Discussion:
[OT] Strangest copyright ever?
(too old to reply)
Rhino
2024-11-04 20:40:16 UTC
Permalink
I just saw this and it struck me as one of the weirdest copyright claims
ever: 4 humans who wrote a song in an Ecuadorian forest want the forest
to be recognized as having "moral authorship" of the song (along with
themselves).

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/ecuador-forest-song-1.7368497

Logically, I can accept that the sounds of the forest were an
inspiration for the song. Given that the song was recorded in the forest
too and some of its sounds captured, it might make sense for the forest
to be recognized as a "performer" on the recording. But if copyright is
essentially about recognizing creativity, as I think it is, I'm having
trouble accepting that a forest can be creative. It seems to me that
creativity implies sentience on some level and I am far from accepting
that a forest is sentient, regardless of how inspiring it might be.

After all, a forest doesn't make sounds out of some kind of conscious
choice to make sound A rather than that sound B which seems to
demonstrate a lack of volition in the process of making sounds. A
volcano doesn't choose to erupt: that's the result of a complex chain of
events involving temperature and pressure and neither the volcano nor
the lava are in any kind of control over these things. A forest is
similarly unable to control or program what sounds occur within it.
Therefore, I don't see how it can be seen as an author.
--
Rhino
Adam H. Kerman
2024-11-04 20:46:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
I just saw this and it struck me as one of the weirdest copyright claims
ever: 4 humans who wrote a song in an Ecuadorian forest want the forest
to be recognized as having "moral authorship" of the song (along with
themselves).
United States law doesn't have "moral authority" in copyright law. I am
aware that Canada and a number of other countries do. People have tried
to explain the concept to me but I don't get it.

I'll assume you are correct that this is STOOPID.
Post by Rhino
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/ecuador-forest-song-1.7368497
Logically, I can accept that the sounds of the forest were an
inspiration for the song. Given that the song was recorded in the forest
too and some of its sounds captured, it might make sense for the forest
to be recognized as a "performer" on the recording. But if copyright is
essentially about recognizing creativity, as I think it is, I'm having
trouble accepting that a forest can be creative. It seems to me that
creativity implies sentience on some level and I am far from accepting
that a forest is sentient, regardless of how inspiring it might be.
After all, a forest doesn't make sounds out of some kind of conscious
choice to make sound A rather than that sound B which seems to
demonstrate a lack of volition in the process of making sounds. A
volcano doesn't choose to erupt: that's the result of a complex chain of
events involving temperature and pressure and neither the volcano nor
the lava are in any kind of control over these things. A forest is
similarly unable to control or program what sounds occur within it.
Therefore, I don't see how it can be seen as an author.
Ubiquitous
2024-11-04 20:53:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
I just saw this and it struck me as one of the weirdest copyright claims
ever: 4 humans who wrote a song in an Ecuadorian forest want the forest
to be recognized as having "moral authorship" of the song (along with
themselves).
They're retarded and think they're promoting The Message.
--
"The sky was low and heavy, like the brow of a retarded child."

--
BTR1701
2024-11-04 23:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rhino
I just saw this and it struck me as one of the weirdest copyright claims
ever: 4 humans who wrote a song in an Ecuadorian forest want the forest
to be recognized as having "moral authorship" of the song (along with
themselves).
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/ecuador-forest-song-1.7368497
Logically, I can accept that the sounds of the forest were an
inspiration for the song. Given that the song was recorded in the forest
too and some of its sounds captured, it might make sense for the forest
to be recognized as a "performer" on the recording. But if copyright is
essentially about recognizing creativity, as I think it is, I'm having
trouble accepting that a forest can be creative. It seems to me that
creativity implies sentience on some level and I am far from accepting
that a forest is sentient, regardless of how inspiring it might be.
In America, this issue was decided in the case where the monkey picked up a
camera and took a picture. Animal rights wackos wanted legal recognition of
the monkey as the author and copyright holder since it operated the camera
which resulted in the photo.

The court said nope, you stupid morons. Only human beings are recognized as
copyright owners and authors under U.S. law.
Rhino
2024-11-05 01:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Rhino
I just saw this and it struck me as one of the weirdest copyright claims
ever: 4 humans who wrote a song in an Ecuadorian forest want the forest
to be recognized as having "moral authorship" of the song (along with
themselves).
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/ecuador-forest-song-1.7368497
Logically, I can accept that the sounds of the forest were an
inspiration for the song. Given that the song was recorded in the forest
too and some of its sounds captured, it might make sense for the forest
to be recognized as a "performer" on the recording. But if copyright is
essentially about recognizing creativity, as I think it is, I'm having
trouble accepting that a forest can be creative. It seems to me that
creativity implies sentience on some level and I am far from accepting
that a forest is sentient, regardless of how inspiring it might be.
In America, this issue was decided in the case where the monkey picked up a
camera and took a picture. Animal rights wackos wanted legal recognition of
the monkey as the author and copyright holder since it operated the camera
which resulted in the photo.
The court said nope, you stupid morons. Only human beings are recognized as
copyright owners and authors under U.S. law.
Hurray for a decision that is actually sensible!
--
Rhino
Adam H. Kerman
2024-11-05 02:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Rhino
I just saw this and it struck me as one of the weirdest copyright claims
ever: 4 humans who wrote a song in an Ecuadorian forest want the forest
to be recognized as having "moral authorship" of the song (along with
themselves).
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/ecuador-forest-song-1.7368497
Logically, I can accept that the sounds of the forest were an
inspiration for the song. Given that the song was recorded in the forest
too and some of its sounds captured, it might make sense for the forest
to be recognized as a "performer" on the recording. But if copyright is
essentially about recognizing creativity, as I think it is, I'm having
trouble accepting that a forest can be creative. It seems to me that
creativity implies sentience on some level and I am far from accepting
that a forest is sentient, regardless of how inspiring it might be.
In America, this issue was decided in the case where the monkey picked up a
camera and took a picture. Animal rights wackos wanted legal recognition of
the monkey as the author and copyright holder since it operated the camera
which resulted in the photo.
The court said nope, you stupid morons. Only human beings are recognized as
copyright owners and authors under U.S. law.
I certainly hope the opinion was "You stupid morons."
The Horny Goat
2024-11-05 06:07:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
In America, this issue was decided in the case where the monkey picked up a
camera and took a picture. Animal rights wackos wanted legal recognition of
the monkey as the author and copyright holder since it operated the camera
which resulted in the photo.
The court said nope, you stupid morons. Only human beings are recognized as
copyright owners and authors under U.S. law.
Did the judge actually say "you stupid morons"? If so kudoes on him.
anim8rfsk
2024-11-06 14:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by BTR1701
In America, this issue was decided in the case where the monkey picked up a
camera and took a picture. Animal rights wackos wanted legal recognition of
the monkey as the author and copyright holder since it operated the camera
which resulted in the photo.
The court said nope, you stupid morons. Only human beings are recognized as
copyright owners and authors under U.S. law.
Did the judge actually say "you stupid morons"? If so kudoes on him.
I believe the actual quote was “you ignorant slut”
--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.
The Horny Goat
2024-11-07 09:53:26 UTC
Permalink
I believe the actual quote was “you ignorant slutâ€?
Only on Saturday Night Live and I'm pretty sure no department of motor
vehicles anywhere in N America would allow a vanity plate containing
the word SLUT.
Ubiquitous
2024-11-07 09:55:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
I believe the actual quote was "you ignorant slut"?
Only on Saturday Night Live and I'm pretty sure no department of motor
vehicles anywhere in N America would allow a vanity plate containing
the word SLUT.
Did you all mean "slute"?

--
Let's go Brandon!

The Horny Goat
2024-11-05 06:06:34 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 15:40:16 -0500, Rhino
Post by Rhino
I just saw this and it struck me as one of the weirdest copyright claims
ever: 4 humans who wrote a song in an Ecuadorian forest want the forest
to be recognized as having "moral authorship" of the song (along with
themselves).
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/ecuador-forest-song-1.7368497
Logically, I can accept that the sounds of the forest were an
inspiration for the song. Given that the song was recorded in the forest
too and some of its sounds captured, it might make sense for the forest
to be recognized as a "performer" on the recording. But if copyright is
essentially about recognizing creativity, as I think it is, I'm having
trouble accepting that a forest can be creative. It seems to me that
creativity implies sentience on some level and I am far from accepting
that a forest is sentient, regardless of how inspiring it might be.
After all, a forest doesn't make sounds out of some kind of conscious
choice to make sound A rather than that sound B which seems to
demonstrate a lack of volition in the process of making sounds. A
volcano doesn't choose to erupt: that's the result of a complex chain of
events involving temperature and pressure and neither the volcano nor
the lava are in any kind of control over these things. A forest is
similarly unable to control or program what sounds occur within it.
Therefore, I don't see how it can be seen as an author.
That >IS< weird - a copyright is supposed to protect a creative work.
How exactly a non-sentient plant or animal can produce a creative work
is beyond me.
Your Name
2024-11-05 07:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 15:40:16 -0500, Rhino
Post by Rhino
I just saw this and it struck me as one of the weirdest copyright claims
ever: 4 humans who wrote a song in an Ecuadorian forest want the forest
to be recognized as having "moral authorship" of the song (along with
themselves).
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/ecuador-forest-song-1.7368497
Logically, I can accept that the sounds of the forest were an
inspiration for the song. Given that the song was recorded in the forest
too and some of its sounds captured, it might make sense for the forest
to be recognized as a "performer" on the recording. But if copyright is
essentially about recognizing creativity, as I think it is, I'm having
trouble accepting that a forest can be creative. It seems to me that
creativity implies sentience on some level and I am far from accepting
that a forest is sentient, regardless of how inspiring it might be.
After all, a forest doesn't make sounds out of some kind of conscious
choice to make sound A rather than that sound B which seems to
demonstrate a lack of volition in the process of making sounds. A
volcano doesn't choose to erupt: that's the result of a complex chain of
events involving temperature and pressure and neither the volcano nor
the lava are in any kind of control over these things. A forest is
similarly unable to control or program what sounds occur within it.
Therefore, I don't see how it can be seen as an author.
That >IS< weird - a copyright is supposed to protect a creative work.
How exactly a non-sentient plant or animal can produce a creative work
is beyond me.
Animals are sentient. Science is discovering that plants are also
sentient to some degree (warning each other of danger for example).
Nature was making sounds and patterns long before humans even existed.
:-)

In 2021, the forest was legally given "personhood" and all the same
rights as any citizen, so that would include being legally allowed to
obtain a copyright.

There is a growing list of other natural places around the world that
have been given "personhood" status.

Some individual animals have also been give the same "personhood" legal status.

Even a corporate business can be give "personhood" status.
Loading...