________________________________
From: Hans Pizka <[email protected]>
To: The Horn List <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, January 13, 2011 9:17:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Hornlist] Mozart Horn Concerti
Jay, your arguments are like from a fairy´s tale or arguments of sophistery,
nothing else. You seem claiming rights, if they will benefit you. All the other
people do have no rights on their propriety. (See Google) This is mere nonsense.
It is not a matter of being sued or not, it is a matter of fairness each other
not to use other peoples propriety without proper permission.
PROPERTY, NOT PROPRIETY, IS THE ISSUE HERE. Being sued has certainly been a
matter of proprietary ownership, e.g., copy written material. Courts and
lawyers
have hammered out the regulations governing these matters. Owning an auto-graph
score or painting engenders rights of property owners but not to reproduction
of
a likeness even if it is a digital copy. Entering a private residence or
restricted space without permission is an obvious violation.
It is unfair absolutely, just to copy from another persons propriety &
load it up or use it for ones own publications without permission.
If public domain (in this case Mozartian manuscripts) is used for a publication
the permission of the owners granted, it is to be seen as a part of this actual
new publication, which is copyright protected.
I doubt, if included pictures (reproductions) of the the originals can be
reproduced
by a third party & used for the third party´s own publication. They may be
used,
in fact. Access, however, to privately owned material in public domain may be
denied
This is a misunderstanding of "public domain". Public domain does not say, that
the
pieces or creations or art belong to the public. The use of the content is
generally
permitted, if things are public domain, but within the limitations given by the
real owners. This would be access to the original
Well, using the content of a public domain piece as a source for a new
publication,
this is according to the law, no question. Using a van Gogh painting as
inspiration
& example for ones own painting or just paint a copy using ones own brush &
paints,
well, agreed, as this would be another creation similar to a new edition of a
piece
of music, where editing must be recognizable.
But just going the easiest way to digital-copy what´s available on the market
including
internet source, that´s not what lawmakers had in mind. [?]Personal opinion,
not
relevant
Fairness seems to be a strange word within the younger generation and only
valid, if it
affects ones own rights. Very funny and absurd.
If you visit an exhibition of art or else, where photographing is prohibited,
you better obey this rule,
as you might be in big trouble in certain countries even being arrested. At
minimum
your camera might be confiscated. Why ? Because of many people with a similar
view as
yours ! You will have no legal tool to get your camera back ever. It might even
be that
you become imprisoned for (say) four to six weeks because of espionage and
released
finally & expelled from that country. But the four or six weeks in prison will
be a severe
lesson for you, not worth the few pictures taken without permission, just
because you
thought you had the right to make them.
###################################################################
Am 13.01.2011 um 06:55 schrieb Jay Anderson:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:49 PM, David A. Jewell <[email protected]> wrote:
>> No but if they are owned by a private individual or even a corporate entity
>>such
>> as a library they own the mechanical and electronic reproduction rights.
Just
>> the same as they own the right to tell people no photographs of the inside of
>> their home it that's how they want it.
>
> If the material is not under copyright then the only way an owner
> cannot prevent someone from copying the source is to not provide
> access to it. An owner does not have any sort of reproduction rights
> to public domain material. Often individuals, libraries and other
> institutions make people sign agreements stating that they will not
> reproduce the material, but if you do the most they can do is revoke
> your access to any other materials that they own. (I guess they could
> also come after you for breach of contract, but I'm not sure what the
> result would be of that. What damages did they incur?)
>
>> Your are correct - it isn't copyright, but ownership rights. Say you
>> owned
>a
>> VanGogh. I visit you and take a photo of it, and then disseminate it on the
>> internet without your permission or knowledge. Same thing as what people do
>> with music autographs - I own it, I get to say who sees it. I agree that it
>is
>> mostly a healthy thing to be able to study these great resources in the ways
>> that the internet enables us to, but to take what belongs to a private
>> individual and disseminate without their permission is electronic theft.
>
> I've never heard of 'ownership rights' with regard to copying. That
> why we have copyright laws. If I owned a van Gogh and you took a
> picture and disseminated it without my permission you would be well
> within your rights to do so since the work is in the public domain.
>
> Also we need to be careful with the word theft. Copying a copyrighted
> work is copyright infringement. In law copyright infringement is not
> theft as it does not deprive the original from the owner.
>
> -----Jay
> _______________________________________________
> post: [email protected]
> unsubscribe or set options at
>https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/hpizka%40me.com
_______________________________________________
post: [email protected]
unsubscribe or set options at
https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/t.kerwin%40att.net
_______________________________________________
post: [email protected]
unsubscribe or set options at
https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
