On 8 Jun 1999, Michael Stutz wrote:
> Heh. Lyno and Gordon Matzigkeit (fig.org) were experimenting with
> similar ideas some time back, the attribution of ownership to "God."
It would be favorable if a single license were drawn up in terms as to
let the original licensee decide to what dynanym (pardon the neologism,
there don't seem to be a word) they wish the work or its derivatives to
be attributed.
There would need to be options specified that an artist could retain their
name in performance, but publication rights continue those of, say, Karen
Eliot, even if the work is drastically modified. You'd otherwise arrive at
a show to find one artist where you expected to find twenty-eight...
> I wonder if someone violates a Karen Eliot copyright, who will
> represent her in court?
An issue that arises also in the context of Lyno's WGPL. I believe
anyone should be able to litigate against violators, even if they have
had no hand whatsoever in the work, as an individual's attempt to
secure rights for themselves would threaten everyone's potential
use of the material.
