This is what our screwed up copyright law has always been leading to. It was conceived to be used as a shield, to protect against others profiting off of your own creative work. It is being used as a sword, to censor and oppress anyone with an innovative mind.
Monopolies smash down content creators or cover their content with ads. Companies spam copyright flags with no repercussions. "Fair use" is a nebulous term that is considered on a case-by-case basis, effectively weighting the law towards monopolies and away from creative content creators.
Once, copyright/patent law was intended to protect creators for a time, and then to expire to encourage further ingenuity and to promote the natural growth of American culture. Today, copyright "protection" has grown to extend for lifetimes, creating invulnerable super-monopolies, stagnating our cultural development, and hindering our scientific progress.
It is another part of the system that needs an overhaul.
The system could definitely be better but if a photographer takes a photograph they should be allowed to control the distribution of that photograph.
In the case of this photograph the NYTs owns the photograph and so were justified in having it removed even if it was childish on their part to do so. Considering Trumps well deserved attacks on them I can't blame them for doing it in their constant war against him.
The problem on Twitter, Youtube etc with respect to Copyright is the fact these entities can be held responsible for damages if they do not comply with a Copyright claim - I agree that the copyrighting has been weaponized by many companies, even ones that do not own the works as a way to exploit these systems but there isn't an easy solution unfortunately with the way the laws are currently written.
See, I agree with the general idea than an artist would be able to control the distribution of his art. But I think it is absurd someone can claim there is a copyright issue if I upload a picture of myself (taken by someone else) to the internet.
I reject the notion that someone can "own" my image. If it's a painted picture, sure, I can see that being more legitimate. It's something the artist actually created. The artist here did not create Trump's image, he simply took a picture.
Regardless of the medium, a system with a reasonable copyright law should apply Fair Use here. It cannot be reasonably argued that the photographer/artist is being negatively affected by a post like this at all. Why should it be the artist's business if his person is not being misrepresented and his profits are not being affected? Art MUST be shared to facilitate the evolution of culture, and strict copyright law like this effectively censors society.
This is what our screwed up copyright law has always been leading to. It was conceived to be used as a shield, to protect against others profiting off of your own creative work. It is being used as a sword, to censor and oppress anyone with an innovative mind.
Monopolies smash down content creators or cover their content with ads. Companies spam copyright flags with no repercussions. "Fair use" is a nebulous term that is considered on a case-by-case basis, effectively weighting the law towards monopolies and away from creative content creators.
Once, copyright/patent law was intended to protect creators for a time, and then to expire to encourage further ingenuity and to promote the natural growth of American culture. Today, copyright "protection" has grown to extend for lifetimes, creating invulnerable super-monopolies, stagnating our cultural development, and hindering our scientific progress.
It is another part of the system that needs an overhaul.
There are two sides to this argument.
The system could definitely be better but if a photographer takes a photograph they should be allowed to control the distribution of that photograph.
In the case of this photograph the NYTs owns the photograph and so were justified in having it removed even if it was childish on their part to do so. Considering Trumps well deserved attacks on them I can't blame them for doing it in their constant war against him.
The problem on Twitter, Youtube etc with respect to Copyright is the fact these entities can be held responsible for damages if they do not comply with a Copyright claim - I agree that the copyrighting has been weaponized by many companies, even ones that do not own the works as a way to exploit these systems but there isn't an easy solution unfortunately with the way the laws are currently written.
See, I agree with the general idea than an artist would be able to control the distribution of his art. But I think it is absurd someone can claim there is a copyright issue if I upload a picture of myself (taken by someone else) to the internet.
I reject the notion that someone can "own" my image. If it's a painted picture, sure, I can see that being more legitimate. It's something the artist actually created. The artist here did not create Trump's image, he simply took a picture.
Regardless of the medium, a system with a reasonable copyright law should apply Fair Use here. It cannot be reasonably argued that the photographer/artist is being negatively affected by a post like this at all. Why should it be the artist's business if his person is not being misrepresented and his profits are not being affected? Art MUST be shared to facilitate the evolution of culture, and strict copyright law like this effectively censors society.