One could definitely argue that because Apple controlled essentially all of elements of artistic expression (lighting, position of the camera, position of the subject within the frame, iso, shutter speed...) that make a photograph unique and McDonald's program was more or less a timer, Apple is the rightful owner of the copyrights in the images.
Your statement that they are free to do what they wish is not accurate.
Use of someone's likeness without their consent could result in an appropriation claim. That's why, when you watch reality tv shows, people who don't sign waivers and releases are blurred out.
A defense to the claim of appropriation is consent, whoever, these individuals were on private property and did not expressly consent to be a part of Mr. Kyle McDonald's project. With respect to implied consent, I'm not sure a judge would side with McDonald if an individual brought a claim. Because the mall and the Apple Store are private property and McDonald did not himself have consent to photograph, the individuals photographed may not have had the requisite authority to consent (implied or otherwise) to be photographed by McDonald.
"Once patent and copyright law had been written into the Constitution, it was decided that everything created before the law would be considered public domain. That?s why the writings of Plato and Homer are free for anyone to use."
The US government did not have the authority to grant rights in the writings of the Greek philosophers.
Re: Re: Re:
One could definitely argue that because Apple controlled essentially all of elements of artistic expression (lighting, position of the camera, position of the subject within the frame, iso, shutter speed...) that make a photograph unique and McDonald's program was more or less a timer, Apple is the rightful owner of the copyrights in the images.
Re: Re: Creepy!
Your statement that they are free to do what they wish is not accurate.
Use of someone's likeness without their consent could result in an appropriation claim. That's why, when you watch reality tv shows, people who don't sign waivers and releases are blurred out.
A defense to the claim of appropriation is consent, whoever, these individuals were on private property and did not expressly consent to be a part of Mr. Kyle McDonald's project. With respect to implied consent, I'm not sure a judge would side with McDonald if an individual brought a claim. Because the mall and the Apple Store are private property and McDonald did not himself have consent to photograph, the individuals photographed may not have had the requisite authority to consent (implied or otherwise) to be photographed by McDonald.
"That's simply crazy. That's like saying we should let alcoholics determine driving-while-drinking laws."
This is a very poorly thought out statement from a reasonably bright guy.
"Once patent and copyright law had been written into the Constitution, it was decided that everything created before the law would be considered public domain. That?s why the writings of Plato and Homer are free for anyone to use."
The US government did not have the authority to grant rights in the writings of the Greek philosophers.
Re: Study by Harvard Professors show piracy losses over stated
On page 16, the study said that the typical displacement rate for the music industry is 20%.