4 ms·
>>However, I imagine you meant that if a camera were dropped among these people, would they have the rights to the photos they took? Tricky... but I guess yes,
by voidlogic 12y ago
>>However, I imagine you meant that if a camera were dropped among these people, would they have the rights to the photos they took? Tricky... but I guess yes, according to the law... (I am not a lawyer).
This was the point I was trying to make, animal or no, that matters, but I don't think intent does.
- pcrh 12y agoIntent certainly matters in the domain of intellectual property law. For example, imagine that I were to instruct someone to make a device for me, and they made it exactly according to my design, and it performed some novel function that I had predicted it would. Under current law, I would be the inventor, not the person who constructed the device. This is since the "inventive step" was performed by myself. I'm not however sure how this relates to copyright (the issue at hand in the OP)... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obvious...