| |
| ▲ | xoa an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | >It should be about who got the camera there and set it up, not who pushed the button. With automated recording (dashcams), there isn't even "a button". I'm actually having a bit of trouble thinking of what sufficient societal good there is/would be in granting copyright on raw dashcam or security camera or the like footage? None of those purely mechanical automated systems need a subsidy or encouragement to generate more. Certainly someone can use that sort of thing in the creation of a copyrighted work but what would be the issue with the underlying material in that case being unprotected? | | |
| ▲ | collabs an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I am in favor of copyright reform so eventually it becomes something like two years automatic with a one time two year extension possible an I agree with you because of one key word — raw. Once the footage is used in a package, be it a movie, a news report, or a music video, that package can be copyrighted. The problem is there is no way the owner of a dashcam can prohibit commercial use of a video they own if it cannot be copyrighted in the US. In a way, we have conflated copyrights with other so called intellectual property (details). Maybe the solution is to strengthen privacy rights somehow? I'm not sure. Details
https://ftp5.gwdg.de/pub/gnu/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.h... | |
| ▲ | somenameforme 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Thinking more about monkeys, I think that case was made relatively easy because there was a normal living recipient for copyright, but that wasn't eligible for such. I'm fairly certain that dashcam footage, which is 100% automated, as you mention, is copyrighted by default. It's a fairly common source of footage of novel events like a meteorite, rocket impact, or whatever else. And that footage is licensed to media companies. In any case, any country that decides neural network generated media isn't copyrighted then faces a major, and probably impossible, problem of trying to prove it wasn't made by a human. | |
| ▲ | dannyw an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A dashcam could be a safety tool for most people, but it could also be a strategically placed B-cam for a videographer on a shoot. For what it’s worth, dashcam footage can absolutely be copyrightable. The ruling is more about “only humans can get copyright protection”, not so much anything about whether a button is pressed or not. | |
| ▲ | gnopgnip an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is a spark of creativity in the monkey case that very often doesn’t apply to dashcam footage |
| |
| ▲ | trickypr an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What if it was a human who took the photo, would the copyright still be owned by the equipment owner / person who set it up? What if this applied in a photography class? The instructor owns the equipment and helped “set up” the photo. Does the instructor own the copyright? | | |
| ▲ | tossaway0 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | After this ruling, I had an idea for a photo where I set up the entire set, camera, etc, but the photo entailed the model clicking the shutter while we were both in the shot. Just in case, I had the model write a quick note ceding the rights. It's fine, I guess. How does it work in cinema? A director who is the creator of the project must have to get rights from every camera/mic operator. |
| |
| ▲ | somenameforme 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think the issue you then run into is imagine another human came, picked up the camera, and used it to take a picture of whatever. It'd be fairly self evident that that the photographer would own the copyright to that work, but in your take - it'd be the camera owner. So you're more of trying to create a special rule where if the normal recipient of a copyright would be invalid, then it slides to the 'nearest' most appropriate individual, but that seems extremely fragile and difficult to define. | |
| ▲ | kccqzy an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Dashcams and security footage definitely don’t have copyright protection. Are you seriously thinking that the construction worker who set up the camera would then have copyright over everything it records? | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
