As an European, I don't see the problem with what's being argued here. The photo is art, as is, and it should be automatically covered by copyright. You can't download a photo and sell it.
This is a 1:1 replica of the original, "printed" by hand, presented as own, and sold.
> This is a 1:1 replica of the original, "printed" by hand, presented as own, and sold.
The ruling here does not contest that what was sold is a close replica of the original.
What was ruled here is that the original author was not able to convince the tribunal that there was enough originality in the creation of the photograph to have it protected against copies in the first place.
My interpretation from the article:
- The law differentiates "skill" from "originality"
- The author had to prove the originality in at least one aspect of the photograph (lighting, pose, post effects, palette, etc)
- The tribunal found that the proof of originality was not convincing, and declared the work as "skilled" but not "original".
- Thus the original photograph does not represent an original work of art, and can be copied freely.
Here is what the tribunal had to say about the proof of originality that were presented:
> Aucune précision n’est ainsi apportée quant à la composition et l’organisation de l’image, son cadrage, l’angle de prise de vue, le choix de la luminosité, le travail de réflexion du photographe, la mise en scène réalisée, la technique photographique mise en œuvre, etc., à part la remarque qu’il y aurait eu une ‚post-production‘ de la photographie, qui n’est cependant étayée par aucune précision quant aux travaux éventuels effectués et qui constitueraient une manifestation, voire expression de la personnalité de Jingna Zhang
Apparently the arguments of originality provided by the photograph were vague and non convincing, essentially revolved around post effects, but these were not detailed enough.
Apparently the defense was also able to provide numerous photographs from other authors that were close enough to reinforce the idea that it was not such an original work of art.
It's an idiotic expectation because you can't prove that somebody out there hasn't done what you have. It should be assumed until proven otherwise.
I'm not a lawyer, but my personal rule(s) of thumb are:
- Could you create this work by accident? (clearly no)
- Could it be mistaken for another work? (hers not that I know of, his clearly)
She is right that these expectations effectively mean most portraits are not original and anyone can copy them.
That actually makes some sense of this situation. Not saying it's an okay ruling, mind you. But I can understand why the court arrived at this ruling.
Namely:
- Artist: hey, that violates my copyright!
- court: okay, what was copied then?
- artist: well isn't that obvious?!
- court: if it is, you should have no trouble pointing it out...
- artist: well, the pose, the composition, the lighting.
- court: ok. Hey defendant, are you coping copyrightable pose, composition, or lighting?
- defendant: naah dudes. Here, have a look at this bunch of works with the same pose, these lot with similar composition, and these with roughly the same lighting. Why there's even an old Dutch master in that last batch! Original, my ass.
- court: hey artist's lawyer, we're not here to rule on what we think, but on the legal merits of your claim. And your claim has been thoroughly debunked. Sorry, kthxbai!
Note that the crux is in the last part: legal aspects of the claim. If the court had ruled in favour of the artist, they would have to have been able to point out how this work violates copyright, but other similar works don't. And it seems the artist's lawyer didn't supply the court with enough detail to allow them to draw a legal border between what are copies of this work and what is original.
TL;DR: Courts don't rule on the merits of a case. They rule on the merits of each side's arguments.
> These companies assume we are too lazy, misinformed, and stupid to do anything.
Correctly assume *
HN is not representative of the general population, a lot of people don’t bother to switch every provider every year, especially when they have obnoxious clauses like “this will renew in 12 months at 500% the price unless you send a signed letter at least 90 days in advance.“ Yes, probably illegal, still doesn’t stop them from trying.
Even I, attentive as I am, still get fleeced every once in a while.
Knowing the history of Firefox, XUL extensions and their demise, this feels more of a limitation.
For those who don't know, Firefox couldn't innovate because any change to the UI broke half the extension ecosystem. This is what happens when you give carte blanche to third party developers on your UI: It's great for the short them.
I mean it works for both emacs and vim which are even more extensible.
You shouldn't make any UI changes to text editors anyway if you don't plan on pissing off your power users. Never break compatibility.
As for Firefox, well if I could go back to the XUL based UI, I would do so. I don't think the new UI has improved for power users at all it just looks more "modern" which is fashion not progress.
What did Firefox gain from trying to copy Chrome? They are at a negligible market share and are only kept alive by Google money as alibi competition.
So no, that is not a good example. Moving away from XUL extension was not progress for Firefox, it was the beginning of it's decline becoming the rotting corpse of former ideals that it is now.
Sorry I don’t think Firefox lost because of extensions. Nobody cared except us. They lost because on Google advertised the living * out of Chrome. Firefox couldn’t compete regardless, it offered an inferior product out of the box.
Again, HN users are not the majority of internet users, which are counted in the billions.
Ironic and fantastic. So many good ideas are born and die with short-lived projects because no one bothered to extract and polish them as standalone solutions while the project was still alive.
Atom will continue living through Electron (regardless of Pulsar)
I can’t get really past the guy’s attitude. From the get go he’s mocking the work from the marketing to materials, and he’s not doing it in a fun way. Just plain denigrating.
I’ve been watching his videos since Champlain Towers South, and this was the first video that I found off-putting. I would recommend giving him a chance or two, I especially found the CTS videos interesting.
He's correct, though, a bridge that collapses after only 10 years of use demands mockery (and worse) for the people that designed it. Especially as this new bridge replaced an existing one which had, indeed, been up for more than 100 years. It's very fortunate that no-one died because of the incompetence of the people involved in building it.
My dad is a retired civil-engineer and he displays the same type of mockery (and worse) when he sees badly built stuff. Because he very well knows that badly built stuff can cause people to, well, die. It's not "they made an ooopsiee, let's not make it worse by denigrating the designers/builders", it's "they really f.ed things up, people could have died, they're morons (and worst)".
This is a shit attitude that results in more shit collapsing because everyone’s busier finger-pointing, calling each other morons, and trying to avoid being called morons than they are figuring out why shit collapsed in the first place.
A bridge doesn’t collapse because someone was incompetent or fucked something up. It collapses because multiple different things fucked up in lots of ways, and the processes responsible for checking they didn’t fuck things up also fucked up. It’s a systemic failure, and by far the most important thing is figuring out how this failure happened and how we can prevent it from happening again in the future.
> than they are figuring out why shit collapsed in the first place.
That's what the guy from the YT video is trying to do in the first place, while also naming things for how they really are.
> A bridge doesn’t collapse because someone was incompetent or fucked something up.
Yes, that's why a thing like a bridge collapses, because key people that were part of the process managed to fuck up. It's as simple as. That's what my dad's structural engineering professor told him and his student colleagues back in the '70s: "don't fuck up in your future job or people will die. You'll also most probably go to prison". Said professor didn't mention anything about systemic errors or anything like that, which actually means diluting the blame ("it was not me, it was the system").
Civil engineering is not like aeronautics, which has lots of moving parts, civil engineering is (mostly) a tried and tested discipline (like the 100+ years old bridge that was replaced by this new, fancier bridge can attest to). Yes, learn from mistakes, obviously, but also call people out and throw them in prison if people have died because of their incompetence.
Cathedrals were not built based on “risk management strategy”, but on builders not fucking up. The civil engineers that I know of (basically my dad and his friends from his generation) looked up to those builders from the Middle Ages, not to today’s management consultants instructing them about “systemic risks” and “strategy”. Granted, I do not know what today’s generation of civil engineers looks up to.
I can't believe it took me so long to formally flip the bozo bit on Travis CI by instructing my RSS feed reader never to show me anything about it any more.
Sure that is doable, but it doesn't quite sound like a OOB solution where you just add a flag to your YAML, or another line to your build-matrix and call it a day.
I've honestly missed this on Github Actions, and hadn't (yet) found a simple enough workaround to bother.
If the computer is compromised or backdoored, it will have access to private keys for websites that I access on that computer, one per each touch, not the database of all private keys.
For example, I may not connect my Yubikey to some computers at all.
Hardware keys are made not to give out secret keys without physical touch.
Firmware in Yubikey is not updated, unlike over the air phone update.
But that wouldn’t be as catchy and as misleading/misunderstood as the original. Anyone reading that one will assume that elephants are purposefully being born without tusk, but it’s just a ratio consequence of tusked elephants dying early.
This is a 1:1 replica of the original, "printed" by hand, presented as own, and sold.