News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:U.S. Copyright Office issues statement on works containin... by kccqzy on Thursday March 16, 2023 @11:02PM (#35192450)
Did you read the linked article?

> In Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, a defendant accused of making unauthorized copies of a photograph argued that the expansion of copyright protection to photographs by Congress was unconstitutional because “a photograph is not a writing nor the production of an author” but is instead created by a camera. The Court disagreed, holding that there was “no doubt” the Constitution's Copyright Clause permitted photographs to be subject to copyright, “so far as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the author.”

Re:U.S. Copyright Office issues statement on works containin... by pmoriarty on Thursday March 16, 2023 @11:45PM (#35192777)
"so far as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the author."

"representatives of original intellectual conceptions"?

Wouldn't that only to apply to photos made with some preconceived idea of what you wanted the photo to look like?

What about spontaneous, "point and shoot" photos? What about a photo that I take with my eyes closed, without intent? And how original is your typical family snapshot or wedding photo? They're about as generic and unoriginal as you can get, yet there's no doubt they're copyrightable.

Re:U.S. Copyright Office issues statement on works containin... by adgjlsfhk1 on Friday March 17, 2023 @01:21AM (#35193462)
point and shoot is almost certainly copyrighted. eyes closed might not be, (I kind of doubt there's case law here). the bar for originally is pretty low for copyright but it's not zero.
Re:U.S. Copyright Office issues statement on works containin... by gwd on Friday March 17, 2023 @06:30AM (#35195248)
What if someone who's blind just randomly pulls out a camera and takes some snaps (without knowing anything about what might be going on). Do they get a copyright on their photos?
Re:U.S. Copyright Office issues statement on works containin... by adgjlsfhk1 on Friday March 17, 2023 @08:36AM (#35196276)
probably not
Re:U.S. Copyright Office issues statement on works containin... by NexRebular on Saturday March 25, 2023 @12:16PM (#35304114)
Then Lomography can't be copyrightable, especially if "shooting from the hip" (rule #4)? [1]

[1] https://www.lomography.com/about/the-ten-golden-rules

Re:U.S. Copyright Office issues statement on works containin... by zamnos on Friday March 17, 2023 @01:26AM (#35193494)
Interestingly is the case of a monkey taking a selfie.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disp...

Re:U.S. Copyright Office issues statement on works containin... by smeagull on Saturday March 18, 2023 @05:23AM (#35207538)
> “so far as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the author.”

Yeah, much like a person using an AI.

Do you understand the debate happening here at all?