May 26, 2005

Canon Needs Betamax

Filed under: open — Wendy @ 10:49 pm

I don’t remember a copyright warning in the manual of my last digital cameral


  1. But does it have a EULA too?

    Comment by Seth Finkelstein — May 27, 2005 @ 9:21 am

  2. I haven’t clicked through any “agreements” yet…. but I’m sure if I install any of the computer software, there will be EULAs aplenty.

    Comment by Wendy — May 27, 2005 @ 11:26 am

  3. I was thinking a EULA for the camera *itself* (”This camera is licensed, not sold. By using this camera, you agree to the following: …”). Maybe EULA’ing the embedded software is practically the same thing
    (sure, you can take pictures, but not download them anywhere).

    Comment by Seth Finkelstein — May 27, 2005 @ 11:46 am

  4. Infringing technologies

    Wendy notices that her new Canon camera comes with a warning that it’s not intended to be used to infringe on anyone’s copyright. Next to get stamped with that stupid warning: Pencils, paper, brains and the air used by speech. [Technorati tags: canon c…

    Trackback by Joho the Blog — May 30, 2005 @ 8:15 pm

  5. Next they’ll be telling you what pictures to take.

    Comment by Pritam Shetty — May 30, 2005 @ 11:05 pm

  6. Canon’s copyright warning

    Techie lawyer Wendy Seltzer snaps a picture of the manual of her new Canon digital camera which gives a warning that her camera is

    Trackback by Wireless Doc — May 31, 2005 @ 4:27 am

  7. I think Starbucks uses this angle to enforce their ban on photography in their shops.

    Comment by Bill Koslosky — May 31, 2005 @ 4:31 am

  8. A Photofinish for Copyright’s Unintended Consequences

    A friend of mine has a new baby and, with family spread across the globe, likes to use online photo-printing services to share snapshots of the growing baby. She can create an online album, load up photos from the digital…

    Trackback by Copyfight — June 7, 2005 @ 12:13 pm

  9. Anybody can claim anything. Aside from restrictions imposed as a condition of admittance to a venue or performance, it would seem that simply recording by film/digital image, whatever, taken in public, where there is no expectation of privacy, then the rights to such images would reside with the photographer.

    I suppose CANON could explain what they mean by their notice and under what circumstances they think it might apply. I doubt any type of “shrink wrap” or other unilateral assertion could overturn or transfer the photographer’s rights. At least in most jurisdictions in the USA.

    Comment by Anonymous — July 30, 2005 @ 7:13 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress