(unsure who writed) :
>That said, I wholly agree with al3xu5. While I do believe in some >aspects >of the free culture movement, specifically that copyright is too >restrictive in its current form and the viewers should have some >rights, I >do not believe that viewers should be able to commercially derive and >re-use any non-software copyrighted work they receive a copy of. I mostly agree, but some points... Public Domain release is peculiar to some states, as USA. In France some CC flavors are legal regarding intellectual property rights, but IMHO not CC0. Situation is worse with human being models, because contracts cannot be perpetual (~slaving). Even taking a picture in a town turns now to a real problem, as "land" is polluted by copyrighted material (from buildings to installations, bridges, even Eiffel tower lightnings). There is no more public spaces, they are just *stolen*. It seems > 170 yo artifacts in museums begins to be unclear too, and there were problems in the last ten years with ancient books numerisation (contracts with distribution exclusivity), while I missed how all that ended (suited time to time...). >The >original purpose of copyright was to protect the commercial interests >of >artists, and I believe *some* form of that protection is still >appropriate. Historically, copyright has protect publishers first, not authors. >[0] >https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html > >*-- * >*Tyler Romeo* >Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016 >Major in Computer Science -- Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma brièveté.