m ike wrote: > Its funny how no one seems to be willing to come out and say that they > would not feel like a schmuck selling Joe's paintings. I'm sure there > are some folks at the party who would not consider you to be a schmuck > to do so. Depends on who you hang with I guess.
Okay; Joe made a painting. Joe sold it to me. Joe, being the creator, has the right of first sale. That painting is now mine. I sell it to another friend of mine. I do not feel like a schmuck at all. Let's say Joe is a friend of mine, and he paints a painting for me. Say it is a church window. He signs the back of it ``With Reason''. I did not commission it, but he gave it to me as a present. I would not sell that. Let's say Joe is caricature artist that I commission to do a rendering of myself and my kids. He sells it to me, but requests that I keep it and not sell it or pass it on. My kids move out, and one asks to take that with him. I send it off, and I feel very un-schmuck-like. Right of first sale has nothing to do with copyright. Copyright is about _copy_ing. When you write a book, and sell it to a publisher, you are selling them the copyright. They then have the right to make copies of it, presumably to sell it. The publisher, once they sell a copy of that book, relinquish the right to force the consumer to abide by the publishers or author's desire for that book to not be re-sold, given away, or whatever. So, m ike, what was your point? Joe has a painting in a museum, and an admirer is doing what, exactly? Making a sketch? Taking a photograph? Gazing admiringly? Set up an easel and painting a copy? Joe notices this, and asks what, exactly? And what relationship is Joe to this patron? I have noticed that Joe has done the pretentious artist thing, and is going by only his first name ;) -john -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
