6 ms·

Damned if you do, damned if you don't! If you pass more stringent copyright laws, people roast you on a pitchfork for fucking creators over by restricting how

by swombat 14y ago

Damned if you do, damned if you don't! If you pass more stringent copyright laws, people roast you on a pitchfork for fucking creators over by restricting how they can use other people's works. If you pass looser copyright laws, people roast you on a pitchfork for fucking creators over by not restricting how others can use their work. In such a situation, where the geek world is the first to shout abuse at politicians the minute they make any changes, it's no surprise that the smoother-talking Disney lobbyists win. As a community, we have got to get our shit together and start having a clear position. For myself, I think any step that weakens copyright is good at this point, so I think this is a great move. It opens up a huge realm of creative activity. Now they just need to apply this to music, movies and text too.

choult 14y ago
I agree that it might open up a "huge realm of creative activity" on the amateur or cottage industry side, but it also removes a lot of content creators' rights when larger corps who can afford licensing fees rip us off. I'm not the biggest supporter of modern copyright - I love what I understand to be the spirit of it, but not this "death + x years" crap - but it needs to work both for the little guy and the big guy.
regularfry 14y ago
The problem with this is that it weakens copyright from the wrong direction: it makes more content available to big corporates without them having to give anything back.
- zalew 14y ago
  copyright reform that takes away from the people and gives more to the big corps? that's a shocker.
mtgx 14y ago
Here's what the position should be. You're free to use other people's stuff that appears online, but not for commercial purposes. Putting someone's picture (that happens to be on the web, publicly available) in a post on a site, where you happen to have ads does not count as "using your image" for commercial purposes. Putting your image in an ad would. My point is that you shouldn't be able to just claim having copyright over someone's work, and then profiting from it as your own. I shouldn't be able to take the HD version of Iron Man 3, and then sell it to my local cinema. That's as far as copyright should go.
- rdsubhas 14y ago
  How about I use those photos in my ad-supported private blog, or my ad-supported private youtube stream. Or in some way that indirectly increases my profits in the future (say buying fame instead of money)? Does that count as fair use? (PS: genuine question)
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    If you're selling advertising space then in UK and US copyright law that would likely be considered to be commercial use. That doesn't mean that it's not allowed or [in the US] Fair Use but it's a strong mark against that conclusion. There can be moral rights issues in "framing" work with your advertising too that could trump any conclusion that would otherwise fall as Fair Use.
- sageikosa 14y ago
  Does commercial purposes count for supporting non-profits that you may disagree with? There is nothing special, nor onerous, about commercial activity that should grant it any special privileges, nor penalties.
  - JohnLBevan 14y ago
    Similarly, how about context. If there's a photo of someone on the web and you can't find the owner/subject's contact details you could put this in a post about STDs; if that post becomes popular the subject's image is then associated with the content despite them having no relation to the subject matter and not having given their consent, which could lead to awkward scenarios for that person. (I won't say a Facebook photo as this will be in the uploader's album, therefore associated with their account and thus can be considered non-orphaned).
- pessimizer 14y ago
  >Putting someone's picture (that happens to be on the web, publicly available) in a post on a site, where you happen to have ads does not count as "using your image" for commercial purposes. To me it does. I don't understand the operational difference between putting someone's image within whatever div has been designated the "ad" div or outside of it, other than location. If I don't understand it, surely teams of lawyers in opposition can create complicated rationales that justify any parties' usage of any other parties' work based on how much money the first party has to spend on lawyers.
smegel 14y ago
I think the community position is clear - violating copyright for personal, non public, non profit purposes is OK. Exploiting others work for commercial gain without permission and compensation not OK. What's so hard about that?
- youngerdryas 14y ago
  Exactly. This is all you need to know about copyright. Reality on the ground always trumps theoretical reality, so everyone can stop hyperventilating and breathe normally. Abolition of copyright would heavily favor entrenched forces.
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  Well, the stated purpose of this law is to make it easier to exploit the work of others for commercial gain without permission and compensation (edit: actually it seems you have to pay, even if it's an orphan work and the money is kept for rights-holders who come out of the woodwork later, which further reduces the chance of someone stealing your facebook photos). And generally the community are alright with that because they're targetting "orphan works", stuff that got swept up into hundred year plus copyrights just because Disney didn't want to lose Mickey. But is now "culture" or "history", yet it is presumed to be owned by someone or something that can't be traced and found to ask permission due to death, bankruptcy, poor recordkeeping etc. The people protesting this law seem to be making the dubious claim that you can now steal the copyright to anyone's digital media (film, music, photo, books) you find online just by stripping some metadata. This seems, on the face of it, absurd. And if it's true then there will be better things to steal than someone's facebook photos. Why would those big nasty US coporations steal your family photos when they could steal stuff with actual value from other big nasty US corporations? edit: a UK government response to previous scaremongering from the same source: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121205183318/http://blogs.bis.gov.uk/blog/2012/08/02/uk-copyright-and-orphan-works-the-facts/ http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121205183318/htt...
  - smegel 14y ago
    Facebook photos would be/are extremely valuable to advertisers. And very few would have contact metadata attached, which is irrelevant anyway after your mate reposts the image to imgur for a Reddit post. And i guess they would rather steal from someone who can't fight back than an entity that owns an army of lawyers.
unimpressive 14y ago
Pretty much all damage to copyright at this point is good, if only for setting the precedent that copyright is something that you can damage.

by swombat 14y ago

choult 14y ago

I agree that it might open up a "huge realm of creative activity" on the amateur or cottage industry side, but it also removes a lot of content creators' rights when larger corps who can afford licensing fees rip us off. I'm not the biggest supporter of modern copyright - I love what I understand to be the spirit of it, but not this "death + x years" crap - but it needs to work both for the little guy and the big guy.

regularfry 14y ago

The problem with this is that it weakens copyright from the wrong direction: it makes more content available to big corporates without them having to give anything back.

zalew 14y ago
copyright reform that takes away from the people and gives more to the big corps? that's a shocker.

mtgx 14y ago

Here's what the position should be. You're free to use other people's stuff that appears online, but not for commercial purposes. Putting someone's picture (that happens to be on the web, publicly available) in a post on a site, where you happen to have ads does not count as "using your image" for commercial purposes. Putting your image in an ad would. My point is that you shouldn't be able to just claim having copyright over someone's work, and then profiting from it as your own. I shouldn't be able to take the HD version of Iron Man 3, and then sell it to my local cinema. That's as far as copyright should go.

rdsubhas 14y ago
How about I use those photos in my ad-supported private blog, or my ad-supported private youtube stream. Or in some way that indirectly increases my profits in the future (say buying fame instead of money)? Does that count as fair use? (PS: genuine question)
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  If you're selling advertising space then in UK and US copyright law that would likely be considered to be commercial use. That doesn't mean that it's not allowed or [in the US] Fair Use but it's a strong mark against that conclusion. There can be moral rights issues in "framing" work with your advertising too that could trump any conclusion that would otherwise fall as Fair Use.
sageikosa 14y ago
Does commercial purposes count for supporting non-profits that you may disagree with? There is nothing special, nor onerous, about commercial activity that should grant it any special privileges, nor penalties.
- JohnLBevan 14y ago
  Similarly, how about context. If there's a photo of someone on the web and you can't find the owner/subject's contact details you could put this in a post about STDs; if that post becomes popular the subject's image is then associated with the content despite them having no relation to the subject matter and not having given their consent, which could lead to awkward scenarios for that person. (I won't say a Facebook photo as this will be in the uploader's album, therefore associated with their account and thus can be considered non-orphaned).
pessimizer 14y ago
>Putting someone's picture (that happens to be on the web, publicly available) in a post on a site, where you happen to have ads does not count as "using your image" for commercial purposes. To me it does. I don't understand the operational difference between putting someone's image within whatever div has been designated the "ad" div or outside of it, other than location. If I don't understand it, surely teams of lawyers in opposition can create complicated rationales that justify any parties' usage of any other parties' work based on how much money the first party has to spend on lawyers.

smegel 14y ago

I think the community position is clear - violating copyright for personal, non public, non profit purposes is OK. Exploiting others work for commercial gain without permission and compensation not OK. What's so hard about that?

youngerdryas 14y ago
Exactly. This is all you need to know about copyright. Reality on the ground always trumps theoretical reality, so everyone can stop hyperventilating and breathe normally. Abolition of copyright would heavily favor entrenched forces.
ZeroGravitas 14y ago
Well, the stated purpose of this law is to make it easier to exploit the work of others for commercial gain without permission and compensation (edit: actually it seems you have to pay, even if it's an orphan work and the money is kept for rights-holders who come out of the woodwork later, which further reduces the chance of someone stealing your facebook photos). And generally the community are alright with that because they're targetting "orphan works", stuff that got swept up into hundred year plus copyrights just because Disney didn't want to lose Mickey. But is now "culture" or "history", yet it is presumed to be owned by someone or something that can't be traced and found to ask permission due to death, bankruptcy, poor recordkeeping etc. The people protesting this law seem to be making the dubious claim that you can now steal the copyright to anyone's digital media (film, music, photo, books) you find online just by stripping some metadata. This seems, on the face of it, absurd. And if it's true then there will be better things to steal than someone's facebook photos. Why would those big nasty US coporations steal your family photos when they could steal stuff with actual value from other big nasty US corporations? edit: a UK government response to previous scaremongering from the same source: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121205183318/http://blogs.bis.gov.uk/blog/2012/08/02/uk-copyright-and-orphan-works-the-facts/ http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121205183318/htt...
- smegel 14y ago
  Facebook photos would be/are extremely valuable to advertisers. And very few would have contact metadata attached, which is irrelevant anyway after your mate reposts the image to imgur for a Reddit post. And i guess they would rather steal from someone who can't fight back than an entity that owns an army of lawyers.

unimpressive 14y ago

Pretty much all damage to copyright at this point is good, if only for setting the precedent that copyright is something that you can damage.