Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm usually pretty supportive of copyright claims, but such generic photos of generic objects are really pushing the envelope. Seems like you could make an argument that it's not sufficiently transformative under Bridgeman-Corel, given that it's the VHS Cassette design that's being fetishized rather than any particular contribution of the photographer. The publicity from the alleged infringement is probably worth more than any putative licensing fee - maybe $300?


It doesn't matter how generic the object is, it's the fact that this person was not paid for the effort put into taking the photo


No that's not true. Facts for instance are usuallly not copyrightable, regardless of how much effort goes into gathering them.

Photographs of artworks that are in the public domain often aren't copyrightable for instance, if they are exact reproductions.

How much effort goes into pressing the button is completely irrelevant to copyright law, creating an uncopyrightable photograph is likely a great deal more strenuous than a copyrightable one.


Which is exactly why I mentioned Bridgeman-Corel, though I admit that's a bit of a legal leap.

I find it terribly amusing how HN consistently jumps on these stories to vent its outrage but the same people don't think independent filmmakers and musicians should be able to control distribution if people want to torrent/stream their stuff.


Yes, I was agreeing with you, I don't think down-voters read your comment properly.

I really don't think the outrage here on HN or the original post is in any way justified, legally the image may or may not be subject to copyright, but it is clearly of extremely low value. It's actually kind of funny to think the legal system is actually more pragmatic than the commenters here.


> HN consistently jumps on these stories to vent its outrage but the same people don't think independent filmmakers and musicians should be able to control distribution if people want to torrent/stream their stuff.

What makes you think these are the same people?


Just a hunch based on past conversations


You clearly do not understand fair use law.


This isn't educational, it's a product intended on making money.


If it's that generic, they could have taken the photo themselves.


That's why I suggested that at most it was worth $300, which is a pretty generous price for a couple of product shots but meant to reflect a half-day minimum for a professional.


I completely agree, and find this complaint to be very minor in severity.


Perhaps you have never taken the time or effort to properly photograph something so that it can ultimately have the benefit of looking normal and generic. I invite you to try and photograph a VHS tape some time and see how long it takes to get an image as simple as this one. Seriously, try it. It won't take you a full day but it will take your time.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: