Print

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

[martinuzz]

Your response is only valid if you set the value of information to 0, which contradicts the meaning of that word.

No it isn't.
The photographer still has the picture, your imaginary guy no longer has his piece of space rock.
That's all there was to that criticism.

Let me also give an example on the worth of an information:
I am one of those guys guarding two doors, one of which leads to your certain doom, the other to paradise. You ask me which one is the correct one and (morals aside) I offer you the correct information for just $1. We agree on you paying me after you checked. Indeed, my recommendation was correct (I would gain nothing by lying to you anyway), but now you claim that as this was just an information, or only the abstract words "use the left door", or something similiar, you don't have to pay me.

Now why would you think this is ok¿

Why would you think it's okay to ask money for that in the first place?

[ZetaX]

Your response is only valid if you set the value of information to 0, which contradicts the meaning of that word.

No it isn't.
The photographer still has the picture, your imaginary guy no longer has his piece of space rock.
That's all there was to that criticism.

Let me also give an example on the worth of an information:
I am one of those guys guarding two doors, one of which leads to your certain doom, the other to paradise. You ask me which one is the correct one and (morals aside) I offer you the correct information for just $1. We agree on you paying me after you checked. Indeed, my recommendation was correct (I would gain nothing by lying to you anyway), but now you claim that as this was just an information, or only the abstract words "use the left door", or something similiar, you don't have to pay me.

Now why would you think this is ok¿

Why would you think it's okay to ask money for that in the first place?

I chose that one for storytelling purposes. I am pretty sure you can think of several adaptions not involving his death but speaking about e.g. monetary loss. And that's not even touching the fact that your "objection" has nothing to do with the core: the value of information.

The latest posts in this  thread is such a degradation of the previous discussion... Can we please get serious again¿

[Criptfeind]

DF is a bit of a masterpiece. But it's worth noting that it's been almost ten years, with toady getting only a barely liveable amount of money (probably even not that, although I don't know I would totally guess that he had higher savings before he quit his 'real' job') and it's still a extremely niche and super rough game that's pretty unplayable to most people. I really don't really want a world where all games are like DF, if that was your point.

Also, I have a question for Graknorke about that hypothetical. What if the guy said he would tell you for a dollar, but also you couldn't tell the people behind you in line? So you paid a dollar and he told you and it was good info. Would it be wrong to tell the people behind you in line? Or would it be okay?

Oh, also, this just struck me, um, yeah. Lets take out the part about certain doom, because of course you have a moral obligation to spread that information. Instead just something slightly desirable behind the door you want and nothing behind the other one?

(I don't actually have a answer for this question myself, I would have to think on it, and I don't think it's a fully analogous to the situation, but I do think it's closer then the previous questions posed by ZetaX and Graknorke when talking about copywrite as a whole, if not this photograph.)

Edit: For the actual point of this topic. I think it's too good a opportunity to pass up to say that the monkey should get royalties. Maybe the money could go to a charity or something.

[tuypo1]

Your response is only valid if you set the value of information to 0, which contradicts the meaning of that word.

No it isn't.
The photographer still has the picture, your imaginary guy no longer has his piece of space rock.
That's all there was to that criticism.

Let me also give an example on the worth of an information:
I am one of those guys guarding two doors, one of which leads to your certain doom, the other to paradise. You ask me which one is the correct one and (morals aside) I offer you the correct information for just $1. We agree on you paying me after you checked. Indeed, my recommendation was correct (I would gain nothing by lying to you anyway), but now you claim that as this was just an information, or only the abstract words "use the left door", or something similiar, you don't have to pay me.

Now why would you think this is ok¿

Why would you think it's okay to ask money for that in the first place?

I chose that one for storytelling purposes. I am pretty sure you can think of several adaptions not involving his death but speaking about e.g. monetary loss. And that's not even touching the fact that your "objection" has nothing to do with the core: the value of information.

The latest posts in this  thread is such a degradation of the previous discussion... Can we please get serious again¿

i am going to say that it belongs to the photographer not the monkey

[MonkeyHead]

I just put some thought to this from a slightly different angle - I have been trying to think of justifications the photographer can use to claim that the photo is rightfully his, and seeing where they lead...

1) It was my camera...

Well, in that case, if the photographer lent his camera to someone else (or had it stolen) and they used it to take photos, would the photographer be legally the owner of them? Lets say he lent his camera to someone - would he be able to earn money of the other persons pictures? Or what if when the camera was stolen or lent, and used to take photos of an illegal nature - would the cameras owner be legally responsible for this in some way?

2) Monkeys can not own things...

Why not? People leave things to pets in their wills all the time, granted, normally via some intermediate agent. India has recognised dolphins as non human persons - is it that much of a stretch to consider apes/primates sentient enough for some kind of legal protection?

3) The monkey did it by accident...

How many of the worlds great Photographs are a result of forethought and planning, and how many are the result of a happy accident, or right place right time? Heck, there are animal artists who people attribute the paintings to, and sell them for profit. Is this that much different?

I cant really find a good way of justifying the photo as 100% belonging to the photographer. Of course, claiming that the monkey owns it is a bit silly, so public domain seems to be the sensible option. If nothing else, this is a good example of the Streisand Effect - the photographer stands to actually gain a lot more from the controversy than he would from the actual photo, which might explain the motivations to kick up a stink.

[ZetaX]

i am going to say that it belongs to the photographer not the monkey

The option is more between photographer and public, at least on the legal stage. Also, your oppinion is quite uninteresting without an argument to back it up.

I also just realized I did not see one post:

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

This one was about the value of information, not an analogy to the picture thingy. But if we want to go one step further, then lets assume I told you that I will only help you if you keep it a secret.
If we want to make it a bit closer to the real case, there should be a sign ("copyright law/agreement") in front of the doors which you did see when coming to me and which tells you of this "no sharing" policy.

[SquatchHammer]

I have to say its the guy who set up the equipment first. It was the leading factor in the series of events that led to the photo capture. If he didnt travel there, or made the marque leave before taking the pictures then he wouldn't have those photos. He should get compensation on the fact he DID WORK FOR THOSE SHOTS.

It's like you going to work and the boss saying free domain you dont get shit. Well is that fare? Is that logical to stiff someone out of THEIR TIME AND EFFORT to provide you with something? I'm not against people that want to put out free stuff. It's them saying "I gave my time and effort for your enjoyment and that's all I ask for." I'm really ok with that. Patents and copyrights are not the evil what people put them out as. Free domain leads to the person that is trying to make money off of someone else's work with little or no effort of themselves. Patents and copyrights are there to keep the people that LIVE off of there work the monetary gains they need to continue with their life.

But he's not claiming ownership of any physical thing, it's an abstract concept, a pattern of data that no doubt exists in thousands or millions of computers around the world. It makes as much sense as me claiming ownership of any old number, let's say 1005. Nobody else is now allowed to use 1005. Ever. It's mine now.

Is that fair?

So with that, you're saying Toady cant claim Dwarf Fortress then? Since I cant truly hold a physical copy at all? Just a medium in which its used or read from?

[miauw62]

Your response is only valid if you set the value of information to 0, which contradicts the meaning of that word.

No it isn't.
The photographer still has the picture, your imaginary guy no longer has his piece of space rock.
That's all there was to that criticism.

Let me also give an example on the worth of an information:
I am one of those guys guarding two doors, one of which leads to your certain doom, the other to paradise. You ask me which one is the correct one and (morals aside) I offer you the correct information for just $1. We agree on you paying me after you checked. Indeed, my recommendation was correct (I would gain nothing by lying to you anyway), but now you claim that as this was just an information, or only the abstract words "use the left door", or something similiar, you don't have to pay me.

Now why would you think this is ok¿

Why would you think it's okay to ask money for that in the first place?

I chose that one for storytelling purposes. I am pretty sure you can think of several adaptions not involving his death but speaking about e.g. monetary loss. And that's not even touching the fact that your "objection" has nothing to do with the core: the value of information.

The latest posts in this  thread is such a degradation of the previous discussion... Can we please get serious again¿

i am going to say that it belongs to the photographer not the monkey

Did you read the discussion? By US law, the monkey CANNOT own the photo. The question here is wether it is public domain or belongs to the photographer, and just "I think" isn't very worthwhile.

[Graknorke]

This one was about the value of information, not an analogy to the picture thingy. But if we want to go one step further, then lets assume I told you that I will only help you if you keep it a secret.
If we want to make it a bit closer to the real case, there should be a sign ("copyright law/agreement") in front of the doors which you did see when coming to me and which tells you of this "no sharing" policy.

Well if you wanted it to be even closer, there would either be no sign at all and you'd just be expected to know that the rule existed, a very small sign referencing a rule but not actually describing it, or a sign so momumentally large that nobody but somebody in law could be expected to understand it all fully. Which is the bit I have the most problem with with the way these things work.
But as to your question, yes I would see it as proper to keep the secret. I might not like it but I agreed to with little room to argue that I didn't understand it so would have to.

So with that, you're saying Toady cant claim Dwarf Fortress then? Since I cant truly hold a physical copy at all? Just a medium in which its used or read from?

Well he can, because the law works that way. I don't necessarily think it should, but it does. Not that it would matter too much for Toady if this were to happen to him because it's free, and as long as people know it was made by him it shouldn't affect donations.

[Vattic]

Worth mentioning that if copyright ended then other things would have to change in order for high budget media to get created. Look at how theatre and other art is often funded by government and charity. Also a kickstarter-like model might work. I don't see why the current system is the only possible system.

Where would this money come from? I am certainly not a fan of government spending money that could otherwise be spent on things like medicine on much more trivial things like video games and movies.
Not sure how charity would be any different to how it works now. Same with kickstarter, which incidently has not exactly been reliable in producing anything of quality (or sometimes even just anything...).

You could use the same argument against the government spending money on cultural projects vs medicine against individuals. I see no issue with governments supporting culture like that, and a lot already do, as cultural works have importance. The film and game industry produced plenty of dud products before kickstarter. If there is a demand I can't see why people couldn't find a way to get it done.

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.

What if he'd armed the monkey and sent him on a rampage?

Just a note to say I'm partly playing devils advocate here and don't appreciate being called an idiot.

[SquatchHammer]

So with that, you're saying Toady cant claim Dwarf Fortress then? Since I cant truly hold a physical copy at all? Just a medium in which its used or read from?

Well he can, because the law works that way. I don't necessarily think it should, but it does. Not that it would matter too much for Toady if this were to happen to him because it's free, and as long as people know it was made by him it shouldn't affect donations.

I am one of the people that think it should since you are putting your VERY TIME into the project. Therefor IF YOU DO WANT TO PUBLISH/RELEASE said WORK and be compensated for that lost time. We cant really stop time, that's why its really the most valuable resource. So if you want more things for free, well you have to support the people that make them, much like Toady's donations. Most of the problems with copyrights and patents are the COMPANIES THAT HOLD ON TO THEM.

Also on the same subject of free information, technically everything you see and do is information. So with that point, everything is free under that ideal... so with that I can take and do whatever I want because its free.

[Graknorke]

I am one of the people that think it should since you are putting your VERY TIME into the project. Therefor IF YOU DO WANT TO PUBLISH/RELEASE said WORK and be compensated for that lost time. We cant really stop time, that's why its really the most valuable resource. So if you want more things for free, well you have to support the people that make them, much like Toady's donations. Most of the problems with copyrights and patents are the COMPANIES THAT HOLD ON TO THEM.

And they can sell the thing. What I have problem with is the way ownership of these things works at the moment.

Also on the same subject of free information, technically everything you see and do is information. So with that point, everything is free under that ideal... so with that I can take and do whatever I want because its free.

If you can manipulate the universe in such a way that you can perfectly duplicate a physical thing then I think there would be a lot that would come before people objecting to you making everything else worth less.

[Sergarr]

If we could perfectly duplicate objects without any cost, then the modern society would fall down quicker than you could say "whoops".

[Aklyon]

If we could perfectly duplicate objects without any cost, then the modern society would fall down quicker than you could say "whoops".

And yet people would still try to copyright things anyway.

[GlyphGryph]

The reason people own copyright to mechanical cameras and the like is because intent matters in copyright law. Believe it or not, copyright does NOT automatically goes to the person who presses the button - it goes to the person who sets up the shot. (These cases up not fairly often, so there's plenty of legal precedent here). If you ask a bystander to stand somewhere with your camera and take a picture of you and your wife posing, there's good legal argument that you still own the rights to the photograph. (Mind you, more often this leads to shared copyright than exclusive copyright, since the person snapping the picture usually ends up having some input into the result and thus an arguable claim to being a creator, but that's not really relevant)

So if the man had *given* the monkey the camera, or set up a mechanical camera, it definitely would fall under copyright as being his, since he had intentionally created the shot (even if he wouldn't have been completely aware of the result).

However, if the monkey stole the camera, it's unlikely the man would be legally classified as being involved in the creation of the shot - merely owning the hardware isn't sufficient. And he probably shouldn't be, either.  It wasn't a creative act, and while he might win a case if he find a sympathetic court or one that's already been bought off by the IP lobby, I think it's pretty clear that he shouldn't be able to win under the current IP management framework, since you can't claim copyright over found or natural objects, and it's pretty obvious the pictures should be classified as such in this situation.