Michael O'Keefe wrote: > Gabriel Sechan wrote: > >> > >But its not.the nly one. Shakespear didn't have copyright. Da Vinci > >didn't. Michelangelo didn't. Copyright is a very modern idea- the last > >200 years or so. Art exists without it. > > And every one of them had benefactors who paid them for their work. > With the addition of copyright, they would have now had the opportunity to > control their work. IMHO, it's an advancement.
Read up on cpuyright WRT ``Work for Hire''. When you hire a photogapher to take pictures of an event, chances are you are going to sign a contract that specifies that this it is not work for hire. -john -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
