[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Art and the DMCA (Re: Relevant reading)
Here's another related bit, from one stock art company's web site:
http://www.comstock.com/web/IHF/LICENSE/IHFLicensePiracy.htm
Since I'm not a huge mp3 collector, but I do love to play around with
Photoshop and alter/combine/collage bits of 'found' images, this is a much
more relevant application of the DMCA for me.
To use Peter's analogy:
("To flip this around, CDs are rival goods. The recipe for M&Ms is not.")
The recipe *IS* just as 'protected' under copyright law as the product M&M...
and, to take it even further, it says that it would be illegal to make M&M
cookies without the permission of M&M, too!
Frankly, I don't understand it. I understand why plagarism is wrong, but I
get lost when you get into derivative works... if you're significantly
altering it (putting it in your own words, to stick with the plagarism
analogy) where's the 'wrong' in that?
A few possibly provocative quotes on other issues (from the above site):
"...there's a common misconception that any image appearing on a website may
be downloaded and "saved" to disk. This is absolutely not the case. The
very act of saving a copyrighted image to your local disk -- regardless of
whether you ever do anything else with the image or not -- constitutes a
copyright infringement..."
"Watermarking involves digitally embedding into an image a symbol that
identifies the copyright holder. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of
1998 makes it a criminal offense to remove watermarks meant to protect
copyright. ... Not only is the act of removal prohibited, the courts assume
that the very attempt indicates a willful intent to violate somebody's
copyright."
Hmph....
Anita
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/