The framing of the picture would be chosen by the person setting up the camera. The focus might also be set by that same person, but more likely it's automatic.
Every other creative input to the picture would essentially be 'chosen' by the animal triggering the camera.
Framing alone might be enough to get a copyright on the photo, but I doubt it.
To put that into perspective, 2.2 million incorrect claims in six months amounts to over twelve thousand incorrect copyright claims each and every day. Of course the copyright maximalists can't figure out why the rest of us consider copyright to be seriously broken.
CDC just can't figure the connection of how that lead got shot into their bodies
Thanks to Congress and the NRA, the CDC is not permitted to investigate this epidemic of rapid onset lead poisoning.
I wonder how many politicians would vote for a law like that if it contained a provision that there must be a one year trial period where the new law is in effect only the politicians. The law would not apply to the rest of the population until after that trial period.
Oh, and just to make the example clear, create an archive site where copies of all the encrypted messages are required to be made publicly available.
Copyright ruins (almost, the GPL is an exception) everything.
Of course, if there were no copyright, the GPL would not work, nor would it be needed.
I wonder how fast the content industry would change their position if ISPs were to interpret "notice and stay down" as including all copies of the content, including legitimate copies from the content provider's website.
Section 230 is the only surviving part of the Communications Decency Act of 1995. Didn't the Supreme Court already decide section 230 was constitutional when they struck down the rest of the act, but specifically left this one part alone.
One possible solution would be to make qualified immunity a defence rather than an automatic win. In order to invoke qualified immunity the defence would have to show a previous precedent rather than forcing the plaintiff to prove the precedence to avoid dismissal.
After many reports of bank robber robbing banks, bank robber promises not to rob any more banks.
when they inquired why they couldn't login they were falsely told they were the victim of fraud
It sounds to me like they were the victim of fraud. The fraud being perpetrated by the company executives.
This is typical of the 'collect it all' mentality of the Intelligence community. Why bother trying to figure out who to spy on, when it's easier to simply collect everything in one massive haystack, and sort through the haystack at leisure.
It's not like making the haystack as large as possible is going to make finding that needle any harder.
They're not entirely lying. Broadband prices have been steadily dropping for years...
...for the telecom companies.
I'm sure the ever increasing profit margins of the telecom companies will be a great consolation to the customers stuck paying the bill.
One radical idea would be to break up the telecom companies. Instead of breaking them up by area, break them up by function. The telecom companies would keep their existing customer sales, service, and support functions. The other part would be a regulated non-profit 'Last Mile' company mandated to provide high speed data services to every residence and building. The last mile company would connect all these locations to central hubs, and then sell access to the hub to the telecom companies. The last mile company would be required to sell access to any ISP (or phone company) that can get a fibre link in to the hub, and residents can switch ISPs with no more difficulty than signing a contract with the new ISP.
Of course, while we're at it, we might as well wish for unicorns and pixie dust. It's about as likely.
The problem with requiring someone to enter commands at the final computer is that it also requires someone to be present at that final computer. The whole reason for networking the computers is so that the control of a distributed system can be centralised under the control of a handful of operators. The only reason it's a problem is because the site operators chose the cheaper option of networking via commercial internet instead of the more secure, but far more expensive option of networking via a private, dedicated network.
So if anyone remains 500 years from now to examine Amerikan history, how will they view this particular time period?
I'm of the opinion that Robert Heinlein got it right in his future history books where he described this time period as 'The Crazy Years' Let's just hope that he was wrong in the theocracy that followed that time.