[merryandrew]

This makes no sense. Imagine that SpaceX took a photograph on the moon, and then a university freely used the image in its marketing materials. Would that make sense? Would it make any more sense if the university had a space program? No.

[skunkworker]

SpaceX isn’t the greatest example here. They commonly release their photos into the public domain with a Creative Commons waiving all copyright and related or neighboring rights to their work. Though the point still stands with photographers and photo releases in general.

[merryandrew]

Agreed. As you realized, though, the point is that copyrighted work should not be used without compensating the creator.

[TeMPOraL]

A lot of problems around copyright is a self-inflicted mess caused by (IMO) wrong abstractions, not reflecting the nature of the works and the media. For instance, photography has an issue of copyrights on buildings, which is prima facie a ridiculous concept, but it is recognized to some extent around the world, including in the US.

[skunkworker]

Completely, if I’m a photographer in Texas I would be worried about the effect of this ruling on my work. It’s hard for people to understand when they hire a photographer that even though they paid for images and prints they might not even have the right to modify and/or print more. But this sidesteps that completely.

[Fjolsvith]

To me, its as unethical as plagiarism.

[hfkajshfaks]

If it's a state university then, yes, they could claim Sovereign immunity.

[merryandrew]

But states can be wrong. That's why it makes no sense.

[hfkajshfaks]

The idea is that the sovereign can do nothing illegal because by definition it is the fount of legislation. Lawful, therefore, is whatever suits the sovereign.

In the UK this is neatly seen by the Queen being immune, and not needing any documents. After all, why would she need a document asserting that she gives herself the right to drive? She can just say so to the cop that pulls her over. Except the cop cannot pull her over if he knows she's the driver.

Even the constitution is subject to the sovereign, if you think about it, since it is meaningless without the sovereign but the sovereign is not meaningless without the constitution. It's a bootstrapping problem, after all. Why is the constitution valid just because a bunch of blokes signed it and one you sign is meaningless? Because they, the winners of the Revolution, the folks in charge of the militias, the de facto sovereigns at the time, signed it.