Texas can use your photos without paying....

Texas Can Steal Your Photos Without Paying for ‘Takings’: Court
What happened with the notion that universities should be a place of learning and integrity? Something is going terribly wrong. Even legally right - what about ethics? Does that just not matter anymore?

This BS is why our court system is set up the way it is. It's an unfortunate start to the case but it will be overturned, a state cannot nullify federal law. Those judges are just morons.

From reading the brief it sounds like this was rulled on very narrow grounds that the plaintiff was accusing the state of "taking" the image, but the state was never claiming ownership or control of the image. He was trying to use the legal argument that this was akin to confiscation or eminent domain that the state "took" his property. The issue is that the image was taken down, the state offered what it considered due compensation and he turned down the offer. Since the state no longer uses the image, nor claims any control over the image, his claim of "taking" using eminent domain as his basis is ruled to be null.

I get why the NPPA and PetaPixel is watching this.... but it is not nearly as broad as the headline makes it sound.

Just my opinion.

Interesting. Looking at the article again it seems the judges might be pushing the plaintiff in the direction of infringement rather than "taking" but can't rule on infringement because it wasn't part of the lawsuit.

Is that kinda what you're reading too?

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18877988
Interesting. Looking at the article again it seems the judges might be pushing the plaintiff in the direction of infringement rather than "taking" but can't rule on infringement because it wasn't part of the lawsuit.

Is that kinda what you're reading too?

That's what it looks like to me. "Taking" applies to real estate better than to intellectual property. Mr. Olive seems to have hired the wrong lawyer.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18877988
Interesting. Looking at the article again it seems the judges might be pushing the plaintiff in the direction of infringement rather than "taking" but can't rule on infringement because it wasn't part of the lawsuit.

Is that kinda what you're reading too?

That's what it sounds like to me.

Arrogance taken to a new high.

https://www.pdnonline.​com …ement-is-property-taking/

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #18878595
https://www.pdnonline.​com …ement-is-property-taking/

That explains why Mr. Olive didn't sue for infringement. The immunity discussed in the article puts creators in a bad situation. Abuses are easy to imagine. A private university that "borrows" your image is liable, but a public university isn't.

Unauthorized publication of intellectual property doesn't only mean loss of a licensing fee. It can also reduce the value of the copyrights that the creator owns.

OhLook wrote in post #18878610
That explains why Mr. Olive didn't sue for infringement. The immunity discussed in the article puts creators in a bad situation. Abuses are easy to imagine. A private university that "borrows" your image is liable, but a public university isn't.

Unauthorized publication of intellectual property doesn't only mean loss of a licensing fee. It can also reduce the value of the copyrights that the creator owns.

Exactly. Not just universities, but government. From the article:
"...because governments have immunity from copyright infringement claims."

It goes on to explain how state and federal governments cannot take property, but the reference here is stuff like real property.

"Government" created the law, and "government" exempted itself from copyright infringement.

Isn't that convenient.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #18878619
Exactly. Not just universities, but government. From the article:
"...because governments have immunity from copyright infringement claims."

It goes on to explain how state and federal governments cannot take property, but the reference here is stuff like real property.

I'd welcome more case law on this question. Many laws are flawed, as written, until their effects surface in the real world and the need for adjustments becomes clear. I won't bore you with examples from my life . . .

Intellectual property seems to be a hazy concept for people who aren't involved with it at the level of parties to contracts. This includes many who work with it, whether for governmental units or elsewhere. It doesn't follow the familiar model of buying and selling things.

OhLook wrote in post #18878648
Intellectual property seems to be a hazy concept for people who aren't involved with it at the level of parties to contracts. This includes many who work with it, whether for governmental units or elsewhere. It doesn't follow the familiar model of buying and selling things.

I'm wondering if it's not just a mental attitude by people, like you say, who are not really involved with it.

In the arena of real property, a government cannot just take a farmer's ranch because it is something substantial, concrete - you can bend down and grab a handful of soil. You can't just "take" that without compensation.

But a picture is different. The concept is nebulous. You take a picture, somebody uses it. So what, no real loss. You still have the picture, you still have your camera.

Perhaps if somebody could reach into legislator's minds and steal their most secret thoughts, their ideas, and publish them as their own they would then understand.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #18879102
I'm wondering if it's not just a mental attitude by people, like you say, who are not really involved with it.

In the arena of real property, a government cannot just take a farmer's ranch because it is something substantial, concrete . . . But a picture is different. The concept is nebulous. You take a picture, somebody uses it. So what, no real loss. You still have the picture, you still have your camera.

Good statement of what I had in mind. Everyone is familiar with buying and selling things. Licensing is different from selling, but people who don't know how copyright works can too easily apply the "selling" model to licensing.

Unauthorized use of intellectual property isn't theft in the same sense as grabbing someone's land by fencing it off or building a house on it. It's more like trespass. If Mary drives her cattle across John's farm, John still owns the land, but John has a claim against Mary if he didn't grant her an easement. He may well pursue that claim if the cattle injured his interests by compacting the soil and leaving messes to clean up.

Educating people about copyright should bring them to understand that publishing an image can, for example, cause a genuine loss by using up the photographer's First North American rights.