3 ms·

I do not get the outcry over this. This is a Good Thing with capital letters. We as a whole species are currently producing more content than the sum of humani

by chewxy 14y ago

I do not get the outcry over this. This is a Good Thing with capital letters. We as a whole species are currently producing more content than the sum of humanity prior to the 20th century per day every day. Content production has become so cheap, in fact just the other day I wondered if "from each his own ability; to each according to his need" can be rightfully applied yet. Sure, you say there are moral issues of profiting off the backs off someone's hard works. But such a law allows you to also do the same. You might say for example, that you don't intend to do the same. Good on ya mate. Then go profit off your own work, and also allow others to profit off your work! This is not a pie that is finite in size. If someone does not intend to profit off their own work anyway, what is it to them then that someone else profits off their work? That said, I think attribution is still a requirement as we enter the age of digital communism

regularfry 14y ago
This act applies precisely in the case where attribution isn't possible.
- chewxy 14y ago
  yah I am aware. Orphan works.
- SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
  > This act applies precisely in the case where attribution isn't possible. That's the intention. However when the system is "I tried to find out who took this picture, I failed, therefor I can use it freely", then surely that system can and will be gamed badly?
  - yarrel 14y ago
    If the judge can find the image in Google, that's not going to end well.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
      DMCA take-down orders are regularly made on flimsier grounds, despite this being technically perjury. Also, google image search and tineye still seem to be surprisingly specialist skills. Average computer users don't know them. Judges ... even less so.
    - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
      The prosecution would have to show that the defendant could have found that image at the time they searched and that they were negligent (ie not diligent) in the search they performed. For example a diligent search could be considered to be using a specific service, Tineye say, but another similar service was the only one that had the image. Do you have to use all services to be diligent? That would be great for the service providers as they could charge a lot and the court would be enforcing the use. How would the prosecution demonstrate that image was available to you? On Google search is personalised - do I need to check all the results returned or just the first 100? Google's dates are notoriously unreliable too; they're certainly not at the level of accuracy needed for a court conviction. Then there's DMCA ... couldn't you use the DMCA to have the images taken down, then when a prosecutor checks later they won't find them? Or at least they're down long enough that you can get a search notarised in which the images are absent.
timthorn 14y ago
It's not just profit. Imagine taking a photograph that then gets used to promote a political party that campaigns against your beliefs - you might be happy with that, but I wouldn't be.
- chewxy 14y ago
  You have a point. But in my worst case scenario (i.e. I take a picture of a starving African child, and a hypothetical neo-nazi racist politician were to use it in saying "this is what god intends for black people"), there would be a moral outrage on my part. However, I wouldn't be outraged at the free (mis)use. Rather, the moral outrage would be at the misrepresentation of the photo. That would fall under the likeness laws I believe. The subject of the photos I believe would probably have cause to sue in that case (of course in the case of the starving African child, it probably will not happen) Perhaps you can think of something worse
- Silhouette 14y ago
  While I think you have a valid point, I think it's also useful to separate copyright (which is fundamentally an economic tool, hence the "limited" duration) from other reasons to restrict copying or redistributing material by law, such as protecting privacy rights, trade secrets, genuine national security concerns, etc. Assuming copyright law is the correct tool to guard against these other things, and against the kind of misrepresentation you're talking about, seems to muddy the waters and thus to dilute reasonable but distinct arguments in favour of either copyright or the other protections.
katbyte 14y ago
>If someone does not intend to profit off their own work anyway, what is it to them then that someone else profits off their work? I would not want any of my photos or content used without my consent, even if it has nothing to do with profit and money. A while back photo I posted online was used by someone with regard to subject matter that offends me and i categorically disagree with. Thankfully my work is protected by copyright so i was able to use the DMCA to force its removal. > Sure, you say there are moral issues of profiting off the backs off someone's hard works. But such a law allows you to also do the same. If i make my living doing photography or some other art form, i don't want to lose income because others are copying my work, nor do i want to profit off of others work because that is not my area of expertise nor likely what i want to do for a living.

by chewxy 14y ago

regularfry 14y ago

This act applies precisely in the case where attribution isn't possible.

chewxy 14y ago
yah I am aware. Orphan works.
SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
> This act applies precisely in the case where attribution isn't possible. That's the intention. However when the system is "I tried to find out who took this picture, I failed, therefor I can use it freely", then surely that system can and will be gamed badly?
- yarrel 14y ago
  If the judge can find the image in Google, that's not going to end well.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
    DMCA take-down orders are regularly made on flimsier grounds, despite this being technically perjury. Also, google image search and tineye still seem to be surprisingly specialist skills. Average computer users don't know them. Judges ... even less so.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    The prosecution would have to show that the defendant could have found that image at the time they searched and that they were negligent (ie not diligent) in the search they performed. For example a diligent search could be considered to be using a specific service, Tineye say, but another similar service was the only one that had the image. Do you have to use all services to be diligent? That would be great for the service providers as they could charge a lot and the court would be enforcing the use. How would the prosecution demonstrate that image was available to you? On Google search is personalised - do I need to check all the results returned or just the first 100? Google's dates are notoriously unreliable too; they're certainly not at the level of accuracy needed for a court conviction. Then there's DMCA ... couldn't you use the DMCA to have the images taken down, then when a prosecutor checks later they won't find them? Or at least they're down long enough that you can get a search notarised in which the images are absent.

timthorn 14y ago

It's not just profit. Imagine taking a photograph that then gets used to promote a political party that campaigns against your beliefs - you might be happy with that, but I wouldn't be.

chewxy 14y ago
You have a point. But in my worst case scenario (i.e. I take a picture of a starving African child, and a hypothetical neo-nazi racist politician were to use it in saying "this is what god intends for black people"), there would be a moral outrage on my part. However, I wouldn't be outraged at the free (mis)use. Rather, the moral outrage would be at the misrepresentation of the photo. That would fall under the likeness laws I believe. The subject of the photos I believe would probably have cause to sue in that case (of course in the case of the starving African child, it probably will not happen) Perhaps you can think of something worse
Silhouette 14y ago
While I think you have a valid point, I think it's also useful to separate copyright (which is fundamentally an economic tool, hence the "limited" duration) from other reasons to restrict copying or redistributing material by law, such as protecting privacy rights, trade secrets, genuine national security concerns, etc. Assuming copyright law is the correct tool to guard against these other things, and against the kind of misrepresentation you're talking about, seems to muddy the waters and thus to dilute reasonable but distinct arguments in favour of either copyright or the other protections.

katbyte 14y ago

>If someone does not intend to profit off their own work anyway, what is it to them then that someone else profits off their work? I would not want any of my photos or content used without my consent, even if it has nothing to do with profit and money. A while back photo I posted online was used by someone with regard to subject matter that offends me and i categorically disagree with. Thankfully my work is protected by copyright so i was able to use the DMCA to force its removal. > Sure, you say there are moral issues of profiting off the backs off someone's hard works. But such a law allows you to also do the same. If i make my living doing photography or some other art form, i don't want to lose income because others are copying my work, nor do i want to profit off of others work because that is not my area of expertise nor likely what i want to do for a living.