Hi Tom R.
In a lot of respects, I guess it comes down to doing what one feels is right
by their own conscience. For me, taking a photograph of a painting hanging
in a chain restaurant, for personal use only, that was painted as part of an
art class, and was paid for by the restaurant chain, does not seem, to me,
to violate any ethical code. No more than traveling to a museum (or
anywhere) and photographing a painting you like.
I agree that libraries are not violating copyright laws. I am stating they
are violating the spirit of those laws (in my mind). They were intended
(one of the intentions) to make sure that an author got reimbursed for each
and every use of his work (I think). So in many respects, there is no
essential difference between 1) the library buying a book and loaning it out
a thousand times, and 2) the library buying a book, making 1000 copies and
giving them away. In either case one could roughly estimate that the author
lost out on royalties of 999 sales.
I'm not saying there in anything wrong with libraries.
Tom C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 4:15 AM
Subject: Re: Flash Diffusers & Geekness
> Under current international copyright law someone always
> owns the copyright. Just who that is seems to vary from
> country to country as Bill Robb and I discovered a while
> back in a rather long discussion on this list.
>
> The Library is not violating copyright, no more than you are
> when you lend a friend a book. Once you buy a copy of a
> copyrighted item you own that copy, you can do what ever you
> please with that copy except make more copies.
> --Tom
>
>
> aimcompute wrote:
> >
> > But if the work is not copyrighted, how can it be copyright
infringement?
> > >From what I understand the work belongs to the corporation not the
> > individual(s). In that case one could argue that taking a picture of
> > virtually anything is copyright infringement because it is someones
> > handiwork...
> >
> > Just a question I have wondered about... Public Libraries have to be the
> > biggest, most blatant violators of the spirit of the copyright laws. I
> > appreciate them, but the authors & artists are potentially losing
billions
> > of dollars because of this sort of "communism".
> >
> > Tom C.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Nicholas Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 1:04 PM
> > Subject: RE: Flash Diffusers & Geekness
> >
> > >
> > > --- "Peifer, William [OCDUS]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does this sound like it may work? Any other
> > > > suggestions?
> > >
> > > It sounds like something along the lines of copyright
> > > infringment, even though there is no artist's name it
> > > is still someone's handiwork.
> > >
> > > Nick
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
> > > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> > > -
> > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
> > >
> >
> > -
> > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
