9 ms·

You seem to have misunderstood an is/ought distinction. You may hold the (fairly extreme, as far as copyright goes) position that surveillance footage should be

by tga_d 1mo ago

You seem to have misunderstood an is/ought distinction. You may hold the (fairly extreme, as far as copyright goes) position that surveillance footage should be subject to copyright, but it's well established that it's not. Who owns the camera is irrelevant. At least in the US; I'm not aware of any jurisdictions that hold otherwise. This is why Wikipedia articles on world events in the past few decades are full of stills from surveillance cameras: it's one of the few sources of imagery of an event that are unambiguously legal to include, because unlike a photo or intentionally made video of something specific, it's not a creative work. It's also pretty firmly established that human authorship is required for something to be subject to copyright, and having an idea that lead to some particular expression is itself not sufficient; see, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput... (Not a lawyer, just a Wikipedia editor.)

SR2Z 1mo ago
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput... This is a great case to study, but no determination of copyright was made. The only actual lawsuit was filed by PETA arguing that the monkey should have copyright, which led to a settlement with the human photographer and nothing else because obviously that's not possible. For various reasons (mostly $$$) the guy never actually got a judgement. I think the chances are good that he could have prevailed in court; there is significant creative input to setting up cameras and triggers in a way to convince a wild monkey to take a selfie. It's not like he just left his camera sitting somewhere on accident and came back to find a photo in it. I'm also not a lawyer, but I did do a lot of work in copyright for a company you've heard about.
Alive-in-2025 1mo ago
I appreciate your informed take. I follow the reasoning but I am amazed it works this way. I found some articles that supported what you said, and also said there's a follow-on industry that figured out how to alter and edit videos just enough for a revised video to have creative contribution and make it copyrightable. https://www.techdirt.com/2020/02/24/can-you-license-video-you-dont-hold-copyright-over/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/02/24/can-you-license-video-yo...
MaxBarraclough 1mo ago
Do you have a source for raw surveillance footage not being subject to copyright? I'd not heard of this, and a web search didn't turn up anything.
- Alive-in-2025 1mo ago
  I'm the person who originally said "how can that be true about surveillance video?". I found a good writeup on it, https://www.techdirt.com/2020/02/24/can-you-license-video-you-dont-hold-copyright-over/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/02/24/can-you-license-video-yo... The tldr is you really can't copyright raw surveillance video, but you can apparently lightly edit to turn it into a creative work that is copyrightable.
  - MaxBarraclough 1mo ago
    Thanks for the link but: > The tldr is you really can't copyright raw surveillance video, but you can apparently lightly edit to turn it into a creative work that is copyrightable. The article doesn't say that, it doesn't speak to CCTV surveillance footage. It discusses rare cases like cameras falling from aircraft, or animals pressing the button to take a photo. I can see your line of reasoning about there being zero creative input in the video's creation, but if surveillance footage isn't subject to copyright, I'd expect there to be plenty written about it.
    - Alive-in-2025 1mo ago
      The people up thread who replied to my original message give some other references for why this is the case. I agree with you that it is very surprising that it works this way, that this is considered a settled legal decision. From the techdirt piece, seen above: "To license out copyright, there must be creative contribution. This can arise from cutting/editing the video in a creative manner. Since there is no other prevailing copyright, the editing then makes you sole copyright owner entitled to all proceeds. You may feel inclined to call bullshit on this, but it’s actually the ongoing revenue model for "revised" editions of Beethoven, Bach and older."

by tga_d 1mo ago

SR2Z 1mo ago

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput... This is a great case to study, but no determination of copyright was made. The only actual lawsuit was filed by PETA arguing that the monkey should have copyright, which led to a settlement with the human photographer and nothing else because obviously that's not possible. For various reasons (mostly $$$) the guy never actually got a judgement. I think the chances are good that he could have prevailed in court; there is significant creative input to setting up cameras and triggers in a way to convince a wild monkey to take a selfie. It's not like he just left his camera sitting somewhere on accident and came back to find a photo in it. I'm also not a lawyer, but I did do a lot of work in copyright for a company you've heard about.

Alive-in-2025 1mo ago

I appreciate your informed take. I follow the reasoning but I am amazed it works this way. I found some articles that supported what you said, and also said there's a follow-on industry that figured out how to alter and edit videos just enough for a revised video to have creative contribution and make it copyrightable. https://www.techdirt.com/2020/02/24/can-you-license-video-you-dont-hold-copyright-over/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/02/24/can-you-license-video-yo...

MaxBarraclough 1mo ago

Do you have a source for raw surveillance footage not being subject to copyright? I'd not heard of this, and a web search didn't turn up anything.

Alive-in-2025 1mo ago
I'm the person who originally said "how can that be true about surveillance video?". I found a good writeup on it, https://www.techdirt.com/2020/02/24/can-you-license-video-you-dont-hold-copyright-over/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/02/24/can-you-license-video-yo... The tldr is you really can't copyright raw surveillance video, but you can apparently lightly edit to turn it into a creative work that is copyrightable.
- MaxBarraclough 1mo ago
  Thanks for the link but: > The tldr is you really can't copyright raw surveillance video, but you can apparently lightly edit to turn it into a creative work that is copyrightable. The article doesn't say that, it doesn't speak to CCTV surveillance footage. It discusses rare cases like cameras falling from aircraft, or animals pressing the button to take a photo. I can see your line of reasoning about there being zero creative input in the video's creation, but if surveillance footage isn't subject to copyright, I'd expect there to be plenty written about it.
  - Alive-in-2025 1mo ago
    The people up thread who replied to my original message give some other references for why this is the case. I agree with you that it is very surprising that it works this way, that this is considered a settled legal decision. From the techdirt piece, seen above: "To license out copyright, there must be creative contribution. This can arise from cutting/editing the video in a creative manner. Since there is no other prevailing copyright, the editing then makes you sole copyright owner entitled to all proceeds. You may feel inclined to call bullshit on this, but it’s actually the ongoing revenue model for "revised" editions of Beethoven, Bach and older."