[dllthomas]

How is "if a person controlled the camera" terribly semantically different from "picked the ones you liked best".

"Even if the person carefully selected a site but then just left it there to record whatever would come, it's not clear that would be copyrightable."

But in this case he selected a site (wrote the code), recorded a pile of footage, and then went through and selected particular shots based on his own personal criteria.

[ars]

He has a compilation copyright, but not copyright on the individual images.

If you leave a camera in public for a few days, then come back and edit the result into a movie you have copyright for the movie, but not for the individual stills that make it up.

To have copyright on the stills (rather than the compilation) you have to have some creativity into making them, not merely selecting them.

[dllthomas]

How does this differ from taking a shot with a tripod?

[ars]

You timed the shot. Don't confuse photo with video.

[dllthomas]

How is timing not selection? And it's still being captured mechanically.

Notice also that many cameras these days will take many shots in rapid succession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burst_mode_%28photography%29)

[ars]

The difference is in the action of the person, not in the method of the machine.

And a photo is different from a video in the timing factor.

BTW Copyright laws are impossible to mathematically define - they always have a subjective factor: Does this seem creative or not?

[dllthomas]

I don't think there is a meaningful difference in the action of the person.

And damned straight this seems creative. At least as creative as a typical snapshot. Do you disagree?