 DaDogsSemper VigilantisPremium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA | One other point I'd make. The pictures are property of the US Government. They are part of an on-going legal investigation and trial(s), I believe.
There are a few which were obtained by the press, which could also be shown on public media and which probably can be located given the right search criteria.
I would expect the majority of the images which got into the public arena were subpoenaed and have never been published on the web. I would also expect that there were a lot of other pictures which were confiscated by the military before they ever entered the public arean.
We all understand the general implications of copyright. Simply displaying a picture in public does not place that picture into the 'public domain'.
They are not on google for a reason. It is bloody unlikely that the reason is censorship.
--
In the background stand the Clinton's bloody switchblade in hand, never to be blamed, but still in the running for '08. |
|
 RhobitePremium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA | That's wrong. All of the pictures are in the public domain because they are works of the US government. Basically, the US government cannot own copyrights.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. |
|
 pcscdmaChocobo Chocobo Random BattlePremium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA | said by Rhobite:Basically, the US government cannot own copyrights. So you've never seen anything from the US government that was redacted?
--
I triple dog dare you to click this. |
|
RhobitePremium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
1 edit | said by pcscdma: said by Rhobite:Basically, the US government cannot own copyrights. So you've never seen anything from the US government that was redacted? I'm not sure I'm following you. All I said was that the US government can't own copyrights. The Abu Ghraib photos are in the public domain because they were created by government employees. I'm quite sure that I'm right about this. If the US government attempted to sue someone for distributing the pictures, they couldn't base that lawsuit on copyright law.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. |
|
DaDogsSemper VigilantisPremium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA | said by Rhobite: said by pcscdma: said by Rhobite:Basically, the US government cannot own copyrights. So you've never seen anything from the US government that was redacted? I'm not sure I'm following you. All I said was that the US government can't own copyrights. The Abu Ghraib photos are in the public domain because they were created by government employees. I'm quite sure that I'm right about this. If the US government attempted to sue someone for distributing the pictures, they couldn't base that lawsuit on copyright law. They may be in the public domain, but they are part of an ongoing legal investigation. Doesn't matter who took them.
If they are considered FOUO or Confidental then you need to get the military to release them. I'd invite you to file the FOA request, as I've seen as much of the ghey crap as I can take for a lifetime.
--
In the background stand the Clinton's bloody switchblade in hand, never to be blamed, but still in the running for '08. |
|
|
|
RhobitePremium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
1 edit | Again, not sure what you mean. I believe all of those pictures were released in response to a FOIA request. Once they're out, they're out. I don't doubt that there are more pictures which haven't been released yet, the government doesn't have to release classified information in response to a FOIA request. But every picture that has been released is public domain, whether or not it's involved in the courts-martial. The cat, as they say, is out of the bag. All I'm saying is, the notion that Google removed the publicly available FOIA images due to a copyright notice is far-fetched.
Think about this. Are you saying that every time a publicly available piece of information is subpoenaed in a court martial, the entire U.S. public is barred from distributing that information?
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. |
|
DaDogsSemper VigilantisPremium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA | 
Looks like google has explained itself. Check the rest of the threads.
Yes, agreed, I understand that anything which has been released into the public domain is available and can not be supressed. I understand that those pictures were not taken by the government, they were taken by private citizens, soldiers actually, illegally. That is entirely different from a legal perspective. They were then seized from those soldiers and consequently became the property of the FED. They enjoy a special legal status because they were not taken by the government and they are part of an ongoing legal matter.
That said, the point is moot. The conspiracy has been revealed, we can remove our tin-foil hats now.
--
In the background stand the Clinton's bloody switchblade in hand, never to be blamed, but still in the running for '08. |
|
RhobitePremium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
1 edit | You're still wrong, they were taken by soldiers on the job, who aren't even private citizens at all. And none of the soldiers have tried to assert that they own the copyright to any of the photographs. But as you said, we're kind of beating a dead horse here. Good day.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. |
|
