Comment by bawolff | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bawolff | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> By the reasoning here, a company (as in the commercial site here) can use my photos so long as the use is incidental and doesn't earn them too much money -- or at least impact my revenue, which is currently $0.

That is how copyright has worked since forever. This isn't something new. Copyright is primarily about protecting your ecconomic rights (and attribution rights. In some countries also the integrity of the work). Its not meant as a way for you to fully control what happens to your creative output.

This particular case does seem very borderline though, if you are selling (or potentially selling) your photos, them using it as an illustration without permission is something that would be commercially negative to you and speak against fair use. I wonder to what extent the judge wasn't thrilled to be bothered by something with so few views and as a result was more sympathetic to thd blogger. I'm somewhat doubtful this would go the same way if it wasn't about something so inconsequential.

> Copyright is primarily about protecting your ecconomic rights

One of those economic rights, somewhat inconvenient to your argument, is charging for editorial usage.

The entire function of what remains of the stock photography economy relies on the basis that usage can be billed for. Not sure how else a photographer is ever going to earn money.

If we get to "it's not as if you were making money out of it before" as an argument, which this is approximate to, then the ability to earn as a photographer is destroyed.

I think it is obvious that legal system is adapting to new interests of megacorps. Some time ago they were super pro copyright, but now it's a big big problem for them.

> The blog post is transformative because “the Parker Train Photo is part of a broader work as published in the blog and accompanies fashion guidance, rather than being part of an anthology of the Photographer’s work.”

It reads like it's from parallel universe

I know! Totally bizarre —- I think photographers' trade groups are going to have to seek some kind of clarification on that, because it's the end of the profession in the USA otherwise. Bonkers.

If a company stops publishing a book or piece of software, is it free to share because there's no longer an economic interest?

Well, it ought to be.

I'm okay with that. What troubles me is that there seem to be two sets of rules at play.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” - Anatole France

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Frank Wilhoit

It would likely weigh in favour of a finding of fair use, but by itself not be sufficient to make wholesale sharing of entire book without some other special circumstances fair use. (not a lawyer, not legal advice)

>Its not meant as a way for you to fully control what happens to your creative output.

Most countries deal with this under moral rights[0], but these aren't really protected in the USA.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights

Even countries with strong moral right regimes usually have quite significant limitations on what they protect. Typically its about ensuring credit and making sure the work is presented in a way that preserves its integrity. Although there is significant variation between countries.

>Copyright is primarily about protecting your ecconomic rights

no, copyright is about creating an economic right where one didn't exist before.

So mostly it is restricting natural property rights.

Copyright didn't come out of nothing, it largely evolved out of censorship regimes. Having copyright being about protecting authors economic rights instead of being about censorship or printer's ecconomic interests, was a huge step forward.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com