Boojum’s Techdirt Profile

boojumbunn

About Boojum




Boojum’s Comments comment rss

  • Apr 2nd, 2018 @ 6:41pm

    Read the post!

    It was a very interesting blog and I enjoyed reading it. There are a lot if interesting things to think about and look deeper into. Thank you for posting it.

  • Apr 2nd, 2018 @ 4:29pm

    I'd like to see that blog post

    Astronomy aside, as far as I know taking pictures of something in public view (such as a building or the night sky) confers copyright to the image, but does not prevent others from taking similar pictures of the object. I could be mistaken on that, but I seem to remember several lawsuits of public structures and landmarks were deemed to not violate the copyright of the original photographer even though they were a similar angle and blocking. This means that a person can take a picture of Halfdome and own the copyright to THAT picture.. and that someone else can come along and take a very similar picture and own the copyright to THAT picture... and so forth.

  • Apr 2nd, 2018 @ 3:59pm

    Re: Re: Removing RE:'s :D

    If the suggestion that pictures taken where the camera is not under the direct control of the photographer (camera mounted on wall, new google iclip, etc..) have no copyright, then I'm not sure why the raw footage of Andromeda would have a copyright. Conversly, if my raw footage of Andromeda has copyright, I'm not sure why automated picture taking of OTHER sorts wouldn't have copyright the photographer.

    This is a common problem as new technology comes online. People, including myself, would like an objective standard for how the law should be applied. A poorly thought out objective standard has all sorts of unintended consequences. I don't think there is a large body of caselaw on automated photography. It is, normally, assumed that the owner/operator of the camera who arranges for the photo to be taken has the copyright, regardless of how it is triggered. We are discussing an edge case, however. How is having a camera triggered by software installed that determines how good a picture will be different than one which autofocuses, autoshutters, autoaperature, then records constantly? How is it different from leaving your camera in a cage full of monkeys and "hoping" for a good shot? IS there any real difference in any of these possibilities?

    These are all topics that I will be very interested in seeing work out, both in law and in the courts.

  • Apr 2nd, 2018 @ 3:11pm

    Removing RE:'s :D

    Since Photographer control was brought up, that's what I was addressing. I can see your case for it to be a derivative work, but how much "control" that the photographer gives up removes copyright from their work? We have one side where the photographer controls everything (sets ISO, sets exposure, sets shutter speed, sets focus, arranges blocking, triggers picture), on the other side, technology provides a way to take each of those controls away from the photographer.
    It will be really interesting to see which way this goes if it ever comes up in a court case. As an amateur astrophotography buff I often use automation to guide and stack photo's. I have a guided mount and set up my camera to take a picture every X seconds (the less you touch the camera the more table your pictures will be.) When I have a hundred pictures taken, I can stack them and get some NICE pictures of stellar objects.
    If copyright is determined by creative control of the camera at the time the picture is taken, then I must admit there is very little control by me while pictures are being taken and so I would have no copyright on the original pictures, even though spent several hours at night taking them.
    Mind you, no copyright is not the same as being forced to provide access. No one has ACCESS to those original frames unless I provide it... Ownership does give some benefit to prevent others from using those frames.

  • Apr 2nd, 2018 @ 2:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And yet it would seem that putting a camera in a blind to record wildlife at a watering hole and hoping that interesting footage is captured IS sufficient.. or at least it has been unchallenged (to the best of my knowledge.) Many documentaries use such footage when creating documentaries.

  • Apr 2nd, 2018 @ 1:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting on so many levels

    While the photographer gives up control for a certain amount of time, he regains control and then begins cropping, sharpening, blurring, saturating, and all the OTHER things that photographers do with a picture. Pretty much no photographer today snaps a picture and then sends it out as is. Even without photoshop, there are LOTS of settings inside the camera that the monkey would almost certainly never change that would affect the outcome.
    Honestly, I agree with you though. I think that determining copyright on the picture will involve the amount of creativity the court feels the photographer put into it, the same as determining if a work is derivative or not... but that will be on a case by case basis and be VERY subjective. It would not provide photographers with an objective standard to guide their work.

  • Apr 2nd, 2018 @ 12:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting on so many levels

    So this would imply that the intent of the photographer matters, not the actual trigger. So if a photographer left a camera in a cage of monkeys with the intention that one of them would trigger a usable picture, then the photographer would have the copyright? And if he didn't intend for a picture to be taken, there is no copyright on the picture?

  • Apr 2nd, 2018 @ 12:50pm

    Re: On Being Sane....

    Also in this argument, a timelapse photo or video of a flower is not copyrightable, and video of animals in the wilderness from tree mounted cameras is not copyrightable. Only the final creative expression of the documentary on PBS is copyrightable and anyone should be able to pull the timelapse or animal video out and use it for whatever they want. I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation. While the goal of the laws are important, there is no perfect implementation. We end up drawing lines where technology and creativity overlap.

  • Feb 15th, 2017 @ 12:32pm

    3rd party parts

    If I own a ford focus then I have the option of buying Ford parts or of buying 3rd party parts. The Cell Phones we have should be handled the same way. If Apple refuses to sell parts to fix Apple devices, then invalidate their patents on those parts and allow 3rd parties to make and sell them to us.

  • Jun 3rd, 2016 @ 3:24pm

    (untitled comment)

    The requirements for knowledge of the law must apply equally to a city cop with a degree in law enforcement and a small town cop with a high school diploma. There are many small towns in the united states where there is no advanced degree requirement for a police officer. I think this is a situation where the burden is on the court to determine if the statements of law in a warrant are accurate. They certainly do that during trials, so it would be a logical extension of their workload.

  • Jan 20th, 2016 @ 4:53pm

    So iPhone is all about the i?

    I'm sorry, but by this reasoning isn't the i in iPhone all about the i? After all, phone is generic and commonly used. I suspect that this will be granted the same as iPhone was to Apple.

  • Dec 1st, 2015 @ 4:24pm

    Re: There's one way to see their justifications

    All they would be able to do is bring a civil case since a criminal case has to be initiated by the government's judicial branch. Then the government needs to wave the National Security trump card to prevent the case from going forward (provided you can get an american citizen who is a relative to bring the civil case.) So I don't think that lawsuits would work to bring this information to light.

  • Dec 1st, 2015 @ 12:42pm

    Lawsuit vs Speech

    If these sue happy people had just asked Techdirt to allow them to post a rebuttal article about what they felt was unfair instead of suing then I expect Techdirt would be more than happy to work with them. Instead, and sadly, they just want to hide things away instead of talk about them.

  • Jan 13th, 2015 @ 1:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Speech or Commerce?

    By definition, if the government upholds a companies trademark they restrict everyone BUT that companies free speech. They limit everyone ELSES freedom of expression. Loosing the trademark doesn't prevent the company from using it on their gear, it just removes the restriction on everyone elses ability to use it for their own purposes.

    Removing a restriction on everyone BUT the company involved is not restricting the companies freedom of speech. So if you want to argue that the government shouldn't be restricting peoples speech using trademarks then you should have them remove trademarks all together.

    So I don't believe that the Redskins Trademark issue is a freedom of speech issue, it is a commerce issue and should be pursued as such. Loosing the mark doesn't prevent the redskins speech or expression.. it allows other people to use it without paying royalties to the Redskins and the NFL.

  • Jan 13th, 2015 @ 11:43am

    Re: Re: Speech or Commerce?

    A trademark and a copyright are both forms of limited monopolies. A trademark is a limited monopoly designed to avoid confusion in the marketplace. They have already lost that legal battle. Now they are attempting to misuse freedom of speech laws to regain the commercial benefits of owning the trademark.

    Trademark and freedom of speech are two different things, not the same thing. No one is limiting their speech, they are limiting their ability to profit from their speech. Again, two very different things. If they want to keep the name Redskins without owning the trademark they can do that. If they want to change their name to something that they can own the trademark on they can do that. I don't think that they can re-fight the battle with the Trademark Office, but I could be wrong on that.

    But to say that taking away their trademark prevents their speech? That I don't agree. It has nothing to do with speech and everything to do with commerce.

  • Jan 13th, 2015 @ 10:51am

    Speech or Commerce?

    As far as I know, the football team can keep calling themselves the Redskins, they just can't trademark it. That means they can't have a monopoly on the name/logo and have the exclusive right to make money off of it. That is very different than saying they can't call themselves the Redskins.

    I think this is an attempt to use free speech laws as an end run around limited monopoly laws. They just don't like the commercial ramifications of loosing the trademark.

  • Sep 17th, 2014 @ 11:52am

    (untitled comment)

    I wonder if they gave back the grenades as well as the launchers.

  • Aug 4th, 2014 @ 1:28pm

    (untitled comment)

    Is it sort of wrong for me to hope that he also calls and threatens TechDirt for this article? Because I know Techdirt won't back down and it would be fun to see how far the cartoonist tries to take it.
    Boojum

  • Jul 30th, 2014 @ 4:48pm

    Re: Re: What about HIPPA laws?

    Ah, ha! Your right. I just did some more digging and according to the AHJC:

    Additionally, the following are NOT protected health information: police and fire incident reports, and court records. Also, birth records and autopsy records are not protected health information to the extent they are maintained by state agencies. In addition, if a state FOIA law designates death records and/or autopsy reports as public information that must be disclosed, covered entities may disclose that protected health information without an authorization.

  • Jul 30th, 2014 @ 4:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Privacy isn't copyright

    Hipaa has been around since 1996 and, according to the documents I linked to, does apply to autopsy's

More comments from Boojum >>