Being unable to decide if people can burn music for their own personal use, mandatory web porn filters that can mess up game updates and now this. How is the people of Britain supposed to have faith in their government to go after Daesh and other extremists online when they seem like they can barely program a clock on a VCR?
Or wearing clothes presumably. So send photos of people naked and get done for sexting, clothed copyright infringement. Or photos of buildings, so only nature pictures allowed from now on.
āCommon senseā wins out againā¦
[note sarcasm]
I imagine this is how the conversation went: āDespite our previous massive efforts, there are still a few stubborn commoners who respect the rule of law. It is time to take the final steps toward making everyone a criminal and disabuse those stragglers of their quaint notionsā
āSoā¦ why buy designer furniture? I donāt know what that is, since itās not in anyoneās photos for me to think I might want some.ā
But hey, I guess someoneās got to stop the madness that is photographing everyday objects. Fire away!
a law that everyone is guilty of is a law that is ripe for abuse.
But I for one am not guilty of posting photos of my furniture. Pick a better example, this law is not the gateway to dystopian hellscape.
Methinks the problem lies with how much of a furniture has to be seen to count as infringing to a lawyer. Someone sitting on a design chair or next to a design table? Design thingmebob in the background of a family photo?
Also, high-detail zoomable gigapixel panoramic photos. Guaranteed to have copyrighted objects in the view.
Not a problem for the Powers That Be: all their furniture is a good couple of hundred years out of copyright.
Roger That
No incidental captures of your furniture in other indoor shots?
Only nature pictures allowed? Until a corporation decides that the scene is theirs.
Wonāt this apply to nearly every movie and television show ever made?
sounds like google has a new revenue source: searching for copyrighted items in photos. and heck: they can charge both photographers and designers. let the dollarsā¦ errrā¦ poundsā¦ start rolling in.
We shall all simply have to re-learn how to make our own furniture just like our grandparents did.
And yea, it came to pass that all the designer furniture companies went out of business. And they did rent their garments and gnash their teeth for they knew not why this was so. And it was so because they who createth and maketh the designer furniture did not mix with they who selleth and marketeth the designer furniture.
It might also include photos/images of paintings of designer furniture.
Welcome to planet Bauhaus, mauxfauxs!
Isnāt this what destroying ownership in order to save it looks like? The blinkered quest to āprotectā so many ephemeral rights supposedly inhering to various objects that it becomes impossible to do much of anything with them?
Nope. I donāt even post my dick. Why would I post my cat being adorable on my Herman Millerā¢ chair? Nobody wants to see that.
Hereās an idea: thereās a reason lawyers are suing middle-school kids over Happy Birthday. Itās not for profit; kids are pretty much judgement-proof, and even if they manage to nail the parents, bankruptcy makes it all better. No, I suspect the reason is because weāre on the cusp of a whole new understanding of copyright. Nobody knows what itās going to be, but everybody wants to be there when it happens. Lobbyists are hard at work trying to craft laws that allow their masters to own every word, every note, and every pixel, but their vision is simply impossible in the long term. There will be legislation, and you get to pick the legislators. Choose wisely.
