BLUE
Login
Profile banner
TO
the one known as drum
@emopear.bsky.social
it/they (@satansblender on Twitter)
61 followers60 following664 posts
OverviewPostsReplies
TOemopear.bsky.social

twiter down.....

0
TOemopear.bsky.social

great movie

1
TOemopear.bsky.social

this is why I'm always taking naps

0
Reposted by the one known as drum
Cbearerofthecurse.bsky.social

Physics has gone too far!!!!

1
TOemopear.bsky.social

omfg bluesky has notifications now

0
TOemopear.bsky.social

making cars without cd players is an evil act you're taking her pussy away.

0
TOemopear.bsky.social

It doesn't hold up and it's much more likely the publisher pre-empting potential copyfraud lawsuits

0
TOemopear.bsky.social

Regarding copyfraud: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud

Copyfraud - Wikipedia
Copyfraud - Wikipedia

1
TOemopear.bsky.social

Both in the US and the UK, legal experts have stated that digitizing a 2D work is not a creative act and therefore not copyrightable. It really has more to do with pre-empting potential copyfraud lawsuits than actually following copyright law. See more here: commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons...

Simply creating a copy of an image won’t result in a new copyright in the new item. However, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding whether copyright can exist in digitised copies of older images for which copyright has expired. Some people argue that a new copyright may arise in such copies if specialist skills have been used to optimise detail, and/or the original image has been touched up to remove blemishes, stains or creases. However, according to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as ‘original’. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing work.
The rule therefore excludes from copyright protection photographs which are intended to be no more than a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art such as a painting. If only technical expertise is involved (to take a faithful and unimaginative picture), the photograph acquires no copyright protection in its own right. The case extends the rule that scans and photocopies of two-dimensional originals are not copyrightable to cover in addition faithful reproductions created in the U.S. through photography. As a result of this case, anyone taking in the U.S. a mere 'record' photograph of a 2D work of art—plain, full-framed—gets no copyright protection for the photograph. If the original work of art is sufficiently old that its own copyright has expired, the photograph itself will then be free for use in the U.S.
1
Reposted by the one known as drum
NPnancypelosi.bsky.social

would you still love me if i was a worm

5
Profile banner
TO
the one known as drum
@emopear.bsky.social
it/they (@satansblender on Twitter)
61 followers60 following664 posts
HomePopularExplore