Re: Edited for objectivity
>> He most certainly has. You're doing that thing where you don't like the reality, so you invent a new one.
It's very tempting just to say, "What has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" and leave it at that, because that would be enough of a response to your post; but I think we can go a little further.
I'd better say at once that I don't have a dog in this fight at all; you have no reason to think that I do, except on the very iffy grounds that I disagree with you. My entire career has been spent in the arts: copyright is essential to earning my living. All that should incline me towards a reality which favours David Slater; but the truth is that I've seen nothing, either in your posts, on his website or in the various news reports, which show to a reasonable degree of certainty that he had sufficient artistic input in the photos we're talking about to get copyright on them. I've raised a couple of obvious points in my previous posts to support my thinking, and I've been given no reason to reconsider them.
I'm naturally wary of articles which repeatedly take as a certainty just what we should be investigating: I remember that's what struck me about your article here a year ago, and that's what struck me strongly this time around. So since you've attacked my objectivity in your post, it seems to me only fair to query yours. You're an investigative reporter: how do you know, and know more definitely than your legal advice ("Slater may not fulfill all the conditions, but he probably fulfills enough of them" - it seems unwise to go farther than your lawyer, but that's your business), know to the point that people who simply disagree must be remaking reality, that Slater should take the copyright for these photos? The evidence to persuade you to this degree of certainty must be very persuasive indeed: what is it?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
