If there is a copyright on a chair, you cannot manufacture the chair without permission. Where is photographing it mentioned?
UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
101–110 of 138 posts
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen a few iMacs with the Apple logo covered in TV shows as well.
Most likely a case of "so, Apple, you don't want to pay the TV just a little bit of money for product placement? Oh well, out come the stickers." Follow the money.
Yeah I guess what I'm saying is that Apple can give people free shit all day but a director & producer will decide what goes in and what doesn't, not the prop department (as mentioned by others here)
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#103Do I also need a license to sit in a designer chair?
No. Sitting is not an act restricted by copyright in the UK.
16 The acts restricted by copyright [are]:
(a)to copy the work;
(b)to issue copies of the work to the public;
(ba)to rent or lend the work to the public;
(c)to perform, show or play the work in public;
(d)to communicate the work to the public;
(e)to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation
Photoing a designer chair comes under copying: "copying includes ... the making of a copy in two dimensions of a three-dimensional work" (s.17(3))
IANAL.
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except most of them were actually republican, supporting Provisional Government. It was a wide coalition of monarchists, republicans, orthdox priests and military. Their only common ground was perhaps dislike and fear of reds (and that turned out very justified).
> Their only common ground was perhaps dislike and fear of reds (and that turned out very justified). Getting wildly OT now but the atrocities and systematic killings performed by the Nationalists absolutely dwarfed the isolated killings on the Republican side, perhaps by a factor of ten to one.
I'm sorry, who are nationalists that you're talking about? Is it the right civil war? Only thing coming to my mind is ukrainian nationalists, Petlura, that kind of thing.
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#105OK, 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…
>but only items that a court would consider to be a work of art.
This doesn't handle the issue of people making claims that things are works of art even if the courts would not agree. Add in the cost to fight it and you end up with a chilling effect.
For example, it would be possible for some laptop design company to say that while the guts of the laptop are not primarily a work of art, the case that holds them is. Maybe they would lose in court, but what is the chance that you would be willing to fight them instead of just taking down the blog?
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#106A lot of technologists here have certain dreams or aspirations they want to see materialized in their lifetimes. AGI, transhumanism, space colonization, etc. My dream is that I hope to see the emergence of a viable minarchist or anarchist society (beyond Mennonite and kibbutzim arrangements). Thus far the closest was a brief period of Catalonian history amidst a civil war.
I don't think there is still a single communal kibbutz left in Israel they all pretty much adopted capitalism and privatized their industry. They originated more out of necessity than out of ideology (not to say that it didn't play a big part in it) as the lack of resources of the early Jewish settlers and the overall lack of development of most of the land pretty much mandated it. I still have yet to see a viable ex…
I'm not advocating anarcho-communism or left-anarchism, necessarily. I'm more than aware of its bottlenecks regarding economic calculation and so forth.
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#107Do I also need a license to sit in a designer chair?
No. Sitting is not an act restricted by copyright in the UK. 16 The acts restricted by copyright [are]: (a)to copy the work; (b)to issue copies of the work to the public; (ba)to rent or lend the work to the public; (c)to perform, show or play the work in public; (d)to communicate the work to the public; (e)to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation Source: CDPA1988 s.16(1).…
So ... can I sit on the chair, in public?
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#108Do I also need a license to sit in a designer chair?
No. Sitting is not an act restricted by copyright in the UK. 16 The acts restricted by copyright [are]: (a)to copy the work; (b)to issue copies of the work to the public; (ba)to rent or lend the work to the public; (c)to perform, show or play the work in public; (d)to communicate the work to the public; (e)to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation Source: CDPA1988 s.16(1).…
What if I sit on the chair in a public place? Surely that constitutes a performance of the chair; after all to sit on a chair is to perform its essential function.
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Sitting is not an act restricted by copyright in the UK. 16 The acts restricted by copyright [are]: (a)to copy the work; (b)to issue copies of the work to the public; (ba)to rent or lend the work to the public; (c)to perform, show or play the work in public; (d)to communicate the work to the public; (e)to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation Source: CDPA1988 s.16(1).…
What if I sit on the chair in a public place? Surely that constitutes a performance of the chair; after all to sit on a chair is to perform its essential function.
No. The performance right is for "literary, dramatic or musical work[s]".
(Remember: legislation is drafted by lawyers whose entire job is to make a document that is as painfully, excruciatingly unambiguous as English allows. Each of those rights in the short list I posted has long sections clarifying very precisely what it means. Where ambiguities or absurdities remain, there's probably been a lawsuit over them in the past 25 odd years, and a judge will have spent dozens of pages analysing each one.
In other words - criticising an act by trying to spot semantic absurdities based on a tiny extract of its summary is probably not a sensible game to play..)
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Sitting is not an act restricted by copyright in the UK. 16 The acts restricted by copyright [are]: (a)to copy the work; (b)to issue copies of the work to the public; (ba)to rent or lend the work to the public; (c)to perform, show or play the work in public; (d)to communicate the work to the public; (e)to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation Source: CDPA1988 s.16(1).…
So ... can I sit on the chair, in public?