somewhere near the temporal coordinates of 9/6/01 10:28 PM, the entity known
as Ken Whitcomb transmitted the following from ken_at_imageguild.com:
>
> If this is true (and I'm not contesting it, just wondering), then once the
> author's work has been distributed even once (and presumably registered, in
> the case of US citizens) the author then must "actively profit" from the
> work or not need copyright protection?
>
> So if I publish a register a photograph as copyrighted, have it published
> even once (now others have it in one shape/form or another), decide later
> that the content troubles me to the point that I don't want it published
> again, and stop making efforts to "actively profit" from this image's
> publication, that simply because another person that wishes to publish this
> image because they value it and have some sort of copy of it, that I should
> not have the ability to refuse/prohibit/prevent further publication?
>
> Note that I understand that I do have this right under US copyright law but
> I think that you're saying that I should not have it. Do I understand you
> accurately Eric?
What I'm saying is that the framers of the US Constitution had a very
different set of ideas than we do today, on how intellectual property should
be handled. My understanding is that they believed that holding long-term
monopolies on any idea or creation was a very bad thing, as it would stifle
any growth that might spring from the free use of that idea/creation. My
recollection of the bit of reading I've done on this is that many wanted to
have no copyright protection at all, or at least a much shorter period than
the 14(?) years that Jefferson put forward.
And, yes, *MY* interpretation of this is that the original intent was that
having a copyright period of 7 or 14 years was a CONCESSION, in order to
quell any arguments about not providing the holder with an adequate
opportunity to profit from their idea. If not for the desire to allow the
originator a window of opportunity like this, I believe that Jefferson & Co.
might have easily said that there shall be no copyright at all.
So, under present law, you could quash the distribution of this picture and
quite likely your heirs could do so for many years after your untimely
demise. And the example you give is a very good one, although I'd say that,
since the picture has already come under public scrutiny, I'm not sure where
I stand on giving you (as the copyright holder) the right to censor. But
regardless, what I'm saying is that MY interpretation is Jefferson and/or
Madison would likely say that you should not have the right to so control
this creation many years after the fact.
>
> cheers from my sewing machine,
>
> ken Whitcomb
>
>> From: "Eric L. Strobel" <fyzycyst_at_home.com>
>>
>> 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