|
|
Posted by eawckyegcy on 12/05/06 17:51
Bill wrote:
> 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 (?!).
Again, you are confused. A image without a release is like a bridge
without bolts: worthless.
> 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.
Then you will lose. The system is oscillatory, with more or less fixed
amplitude. There no "reasonable middle ground", no fixed legal
attractor to which it will ultimately converge.
> 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.
The owners of that building have rights to it, just as you have rights
to pictures of you. These aren't copyrights though. As I said above,
a copyright is only as valuable as the releases affixed. No release ->
no use -> copyright == worthless.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|