Hacker News Reader

Comment by asdsa5325 | Hacker News Reader

> If I take a photo of an original work of sheakespear, then I own the copyright on the photo. And i could license the usage of my photo.

That's 100% not true. Please stop spreading misinformation because you have no idea what you are talking about.

"According to a landmark 1999 federal district court ruling, The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd., Plaintiff v. Corel Corporation, 'exact reproductions of public domain artworks are not protected by copyright.'"

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/museum-painting...

View on HN

The important word is ‘exact’. Non exact means the copy contains copyrightable differences.

You're just flat out wrong dude. You've got some very bizarre believes about copyright law and I can't fathom where you got them. Whoever you learned from did you a great disservice, or if you 'taught' yourself then you didn't do a very good job at reading.

Thats a bit unfair; copyright is a fairly unintuitive concept if you haven't been exposed to it.

That's a fair point, but somebody without much exposure to copyright law should avoid saying inflammatory things like:

>"The internet wayback machine is one of the biggest copyright thiefs in my opinion."

(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17220943)

Hah, I stand corrected

If I take a video of jimi Hendrix improvising guitar, then he owns the copyright on the music, but I own the copyright on the recording

I believe that in the context of copyright, 'exact' doesn't mean a 100% perfect copy. If I make a film, I hold the copyright for it whether its distributed on VHS, DVD, or online streaming, even if the quality on VHS is different than the film shown in theaters. It'd be like if changing an image from jpeg to tif changed its copyright status. Your example elsewhere of correcting a few typos and saying it's a different work is similar: it's still the same work, even with the minor tweaks.

Anyways, copyright is weird and complicated and there are many people who don't really understand it. But your theory that archive.org is going to get a copyright on everything they scan and store is not rooted in any sort of legal reality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com