N.C. Photographer Sues State Alleging Copyright Infringement of Shipwreck Images

[Lorenzoid]

So the government handing is out copies, not just showing on a website, which prevents the copyright owner from profiting from their labor and investment.

It's not clear to me from skimming the page that Nautilus linked to who is handing out what, but if the government is copying videos without permission of the copyright owner, then sure, that would be the copyright owner's beef. However, the government might be taking the position that they are not making copies; rather, they are just making a video available for viewing by the public (a "fair use"), the same way they would be in their right to make available a film, such as an educational documentary, for viewing at a public library. Without knowing more, I'm just guessing.

We buy songs, but not the copyright to start printing CDs. But businesses an play records for customers.

I'm not sure the music business is relevant to what's going on here, but businesses are allowed to play records for customers by paying a license fee to the copyright owner.

 

[t-i-m-1]

Link: Blackbeard's Lawsuit | Nautilus Productions
23rd March 2017. Judge over rules attempts to dismiss original lawsuit.

 

[scagrotto]

As near as I can tell there are a bunch of confused idiots in the NC legislature who have no concept of how copyright works. The NC law basically says that, because the wreck is in state waters and is owned by the state, photos and video of the wreck that are in the possession of the NC government are public records. That's all well and good in that things that are a matter of public record can't be withheld by the state. The problem is that instead of just allowing people to view copyrighted material in the possession of the state they're apparently making copies available to people. Whether they do that by publishing them on the web (where people are easily able to make copies) or actually sending them copies of files doesn't really matter. I think a reasonable analogy would be passing a law saying information about copyrights is a matter of public record, so the government must make copies of copyrighted books, songs and films available.

The government certainly has an obligation to allow public access to things that are a matter of public record, but that doesn't mean they have a right to take property that belongs to somebody else and use it for their own purposes. Copyright is a matter of federal law, and the protections can't be changed by state laws. The most the state can do is argue that anything they've done is fair use. They might be successful in arguing that posting material on a state website or making images for display by thee state is fair use, but the only way to be certain whether or not something is fair use is to win the resulting lawsuit. In this case instead of claiming that fair use allows them to do whatever they've done they've apparently chosen to pass and rely a law that, at least in effect, says the copyright doesn't apply. By passing a law saying the state has authority to freely use copyrighted intellectual property the state may even have strayed into the domain of the 5th amendment by taking private property without compensation.

 

[Lorenzoid]

By passing a law saying the state has authority to freely use copyrighted intellectual property the state may even have strayed into the domain of the 5th amendment by taking private property without compensation.

That occurred to me, too, and it will be interesting to see if that issue is raised. At least Nautilus might get compensated for the taking. I can't think of any instances off the top of my head in which the government seized a copyright by eminent domain. A quick Googling reveals some reading material: http://www.ipprospective.com/copyri...y-and-eminent-domain-a-plausible-combination/

 

[nautilusvideo]

Pirates not welcome here! That was the message U.S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle delivered Thursday, March 23, 2017 to the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (NCDNCR), its employees and the Friends of Queen Anne’s Revenge in response to their motion to dismiss a Federal lawsuit brought by Nautilus Productions LLC. In rejecting the defendants’ attempt to dismiss the copyright claims, Judge Boyle noted that protection of copyrights is a “right of such importance to the founders that it was, unique among most functions undertaken by the federal government today, expressly mentioned in Article I as an important protection to be ensured by the national government.” Judge Boyle’s decision allows the lawsuit for copyright infringement and for a declaration of the statute’s invalidity to move forward in Federal court. Read more - Blackbeard's Lawsuit | Nautilus Productions

 

[The Chairman]

Good luck, Rick!

 

[Rred]

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see any mention of "work for hire" in that URL. If the production company was the "video crew" for the project, and anyone was careful about having a contractual basis between the two, copyright law actually does allow an express "work for hire" agreement, in which case the content creator loses all rights to copyright, and the party that "contracted" for the work owns them.

Little stuff like this always seems to elude internet accounts of nooze. Lots of facts, lots of missing ones.

 

[The Chairman]

Little stuff like this always seems to elude internet accounts of nooze.

Well, the judge seemed impressed enough with the suit to allow it to continue. I wonder if the law passed concerned "work for hire" in that state. It's not nice to change the rules while everyone is still in play. Now, that's just speculation on my part, and I would love to hear more about this case.

 

[nautilusvideo]

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see any mention of "work for hire" in that URL. If the production company was the "video crew" for the project, and anyone was careful about having a contractual basis between the two, copyright law actually does allow an express "work for hire" agreement, in which case the content creator loses all rights to copyright, and the party that "contracted" for the work owns them. Little stuff like this always seems to elude internet accounts of nooze. Lots of facts, lots of missing ones.

Not a work for hire. NC already paid for infringement once before. Blackbeard's Lawsuit | Nautilus Productions

 

[Rred]

So it is a repeat violation? Gee, that's gonna cost someone.