Supreme Court Ruled We Own our Own Property

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/

Interesting. Wondering about LR CC.

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.

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

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

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.

texkam wrote in post #18372154
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.

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.

OhLook wrote in post #18372432
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.

frozenframe wrote in post #18372583
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.

frozenframe wrote in post #18372583
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
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?

Capn Jack wrote in post #18372717
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.

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.

Capn Jack wrote in post #18372717
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.

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

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

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.