I just had a thought while chatting with some friends. What if Apple buys Tesla, and leverages the IP, along with moving iOS and even Mac production stateside? There has been plenty of speculation about them building cars or buying Tesla, and Donald Trump was recently reported to have said that he would make them move production back stateside. This might actually be something which would benefit Apple’s bottom line. I think they have enough IP protection to pull all of that off. And they’d have PR coups over even the American car manufacturers, which would place pressure on them to move more production back stateside. I really think, the more that I think about it, that Trump winning could make Apple more money than its ever made over a Presidential term. It could be absolutely massive. With IP, you can afford union wages, as the restricted competition means greatly increased profit margins. Considering the nationalist fervor which would accompany a Trump win, this might be a win for Apple as well.
January 19, 2016
October 12, 2010
Ask a real lawyer (not some guy named Larry who plays one on your local camera club forum) what this means. I did. My lawyer says it means that Twitter can do pretty much anything it wants with my photos (other than claim actual Copyright to them) and there’s nothing I can do about that. Is that an issue for you personally? Maybe not. It’s unlikely it will impact you if you aren’t trying to sell your photos. But if you are, read on.
As a professional photographer, I can’t sell “exclusive” rights to any image I decide to publish on Twitter. The reason is that once it is published on Twitter, there is no exclusivity left. That could be expensive. As professionals, we need to decide whether the exposure we get via Twitter is worth that trade off. For some of us the answer is yes – for others the answer is no. The purpose of this post is to get you to understand that you will have to make some hard choices. I am hoping they are informed choices, no matter what you decide.
In the case of the Twitter TOS, it seems that the terms Twitter stipulates are exactly the pro-freedom position: you can do whatever you want with the stuff you own (stuff, not ideas) unless you have contracted some other arrangement. Twitter owns the servers. You own the photo, sure, but you still have the photo after you uploaded it. What the uploader is actually doing is using Twitter’s stuff to create a copy on Twitter’s servers. For the photographer to then claim that he has the right to determine what Twitter does with it is like going to someone’s house and using a dollar bill left on a counter to make origami, then demanding the right to determine what happens to it as a result of your pattern rearrangement. It is nonsense from the start.