Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
At 10:08 AM 7/3/99 -0700, you wrote:
>So Robert, do I have this right? As soon as the first Braque/Picasso
>Cubist/Collage earned a review with photo or hit an auctionhouse catalogue
>it was technically in violation of the copyright held by the publisher of
>the material collaged.
Probably as the laws in the U.S. suggest, however the laws vary from country
to country. I am not familiar with the copyright laws of France in 1916. I
might mention that the copyright laws have changed several times in the US
in this century so you question would involve more research then I (and
probably you) have time for right now.
>Similarly, is it possible that Robert Indiana's "Love" and "The Demuth Five"
>might possible violate the copyright of the typograpgic designer responsible
>for the original typeface if he didn't design it himnself? I noticed
>somewhere that some Architects have recently been assidiously defending
>their copyrights against the infringements of insidious photographers.
Probably, see the Copyright Web site at: http://www.benedict.com/
Click on the icon of a film spool and see what kind of sludge the bottom
dwelling lawers have worked up for companies like Warner Brothers for
Devil's Advocate. The sculptor who had a work which showed up in the
background in one ofthe scenes inthe movie. They also got in trouble for
some of the scene shots with a sculpture in thebackground used in Batman
Other examples were Sony for one of the screen plays of James Bond,
Universal Studios for12 Monkeys,.Paramount Pictures for Naked Gun 33 1/3,
(the Vulture of Culture) Robert Rauschenberg used f "found art" and it
landed him in hot water, Barney the Purple Dinosaur for Costume Copyright,
Reuters in the L.A. Riots. In some of these cases, those who were sued did
not loose but then did they win after the expense of lawers and the trouble
of the court cases?
>The internet has really set the tone for the new concept of copyright.
>Technically, publishers and authors should (or at least could if they
>properly licensed their publications rather than sold them outright) get
>their rightful and deserved percentage from every USED BOOK sale.
>How about dye transfer process? Photograms? Frottage/Rubbings? These
>techniques all rely on making a copy or multiple copies of the orignial
>object which may be protected.
>This precedent shatters the traditionally assumed rights of folk art and
>craft and indigenous art and craft which apper to have concerned themselves
>more closely with degree of variance from the original and degree of
>potential head to head competition in the marketplace. Bill Gates is
>spending a fortune in China (Asia in general) attempting to exterminate
>traditional popular values relative to the notion which concern's copyright
>and replace those values with acceptable western/internationalist commercial
>Ostensibly the notion of copyright protects us all. In practical terms the
>greatest benefit goes to whoever can afford to deploy lawyers to actively
>defend a copyright.
>In a global society such as we have, some notion of copyright is necessary
>and valuable. The current iteration we are saddled with is, however, hugely
>flawed and widely counter-productive and restricitve of development in all
>areas. It begins to resemble Mediaval Guild Secrets practices. The only
>viable course under the current model of copyright IS Paranoid
>Schizophrenia. Once the camel's nose is in the tent everything really is at
>risk. Real protection is afforded only those who can afford the legal costs.
Yes, Henry I sure can agree with you but......well .....so now....... what
are you going to do about it?