at all, because they are all result of several mechanical systems not created by the
by SiempreViernes 2y ago
You better be willing to question whether photographs can be copyrightable at all, because they are all result of several mechanical systems not created by the camera operator.
Just limiting yourself to only "digital computation" being magical enough to invalidate copyright is an arbitrary restriction. Unless you clarify why you think the computation performed by the lens system doesn't have that property, further discussion seems pointless because it will just collapse to a circular "digital computation is magical enough", which is your implied premise.
- nerdponx 2y agoBy that logic, paintings aren't copyrightable either because of all the chemistry involved in drying pigment.
- cess11 2y agoThe limits of copyright are intrinsically arbitrary, since the right has its foundations in fantasy, i.e. supposed spiritual labour. An extension of the idea that your physical labour gives you property rights to the fruits of it, into the religious realm of the soul.
- freejazz 2y agoWhy would anyone need to question whether photographs can be copyrighted at all? It's been settled jurisprudence for quite a long time.
- CYR1X 2y agoThe other aspect here is you can't copyright an observable truth. For instance, sports companies tried to sue other sports companies for scraping their scores feeds but courts ruled you can't copyright the fact Patriots beat the Falcons 35-30, because that's simply what happened. There isn't any proprietary scoring keeping mechanism. Anyone who observed the game also can determine those numbers. It is an observable truth. So maybe that applies to the raw photo. You are simply capturing what happened from that POV at that moment in time. Sure if you do something with that photo, then it may become more than an observable truth.
- Suppafly 2y ago>You better be willing to question whether photographs can be copyrightable at all, because they are all result of several mechanical systems not created by the camera operator. That is a good point that a lot of people don't want to address. A lot of the 'creative' part of the process is actually being done by the software in the camera.
- SiempreViernes 2y agoNo, that's the opposite of my point: what the camera does is mechanical work, it is explicitly not creative.