Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The notice explicitly covers photography.

> In Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, a defendant accused of making

> unauthorized copies of a photograph argued that the expansion of copyright

> protection to photographs by Congress was unconstitutional because “a

> photograph is not a writing nor the production of an author” but is instead

> created by a camera.

> The Court disagreed, holding that there was “no doubt” the Constitution's

> Copyright Clause permitted photographs to be subject to copyright, “so far

> as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the

> author.”



Much like the writer of a prompt. The notice is stupid.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: