On 3/18/2012 4:08 PM, Scott Gomez wrote:
> The blog comments have more concentrated error of fact than I've seen in
> one place for quite a while. Use of an Internet alias, for example, is only
> illegal if used for purposes of concealing illegal activity (like to commit
> fraud), just like in the real world.
>
> That said, Lessig's talk was very good, and right on point I'd say. The
> expansion of the definition of copyright have made it very difficult for
> people to avoid inadvertent violations, and something needs to be done to
> help solve the problem.
Getting the law changed anytime soon, if ever, seems highly unlikely.
It's silly that the artist of an original painting retains the copyright in a
painting that I bought from the artist via
consignment at his/her co-op gallery or at a street booth, I have on my wall,
and of which the painter has no copy. The
law just doesn't take into account the millions of small items of limited value
where the artist doesn't expect to
retain copyright and doesn't have records.
I'm thinking a form, signed by the artist, stuck to the back, bottom,
somewhere, stating that copyright is sold with the
original. With extra lines for subsequent sales? I'm not clear on whether, once
copyright was sold along with the
original, it automatically transfers with subsequent sales.
I can see it now. Some garish, blotchy painting on the wall in a gallery -
"$250, With Copyright, $2,500". :-)
Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|