Posts by ScottY
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Um, IANAL, but firstly, isn't there such a thing as collection copyright in some jurisdictions - e.g. a copyright in a collection of information that has required skilled input to accumulate and catalogue?
Copyright can subsist in a compilation, but infringement only occurs if a substantial part of that compilation is copied. The copying of a single picture that is not itself a copyright work is probably not the copying of a substantial part.
Secondly, if the original photographs are under the control of someone (such as the ACC) can they not set contractual terms on anyone gaining access to them? That isn't copyright, but (if the contract is properly agreed to) it is enforceable?
Arguably a contractual provison that prohibits copying of an image in which copyright has expired is an unenforceable restraint of trade. I'm not sure if anyone's tried to enforce a provision like this in NZ, but I suspect courts may not look kindly on someone trying to use a restraint of trade to extend their monopoly rights over a work.
(Caveat: copyright law is complex, and I have not researched any of this, as I don't keep a law library at home...)
-
Kyle, it's an interesting argument, but I would probably disagree with the good professor based on my understanding and interpretation of copyright law - at least insofar as the reproduction has not involved any significant skill, labour or thought.
I do agree a photo of a photo/artwork, where the photographer has had to adjust the light, check compositon, focus etc., might qualify as copyright work. But I suspect a lot of archival work involves simply scanning a document or work without much thought as to those issues.
This is probably an area where we need a few good cases to sort out what the law is.
This is also why we need another copyright thread...
-
The definition of "copy" is wide. It is not limited to a copy in the same form of media. Scanning a photo into a system is probably copying under the Copyright Act.
I don't want to be arguing with a law professor, as I'm sure he knows his stuff, but the case law says for a work to be "original" there must be a degree of skill and labour involved in its creation. Simply scannng a photo into a system wouldn't, I'd have thought, meet that test.
On the other hand, if the person scanning the original photo was making decisions about resolution, tone, contrast etc, or was touching up the image, then maybe. But it would have to be more than minor or incidental.
(IAAL, but IANALP)
-
I only just caught up with this thread, and am interested in some of the copyright issues being discussed:
It's not a copy. The original is a photo. The image on the web site is published and therefore a new original. By scanning it and republishing it you have ownership of the derivative copyright.
But the web image almost certainly is a copy. The definition of "copy" (see section 2 of the Copyright Act 1994) covers "in relation to any description of work, reproducing, recording, or storing the work in any material form (including any digital format), in any medium and by any means".
Unless there has been some modification of the original work, the web image will be regarded as a digital reproduction of the original photo, and so will be a "copy". So section 14 of the Copyright Act 1994 means it is not a copyright work in its own right. And if it's not a copyright work you can't infringe it.
I am assuming, by the way, that copyright in the original expired some time ago...
-
Speaking of wingnuttery, we're shortly to be visited by one of the architects (pun intended) of the 911 "Truth" Movement.
Richard Gage is talking in Wellington in November. Get your tinfoil now, because I expect a shortage in the Wellington region.
-
Deckchairs, Titanic. Same old same old.
Rokocoko?! How many chances do you give a guy?
Ross and Franks have not done much wrong. Their replacements are either unproven or underperforming. If lineout calls are a problem get someone else to do the calling.
Are they trying to lose to Australia this weekend?
-
Alright brother it's your summation then. It's still poor.
I wasn't claiming ownership of the summation. But I didn't think I was saying anything particularly new. it certainly isn't something proprietary to the Herald.
It is a disservice to characterise the left as being deficient in individualism and self responsibility.
It would be. Which is why I didn't.
In the libertarian right individualism usually manifests itself in a strong belief in the sanctity of property rights, and a belief in the need to stop the State from interfering in people's lives. That goes hand in hand with the ideal of self-responsibility, and the belief it is not the role of the State to look after people.
The left (mostly) believe in property rights, but will often be more prepared to sacrifice some of those for the wider benefit of the community (e.g. the RMA debate). The left are usually more prepared to raise taxes to pay for welfare and other social programmes to help the community as a whole.
I realise this is very general, but I don't think I am rewriting political theory in saying any of this.
But to be fair to you what do you like about the present right wing administration that you couldn't find in the labour party and relate it to self responsibility and individualism?
Well I didn't vote for the current mob, but Labour are largely a party of the centre-left, rather than hard left, so probably not a great deal.
-
That's a New Zealand Herald summation of left and right. Self responsibility and individualism weren't invented by the right.
Do you have a link to that Herald summation? Or are you just intent on dismissing counterarguments as "Herald" ones?
It is possible, you know, not to be of the 'Left" without being of the "Right". The centre really does exist.
-
My impression is that the police were determined to stamp down on any potential trouble. I'm not one to blame the police (I know they have a hard job to do), but I can also see that going into a situation with a "we'll take no shit from these kids" attitude might have made the situation worse.
The whole South Auckland thing is a red herring. If this had occurred in South Auckland and the kids involved were first-time offenders they probably would get diversion. I find it ironic that people seem to think these Otago students should be punished because they're white and middle class.
Let's have some sanity. Sure the students involved deserve a kick up the bum and a night in the cells. But they are young, and young people do stupd things, and most of them probably won't be a bother to police again. Do we really need to make criminals of these people?
I'm prepared to give most people a chance. For all we know some of the arrests might be over quite minor things.
-
Labour moved up to the centre in order to set up 1999, National moved down to the centre in 2008 and yet the centre is going to be the deathslide of this country. The centre is stale and sterile.
Goff needs to ignore the tired political geography and smash around some good uplifting hardcore labour principles of equality and fairness. The task is to take Labour principles and fight with them. They are the solution. The centre is just a concept that was thought up to sell newspapers.
Pardon me for saying so but... bollocks.
The parties move to the centre because that's where most people are.
It is actually possible to follow some of the core beliefs of the left (e.g. equality, helping others) while adhering to some on the right (e.g. self responsibility, individualism). That's in fact probably what most people do. That's why the call it the "centre". They're not identifiably on either side of the spectrum.
The centre is a fine old place to be, in my opinion.