4 ms·

I'm not sure I follow - can't content creator, within existing legal boundaries, already protect his work?

by synthmeat 11y ago

kayfox 11y ago
Except the creators in this case are the people who designed the buildings.
- rbanffy 11y ago
  Weren't they paid to design the buildings? Or are they expecting to recover part of their costs by extorting photographers?
  - germanier 11y ago
    Many copyright owners were paid for creating copyrighted works.
    - rbanffy 11y ago
      The question is whether the copyright holder expected to retain copyright of photographs of the said buildings. To me, it's a very unreasonable expectation since the photographs are not only of artistic value, but of practical use when you need to identify a landmark. What if I write a description of the building? Would it be considered a copyright violation?
      - germanier 11y ago
        In France they certainly do. And no, descriptions are not reproductions so they are not covered under this proposal. "Practical use" would also extend to other kinds of copyrighted material, just think of art catalogues, music databases, and newspaper archives.
        rbanffy 11y ago
        I could write a poligon-by-poligon (or pixel-by-pixel) description. Would it be a reproduction?
        germanier 11y ago
        As far as I know, no court has ever decided something like that but most likely yes. But don't ask me where to draw the line. Also note that this is no different to other copyrighted works: If you were to describe the shapes of all letter in a copyrighted text that would be a violation just as it would be if you gave a pixel-by-pixel description of a copyrighted photograph. Continental European law is mostly decided on a "spirit of the law" basis not on a "letter-by-letter basis". So if someone finds a loophole that obviously is one it is automatically covered.
higherpurpose 11y ago
It probably has something to do with tourism. The thinking must be that if you see the Eiffel Tower's picture online (I believe this new law threatens the whole EU) you won't want to go see it in person anymore. And using the typical "copyright math", they must also think one picture view = one lost tourist, so their studies probably already show that picture taking is "costing the EU trillions of euros". Kind of like this absurdity here: http://www.businessinsider.com/piracy-cyber-crime-game-of-thrones http://www.businessinsider.com/piracy-cyber-crime-game-of-th...

I'm not sure I follow - can't content creator, within existing legal boundaries, already protect his work?

kayfox 11y ago

Except the creators in this case are the people who designed the buildings.

rbanffy 11y ago
Weren't they paid to design the buildings? Or are they expecting to recover part of their costs by extorting photographers?
- germanier 11y ago
  Many copyright owners were paid for creating copyrighted works.
  - rbanffy 11y ago
    The question is whether the copyright holder expected to retain copyright of photographs of the said buildings. To me, it's a very unreasonable expectation since the photographs are not only of artistic value, but of practical use when you need to identify a landmark. What if I write a description of the building? Would it be considered a copyright violation?
    - germanier 11y ago
      In France they certainly do. And no, descriptions are not reproductions so they are not covered under this proposal. "Practical use" would also extend to other kinds of copyrighted material, just think of art catalogues, music databases, and newspaper archives.
      - rbanffy 11y ago
        I could write a poligon-by-poligon (or pixel-by-pixel) description. Would it be a reproduction?
        germanier 11y ago
        As far as I know, no court has ever decided something like that but most likely yes. But don't ask me where to draw the line. Also note that this is no different to other copyrighted works: If you were to describe the shapes of all letter in a copyrighted text that would be a violation just as it would be if you gave a pixel-by-pixel description of a copyrighted photograph. Continental European law is mostly decided on a "spirit of the law" basis not on a "letter-by-letter basis". So if someone finds a loophole that obviously is one it is automatically covered.

higherpurpose 11y ago

It probably has something to do with tourism. The thinking must be that if you see the Eiffel Tower's picture online (I believe this new law threatens the whole EU) you won't want to go see it in person anymore. And using the typical "copyright math", they must also think one picture view = one lost tourist, so their studies probably already show that picture taking is "costing the EU trillions of euros". Kind of like this absurdity here: http://www.businessinsider.com/piracy-cyber-crime-game-of-thrones http://www.businessinsider.com/piracy-cyber-crime-game-of-th...