I think we need to get to the root of this problem and stem these bad laws. If they won't leaf a woman like this alone, you can be sure they'll branch out and come for the rest of us. Lettuce pray it never reaches that point. I know I don't want the police to turnip at my door if I embed a video. Of course, against the lobbying power of MAFIAA, I doubt our efforts will be worth a hill of beans.
If I went to the beach and forgot my camera, and grabbed my friend's camera that they left in my car and took pictures, they'd still be my copyright, regardless of if it's their batteries or lens. Same for the monkies. Doesn't matter who brought the camera, the primates were still the ones snapping the shots. Forgetting your camera and having someone else take shots on it does not mean you contributed.
And the reason why this case has become important is because it showcases how copyright is outdated. When the first copyright laws were drawn up, no one ever imagined this could happen, so there was nothing included regarding it. Which is why we're arguing. It would be nice if copyright could be revamped to deal with the modern world instead of being constantly patched and repatched to try to plug up the issues that have risen over the years.
If the images are public domain, why would permission be needed to use them? If, somehow, they do deserve a copyright, would it not be fair use to post them as the story was reporting on the pictures, making them newsworthy? If that's the case, again, why is permission needed?
I'd think there's every right to use the photos here.
Contrary to popular belief, cartoons don't always have to be funny. Sometimes they can be poignant or touching or just thought provoking. Comics are an art form. Just because we're used to them being a vehicle for humor doesn't mean they're less legitimate when they aren't.
This specific comic may not have made me laugh, but it did make me smile and make me think. I think that works.
Sooo.. under the original writing of copyright in America, it was to promote progress. Creating new works of art based on previous works is an age-old method of progress. Yet, artistic effort and derivative works doesn't matter?
Considering that in my art classes I was specifically instructed to appropriate works of art, and to mash-up others, methinks that they matter quite a bit.
To reiterate from the article, why is it considered 'taking' if copyright terms are made shorter, thus affecting a legacy industry, but it isn't considered 'taking' when copyright terms were extended retroactively, thus affecting the deal with the public?
Because the state laws benefit the RIAA and benefiting the RIAA is what the Constitution is all about. Please try to keep up here. Once you realize the entire reason for the existence of the universe is to make things better for the RIAA we'll all be happier.
Oh my word, can you imagine the headache of trying to get buy-in from every descendant of a creator if you wanted to use their work after a few generations? Having to find dozens of people and hope that not one of them decides they want to say no? Ugh, I'm gonna have nightmares tonight.