The Way Of The Future?

[Tami]

Last month there was a copyright legally filed on the night-time image of the Eiffel Tower by SNTE, the company which had the contract for performing maintenance on the tower. What this company did was put up a lighting display, which in turn made the lit up Eiffel Tower a unique image. What does this mean? It means that professional photographers can no longer market photos of a night-lit Eiffel Tower without the consent (and probably payment) of SNTE. This move also prevents traditional artists of all genres from painting, drawing, or sketching the Eiffel Tower as it appears at night with the current display. The company has stated that they will not prevent *amateur* photographers from posting their photos on personal websites, but they\'ve enacted the copyright to prevent people from using the Tower\'s image in a commercial way which said company may not approve of.

So what\'s next? While this company is not a government body, it does hold a government contract. Are we going to see governments around the world copyrighting buildings, light displays and perhaps historical sites they have no real right to copyright as they didn\'t create them?

Will they see this move by SNTE as the beginning of a cash cow and make moves to prevent the commercial use of photos/paintings of such places as Mt. Rushmore, the White House, Buckingham Palace and thousands of other sites around the world?

It will be interesting to watch and see what kind of trend SNTE has started, to say the least.

[NightStorm]

Oh, that\'s /censored.gif\' class=\'bbc_emoticon\' alt=\'(cens)\' />. How the crap can a company actually get away with copywriting a landmark that is actually a piece of the horizon in Paris?
I know exactly where this is going though... next will be the image of the two spotlights pointing into the sky at ground zero.
Whoever approved the copywrite needs to have a stapler shoved up their ass sideways.

[Tami]

The addition of the lighting display on the Eiffel Tower effectively \"changed\" the Tower design enough to make it an original \'image\' In Canada, you can take a design - say, a scrollsaw pattern - and change elements in it. If you change the design more than 10% from the original, you can then copyright the new pattern as your own and there is nothing the original designer can do other than go to court.

[FlyingDoggyJake]

Copyrights have gotten out of hand.... I recently was at a documentary festival at the University of Winnipeg and I was informed that a particular company (can\'t remember the name off hand) has placed a patent on the human gene for breast cancer.
What does this mean? ... well for one, research of the gene (ie. drug testing, lab analysis ...etc. ) can not be performed without the concent of the company. Secondly, and somewhat more disturbing, is the fact that a prescident has been set which opens the door to actually allowing companies to legally own parts of the human body. The example the documentary gave was that if you infact had breast cancer in your own body, you do not have the legal right to treat it (or for that matter do anything with it) without the permission of the company holding the patent.

The documentary was based on the principal that corporate greed has managed to infringe on what was once known as \"the common good\" of humanity.

[radar]

Everyone is out to get the most out of everyone else, money wise.

Take the example of the go-kart guy who was showing off to his mates in his go-kart on the course. Of course, he crashed it and was seriously hurt and his kart wasn't much better than he was. So he took the course owners to court, blaming the bumps and poor maintenence of the track and he won. That course is now shut down. Similar things have happened to other areas, they ruin the fun for everyone else.

As for the eiffel tower thing, some people just want to be real assholes.

[Tami]

I think is some company wants to copyright a gene related to a disease, and therefore own that gene even though it is in some human\'s body, then said company damn well better be prepared to pay the medical costs to look after \"their copyrighted property\" By trying to take ownership and therefore reap any financial benefits from any research/medical procedures, they have (without having seen any legal documentation) in my opinion, opened themselves wide up to lawsuits to cover costs.

I read a Globe & Mail article about copyright and stupidity; unfortunately I can\'t post it here because it is a \"pay to read\" article, parts of which had been posted on another website. Points raised in that article bring to the forefront about the stupidity of greed. Alot of material-most of it historical is being protected by copyright. News services are copyrighting whatever they can. Everyone is copyrighting whatever they can to make a dollar. Now in some instances I can see point in this-after all, aren\'t the items we create right here subject to copyright protection? Of course they are. I\'m not saying the creators of material don\'t deserve to make money from their creations. What I\'d like to know is who decided that important points in history should be subject to copyright? What about film companies who want to make a documentary on a given subject, but can\'t because the event, or the information is subject to copyright? As more and more corporations or individuals decide to change things a bit then copyright them, what will happen to the history of global culture? How will schools be able to afford access to teaching materials if everything is subject to payment for use? Our schools are already suffering with a lack of teaching materials. Of course an easy solution to that could be to chop the wages of the higher-ups in the school systems, but that\'s another rant /bigwink.gif\' class=\'bbc_emoticon\' alt=\';)\' />

I think that the Creative Commons licence has a chance to truly move copyright licencing into the future and leave the archaic laws where they should be--in history (probably subject to copyright by the Smithsonian or something) This new copyright concept operates within current copyright sanctions, but it also gives those who create the material more choice of how THEY want their materials distributed and used. I\'ve spent alot of time reading at the Creative Commons site, and I truly think that this type of licencing is something we may want to consider for KillaNet. It\'s amazing that a lawyer has developed a system which is easily readable, understandable, and makes total sense.

Enough of these companies taking possession of our landmarks and our history. There needs to be some way to stop the trend before it gets so you can\'t even view a building\'s architecture without paying the holder of the copyright.

** edit to add [url=\"http://creativecommons.org\"][u]Creative Commons[/u][/url]

[FlyingDoggyJake]

well said ... I\'ll have to take a look at the Creative Commons site

Just in case anyone is interested I found this on a site affiliated with Oklahoma State University:

Patent laws force people to pay to gain access to their own genes, blood, cells, and almost any other part of their body: \"There are about a thousand other human genes that have been patented\" says Hylton (109). For researchers to do work on one of those genes, they have to pay a fee to the company that owns the patent to that gene (109). For doctors to run tests for breast cancer, they have to pay Myriad Genetics, because they have the patent to the breast cancer gene (109). If anyone needs a bone marrow transplant, they have to pay to access those cells, because a company owns the rights to them. Therefore, they own the right to tell anybody that they cannot have the transplant. Also, they have the patent that gives them permission to charge people for parts of their own body. Selling the rights to body parts that belong to other people has gotten out of control.

[url=\"http://www.englishdiscourse.org/edc.1.2sievert.html\"][u]Source - paragraph 4[/u][/url]

**edit **

After thought -

Not only is this wrong for the obvious reason that it is simply immoral to allow laws that take away the human RIGHT to own ones personal body, but it seems to me that this would actually discourage research into finding cures for such diseases as breast cancer.

Kinda makes a person want to start a protest against such companies as Myriad Genetics, of course no one wants to do that - they might find themselves in court for violation of the \"protest patent\" ....jk

[Tami]

I don\'t understand how the patent office could issue a patent on human genes, especially one which could essentially end up blocking the road to finding various cures simply because some drug manufacturer got overly greedy.

I agree with you Jake, this sets what could be a very dangerous precedent-drug manufacturers are greedy enough (in my opinion) without being handed a way to make even more money off the sick and dying.

[FlyingDoggyJake]

Oh dear, I\'m about to rant. I try not to get going about such matters in forums, but this stikes a nerve with me.

I\'ve taken 4 years of university biology and I\'ve developed certain opinions about this. For those of you who don\'t know \"Gene Therapy\" (the curing of illness/disease by genetic replacement and alteration) has promised to be the medical breakthrough of the future. In many cases, such technology actually \'cures\' the problem rather than \'treat\' it (drugs are notorious for \'treating\').
Thus, it isn\'t hard to conclude that such advancements are a serious threat to drug companies that make billions off of \'treating\' illnesses rather than \'curing\' them.
It is my feeling that the urgency for drug companies to patent these genes is to actually prevent the progress of Gene Therapy.

So who pays? .... we all do ... Whenever you hear that someone died of a terminal disease, just remember that it may have been in the name of greed!

Okay, I\'m done ranting now (need more beer)

[Tami]

Hey Jake? We\'re in The Firing Range...it\'s the rant section /bigwink.gif\' class=\'bbc_emoticon\' alt=\';)\' />

[FlyingDoggyJake]

ahhhhh..... well in that case....

^$^%#&^$*$PDFUGOPDFGJD$^%$$#@^%!!!!!!

There, now I\'m done ranting /biggrin.gif\' class=\'bbc_emoticon\' alt=\':D\' />