Maybe you should educate yourself about artistic copyright before being snarky. For example, you could buy a photo of mine, the "negative" (or digital equivalent) even but that would not give you the right to alter the art or claim it as your own unless I gave express permission for you to do so. Since the artist is in this case deceased, he cannot give that permission. There might be a provision for that in foreign copyright law (it's my understanding these were bought overseas) but if tehre is, I haven't heard of it.
Edited to clarify, since it's late: What I mean is that just because you buy a piece of work (even for a steep price) you are merely buying the right to hang it in your house and that's it. In 99% of cases you are not buying the full copyright to do to it what you wish. Unless foreign copyright laws are vastly different, the only way they would have the "right" to do this if the original 13 owners had a transfer of copyright from Hitler while he was alive. I doubt that is the case. They are just hedging their bets
( ... )
I was just pointing out the oddness of caring a great deal about one kind of law, in this case art related laws, and then constantly harping about how we need less laws and regulations, when as neccessary legistlation goes this sort of thing is really low on the totem pole.
Then you don't understand my philosophy at all. Laws should exist to protect individuals and their property, to essentially keep a citizen (or the gov't itself) from infringing on the rights of another citizen. I'm not sure where I gave the impression along the line that I think it's okay for an individuals property to be destroyed.
I am for less laws and regulations, but only those laws and regulations which infringe on individual rights.
Actually, I'd have to disagree with you: copyrights that extent beyond the life of the artist require a more intrusive state than its worth. Most libertarians would disagree with you on this.
Actually, I'd have to disagree with you: copyrights that extent beyond the life of the artist require a more intrusive state than its worth. Many libertarians would disagree with you on this. Anything that involves partial property rights requires surveillance on fairly private matters. You can see the contradiction here?
How do you justify a statement like "require a more intrusive state than its worth"? It requires a similar level of surveillance into private matters to make sure that someone doesn't embezzle or what have you.
How do you justify a statement like "require a more intrusive state than its worth"? Easily. And there a long history of copyright reform within the Libertarian movement from Benjamin Tucker, onwards. Given that the individual is dead, his rights die with him, so appealing to that is some tenuous. But, unless you accuse of me of a redherring, I will explain
( ... )
I haven't read Tucker's works, so that's something to go on my to-do list! I think my objection is that they are making money off the changes (to the tune of a 600% profit). That said, intellectual property rights is an issue that seems bound to be steeped in morality (usually it's objectivists arguing against natural law libertarians). I think when you get down to the very nitty gritty points of law, it's really hard not to let your emotions have some sway in determining what should and should not be illegal. Perhaps it's things like this that are leading me not to re-register with the Libertarian Party, for better or for worse. While in a theoretical minarchist state it could be perfectly legal to destroy historical artifacts with no legal repercussions, I don't particularly think that's practical. I think that is, at least in part, a judgment based on emotion/personal morality, but no more than the libertarians who rail against copyright in any capacity.
What snowowl said, PLUS there are things called usage rights and limited rights to reproduction. In some cases of buying a photo for usage, you would be buying limited rights. In other cases when you buy "stock" graphics, you MUST modify the original enough to make it "your own" and not just flat-out reproduce it on a product for sale (which is the opposite of just buying a piece's limited repro rights).
There are many types of legal issues when it comes to purchasing "art" or graphics for art.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Edited to clarify, since it's late: What I mean is that just because you buy a piece of work (even for a steep price) you are merely buying the right to hang it in your house and that's it. In 99% of cases you are not buying the full copyright to do to it what you wish. Unless foreign copyright laws are vastly different, the only way they would have the "right" to do this if the original 13 owners had a transfer of copyright from Hitler while he was alive. I doubt that is the case. They are just hedging their bets ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I am for less laws and regulations, but only those laws and regulations which infringe on individual rights.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
How do you justify a statement like "require a more intrusive state than its worth"? Easily. And there a long history of copyright reform within the Libertarian movement from Benjamin Tucker, onwards. Given that the individual is dead, his rights die with him, so appealing to that is some tenuous. But, unless you accuse of me of a redherring, I will explain ( ... )
Reply
Reply
What snowowl said, PLUS there are things called usage rights and limited rights to reproduction. In some cases of buying a photo for usage, you would be buying limited rights. In other cases when you buy "stock" graphics, you MUST modify the original enough to make it "your own" and not just flat-out reproduce it on a product for sale (which is the opposite of just buying a piece's limited repro rights).
There are many types of legal issues when it comes to purchasing "art" or graphics for art.
Reply
Leave a comment