It's no easier to faithfully [copy] a photograph (i.e. to the degree
that the copy has any practical economic value and is not seen as an
obvious fake) than it is a painting or a sculpture.
It doesn't matter, even if it's an obvious fake. There are plenty of
posters around of great paintings and photographs. That's where the
work-for-pay is different for "paper" based art, rather than woodwork
or sculpting. The paper based art is easily reproduced, and the artist
can't "as easily" make money compared to a carpenter or a sculptor
If a copy of an art object is an obvious fake, then it has no intrinsic
value. And unless it is being passed off as having been created by the
original artist (that's called forgery), it existence takes no income
away from that artist. Those posters are not being sold as copies of the
original, and no one confuses them as such.
You and I have a different definition of "copy" then.
I don't particularly care if a "copy" of a book came from a photocopy
machine or an (authorized) publisher. It's still a copy. I cannot
legally wholesale copy a book, painting, photograph (if I have the
negatives since you are so hell bent on making the point about
photography based on silver halide) without the copyright owners
permission (unless it has passed into the public domain, in which case
we already have permission to copy it - ala people making sketches at
museums)
Because there exists a poster of a great painting or photograph says
absolutely nothing about what, if any, financial arrangements may have
been made by or on the behalf of the original artist.
Unless it's an illegal reproduction, an arrangement of some form must
have been made. Even if no money changed hands, it's still an arrangment
(where $=0)
<paste>
That the artists of those times made little more than a pitiful living
(usually less) had nothing to do with the absence of copyright law
</paste>
I would argue that it did. If they had protections to control their
works then maybe they might have been paid more ? It also prolly has a
lot to do with "art" being the playground of the rich, and they're the
only ones who pay for it. Whereas the "common man" wants to drink beer
and watch TV.
<paste>
It would be helpful if you would provide evidence, or at least an
example methodology supporting your belief that a carpenter or sculptor
can make more money than someone creating "paper based art" (and please
define paper based art)
</paste>
An old family friend makes guitars (out of wood !)
Another made surfboards (out of fibreglass). Both are artistic (YMMV)
and neither are easily reproduced.
My brother is a script-writer and film-maker. Both of his products are
*easily* reproduced.
"paper based art" is a term I am coining (copyrighting !!) to reflect
art that is usually represented on paper-like-substances. ie. My
brothers films are shown on a screen, made of a paper like substance.
--
Michael O'Keefe | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Live on and Ride a 03 BMW F650GSDakar| [EMAIL PROTECTED] / |
I like less more or less less than |Work:+1 858 845 3514 / |
more. UNIX-live it,love it,fork() it |Fax :+1 858 845 2652 /_p_|
My views are MINE ALONE, blah, blah, |Home:+1 760 788 1296 \`O'|
blah, yackety yack - don't come back |Fax :+1 858 _/_\|_,
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
