Copyright needs to be massively scaled down. What innovation is this kind of thing encouraging?
jetrink 42 minutes ago [-]
It turns out that Woodland v. Hill is not about landscape photography.
hiccuphippo 19 minutes ago [-]
Even if the guy saw the other's pictures, there's no actual copying happening. It's a new work in the same style. Styles are not copyrightable.
Animats 49 minutes ago [-]
Semi-naked Instagrammer probably falls under the scènes à faire copyright exemption. It's an expected cliché in the genre.
chrismcb 39 minutes ago [-]
"similar style" is a bit of a stretch. More like photos with a similar concept. Even that is a bit of a stretch.
darth_avocado 1 hours ago [-]
Bruh… the images aren’t even close… maybe you can kinda see a resemblance in one or two, but not enough to be copyright infringement
modzu 29 minutes ago [-]
the court's argument is interesting here - you have to prove access to argue infringement? wouldn't infringement prove access? and what is with the wacko claims about probabilities for discovering content on the internet?
jerf 35 seconds ago [-]
Copyright really does protect against copying. Proving that you came up with the same idea independently provides substantial protection in a lawsuit. This is why big-name authors will hire people to screen their mail and remove all suggestions, so they can say with a straight face in court that even though Fan #5,243 sent them the exact idea they ended up using in their seventh book in some series, they never saw it and therefore did not copy it.
Obviously, if you create a page-for-page match for some 500-page novel this still won't save you, because no one's going to buy your claim to have stumbled on that independently. This isn't licence to do large-scale copying and then try to claim you had no idea that somebody else wrote the exact same book. But this is the exact sort of case where demonstrating that there was no way that the putative copies are actually copies means the lawsuit will fail.
Bear in mind I'm talking about the intended purpose of the law. There are borderline and questionable cases where you may feel, even with substantial justification, that the court ruled against this principle. But this is at least the clear intention of the system.
36 minutes ago [-]
Rendered at 22:38:47 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Obviously, if you create a page-for-page match for some 500-page novel this still won't save you, because no one's going to buy your claim to have stumbled on that independently. This isn't licence to do large-scale copying and then try to claim you had no idea that somebody else wrote the exact same book. But this is the exact sort of case where demonstrating that there was no way that the putative copies are actually copies means the lawsuit will fail.
Bear in mind I'm talking about the intended purpose of the law. There are borderline and questionable cases where you may feel, even with substantial justification, that the court ruled against this principle. But this is at least the clear intention of the system.