|
|
Posted by Bill on 12/05/06 17:25
jeremy wrote:
> You want to be allowed to lift someone else's images off of web sites and
> re-post them on other sites of your choice? Perhaps you want to alter them
> or try to improve them first? Ever hear of a "Derivative Copy?" The
> copyright law addresses that.
I never said that. But, at the moment, if I take a picture of someone
else's building, I might or might not have the right to use that photo
commercially. If copyright were absolute, there would be no question:
can't use it. But I can use a picture of the Brooklyn Bridge. But I
can't use a picture of the Empire State Building (?!).
>
> Who has conferred upon you the right to take someone else's intellectual
> property and to recycle it as you see fit, without the creator's knowledge
> or permission? Where in the copyright law does it say that the right to
> reproduce the work of another is not absolute?
Do you mean the right to NOT have your work reproduced?
For one thing-- the most obvious-- reviewers can freely quote from books
and articles (with obvious limitations) for the purpose of review and
discussion. For another thing, you can quote extensively for the
purpose of satire and parody (thank you "Mad Magazine" for that), though
that right is being eroded. And another: journalists generally have
different rules when writing stories about copyrighted material. And
another, schools and educational institutions have some rights of
research and discussion. And yet another: in Canada, it is perfectly
legal to borrow a CD and copy it. You paid for it when you bought the
blank media. That is the law. And yet another: it is perfectly legal
to tape a television program so you can watch it later.
Please resist the temptation to create straw men here. I never said
there shouldn't be copyright. My whole point is that there is a
reasonable middle ground on this debate. To me it's reasonable that if
an architect designs a public building that everyone can see every day,
he gives up the right to control the use of a photographic image of that
building. It would be too ridiculous to demand that people taking
pictures or film or video should have to pay the owner of every building
in view. That's unreasonable. But if you insist on "absolute"
copyright, that's where we end up.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|