I have no idea if this would ever hold up in court, but I told my 9 year old son that he doesn't have permission to accept any agreements on our PS3, but then also told him that if the PSN store and Netflix won't work unless someone accepts them. I've never accepted any Sony agreements, but both of those things surprisingly work on my PS3 right now.
The only time you own the copyright (without a contract or work for hire) when you "cause it to be created", is if you directly set up the chain of events to create the picture, and there is no other creative input from another person. Otherwise there would be far less joint copyrights, or works for hire wouldn't need contracts or separate laws to exempt them from termination laws.
In your example, the teacher has already likely created the entire exam, and she absolutely would own the copyright on the compilation of questions and answers. A student's separate answers, assuming that they have enough creative value to be copyrightable and that they are different enough from the teacher's original answers, are absolutely owned by the student.
If you ask a neighbor to take a picture, even if he is using your own camera, he absolutely owns the copyright; if you also had creative input (subject matter, lighting, framing, where to stand, when to take the picture), then it's possible you would both own the copyright. Only if you could prove that your neighbor had absolutely no creative input (you set up the camera on a tripod and told him when to push the button), then you might own the full copyright.
The entire thing that is up for debate here is if the chain of events this photographer set up, qualifies for enough creative input to qualify for copyright. Even if it does qualify, it's still extremely tragic that far too many people have never even entertained the idea that it is entirely possible for something to be created without being copyrightable.
Re: Re: Re: Its another rule - enforced "stop bashing your head"
To start, I will admit Nina's cartoons can be hit or miss to me, but I can't help but notice this one either went way over your head, or you're being intentionally disingenuous (most people here assume the latter from you, which is why they keep labelling you as a troll).
Your and others' comments are criticizing Nina's use of the word criticism by mentioning that the character didn't actually offer any criticism. If I'm interpreting the comic right, I think that's the whole point. The only person in the comic that misinterpreted the suggestion as criticism is the person bashing their head. Again, I'm interpreting that Nina's entire point is that most of the Techdirt community are trying to give rational suggestions to others that are interpreted as criticism.
Second, that is really a stretch to say that offering a suggestion to someone else is enforcing a rule. When I offer a suggestion, you can choose (or not) to follow it. I see no attempt by the character in the final frame trying to force anything on the other.
The way I read that is that Wolk is claiming that fraud was committed against the judge rather than the judge committed fraud. Still, that could possibly be defamation against the other party that he claims defrauded the judge.
Unless U of C's attendance jumped from 9,000 students to 27,000 students in 1 year, or unless the numbers quoted in the Gauntlet article are inaccurate, then that looks like a roughly 4000% price increase to me.
I used to work for a small ISP for a few years that implemented caps, and the upload cap was separate from the download one. Also, the punishment for repeat offenders was to throttle their traffic down to something like 256k down/128k up.
1. Mike, while posting under his real name in this comment thread, he mistakes the wrong anonymous coward as TAM.
2. Later, in some other article, he posts as anonymous coward and points out that different anonymous coward is really TAM.
3. TAM, posting as an anonymous coward, points out that the anonymous coward that is pointing him out is really Mike.
4. Mike then points back to this comment thread, saying that he can't possibly be Mike when even the "real" Mike can't tell who TAM is.
One thing I've never understood is how anyone, especially the Supreme Court, can think that a copyright that effectively lasts longer than the average human lifespan is even remotely for a "limited time".
I know my idea is hardly original (especially among the Techdirt community), but I still feel like I need to say it. Any works that are released in my lifetime absolutely do not have a limited term as far as I'm concerned, since they will never enter the public domain until I am dead.
Actually, I've changed my mind, and when evil raporists are found guilty of copyright infringement, I think judges should start sentencing them to prison for limited terms. Life plus 70 sounds pretty good to me.
This isn't even the mall owner being a child pornographer, it's the Hot Topic, that's 30 stores down from the Orange Julius, pimping out little kids, and then having the police barricade all access to the entire mall so they can protect the children.