These have been my impressions as well, Bill. I am, however, hoping Nathan
will chime in with some additional information, as it seems to be rare that
we hear via the media the views of someone (other than Disney and similar
rights-holders) actually involved in the process. I am not one of those
that believe that IP isn't valid at all. I do, however, think--so far--that
the rights to IP are being abused by some in the USA, and that that abuse
and the power of the US government are being used to force similar changes
elsewhere.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:25 AM Bill Pearce <billcpearce@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Extensions of copyright in the US is the result of only one thing, and that
> is money is power and Disney has lots of both. The pressure on congress to
> extend copyrights has been driven by the desire to retain exclusive use of
> Mickey Mouse, which would have been in the public domain many years ago.
>
> The thing about a photo of an object is the result of not bureaucracy but
> by
> greed. Someone wants to preclude the use of their object's image in
> something else from which they gain no money, or over which they have no
> control. It's as silly as the architects that which to retain control of
> how
> an image of a structure is used after it is complete and in the hands of
> another owner. If there were ever first world problems, these are ones.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Gomez
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 8:37 AM
> To: Olympus Camera Discussion
> Subject: Re: [OM] UK Copyright
>
> The concept of copyright protecting an image of a physical object where the
> image can in no way replicate that object's utility seems a bit of a
> stretch, to me. I can see how copyright protection would apply, say, to
> imaging the pages of a book, because one infringes by reproducing the idea
> in what is simply a different form which preserves (to some extent) the
> object's utility. I can read the "book" from the images of the pages. But
> images of something like furniture do not reproduce its utility in any
> meaningful way.
>
> Does this mean, for example, that posting an image to a website of a
> copyrighted chair infringes when advertising that item for sale by an
> individual? The intent is clearly "commercial" (in more than one sense of
> the word).
>
> It's like the continually increasing length of time being applied by
> copyright law. Why should the work of an author be protected by copyright
> far beyond the death of that author? It makes sense that some extension
> beyond death should occur--independent authors may well have had no other
> means of supporting their families who survived them--but even that is a
> luxury that isn't afforded to the rest of us. While the family of a
> successful musician, to use an example, may well benefit from the continued
> protection (and earnings) of her work beyond her death, the same isn't true
> for any other sort of work that cannot be protected under copyright (or
> perhaps, patent) law. All the extension of copyright far beyond the death
> of the author does is to enrich the holder of said copyright while
> preventing passage of the work into the public domain, where it may be
> beneficial to many more. As one of the intentions (at least in the US, to
> my understanding) of copyright was to encourage creation of works to
> benefit the country as a whole, it seems that copyright extension is
> contrary to that aim.
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 4:12 AM Nathan Wajsman <photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > As a practical matter, this matters only for commercial use of the
> > photograph. Nobody will ever prosecuted for posting his newly acquired
> > designer chair on Facebook.
> >
> > Furthermore, there is a distinction between incidental inclusion of
> > protected items and those items being the main subject of the photograph.
> > So the idea that photo agencies will need to check all their images taken
> > inside for potential infringement is an exaggeration. Example: you
> publish
> > a portrait of a person in her living room. There is a copyright-protected
> > designer chair in the room, but clearly the main subject of the
> photograph
> > is the person, not the furniture. In that case the "incidental inclusion"
> > exception would apply.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Nathan (who breaks numerous laws on his websites...)
> >
> > Op Di, 15 december, 2015 12:43, schreef Jez Cunningham:
> > > Will be interesting to see what Nathan has to say on the topic...
> > >
> > > On 15 December 2015 at 10:56, Wayne Harridge <
> > > wayne.harridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Interesting concept !
> > >>
> > >> A problem for publishers of any sort of photography, video, etc. I
> > >> expect,
> > >> not much chance of enforcing it against Joe Bloggs who posts an image
> > >> on
> > >> facebook, etc.
> > >>
> > >> The article is not clear about how this law will be applied:
> > >> 1. photograph the chair in the UK and publish in USofA ?
> > >> 2. the chair designed in the UK, photograph it in NZ and publish on
> the
> > >> internet ?
> > >> 3. what happens if you alter the chair (are you even allowed to do
> that
> > >> ?)
> > >> ?
> > >>
> > >> Bureaucracy gone mad !
> > >>
> > >> ...Wayne
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: olympus
> > >> [mailto:olympus-bounces+wayne.harridge=
> > >> structuregraphs.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> ] On Behalf Of Scott Gomez
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, 15 December 2015 5:09 PM
> > >> To: Olympus Camera Discussion <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> Subject: [OM] UK Copyright
> > >>
> > >> Via Ars Technica:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/you-may-soon-need-a-licence-to-ta
> > >> ke-photos-of-that-classic-designer-chair-you-bought/
> > >>
> > >> Can any of our UK members comment on this? Is it an accurate
> > >> representation
> > >> of the law?
> > >> --
> > >> ---
> > >> Scott
> > >> --
> > >> _________________________________________________________________
> > >> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> > >> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> > >> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> _________________________________________________________________
> > >> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> > >> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> > >> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
> > >>
> > >>
> > > --
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> > > Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> > > Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nathan Wajsman
> > photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > --
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> > Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> > Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
> >
> > --
> ---
> Scott
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
> --
---
Scott
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|