[Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

[Anthony]

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk at eunet.rs> wrote:
> On 28/09/11 13:44, Anthony wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenski<smolensk at eunet.rs>  wrote:
>>> The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning.
>>
>> Sure it does.  Is there any such thing as an "original photograph"?
>
> Yes there is, and this isn't it.

Why not?  What constitutes an original photograph, as opposed to
whatever this photograph is?

>>> The photograph is not the first instance.
>>
>> The original photograph is the first instance of the photograph.  This
>
> Copyright does not protect physical objects. The image that is fixed on
> the first instance of the physical photograph is not the first instance
> of the image.

Sure it is.  I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

And if it isn't (which, you'll have to explain), can that be said
about *any* photograph?

>>> The photograph is not independent or creative.
>>
>> Someone most likely selected the F-stop, the shutter speed, and the
>> lighting.  I doubt they just pointed the camera on auto and used the
>
> The fact that you can devise a creative method to create an image does
> not mean that the image itself is creative.

No, it doesn't.  However, I am contending that creativity most likely
*did* go into creating the image.

> As an extreme example, I can
> devise an extremely creative false backstory for me in order to gain
> access to a document, then photocopy it. The fact that I was creative
> while devising my story does not give me copyright to a photocopy.

True.

>> built in flash.  Someone most likely selected how to convert the raw
>> image into a jpeg or png or whatever they're using.  They may have
>
> How the hell is that creative?

Have you ever converted a raw image into a jpeg?  If you have, then I
would think you'd know how the hell it is creative.

For one thing, you're converting 12 or 14 bits of color data per pixel
into 8.  So you have to select what information to lose, and what
information to keep.

>> even done some significant post-processing.  Someone definitely
>
> Post-processing could be creative, but the original photographs still
> are not.

The original photographs (*) are not what are displayed on the website.

(*) I thought you said these weren't "original photographs".

>> selected which camera to use, how many separate photographs to tile
>
> This must be the worst pro-copyright argument of all times.

You need to reread what I said.  I was not making a pro-copyright argument.

> So I have
> two copiers in my company, and since I selected one of them the
> photocopies I made are *original* and copyrighted by me? They are not.

And I didn't say they were.

>> together, etc.
>
> This choice is limited by technical possibilities of the devices and not
> by someone's creative decision.

Our choices are always limited by the technical possibilities of the
devices we are using.