3 ms·

That was a terrible ruling. It should be about who got the camera there and set it up, not who pushed the button. With automated recording (dashcams) there isn'

That was a terrible ruling. It should be about who got the camera there and set it up, not who pushed the button. With automated recording (dashcams) there isn't even "a button." Hopefully no judge uses that as precedence.

trickypr 2mo ago
What if it was a human who took the photo, would the copyright still be owned by the equipment owner / person who set it up? What if this applied in a photography class? The instructor owns the equipment and helped “set up” the photo. Does the instructor own the copyright?
- tossaway0 2mo ago
  After this ruling, I had an idea for a photo where I set up the entire set, camera, etc, but the photo entailed the model clicking the shutter while we were both in the shot. Just in case, I had the model write a quick note ceding the rights. It's fine, I guess. How does it work in cinema? A director who is the creator of the project must have to get rights from every camera/mic operator.
  - M95D 1mo ago
    > A director who is the creator of the project must have to get rights from every camera/mic operator. No, because they're already paid to do that job. And a director is paid too - he doesn't have any copyright for his work. The employer does.
  - voxic11 1mo ago
    In cinema it works the same as in software engineering. There is an exception to normal copyright law where works made in the course of employment are treated as if the author is the employer rather than the actual author of the work. Its known in copyright law as a "work for hire" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire > In the United States, United Kingdom, and several other jurisdictions, if a work is created by an employee as part of their job duties, the employer is considered the legal author or first owner of copyright. > It is an exception to the general rule that the person who actually creates a work is the legally-recognized author of that work.
    - tossaway0 1mo ago
      So then a film project where no one is paid would need all operators to cede their copyright to the person spearheading the project, correct? If employment is an exception, I wonder what would happen if an animal that you owned pressed the shutter on a camera.
      - voxic11 1mo ago
        Not paying anyone would be a violation of minimum wage laws. Or it would mean they are truly equal partners in the project who have no "employer" they are working under. In which case it does seem most fair that they would all own the copyrights to their contributions absent some other agreement to assign copyright.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
xoa 2mo ago
>It should be about who got the camera there and set it up, not who pushed the button. With automated recording (dashcams), there isn't even "a button". I'm actually having a bit of trouble thinking of what sufficient societal good there is/would be in granting copyright on raw dashcam or security camera or the like footage? None of those purely mechanical automated systems need a subsidy or encouragement to generate more. Certainly someone can use that sort of thing in the creation of a copyrighted work but what would be the issue with the underlying material in that case being unprotected?
- dannyw 2mo ago
  A dashcam could be a safety tool for most people, but it could also be a strategically placed B-cam for a videographer on a shoot. For what it’s worth, dashcam footage can absolutely be copyrightable. The ruling is more about “only humans can get copyright protection”, not so much anything about whether a button is pressed or not.
- collabs 2mo ago
  I am in favor of copyright reform so eventually it becomes something like two years automatic with a one time two year extension possible an I agree with you because of one key word — raw. Once the footage is used in a package, be it a movie, a news report, or a music video, that package can be copyrighted. The problem is there is no way the owner of a dashcam can prohibit commercial use of a video they own if it cannot be copyrighted in the US. In a way, we have conflated copyrights with other so called intellectual property (details). Maybe the solution is to strengthen privacy rights somehow? I'm not sure. Details https://ftp5.gwdg.de/pub/gnu/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty https://ftp5.gwdg.de/pub/gnu/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.h...
  - butvacuum 2mo ago
    people freqently spend more than two years trying to get something published.
    - bestouff 1mo ago
kccqzy 2mo ago
Dashcams and security footage definitely don’t have copyright protection. Are you seriously thinking that the construction worker who set up the camera would then have copyright over everything it records?
- tossaway0 2mo ago
  Really? Regardless of the debate on what should and shouldn't be copyrighted, in the current system there is no way to set up a continuous camera with intention to create something and not be afforded the same rights as if I took a snapshot?
- randyrand 1mo ago
  Yes the security guard’s footage would have copyright protection. However, a security guard is also typically paid and under contract. It’s a commissioned work. Same as when hiring a software engineer.
somenameforme 2mo ago
I think the issue you then run into is imagine another human came, picked up the camera, and used it to take a picture of whatever. It'd be fairly self evident that that the photographer would own the copyright to that work, but in your take - it'd be the camera owner. So you're more of trying to create a special rule where if the normal recipient of a copyright would be invalid, then it slides to the 'nearest' most appropriate individual, but that seems extremely fragile and difficult to define.

trickypr 2mo ago

What if it was a human who took the photo, would the copyright still be owned by the equipment owner / person who set it up? What if this applied in a photography class? The instructor owns the equipment and helped “set up” the photo. Does the instructor own the copyright?

tossaway0 2mo ago
After this ruling, I had an idea for a photo where I set up the entire set, camera, etc, but the photo entailed the model clicking the shutter while we were both in the shot. Just in case, I had the model write a quick note ceding the rights. It's fine, I guess. How does it work in cinema? A director who is the creator of the project must have to get rights from every camera/mic operator.
- M95D 1mo ago
  > A director who is the creator of the project must have to get rights from every camera/mic operator. No, because they're already paid to do that job. And a director is paid too - he doesn't have any copyright for his work. The employer does.
- voxic11 1mo ago
  In cinema it works the same as in software engineering. There is an exception to normal copyright law where works made in the course of employment are treated as if the author is the employer rather than the actual author of the work. Its known in copyright law as a "work for hire" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire > In the United States, United Kingdom, and several other jurisdictions, if a work is created by an employee as part of their job duties, the employer is considered the legal author or first owner of copyright. > It is an exception to the general rule that the person who actually creates a work is the legally-recognized author of that work.
  - tossaway0 1mo ago
    So then a film project where no one is paid would need all operators to cede their copyright to the person spearheading the project, correct? If employment is an exception, I wonder what would happen if an animal that you owned pressed the shutter on a camera.
    - voxic11 1mo ago
      Not paying anyone would be a violation of minimum wage laws. Or it would mean they are truly equal partners in the project who have no "employer" they are working under. In which case it does seem most fair that they would all own the copyrights to their contributions absent some other agreement to assign copyright.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

xoa 2mo ago

>It should be about who got the camera there and set it up, not who pushed the button. With automated recording (dashcams), there isn't even "a button". I'm actually having a bit of trouble thinking of what sufficient societal good there is/would be in granting copyright on raw dashcam or security camera or the like footage? None of those purely mechanical automated systems need a subsidy or encouragement to generate more. Certainly someone can use that sort of thing in the creation of a copyrighted work but what would be the issue with the underlying material in that case being unprotected?

dannyw 2mo ago
A dashcam could be a safety tool for most people, but it could also be a strategically placed B-cam for a videographer on a shoot. For what it’s worth, dashcam footage can absolutely be copyrightable. The ruling is more about “only humans can get copyright protection”, not so much anything about whether a button is pressed or not.
collabs 2mo ago
I am in favor of copyright reform so eventually it becomes something like two years automatic with a one time two year extension possible an I agree with you because of one key word — raw. Once the footage is used in a package, be it a movie, a news report, or a music video, that package can be copyrighted. The problem is there is no way the owner of a dashcam can prohibit commercial use of a video they own if it cannot be copyrighted in the US. In a way, we have conflated copyrights with other so called intellectual property (details). Maybe the solution is to strengthen privacy rights somehow? I'm not sure. Details https://ftp5.gwdg.de/pub/gnu/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty https://ftp5.gwdg.de/pub/gnu/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.h...
- butvacuum 2mo ago
  people freqently spend more than two years trying to get something published.
  - bestouff 1mo ago

kccqzy 2mo ago

Dashcams and security footage definitely don’t have copyright protection. Are you seriously thinking that the construction worker who set up the camera would then have copyright over everything it records?

tossaway0 2mo ago
Really? Regardless of the debate on what should and shouldn't be copyrighted, in the current system there is no way to set up a continuous camera with intention to create something and not be afforded the same rights as if I took a snapshot?
randyrand 1mo ago
Yes the security guard’s footage would have copyright protection. However, a security guard is also typically paid and under contract. It’s a commissioned work. Same as when hiring a software engineer.

somenameforme 2mo ago

I think the issue you then run into is imagine another human came, picked up the camera, and used it to take a picture of whatever. It'd be fairly self evident that that the photographer would own the copyright to that work, but in your take - it'd be the camera owner. So you're more of trying to create a special rule where if the normal recipient of a copyright would be invalid, then it slides to the 'nearest' most appropriate individual, but that seems extremely fragile and difficult to define.