- Apr 22, 2014
- Reaction score
- United Kingdom
- Dash Cam
- Too many
I can't speak to that as I'm only familar with U.S. laws. (I also do a bit of photography so am a bit more knowledgable than the average 'Joe Six-Pack' when it comes to this issue - but not an expert by any means.)I don't think it's the case here....
Makes no difference - the new copyright holder assumes the legal responsibilities and the original holder is out of the picture (pun not intended)....Also, don't forget that many of these copyrights are bought by other companies.....
And this is why the U.S. has as many lawyers as we do and the courts are way too busy with nonsensical cases.......The problem is how these rules are applied, see my example:
Someone took a picture about something else, and by simple accident @Sabes's bike (for example) was in that picture. That picture was a success all over the world and made a lot of money. Even if the bike wasn't the main subject of that picture, @Sabes considers it's normal to share the benefits.
My example fits perfectly @Vio's problem with Youtube (probably excepting the money and the success ).
Actually that would depend on how you're using the video. If it was being used for commercial purposes, whatever that might be, I can see where there is a basis for at least two or three actions: 1) the overall CD design itself is copyrighted, 2) the photography/artwork on the CD is copyrighted and, 3) if the CD contains a picture or drawing of Taylor Swift it would be an unauthorized use of her image which is actionable. Any one of these could be the basis for legal action.You cannot compare photos and music like that, if you hold a new cd of Taylor Swift and make video of it nobody cares.
As I wrote in my previous message, @Vio's problem is different. I do not question your knowledge about the laws in U.S., but keep in mind that there is no such think as an absolute law. The laws are created and modified by the state (which is in fact a group of selected people, and theoretically should represents the citizens ...but that's another story). When the laws aren't created for, and don't answer to the needs of the majority, then, these laws must be changed.I also do a bit of photography so am a bit more knowledgable than the average 'Joe Six-Pack' when it comes to this issue - but not an expert by any means.
I think you're not a 3 years old . The money makes the difference ...a lot of money.Makes no difference
I'll disagree with you on this one in that the law(s) need to protect the rights of all, not the needs of the majority. History has shown time and time again minorities being subjugated/oppressed by the majority. This is not to say that the minority should have greater rights and privileges, just not less. However, this subject is best left to another forum as it's well outside the purpose of this site and, as such, is the last I will say on the matter....When the laws aren't created for, and don't answer to the needs of the majority, then, these laws must be changed....
If what you're saying is the corporations have more money to try to protect their interests I agree.The money makes the difference ...a lot of money.