Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News
Thread started 05 Jun 2017 (Monday) 10:28
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Supreme Court Ruled We Own our Own Property

 
frozenframe
Goldmember
frozenframe's Avatar
Joined Jun 2013
Kansas, USA
Jun 05, 2017 10:28 |  #1

I don't know if anyone has heard of this yet. The title seems this has nothing to do with photography, but the case presented does, Lexmark and ink cartridge refilling. Rulings like this can have a far reaching impact. Here's an article by the Washington Post
https://www.washington​post.com ...s-to-buy-almost-anything/ (external link)


Ron
My Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,569 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Jun 05, 2017 11:13 |  #2

Interesting. Wondering about LR CC.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
smythie
I wasn't even trying
Joined Jun 2009
Sydney - Australia
Jun 06, 2017 01:04 |  #3

I don't think Adobe subscriptions are going to be affected. You are subscribing to a product to use it and in turn be eligible to receive complimentary updates while you keep your subscription current. The standalone software purchases (e.g. LR6) are more related to the content of that story but even so, I'm pretty sure the EULA would state that the software creator retains intellectual property ownership of the product.


Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
texkam
"Just let me be a stupid photographer."
texkam's Avatar
1,107 posts
Joined Mar 2012
By The Lake in Big D
Jun 06, 2017 05:42 |  #4

F Lexmark! They make it so it's impossible for the consumer to refill and reuse their inkjet cartridges too.




LOG IN TO REPLY
frozenframe
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
frozenframe's Avatar
Joined Jun 2013
Kansas, USA
Post has been edited 5 months ago by frozenframe.
Jun 06, 2017 05:45 |  #5

What the article is saying this decision could in fact affect things like copyrights.

These issues fit into a broader fight over what some experts call the “right to tinker.” The thinking goes: If you buy something, you should be free to do whatever you want with it — sell it, modify it, even destroy it. But some companies, even car manufacturers, have sought to put limits on that freedom. They make arguments such as Lexmark's, where handling a product in a way that potentially undermines the company's business leads to an alleged violation of patent or copyright protections. In this view, the customer may think she owns the physical property outright, but she is still constrained by an invisible cage made of corporate intellectual property.

The Supreme Court disagreed with this view. To help make its case, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. used an analogy:

Take a shop that restores and sells used cars. The business works because the shop can rest assured that, so long as those bringing in the cars own them, the shop is free to repair and resell those vehicles. That smooth flow of commerce would sputter if companies that make the thousands of parts that go into a vehicle could keep their patent rights after the first sale.

Roberts went on to say that the used car shop could be sued by patent holders under such a system, and that even if the parts makers didn't follow through, the implied threat of lawsuits would be enough to force the shop to spend lots of money to safeguard against them.

What is possible now, we photographers and software companies such as Adobe, could have a problem defending our copyrights, based on this decision and how lawyers will try to twist this decision to make it applicable. What I also see in this decision is how the court is viewing it, using the simple argument, hey they bought it, they can do what they want with it. SCOTUS is saying it doesn't matter if big corp said you can only do as we say with the products you purchased from us. This decision opened up a big can of worms, and there's a lot of lawyers that love fishing with them. ;)


Ron
My Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
frozenframe
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
frozenframe's Avatar
Joined Jun 2013
Kansas, USA
Jun 06, 2017 05:48 |  #6

texkam wrote in post #18372154 (external link)
F Lexmark! They make it so it's impossible for the consumer to refill and reuse their inkjet cartridges too.

Not now, that's what this decision said, SCOTUS said F you Lexmark, you can't do that.


Ron
My Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
OhLook's Avatar
15,176 posts
Gallery: 64 photos
Joined Dec 2012
California: SF Bay Area
Jun 06, 2017 13:17 |  #7

This decision will have a considerable economic impact if it extends to seed companies that make farmers agree not to harvest and use seed from their own crop grown from the purchased seed.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS FOR YOU: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.) | IMAGE EDITING OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
frozenframe
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
frozenframe's Avatar
Joined Jun 2013
Kansas, USA
Post has been last edited 5 months ago by frozenframe. 2 edits done in total.
Jun 06, 2017 16:28 |  #8

OhLook wrote in post #18372432 (external link)
This decision will have a considerable economic impact if it extends to seed companies that make farmers agree not to harvest and use seed from their own crop grown from the purchased seed.

Yes it will. I think this decision addresses that, when they say people can do what they want with the product. I think it's BS for corps like big seed companies to do that. Farmers buy the seed, put the cash and time in growing a crop, they should be allowed to grow crops for the seeds to be replanted. Only in a commie-social country are things like this done.

This decision is all about ownership. Court says the corps no longer own something when they sell it, and rightfully so. I think more people or businesses need to jump on this issue, attack it with a vengeance. Enough is enough of government or big corps thinking they can constantly control people. It's all about that and greed.


Ron
My Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
OhLook's Avatar
15,176 posts
Gallery: 64 photos
Joined Dec 2012
California: SF Bay Area
Jun 06, 2017 19:13 |  #9

frozenframe wrote in post #18372583 (external link)
Farmers buy the seed, put the cash and time in growing a crop, they should be allowed to grow crops for the seeds to be replanted. Only in a commie-social country are things like this done.

I always thought trying to control farmers' use of seed that they themselves produced was selfish and wrong. So, for that application of this court decision, it's about time.

Only in a commie-social country? No, my friend, it's a cappie thing.

The way this decision plays out for intellectual property will be interesting, and perhaps scary, to watch. You should still be able to specify which rights you're selling.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS FOR YOU: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.) | IMAGE EDITING OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
Capn ­ Jack
Senior Member
Capn Jack's Avatar
Joined Mar 2010
NE USA
Jun 06, 2017 20:30 |  #10

frozenframe wrote in post #18372583 (external link)
Yes it will. I think this decision addresses that, when they say people can do what they want with the product. I think it's BS for corps like big seed companies to do that. Farmers buy the seed, put the cash and time in growing a crop, they should be allowed to grow crops for the seeds to be replanted. Only in a commie-social country are things like this done.

This decision is all about ownership. Court says the corps no longer own something when they sell it, and rightfully so. I think more people or businesses need to jump on this issue, attack it with a vengeance. Enough is enough of government or big corps thinking they can constantly control people. It's all about that and greed.

OhLook wrote in post #18372674 (external link)
I always thought trying to control farmers' use of seed that they themselves produced was selfish and wrong. So, for that application of this court decision, it's about time.

Only in a commie-social country? No, my friend, it's a cappie thing.

The way this decision plays out for intellectual property will be interesting, and perhaps scary, to watch. You should still be able to specify which rights you're selling.

Yes, it is capitalism. While understanding this point of view above, how does a seed company recoup its R&D investment if they only sell the seed once? Getting a stable strain and field-testing it isn't a trivial investment either. Without defending these companies, I work with scientists at Dow, Syngenta and Monsanto and so I have some feel for the efforts involved. The farmer replants seeds with traits that took a lot of work to create.

What business model would be fair to both the farmer and the seed producer?


USA members- don't let the airlines buy the air traffic control system: http://www.atcnotforsa​le.com/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,569 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Jun 06, 2017 21:21 |  #11

Capn Jack wrote in post #18372717 (external link)
Yes, it is capitalism. While understanding this point of view above, how does a seed company recoup its R&D investment if they only sell the seed once? Getting a stable strain and field-testing it isn't a trivial investment either. Without defending these companies, I work with scientists at Dow, Syngenta and Monsanto and so I have some feel for the efforts involved. The farmer replants seeds with traits that took a lot of work to create.

What business model would be fair to both the farmer and the seed producer?

Perhaps the problem is granting a patent on a life form in the first place. Screw Dow, Syngenta, and Monsanto. Farming was at its most efficient (less waste) when it was done by rotating crops, critters, and rest. A small (10-100 acre) plot can be self-sustaining. That is never going to happen with 10,000 acre farms that grow the same crop every season.

Want more efficient farming? Kill the farm bill.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
Nogo
I could have been worse....
Joined Dec 2013
All Along the Natchez Trace (Clinton, MS)
Post has been edited 5 months ago by Nogo.
Jun 06, 2017 21:30 |  #12

One thing most people who are not farmers do not realize about the Monsanto issue is there is more to that issue than just the profits of the seed company. You rarely hear of wide spread blights in grain crops any more. Part of the reason for this is the constant development of new strains of crops being developed year after year. In the past, when blights occurred part of the reason was due to the widespread use of a single strain of a grain. One or two years a new strain would have great success. Then the following years all the other farmers used that brand and strain. When too many farmers used that exact grain and were effected by a blight, it would be widespread and the national output of that grain would be hit hard.

This was great for the farmers who did not use that strain or somehow were not effected by the blight. The price of the grain will be high and the lucky few would have a great year. But for the rest, they would be lucky if they did not go bankrupt. Of course there is crop insurance to help but when it is widespread, it ends up hurting everyone.

So, one of the reasons it is wise not to use grain for seed the following year is to prevent plant disease such as blights. Of course, I am sure the seed companies consider that a secondary reason not to reuse the grain for seed, but it is a legitimate concern, nonetheless.

Edit: As in the post made while I was typing mine, the practice of everyone planting the same thing year after year is part of this same problem. Everyone not planting corn (or whatever crop is popular at the time) will help with this problem probably more than changing the seed variety every year.


Philip
Does the TF actually know about the soda cans and PVC pipe from 30 years ago?

LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
OhLook's Avatar
15,176 posts
Gallery: 64 photos
Joined Dec 2012
California: SF Bay Area
Jun 06, 2017 21:48 |  #13

Capn Jack wrote in post #18372717 (external link)
Yes, it is capitalism. While understanding this point of view above, how does a seed company recoup its R&D investment if they only sell the seed once? Getting a stable strain and field-testing it isn't a trivial investment either. Without defending these companies, I work with scientists at Dow, Syngenta and Monsanto and so I have some feel for the efforts involved. The farmer replants seeds with traits that took a lot of work to create.

What business model would be fair to both the farmer and the seed producer?

The answer from classical economics would be: Charge more for the seed and remove the restriction on its use. Better yet, offer customers both options. Farmers can pay less than full price if they don't use seed from their fields.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS FOR YOU: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.) | IMAGE EDITING OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
Myth-informed
17,862 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Joined Mar 2009
Issaquah, WA USA
Jun 06, 2017 22:25 |  #14

Patent and Copyright are two, completely different mechanisms. So, how are folks arriving at the conclusion it affects photo rights?


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

LOG IN TO REPLY
frozenframe
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
frozenframe's Avatar
Joined Jun 2013
Kansas, USA
Post has been last edited 5 months ago by frozenframe. 5 edits done in total.
Jun 06, 2017 22:41 |  #15

Not saying it does right now, or will. But the ownership is what has been argued and decided. It's possible to argue that client has purchased the product from photographer, thus owns it now. Don't ever second guess what lawyers will try. They use decisions like this, twist them and we start over. This time they simply point out this ownership decision. That said, for client to file suit, would then cost photographer just to defend it. It could bankrupt photographer defending ownership. Copyright states that photographer owns the product. Court just said, (not to photographers specifically), you sold it so you no longer own it, the buyer does, and it's their property now to do as they wish.

The concern is it could be something used. The article also pointed out these corporations dealing with patents, can also rework and reword their patents or contracts.

As far as farmers growing and replanting seed, what goes on then when the farmer grows seed corn? If that's not planted again? That seed was not produced by the big corps. I think that big corps could put out bad seed just the same as a farmer having a bad crop. No different, other than perhaps more widespread :rolleyes:

I think the farm kinda side-tracked the main issue here. I wonder how Lexmark could dictate based on a patent, usage of their product or in this case, re-using? They didn't copy, re-manufacture, just refilled them. The design was intact, with the small exception of keeping everyone using their product, buying just from them. I can see where copyright could be tied in.


Ron
My Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

5,128 views & 10 likes for this thread
Supreme Court Ruled We Own our Own Property
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00125 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
871 guests, 428 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016