Copyright the Moon

[kundalini]

You are not likely to be at the same exact latitude and longitude coordinates AND at the exact same time. Each person's photo would be unique. Silly thoughts.

 

[cgipson1]

You are not likely to be at the same exact latitude and longitude coordinates AND at the exact same time. Each person's photo would be unique. Silly thoughts.

Agreed! 110%

 

[Derrel]

That, Derrel, is a quite different discussion, as you well know! I assume everyone else read that last Sunday, when I wrote it. Why are you so late?

I had lots of important stuff to read before addressing your intense disdain for the people who want to take photos of the moon.

 

[amolitor]

I am saddened that everyone who seems to grasp my point seems to next cast about as quickly as possible for some way to hurriedly dismiss it.

Oh well.

 

[Derrel]

I am saddened that everyone who seems to grasp my point seems to next cast about as quickly as possible for some way to hurriedly dismiss it.

Oh well.

Your "point" seems extremely facile, and filled with pretense. As Kundalini pointed out, "silly thoughts". Again, I really think the pin head argument and the bear-in-the-woods kind of stuff would be equally valid topics, especially since your position on your premise already seems to have been answered by you.

In other words, you've introduced a "silly thoughts" premise here, a virtual strawman argument, and you expect discussion on it...

Your idea that every single photograph of the moon differs only in detail amount is disingenuous, and in fact, downright insulting.

 

[Buckster]

Photographer's Survival Manual: A Legal Guide for Artists in the Digital Age (Lark Photography Book): Edward C. Greenberg, Jack Reznicki: 9781600594205: Amazon.com: Books

(HIGHLY recommended book that everyone here could benefit from reading and having as a reference)

See pages 22-25, "What Is Copyrightable?"

In short, it must have "protectable elements" to be copyrightable (and enforceable - the copyright office will take your money and register it because they don't actually review the photos submitted. But that doesn't mean it will hold up in court).

Example from the book: "Two Hands Shaking", shot hundreds of thousands of times and applied to business-type imagery - we've all seen them - not copyrightable or protectable because there are no "protectable elements". It's an oft-used generic image - an "idea" and you can't copyright an idea - only a particular artistic expression of an idea.

To be copyrightable and protectable, the image must have some very specific elements that make it singularly unique from the generic idea. And that doesn't mean one of the hands is wearing a ring or a watch or cuff links; it doesn't mean different skin colors or gender or age or any of that stuff. It has to be truly one-of-a-kind unique, like one of the hands needs to be of a scaly green creature maybe.

So - Not copyrightable:

Photos of the moon are not copyrightable for the same reason. Unique photos that feature the moon in them may be, as long as they themselves are not simply non-unique photos of generic ideas.

So, this very generic, non-unique photo I made of an eclipsed moon is not copyrightable:

Again, the copyright office will take the money and issue a certificate saying that it is, but certificate or not, a copyright claim for this image will not hold up in court.

On the other hand, this very unique image I made that features the moon is copyrightable:

Get the book. Seriously. It's worth every penny.

 

[amolitor]

One interesting and somewhat related question would be: what if someone arranged some objects in a unique way, like a still life, and made a photograph and you went out and obtained identical objects (let's say some mass-produced items like nuts, bolts, nails, etc.) and arranged them in the same way. Then, could you reasonably be accused of copying the image, albeit "the hard way" by reproducing every aspect of it?

Yeah, I think that's an interesting question myself. I think, again, the law is quite clear -- the new picture is yours. The ethics are almost as clear -- the picture isn't yours, or at least it's not definitely and completely yours.

Honestly, I dunno if there's a discussion to be even had here, but I think it's an interesting observation. Intellectual property law paints itself into some weird corners, and digital media is making more weird corners.

 

[amolitor]

Cool, Buckster. I did not know that! Thanks!

I would like the record to show: My understanding of the law here was completely wrong.

I am gratified to learn that it makes more sense than I thought.

 

[ShooterJ]

You are not likely to be at the same exact latitude and longitude coordinates AND at the exact same time. Each person's photo would be unique. Silly thoughts.

I think creating a truly identical photo would take a lot of effort .. because of that ^

Furthermore .. who cares? It's generally understood that lots of people take photos of the moon, or famous landmarks, sunrises, sunsets...

The only thing you OWN is the image created by YOUR camera.. and that's in the data at time of capture.

In any event, I haven't seen any big "moon lawsuits" being discussed on CNN ... ever.

 

[amolitor]

A technical point, moving around the surface of the earth subtly changes the view of the moon to be sure, but so subtly as to require pretty high resolution equipment to measure. There's more variation due to the moon getting closer and further away in the course of its orbit, and ALL the variation is well within the bounds of a "copyright preserving" series of edits.

Anyways, the issue of copyright is off the table since in practical terms there isn't one to preserve.

 

[KenC]

I agree with Derrel that we should all move on to a discussion of bear farts. If you were in the woods and they did stink, could you tell what the bear had eaten and when?

 

[amolitor]

See? I learned something, I suspect some other people learned something, we had a little discussion. It was nice.

This internet forum thing, it could be big, I tell ya.

 

[Gavjenks]

I think the legal situation is pretty clear, but what makes it interesting is that it directly conflicts with the ethical situation.

Nobody would ever bother to bring it to court, of course.

Copyright has been thoroughly addressed above, so I go back to this comment of yours about the ethical side.

You seem to only be deriving your ethical concerns entirely from notions of copyright. So you can't just say you want to separate them out later, because then your ethical argument becomes completely unfounded in anything, at least not anything stated in the thread/OP. In other words [copyright --> Ethical issues] Then remove copyright from the equation and you get [nothing --> Ethical issues]. Making it a non-issue, unless you have some other reasoning for why it would be unethical.

I can't think of any. Ethically, if you take a photo of the moon by itself, anywhere in the frame, then you made zero artistic choices, so I don't see how it is in any way "wrong" by any normal definition for somebody else to take an equally obvious photo with equally few artistic decisions.

 

[amolitor]

I can't think of any. Ethically, if you take a photo of the moon by itself, anywhere in the frame, then you made zero artistic choices, so I don't see how it is in any way "wrong" by any normal definition for somebody else to take an equally obvious photo with equally few artistic decisions.

I think we agree, entirely. And it turns out that the law does as well! Cool, huh?

 

[TCampbell]

This is brilliant! I am registering a copyright for a photo of the Earth. Now everything the rest of you shoot are just "close ups" of my photo of the Earth.