Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Let's explore this a little further. In what way does my photograph of a Dalek differ from, let's say, a picture of someone wearing clothes? The design of those clothes is equally protected by copyright law, is it not? Are you suggesting that every photograph of someone wearing clothes is a copyright infringement?

For the most part, no, clothing does not have copyright protection.

On copyright over "useful articles"
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat072706.html

"First, copyright protection for the designs of useful articles is extremely limited. The design of a useful article is protected under copyright “only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.”

A fair use argument may be made that the copyrighted works are incidentally in the photograph and the photograph serves another purpose rather than just to copy the protected work. This would account for artwork or buildings in the background of a photograph primarily of people. A picture of just a Dalek is unlikely to meet such a test.

A Dalek is arguably not a useful article. The closest analog would be a replica statue of an original artwork. A photograph of said replica still infringes the underlying copyright of the original artwork.

Greg Weeks

[HappyMartin]

So we are all in agreement then. Harry's avatar is a metaphor for something or other.

Not sure this is going anywhere.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

So: After 100 posts, has anyone actually addressed the issue of improving the metaphors used for ebooks?

Extra readers?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by gweeks

For the most part, no, clothing does not have copyright protection.

On copyright over "useful articles"
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat072706.html

"First, copyright protection for the designs of useful articles is extremely limited. The design of a useful article is protected under copyright “only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.”

A fair use argument may be made that the copyrighted works are incidentally in the photograph and the photograph serves another purpose rather than just to copy the protected work. This would account for artwork or buildings in the background of a photograph primarily of people. A picture of just a Dalek is unlikely to meet such a test.

A Dalek is arguably not a useful article. The closest analog would be a replica statue of an original artwork. A photograph of said replica still infringes the underlying copyright of the original artwork.

Greg Weeks

You may be right, Greg, although I find it exceedingly odd that the law can prevent someone from using a photograph of their own property for a non-commercial purpose, but until the BBC request me to stop using the picture I shall assume that I am right and continue to use it.

Thank you for the interesting discussion!

[Ntsimp]

As usual, the wisdom of Weird Al Yankovic is apropos:

Q: Hey Al!!!!! What do u think about Napster? I just want to know if you approve.
A: I have very mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I'm concerned that the rampant downloading of my copyright-protected material over the Internet is severely eating into my album sales and having a decidedly adverse effect on my career. On the other hand, I can get all the Metallica songs I want for FREE! WOW!!!!!

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You may be right, Greg, although I find it exceedingly odd that the law can prevent someone from using a photograph of their own property for a non-commercial purpose, but until the BBC request me to stop using the picture I shall assume that I am right and continue to use it.

That's what it usually comes down to. Until someone complains, you don't know if they really care or not. I would be highly surprised if the BBC cares in this case. That however is the way the law is written.

Greg Weeks

I should point out, there are UK vs. US differences as well. The UK equivalent of "fair use" is called "fair dealing" and has significant differences. I don't know if the "fair use" argument I used would translate to the UK.

[Billi]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Who do you think is right, me or HarryT?

I'm no lawyer and I can err, but if you ask me what I think, this is my opinion:

It's clear that the dalek is protected but the question is if it is protected by copyright law or patent/trademark law.
- If it is protected by copyright then you might be right
- If it is protected by trademark then Harry is right.

I personally think that it is only protected by trademark. In post 95 Harry told us about it being a mass-produced good so I translate it that he owns some kind of a merchandising/advertising article (maybe I'm wrong here, but that's what I've taken from this thread). And it's implicated in the nature of merchandising products that you are allowed to take a photo of them and distribute it.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

It's not metaphors used for ebooks, but for ebook sharing. And I don't think that we need metaphors. Copyright infringement works just fine.

You're missing the point of the document: Without agreement on what "copyright infringement" means to each of us, there is no agreement on how to treat or enforce it. That's where the metaphors come in, and why everyone has a different opinion on whether CI applies to them, should be enforced by them, should be redefined by them, etc, etc. Use of the wrong metaphors creates improper shading of arguments, misunderstanding and division... what we have at this moment.

Think of the statement: "Curfew after dark." Without a clear mutual understanding of what "dark" means, the statement can't be enforced. How dark is dark? What if there's a light on? How much light? What if it's infra-red light? etc.

We use metaphors to frame an understanding of difficult concepts with simpler, already-understood concepts. We need the proper metaphors applied to the legal arguments in order to come to a mutual understanding of the issues involved. Without that understanding, we will continue to tread the same water we've been treading over ebooks for the past decade.

[Quexos]

You're all too uptight, come on, relax. The laws were made to protect companies and corporations' interests, not the consumers'. And seeing many of you defend the aforementioned corporations to boot, is the last straw.
Don't worry about them, they are powerful enough, they can lobby to steer new laws in their favor and make you call it "democracy", they can create brainwashing advertising campaigns to teach you their version of right and wrong and most of you will believe it and preach their gospel. bottom line, they can fend for themselves thank you. Just relax and enjoy the weather or take a walk to the park and breathe in the fresh air. Whatever works for you.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You may be right, Greg, although I find it exceedingly odd that the law can prevent someone from using a photograph of their own property for a non-commercial purpose, but until the BBC request me to stop using the picture I shall assume that I am right and continue to use it.

You do realize that this is the same argument used by those that download content, and by the torrent sites as well.

And as for the point that you made earlier:

Originally Posted by HarryT

But that's what we're talking about, isn't it? You're right, of course, that copyright infringement isn't classed as theft at the moment. But would it help to reduce piracy if it were to be? Do you think that people who might think nothing of breaking copyright law would be put off if they knew that they were committing theft instead?

It seems that knowing that you are doing something that is illegal isn't stopping you.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Billi

I'm no lawyer and I can err, but if you ask me what I think, this is my opinion:

It's clear that the dalek is protected but the question is if it is protected by copyright law or patent/trademark law.
- If it is protected by copyright then you might be right
- If it is protected by trademark then Harry is right.

I personally think that it is only protected by trademark. In post 95 Harry told us about it being a mass-produced good so I translate it that he owns some kind of a merchandising/advertising article (maybe I'm wrong here, but that's what I've taken from this thread). And it's implicated in the nature of merchandising products that you are allowed to take a photo of them and distribute it.

Daleks are protected by copyright:

Until 1963, the BBC had used staff writers, ensuring that the Corporation kept the copyright of their work. But from that point on, the Corporation started using self-employed writers such as Nation. And in many cases these new writers could keep the rights for themselves which, in the case of the Daleks, proved a bonanza.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

You're missing the point of the document: Without agreement on what "copyright infringement" means to each of us, there is no agreement on how to treat or enforce it. That's where the metaphors come in, and why everyone has a different opinion on whether CI applies to them, should be enforced by them, should be redefined by them, etc, etc. Use of the wrong metaphors creates improper shading of arguments, misunderstanding and division... what we have at this moment.

The problem is what it applies to. Copyright is self explanatory: the right to make copies. The copyright holder can authorize others to make copies, but nobody should assume that this authorization is given at the moment of purchase.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The problem is what it applies to. Copyright is self explanatory: the right to make copies. The copyright holder can authorize others to make copies, but nobody should assume that this authorization is given at the moment of purchase.

Actually, for certain purposes it is. It's called "fair use"in the US.

[Kevin8or]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Didn't you forget that the government has been elected by the public and thus represents the public? So the public indirectly agreed to the extension.

This is the theory. The practice, in many places in the world, has been corrupted.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Quexos

You're all too uptight, come on, relax. The laws were made to protect companies and corporations' interests, not the consumers'. And seeing many of you defend the aforementioned corporations to boot, is the last straw.
Don't worry about them, they are powerful enough, they can lobby to steer new laws in their favor and make you call it "democracy", they can create brainwashing advertising campaigns to teach you their version of right and wrong and most of you will believe it and preach their gospel. bottom line, they can fend for themselves thank you. Just relax and enjoy the weather or take a walk to the park and breathe in the fresh air. Whatever works for you.

We should replace the holocaust rule with the "corporations" rule. Whenever someone brings out the old "corporations are evil and therefore I can do whatever I want, who cares about right or wrong" the discussion is over and we can all go home.