decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Graphic Artists Guild | 287 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Graphics Artists and APIs?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 02:43 AM EDT
MS money maybe?
**IA want to control how your computer works?
So they can control what you see.

Chris B

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Graphic Artists Guild
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 03:09 AM EDT
There might be some anti-Google thing going on here, as they were one of the
groups that sued Google over the books digitisation project.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Graphics Artists and APIs?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 07:26 AM EDT
They are copyright maximalists. That is all.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

They're worried about any erosion of "fair use"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 07:39 AM EDT

I found a copy of their brief here: Fair-Use-Brief.pdf []

From the brief:

As members of the photography community, Amici are particularly concerned about fair use in the context of misappropriation of creative works by a competitor.
Google argued that even if the court felt that what they copied was protected under copyright, that the copying should be allowed under the "fair use" guidelines. The graphic artists feel that siding with Google's fair use argument would undermine the protection of their work.

I haven't read enough of their brief to comment on their points.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Graphics Artists and APIs?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 11:24 AM EDT
Photographers in general and this group in in particular are particularly
opposed to any kind of fair use. They generally believe that any image no matter
how mundane or functional where someone pushes a button (even in some cases
where no one pushes the button such as accidental exposures) on a camera (which
is a recording device) is a "creative expression" and any resulting
use of that image requires their permission.

That are adamantly opposed to any kind of fair use.

Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Graphics Artists and APIs?
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 04:43 AM EDT
Ah, you should read their brief to find out. We have all the Intel amicus briefs here.

T he short answer, though, is that they totally misunderstood the facts of the case. They thought that the court said that because of fair use, Google was OK. But the judge didn't say it was fair use. Oracle is, in fact, asking the court to decide that the APIs should be copyrightable and offer only a fair use defense to those who might be accused of infringement. So the brief confuses those two. If something can't be copyrighted, you don't need fair use, and in fact it isn't available as a defense, because there has to be copyright and then infringement for fair use to come in as a defense.

Here's an excerpt:

By finding elements of Oracle’s Java packages uncopyrightable, the district court’s opinion evidences little respect for the creativity involved in Oracle’s works. Of more immediate concern to Amici, however, is that the district court, in denying Oracle’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on fair use, failed to appreciate that if Google’s actions vis-à-vis Oracle are considered to be fair use, it would undermine copyright protection not only for computer programs but for all creative works. It cannot be a fair use to take the most valuable part of a work – here, the key source code used to create, among other things, applications for mobile devices – and to use it to undermine the market for the original work. Copyright law is intended to respect and incentivize investment in creative works for the benefit of creators and the public. If this Court affirms the holding of the court below, it will open the door to massive infringements of Amici’s protected expression, threaten the ability of Amici’s members to earn a living from their work and limit their ability to bring the benefits of their work to the public. Ultimately, the Amici, all creators, and the public will be harmed.
I didn't highlight it because it's franky embarrassing for them to realize they put in an amicus that makes no sense.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )