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]
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...
"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.