Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hops]

@Graknorke: You would be depriving him of the $1 that he could have possibly make in the future.

[ZetaX]

Making something worth less is not the same as taking it from someone.
By your reasoning it would be as much of a crime if the thief had found a bunch of rocks on his own, since it's still making each rock worth less, "stealing some value" from the first guy.

What if the photographer put the photo online and mentioned there that this is still his photo and all other usage is forbidden¿

And making something worth less is not taking that very object, but it is taking monetary value. Maybe replace "stealing" by "hitting it with a pipe to make dents into it" if you want; doesn't take the object, still possibly damages its monetary value (note that a meteorite has no inherent functionality lost by hitting it; for something like an engine, you also destroy its ability to work as intended).
Finding rocks on your own is different as you did not abuse someone else's property to gain something.

[tuypo1]

im disappointed in you bay 12 i would of thought of all the places on the internet this is the one where we could argue over who owns it without some idiot saying copyright is a bad idea

also as an Australian the idea of going to Indonesia being expensive is funny to me 

[ZetaX]

Can we please not use ad-hominems and not call people "idiots" for not agreeing with you¿

[Graknorke]

@Graknorke: You would be depriving him of the $1 that he could have possibly make in the future.

Yes, I would. But would you say I shouldn't be allowed to tell the guy behind me?

Making something worth less is not the same as taking it from someone.
By your reasoning it would be as much of a crime if the thief had found a bunch of rocks on his own, since it's still making each rock worth less, "stealing some value" from the first guy.

What if the photographer put the photo online and mentioned there that this is still his photo and all other usage is forbidden¿

If he can force people to agree to that before they get the photo then I guess that's how it would go.
Though I'm going to guess now that's probably what he did, right?

[tuypo1]

Can we please not use ad-hominems and not call people "idiots" for not agreeing with you¿

yeah your right

im disappointed in you bay 12 i would of thought of all the places on the internet this is the one where we could argue over who owns it without somebody idiotically saying copyright is a bad idea

[Sergarr]

DF is a game which is free and is being payed by donations

your argument is invalid

[Neonivek]

Ohh goodness I just realized something HORRIBLE!

We are probably going to have to listen to PETA defend this soon!

[miauw62]

I'd imagine the main difference between timed/automatic cameras and this instance is that these are deliberate acts where as he just had his camera stolen and used. If a monkey stole a knife off him would he own responsibility for the harm done by the monkey?

This. So much this.

What if the photographer had said that he gave his camera to the monkey so it could happen? That would have been a deliberate act.

[tuypo1]

Ohh goodness I just realized something HORRIBLE!

We are probably going to have to listen to PETA defend this soon!

maybe they will come out with a game for it i loved there cooking mama parody

[Neonivek]

Ohh goodness I just realized something HORRIBLE!

We are probably going to have to listen to PETA defend this soon!

maybe they will come out with a game for it i loved there cooking mama parody

Ironically or was it actually awesome?

[tuypo1]

Ohh goodness I just realized something HORRIBLE!

We are probably going to have to listen to PETA defend this soon!

maybe they will come out with a game for it i loved there cooking mama parody

Ironically or was it actually awesome?

im not really sure what i liked about it to be honest

[alexandertnt]

DF is a game which is free and is being payed by donations

your argument is invalid

Worth mentioning that if copyright ended then other things would have to change in order for high budget media to get created.

[Reelya]

the "deliberate act" theory doesn't hold up well. What if you're holding a camera and a meteorite falls out of the sky and clicks the shutter button? Do you own the photo then? Or if you accidentally snap something cool you weren't intending to? Or what if you're blindfolded or spun around and accidentally snap something? Or if the camera falls on the floor and clicks, thus making a cool photo? None of that fits the "deliberate" criteria.

Having it boil down to "well X was holding the camera when it clicked" or "X was the last person to touch the camera before 'random event Y' caused it to take a photo" doesn't seem to satisfying as a definition of authorship.

At the end of the day, publication and copyright claims are the only clear cut way of claiming copyright. Arguing about "monkey photos" and shit is just high-order bullshit. Proving prior-art should be the main way of settling copyright disputes, not claiming some original work is a "monkey photo".

[tuypo1]

DF is a game which is free and is being payed by donations

your argument is invalid

Worth mentioning that if copyright ended then other things would have to change in order for high budget media to get created.

also dwarf fortress is copyrighted