61–70 of 138 posts
I mean.....it already sort of happens in the US. Every single TV show censors out any brand names, car logos, restaurant names out of fear of I don't know what. Being sued I guess? It's ridiculous.
Usually it's to avoid accidentally promoting a product that competes with a sponsor or advertiser.
OK, seems like a storm in a teacup. The items covered by this ruling ('industrially exploited artistic works') are artistic items that have been reproduced more than 50 times. They are already under copyright for 25 years, but due to a judicial review based on EU law, that section has been repealed so they are now covered by the same copyright as 2D artistic works (such as paintings). Therefore, it's not everything t…
Unless one of your user submitted photos of an Apple laptop happens to contain their desk chair that you don't notice is a designer chair. The first you may know about this is the copyright troll that purchased the rights to images of that chair sending you a speculative invoice after their chair recognising bot has trawled your blog. You might when you reflect on this hazard decide that your blog on Apple laptops is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you see a designed object in a movie the brand owner will have paid to put it there. While paid product placement does exist and is widespread, this statement isn't correct. There are many examples of organic product placement, where the set/costume designer uses a particular product without any financial incentive.
In fact for example Apple has confirmed repeatedly for many years that they don't pay for product placement.
Seriously, it's pretty obvious when the technology spot has been bought by whatever means, otherwise they use no-brand completely generic devices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you see a designed object in a movie the brand owner will have paid to put it there. While paid product placement does exist and is widespread, this statement isn't correct. There are many examples of organic product placement, where the set/costume designer uses a particular product without any financial incentive.
In fact for example Apple has confirmed repeatedly for many years that they don't pay for product placement.
Is this some contrived plot to repel people from taking UK citizenship?
Is this some contrived plot to repel people from taking UK citizenship?
This is the first step in a cunning plan to remove vacuous images from the net. Next step is working out a plausible reason for banning small,furry,mammal images.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually it's to avoid accidentally promoting a product that competes with a sponsor or advertiser.
But how is that only a problem in the US? I've never seen UK, German, French, Spanish or Polish TV shows censoring out brand names. Surely they could have made the same argument, yet they don't?
What I miss in this kind of articles is more details in how this kind of laws are cooked. They say "the UK government", OK, but who in the UK government, and who is really behind. Not that we don't know, but making the process explicit would be helpful.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/transitional-arr... > 1. Section 52 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) limits the term of copyright protection for industrially exploited artistic works to 25 years. The Government had previously consulted on how and when to implement the repeal of section 52 CDPA and made a decision to have a transitional period of 5 years from April 2015. This meant tha…
http://intellectualpropertyblog.fieldfisher.com/2015/section...
I find interested and sensible this distinction (even if I think 25 years is too much):
"When more than 50 copies have been made of such an artistic work, the period of copyright protection is limited to 25 years after the work is first marketed, in comparison to other artistic works which are protected for the life of the author plus 70 years. In practical terms, this means, for example, that furniture manufacturers and importers could start manufacturing and importing furniture that qualified as industrially-manufactured artistic works once the initial 25 year copyright protection had expired."
The fact that this rational exception is going to be eliminated in order to harmonize with EU law just push the issue of 'who' to Brussels.
It seems that there is a great tradition of harmonizing copyright always to the most draconian terms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well the question is then does it cover all photographs or only those in which the item is the subject. E.g model on a chair is ok chair on its own is not. Also what makes an item a classical designer item? Do ikea chairs count as designer goods now since they come with an image stock photo of some middle age white guy with a Nordic name?
The mention of 'designer' objects is a distraction. It's about any object for which the design is protected by copyright.
The design of an Apple laptop or a Fisher Price toy phone is copyrighted, but it's very unlikely to be considered an 'artistic work'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fact for example Apple has confirmed repeatedly for many years that they don't pay for product placement.
I guess it's coincidence then that Beats started appearing all over the place in movies and videoclips right around the time when Apple bought them (I remember searching for them when I became aware of their ubiquity and learning that Apple had just acquired them). Seriously, it's pretty obvious when the technology spot has been bought by whatever means, otherwise they use no-brand completely generic devices.