Main > Everything Else
Scott of AtariGames.Com Agrees To Share
monkeybomb:
--- Quote from: RayB on April 06, 2005, 05:07:33 pm ---I think the Louvre should permit infinite free photocopying of the Mona Lisa....--NOT!
::)
--- End quote ---
That actually should be public domain. I see that as completely different. or am I wrong and artwork should be owned forever? Are you against things becoming PD all together? Should a rich guy own Beethoven's ninth too? Or just paintings? Maybe they can collect royalties from elementary schools or just prevent them from playing it.
RayB:
--- Quote from: monkeybomb on April 06, 2005, 05:33:38 pm ---That actually should be public domain.
--- End quote ---
jbox:
Actually you can reproduce artwork, provided you make it clear that you are selling a copy instead of the original. People only need to pay the current owner if they want an actual photograph of the thing. Think "Cheesy Bookmarks" versus art fraud. :police:
However the corresponding example would be that it should be completely legal to reverse engineer software rather than copying it (eg. including hand-redrawing the sprites) provided it is clear that it is a copy instead of the original. Of course, the owners of the originals tend to make things difficult by suing you if you try to name your game "This Is Not Star Wars!" ::)
Buying a copy of a book doesn't give me the right to sell photo-copies of it. Ditto for taping a TV show. Reading/Watching these however shouldn't remove my right to write something with a similar plot. Mickey Mouse may be copy-righted, but I should still be allowed to write stories about Ricky Rodent. Of course, expecting these people to put their energy into building an MM2 clone instead of whining might be a bit optimistic... ;D
PS: Presumably someone does 'own' lots of PD music, as in the original documents on which they were written. Probably you meant should that person then own all of the reproductions of that score, which is different from the presentation of that music, which is different to the adaptation of that music, which is why I stick to Shakespeare when arguing about the PD and high-schools. :-*
jbox:
And in my droning babble of nonsense I forgot to mention that even amongst socialists I still have yet to meet a single rational person who thinks no-one should own the land. So 'stuff' doesn't have to enter the public domain by default, and in general physical property doesn't (hence I don't see why the Mona Lisa should). Again, manually reproduce all you want, but the original can still be owned. :)
I'm pretty sure you aren't even supposed to copy books that republish PD work either, but you could re-type it (sans commentary) and give the result away if you wanted. So Shakespeare scripts are cheap because if they weren't a bunch of schools would just pool together and pay someone to re-type them in a "free" publication. ;)
GGKoul:
--- Quote from: RayB on April 06, 2005, 05:07:33 pm ---I think the Louvre should permit infinite free photocopying of the Mona Lisa....--NOT!
::)
--- End quote ---
Mona Lisa is valuable, but it would be MORE valuable if it's likeness wasn't on everything. As you can purchase Mona Lisa keychains, T-Shirts, Mugs...
So by "not sharing" the images, it'll become even more valuable in time.