somewhere near the temporal coordinates of 9/6/01 5:16 PM, the entity known
as DON transmitted the following from don_at_dcphotos.com:
>> Copyright violation only exists when the
>>> copyright holder takes you to court about it.
>>> - Eric.
>>>
> The violation occurs the moment you do it. Murder occurs the moment the
> victim dies, prior to death it's assault but the violation occurs on the
> first blow.
> Now, weather or not, and when you are convicted is when you are in court,
> But the "crime" exists when the deed is done.
> I understand it is a civil matter. As a photographer, I deal with the issue
> of copyright everyday. (I know we went thru this once already eh Robert :-)
> ) If a publisher prints one of my photographs without my permission, at that
> moment they have violated my copyright. Not when and if I find out.
> I think the Wild Wild West know as the internet has exposed people to things
> such as copyright that they never had to deal with before. Coping a cassette
> tape and giving it to a friend was one thing, but starting a web site and
> calling it Napster was/is a whole other issue.
> And IMHO...
> It IS hysterical.
Obviously you didn't bother to REALLY read my message (in which I corrected
myself), but instead you simply quoted a quote of a quote and didn't bother
to pay attention to the following (key part in CAPS for enhancement)...
> That *is* the way copyright law is widely portrayed. This notion is *so*
> widespread (I could swear that I've read this in print before, and not just
> in the computer press, but then the print media doesn't always do a good job
> in checking things either), that I was quite surprised to learn that this is
> apparently a confusion between copyright law and trademark law. IF YOU TAKE
> MY ABOVE QUOTED STATEMENT AND SUBSTITUTE "TRADEMARK" IN PLACE OF
> "COPYRIGHT", THEN IT IS, IN FACT, CORRECT.
>
What's truly hysterical (in the literal sense of the word) is using
something so emotionally charged as murder, as if copyright violation and
murder are anywhere near equivalent. Not to mention that you totally miss
the point. If you, as a photographer, choose to get out of the photography
business completely -- say you take off and start being a wilderness tour
guide in New Zealand or something -- what happens when someone wants to
print one of your photos?? They're willing to pay the royalty, but they
can't find you, and besides, you're not in that line of work anymore. What
do YOU believe should happen in that case?
The framers of the US Constitution (I don't know about elsewhere) were
pretty clear that copyright protection existed solely to enable the
originator of a work to get a jump on others and have a chance to profit
from their originality. This was NEVER meant to be a permanent situation
(where permanent = lifetime + X years). What I take from that is that when
someone is no longer actively profiting from their work (whether by choice
or through the march of time), then the entire reason for the copyright is
gone.
- Eric.
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Oct 03 2001 - 12:01:26 EDT