Nicholas Alexander 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (28) comment rss

  • On the post: Photographs Are Mechanical Representations Of Facts, And Thus Should Have Only Thin Copyright Protection

    Nicholas Alexander ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2011 @ 11:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright and Photography

    Sure, but my photographs on FB only have commercial value to FB unless I am using it as a promotional medium in which case you want people to copy them as much as possible. If you put up high-res photos on FB, you are basically putting your works into the public domain.

    An illustration: I publish these statements under my name. You state your opinions without your name. Your statements are in effect not copyrightable. Mine are. Reproduce them and then I would be only too happy to realise a commercial benefit from your distribution model (if there was a commercial benefit to be had, which of course there is not!)

  • On the post: Photographs Are Mechanical Representations Of Facts, And Thus Should Have Only Thin Copyright Protection

    Nicholas Alexander ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2011 @ 09:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Its not a mechanical representation of the facts.

    excuse me if this was question was not directed at me, by I think I used MM as an example ... I think if you get to photograph a film star, you do so with their permission, if it is for commercial purposes (like an art portrait) and then you do own the image and it has inherent value. If someone then photographs your photograph, that does not have the consent of the original (MM) so therefore. If however you photograph a film star on the red carpet, or singing on stage, that is without their permission and although it is original work you may find it hard to provide any proof of that (i.e. the permission) so there is no providence in the work. It may be your copyright, but you have nothing to legally enforce it. If you draw a moustache on it, it is no longer a copy but a derivative work. I think laws are changing regarding derivative works.

    People generally misunderstand copyright. It does not prevent copying. It just establishes a legal framework for recovering of the rewards of doing so. So if you copy my photograph, then I can charge you a fee if I can establish providence.

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I do not think copyright is moral or even applicable in many cases, but it is still the law.

  • On the post: Photographs Are Mechanical Representations Of Facts, And Thus Should Have Only Thin Copyright Protection

    Nicholas Alexander ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2011 @ 08:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright and Photography

    The long term of copyright is so you can leave it to your offspring. It is exactly the opposite of a welfare scheme.

  • On the post: Photographs Are Mechanical Representations Of Facts, And Thus Should Have Only Thin Copyright Protection

    Nicholas Alexander ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2011 @ 08:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright and Photography

    If the copy does not respect the original (i.e. it is inferior) then it dilutes the original expression and therefore hurts both the originator, and the consumer.

    The presence of digital technology is progress but it is remarkable that the law still has not caught up with it.

    Hence we have 15 pages of T&C every time we download software. And of course those T&C are generally copied from someone elses website...

  • On the post: Photographs Are Mechanical Representations Of Facts, And Thus Should Have Only Thin Copyright Protection

    Nicholas Alexander ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2011 @ 08:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Copyright and Photography

    Even Facebook claims ownership if any photograph you post there - universal and irrevocable. So if I post something there, you can share it to your heart's content, on FB. Is that really fair? I guess it is. But if I posted a photo in a private members only arena, I would only expect sharing to be reasonable in that arena. My kids teach me to share. One of these days I will understand... But (some) photographs can have commercial value in the same way as any information can. Should that be protected is a different question as to whether copyright is evil or not.

  • On the post: Photographs Are Mechanical Representations Of Facts, And Thus Should Have Only Thin Copyright Protection

    Nicholas Alexander ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2011 @ 07:51am

    Re: Re: Copyright and Photography

    Copyright is an invention of a right. Like any legal right - it is a method however brilliant or shoddy to reward those who invest time and money into their creations.

    I do look forward to the day that it can be replaced by a better scheme that works for most artists. But but because you can drive like a maniac, it may not be the best way to get around.

  • On the post: Don't Try To Create An Illustrated Version Of A David Bowie Song… Or The Copyright Police Will Come After You

    Nicholas Alexander ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2011 @ 07:40am

    re comment 12

    I wonder if Onward Music's ownership of this copyright was part of the motivation behind him carefully protecting his works since then? So many artists from the 60s and 70s had no protection so now do not care about the abundant sharing of their works via youtube etc. Even though Bowie has copyrighted his music he has done plenty to encourage the use of his works on the internet. Being aware that more is to be gained from promulgation than endless court cases with some of his earlier management entities.

  • On the post: Photographs Are Mechanical Representations Of Facts, And Thus Should Have Only Thin Copyright Protection

    Nicholas Alexander ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2011 @ 07:22am

    Copyright and Photography

    There is another argument with original photographs and copyright. Because the medium, especially in this digital age is essentially one that is easy to copy, it seems to people that it is right or justified that they should be able to do so. And they do.

    The point is this: a photograph is a recording of something that can not be recreated. It is a recording of a moment in time that no longer exists. A photograph of Marilyn Monroe is no the same as a photo of someone pretending to be her. And yet people generally assume that such things can be copied relentlessly as they have already been.

    Copyright is a right to realise a return for the investment for a period of time. It is plain to see how this works for works of literature or movies. And yet those who argue against copyright say because they can do it, they will. And they give copies of DVDs to their friends and lament that the studios no longer take risks. Or tour musicians. Or that authors write a low grade novel to satisfy a contract. Or reruns on TV.

    Copyright itself is an invention, a mechanism that exists only in law. If we violate laws, we are rejecting social mores that allow us to become rich doing what we love. Maybe it is time for copyright law to be updated, but just because you can violate someone's rights, does not mean you have to do so. The terms of major social networks include a clause claiming rights to anything you publish on there which is often ignored. Copyright should not be defeated in this way.

    Before we ditch copyright in favour of "sharing" perhaps someone could notice the flood of derivative works and the lack of risk taken by producers with originality is resulting in a world full of photocopied drivel.