Hulser 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (811) comment rss

  • On the post: You Know What's Missing From The Aaron Swartz Indictment? Any Mention Of Copyright

    Hulser ( profile ), 20 Jul, 2011 @ 10:07am

    Hacking does not require a copyright factor

    It appears to me that the simple reason for the government to not mention copyright is that this element is irrelevant to the charges. IANAL, but I'm assuming that the laws on "computer fraud" and "obtaining information from a protected computer" don't require that the information being hacked is copyrighted, just private or in a protected environment. I think it's similar to the DMCA rules where you legally have a right to make back-ups of your own DVD, but in order to invoke this right, you have to perform an illegal act. I'm not saying I agree with this logic, just that there appears to be a legal precedent.

  • On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His

    Hulser ( profile ), 18 Jul, 2011 @ 08:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."

    If my own original, creative authorship is captured in a photo taken by someone else, I may have a claim to copyright ownership (potentially as a co-author/co-owner of the copyright with the photographer).

    Again, I ask what is your reasoning that this is true? I don't care fuckall what you think is your rights. I'm asking you what, based on the law, you belieive to be your rights. I asked you an honest question and you replied with conjecture and wishful thinking.

    If I do my own makeup, design my own clothes, and pose myself for a shot, and the photgrapher decides on lighting, aperture, and angle, we may be coauthors/coowners of the copyright in the shot.

    Not according to the law.

  • On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His

    Hulser ( profile ), 18 Jul, 2011 @ 12:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."

    <>(although it is arguable that the subjects of the photos may also own a copyright interest)

    What's your reasoning that the subjects would have any "copyright interests"? As I understand the law, a subject could have some publicity rights, but no claim to the actual copyright. And perhaps someone could make a trademark claim, such as the maker of the dress or any the manufacturers of any products which appear in the picture. I'm not saying you're wrong; cust curious why you think this issue would be in question.

  • On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His

    Hulser ( profile ), 17 Jul, 2011 @ 10:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    By your logic the pictures in the camera the thief took are his copyright????

    That's correct. It's not complicated, really. Unless you explicitly transfer your rights to someone else, as in some kind of work-for-hire arrangement, you have the copyright on any picture.


    Over my dead body, Ownership of the equipment has to play a role.

    It doesn't. Merely because you think something "has to" be, doesn't mean it's the law. It's not.


    Also, see this comment where others have discussed a the same scenario you describe:
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/16440915097/photographer-david-slater-claims-that-because-he-thought-monkeys-might-take-pictures-copyright-is-his.shtml#c1977

  • On the post: 41% Of Websites In China Disappeared Over The Last Year

    Hulser ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2011 @ 02:48pm

    Polls

    It's not difficult to suspect censorship going on here, but, of course, the Chinese government says it's got nothing to do with it, claiming that China has a "high level of freedom of online speech."

    Do organizations ever do polls on whether people actually believe shit like this? Sure, it's blatantly obvious to even the casual (outside) observer that China is full of shit, but it'd be interesting to see actual numbers. Western media is so caught up in the impractical ideal of objectivity, that they never actually call anyone out on these outrageous claims. Fine then. Do some polls to get confirmation of what people think. Hell, we have polls on completely stupid stuff like whether Casey Anthony is really guilty and...uh, presidential elections. Why not something important like giving the media permission to tell us the truth?

    Bah! This makes me mad. I'm going back to the Slater/Monkey thread to lighten my mood.

  • On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His

    Hulser ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2011 @ 02:36pm

    Re: Re: Eadweard Muybridge

    He would have ownership because he specifically set it up to happen that way.

    Yeah, you're probably right. It'd be interesting to know more details about the cases that established this though. I just thought of this as a good example of a case where an animal "took" the picture, but there was clear, creative, and direct involvement by a person in arranging the picture, in contrast to the now infamous Slater/Monkey Case.

  • On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His

    Hulser ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2011 @ 01:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."

    I should say that in my head, there was also a note that said "please use this camera to help us capture some events from our wedding."

    IANAL, but while this would make the scenario a bit more complicated, I still don't think it'd be enough to transfer the copyright to the bride and groom i.e. the organizers of the "semi-orchestrated event". As Justin Levine alluded to in this thread, the only way that a someone other than the person who took the picture can have the copyright on a picture is to have entered into a work-for-hire arrangement. In short, you'd need a written contract in order to make it clear that an exception to the "picture taker gets the copyright by default" rule was being invoked. And no, I don't think that a "please use this camera..." note would constitute some kind of verbal contract.

  • On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His

    Hulser ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2011 @ 01:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."

    You have something to back this up? Seems... well, dumb.

    Well, first off, the stupidity of something has almost no correlation between whether or not it's legal. Secondly, here's an example for you and it even involves wedding pictures. When you hire a wedding photographer these days, by default the photographer retains the copyright on the pictures. That's why you have to pay them for every copy you get and why they put the big watermarks on the thumbnails they make available online.

    It doesn't matter if the photographer borrowed the camera from a friend before hand. It doesn't matter if s/he used camera equipment owned by the hall rented by the bride and groom. It doesn't even matter whether the bride and groom supplied the camera. The photographer is making the creative contributions to the process of taking the pictures. The copyright is therefore his or hers.

  • On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His

    Hulser ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2011 @ 01:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."

    No, I'm making a distinction between "loaning" equipment, and having someone take part in an semi orchestrated event. The pictures can be seen as outcomes of the event of giving a camera to a monkey. Not just of the monkey taking the picture.

    I'm still not sure how this supports your argument. You said this...

    "I would assume the picture taker has no assumption of copyright ownership in those cases."

    Emphasis mine. And, just to clarify things, where "those cases" is your example where weddings guests are taking pictures.

    I contend that TechDirt has shown that the picture taker, if they're familiar with the law, should have the assumption that they do have the copyright on the picture. Are you saying that by supplying the cameras at a wedding, the bride and groom have set up a "semi-orchestrated event" that constitutes a de facto work-for-hire arrangement where they retain the copyright of any picture taken with the cameras? Because that's the only way I can think of there the people taking the pictures wouldn't assume that they had the copyright on the pictures.

  • On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His

    Hulser ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2011 @ 12:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."

    since NO PERSON TOOK THESE PICTURES
    Therefore there is NO copyright
    by your own logic

    Hold on there, Dick. Josh and I were talking about pictures taken with disposable cameras at a wedding, not the monkey pictures.

  • On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His

    Hulser ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2011 @ 12:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."

    Is it?

    Yes. Look at the "Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain" post. You'll see details on how the person making the "creative contributions" has a claim on ownership. And they're not talking about the creative aspects of the person being photographed, but the photographer in selecting how to take the picture. In your example, this is not the person who owns the equipment (the bride and groom) but the person who actually took picture (the guest).

    The evidence posted here is that transferred equipment does not leave the copyright with the equipment's owner.

    I'm not sure how this supports your argument. It sounds like you're agreeing with me. No, the copyright does not automatically go to the owner, but to the person who took the picture.

    Another example, I see a security camera pointed at a corner and decide to do a creative performance for it. I am the one doing the creative aspect of this, but I have no reason to think I own the copyright of the sequence recorded by the camera. Do I?

    Of course not! Why on earth would you think that? It's quite simple, really. The person (and it has to be a person) who takes the picture or video has the copyright. Not a monkey. Not a bride or groom. Not a person doing a little dance in front of a security camera. The...person...who...took...the...picture.

  • On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His

    Hulser ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2011 @ 11:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."

    It says he "left it unattended." Does not say that he accidentally left it unattended.

    This is true, however, do you believe him that he purposefully set up the scenario so that the monkeys would take pictures? I think it's obvious from the quotes in the article that the whole thing was an accident, not just the first click.

    "'One of them must have accidentally knocked the camera and set it off because the sound caused a bit of a frenzy, said Slater, 46."

    I don't think he would have said "must have" done something that was his plan all along. His whole "clarification" of events is nothing more than one big "I meant to do that!"

  • On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His

    Hulser ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2011 @ 11:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."

    Probably more accurately would be to compare this to the copyright on images taken at a wedding on the disposable cameras that some folks leave on the tables. I would assume the picture taker has no assumption of copyright ownership in those cases.

    Why do you assume this when all of the evidence presented by TechDirt is to the contrary?

  • On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His

    Hulser ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2011 @ 10:54am

    Eadweard Muybridge

    Eadweard Muybridge was the guy who created the first "motion picture" by having a horse run through a series of trip wires, each connected to a camera. Put them all together and you have a movie. I'm guessing those original pictures are out of copyright now, but what if you recreated that scenario today? I'm guessing that the person who set up the scenario would claim a copyright, but I'm not so sure. There don't seem to be many aspects of copyright law that actually favor the public domain, but it does appear that the copyright would only go to the human (if any) who actually triggered taking the picture and not to the person who set up all of the conditions which eventually lead to the picture being taken. And then to the public domain if no human triggered the picture.

  • On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His

    Hulser ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2011 @ 10:38am

    Re:

    A big part of the problem here is that we are conditioned to think in terms of ownership.

    This conditioning is in part is because of language. The correct term for the violation of copyright is of course infringement, but this term just isn't familiar to most people. So people say "steal" and "theft" instead because they're more familiar with these terms. But of course, the use of these words shape our ideas on the underlying concepts. (See "Intellectual Property.") Indeed, people are conditioned to think of copyright in terms of ownership because one of the most fundamental aspects of our mental process, language, leads us to this.

    That's why new readers to TechDirt don't understand that when we correct them on the use of "steal" and "theft", they automatically assume that we're freetards, pirates, or anarchists.

  • On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His

    Hulser ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2011 @ 10:19am

    Re: Good god. Now you've a monkey fetish too.

    so there's no other reasonable conclusion than that he holds the copyright

    This conclusion would be reasonable if copyright were treated the same under the law as actual property. But it's not. That's part of the problem in this discussion. The people who think that the "ownership" of the copyright "property" can be transferred to the human with the most involvement in the creation of a photo taken by a monkey don't understand that no one actually owns a copyright. Contrary to the term intelectual property, a copyright is a set of rights that is akin to, but quite distinct from property laws. If you look at the issue this way, even people who aren't legalistic weenies can understand that the picture is in the public domain.

  • On the post: Incubus Promotes New Album With Misguided Anti-Piracy 8-Bit Video Game?

    Hulser ( profile ), 14 Jul, 2011 @ 01:39pm

    Nothing good

    I have to wonder if this was an idea from the band or from the studio or the marketing group. Even if Incubus loathe music pirates, why risk provoking your fans a la Metallica when you could just sit back and let the studio play its traditional role of bad buy?

  • On the post: Re-Inventing The Wheel (For Real)

    Hulser ( profile ), 14 Jul, 2011 @ 07:55am

    Mr Skin

    There's got to be a proper name for this, but I call this The Mr Skin Effect after the scene in Knocked Up where the lead character finds out there's already a web site just like the one him and his buddies have been working on for months. I have this mental image of Boirum seeing that magazine cover from 1938 and having the crushing realization that he was not the first person to "invent" that wheel.

  • On the post: Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain

    Hulser ( profile ), 13 Jul, 2011 @ 01:24pm

    Re: Re:

    Same for the monkies.

    But what about lemurs? Or a hybrid between a lemur and a boy?

  • On the post: Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain

    Hulser ( profile ), 13 Jul, 2011 @ 01:23pm

    Re:

    Like it or not, he did plenty of things that contributed to the end image.

    But copyright law doesn't recognize "contributed to". If I lend you my camera and you take a picture, the copyright on that picture would be yours. Not mine. And not the maker of the camera or the batteries or the memory card or anyone else who may have "contributed to" but did not actually take the picture.


    What I think funny is that you are making such a cause out of a silly, rather rare circumstance.

    This particular case might be rare, but its worthy discussion because it highlights the broader problems caused by a lack of understanding of the true purpose of copyright.

    It's like you are, once again, attempting to kill all of copyright based on a single extreme case.

    Hypberbole much?

    Let me ask you a simple question: Did you get permission to use the image on your site?

    It's covered by fair use, so permission is not required.



    Are you sure of the copyright holder?

    You might want to read the article posted above these comments. It clearly answers your question. Hint: there is no copyright holder.



    Are all images copyright at the time of creation?

    No, as explained in the original post. Here's a suggestion for you. If you want to argue against a position, it's usually a good idea to demonstrate that you actually understand that position.

Next >>