HH
Posts:
447
Registered:
12/6/04
|
|
Re: Can a law firm sue Google over "New Google Newsgroups"
Posted:
Aug 1, 2012 10:42 PM
|
|
On 8/1/12 6:30 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>> In sci.physics.electromag Bill Graham <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> (snip, someone wrote)
>>>> No, that isn't true. The presumption is that one can do what the
>>>> law does not prohibit.
>>
>>> But it is possible to do an almost infinite number of things
>>> with most any work of art. How can the law specifically prohibit
>>> all of these things?
>>
>> Seems to me that if the author wants to prohibit more than the
>> law protects, then it should be done with a specific contract
>> with the buyer. Given the shrink-wrap licensing done for software,
>> you might be able to do that for other artwork, too. Usually that
>> requires the buyer to pass on the same requirements to subsequent
>> buyers.
>>
>> DVDs often have restrictions against public performance, and
>> I would suspect that one could also do that for a painting.
>>
>>> Since it can't, it doesn't make much sense. How many notes of a
>>> musical composition would one have to change before he is
>>> encroaching on the copyrights of the original composer?
>>
>> If you want to make many copies and sell them, then copyright
>> comes up. If you just want to sell the one you bought, then
>> I believe it doesn't.
>>
>>> How many changed before it is viewed as a different work
>>> altogether? This is a law made specifically to enhance the
>>> pocketbooks of the lawyers.....
>>
>> -- glen
>
> With music, you can't perform it for profit without specific permission
> from the original copyright holder.
Not exactly. Profit doesn't matter. And you don't need specific
permission if they artist has an agreement with companies that collect
royalties on behalf of artists. Or do you think your favorite radio
station has to get "specific permission" for each song on their playlist?
> (usually the composer) I don't fully
> understand how to apply this same principal to paintings.
It's "principle." And it doesn't apply to paintings.
> If you make
> printed reproductions and sell them, is that different from displaying
> it in your own private museum and charging an entrance fee?
Yes.
> I can buy
> "prints" of almost any painting from a framing shop. Do they have to pay
> the original artist a percentage of their profit for doing this?
Of course. Directly or indirectly.
> And, if
> so, for how long after the orininal sale of the painting does this
> apply?
As long as the copyright is in force.
> Many of the original artists are dead. But, even though many
> original composers are dead, people like Hal Leonard still own the
> copyrights to their music, and you can't perform it for gain either or
> the "whistle a happy tune police" (BMI) will come to get you. I think
> the cut-off date for this is around 1927, and it doesn't change with
> time.... It will stay at 1927, apparently, for the rest of time.
Congress changes it all the time.
|
|
