opaqueice;200633 Wrote:
> You're right - but in the case of painting, I don't think it's the law
> that's really important. Once an artist becomes famous her work has an
> intrinsic value because it was created by her - and no matter how
> accurately I copy it, no one will attribute the same value to my copy.
> That's got nothing to do with the law.
Sure it does: it is illegal to pass off a fake Picasso as a legit one.
The word is "forgery" and is criminal. It is even illegal when there is
no copyright: knowingly misrepresenting a fake Van Gogh as real is
fraud.
Making an exact replica of Starry Night would be worthless: yay, you
copied.. what about creativity, which is the whole point of art?
People would pay the same amount for a print of someone else' work if
they didnt know it was a forgery since authenticity is much more
difficult to determine. This sort of violation is very common,
especially with photography. (How do you tell a legit Ansel Adams
print from a fake -- either an unauthorized reproduction, or
misrepresentation?)
>
> Another example is academics. While there are laws governing
> plagiarism, they're just about totally irrelevant, because there is a
> culture of attribution within the academy that is far more powerful
> than any law. If a historian gets caught having plagiarized something,
> the legal aspect is the least of his worries - the destruction of his
> academic reputation, probable loss of his job. etc. matter much more.
There is the concept of "Fair Use" (despite what some insist). As for
which is worse: perhaps that the loss of earning potential is far
greater than the damages in a copyright case. Losing a tenured
position and having a major mark on your job history is much worse
than paying a civil award of a few thousand dollars. ("Actual damages"
in most copyright cases is very small: except when RIAA make up numbers,
or when SCO lawyers just make everything up.
>
> In my field (physics) - when I "publish" a paper I put it on the web,
> freely available to all without any copyright, because I WANT people to
> copy it and work from it - so long as they reference me. And they have
> to reference me, because if they don't they will be forced out of the
> field. Just about every paper in physics and math now appears (and
> stays permanently) on a free web server long before it shows up in a
> traditional journal - here it is if you're curious:
Unless you specifically renounce the copyright, it is copyrighted.
(Knowledge is not copyrightable: the way that knowledge is expressed,
however, is. By default any creative expression is copyrighted. The
exception would be pure facts and data organized in a non-creative
manner: sorting names and phone number by last name or even by phone
number is not creative. Organizing the same items in a creative
manner, such as denoting relations between companies, however, would be
protected.)
--
snarlydwarf
------------------------------------------------------------------------
snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34928
_______________________________________________
audiophiles mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
