Posts by johnrwalker 8 publicly visible posts • joined 8 May 2013
Sounds a bit overwrought. There must be millions of cheapish reproductions of say Picassos works all around the world. Doesn't stop some from bidding millions to own a actual real Picasso.
It could be different for artists who actually make sell purely digital works ,not sure.
As for copyright on " styles" that would be a box that even Pandora wouldn't open.
While there is some real dispute as to whether the photographer in this case owns the copyright, there is no reasonable doubt that a monkey( or anything that is not a human being) cannot own the copyright in anything.
PETA has form for this sort of litigation and they have failed on numerous occasions, pure publicity stunt. (and exactly what is the legal basis of PETAs claim to represent that monkey- has it signed something, or is PETA its legal guardian?
This law is not for a adoption of US style "Fair Use" provisions . Nor is it about reining in abuses of copyright such as those that interfere with the doctrine of first sale - i.e charges on the resale / re-use of copies you have paid for in full. Nor is it about reducing the over extended term of copyright.
This law is about imposing compulsory collective management of copyright on most/many of the UKs small to middle size right-holders. This will not be 'free' just about everything, that is worth something, will be licensed i.e paid for. In fact it is certain to net cost more than the current situation.
The individual right of copyright is being nicked, definitely not ended.
Making the original that is then sold as copies, is hard work. No copyright, no payment for that work = work not done. If you were to say that copyright goes way to long, that it is too easy to extend and extend and that it is at times abused and excessive, I would agree. However copyright has a very important function in a free society as a individual , trade-able economic right. Get rid of it and you will have fun for a while, but then what?
Andrew
"The UK IPO had every opportunity to narrow the wording of OW/ECL so there would be no ambiguity and no threat to primary licensing at all. They declined the opportunities."
Fairly recently we, in Australia, had a visiting emissary from the UKs mandated official IP sector. This emissary was billed on arrival as a outstanding "Champion"- however the champion spectacularly and quickly failed, in fact the champion turned out to be pretty average.
A major reason for this failure was ; this emissary genuinely had no idea about Copyright as a exclusive individual right of control of usage. In fact this emissary reacted with ill-disciplined, uncomprehending, anger to the very idea of a individual right-holders right to "say no" to compulsory collective management . The tantrums did not go down well, down under.
From our perspective a covert (or overt) ignorant hostility to primary rights seems not untypical of the UKs mandated official IP sector.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
