On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Durova <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...I have already stated that the best thing to do at this point is > step back and examine the differing assumptions that made this thread > nonproductive. On that note, you stated in the second post of the thread that "The vendor violates moral rights on all the items it offers for sale." This confused me and is probably one of those differing assumptions that derailed the thread. As I understand it based on the moral rights Wikipedia article you linked, moral rights only exist for copyrighted works (and are not part of U.S. copyright law). That, at least, is the technical legal scope of moral rights as I understand it. So as I understand it, moral rights would not apply to either public domain works or restorations that do not generate a new copyright. You seem to mean something different by moral rights, perhaps a broader philosophical concept. The Wikipedia article lists a number of different moral rights (including "the right to the integrity of the work", which in some formulations is in conflict with the concept of free culture). Explaining what you meant by moral rights (which moral rights, and whose--creator and/or restorationist?) might help clear up the differing assumptions issue. -Sage _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
