Re: Photos of National Gallery Paintings

On Sat, Jan 01, 2000, Don Roemer <droe2[_at_]earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Public domain shouldn't mean that the public owns it, but rather,
> as the law allows, there is no longer any copyright in the work.

and "copyright in the work" is a separate issue from ownership of a specific copy of a work -- even from ownership of the original copy of the work.

> In your view, if I had a newly discovered Monet hanging in my
> hallway that anyone and everyone should have access to it --
> because it belongs to the "public." NOT!!!

if you are referring to the physical painting hanging in your hallway -- agreed. but if it is an original Monet you have no ownership in the copyright as that long since passed into the public domain. now if you were to make a photograph, or paint a reproduction, you would own the copyright in the photograph or the reproduction.

> If I were to find a theory in your missive I suppose it would be
> "Let's kill Don and steal his s**t"

?????

> Thankfully the USA was founded on [private] property rights and
> hopefully will stay that way for a while longer.

copyright law in the U.S. assigns private property rights only as a mechanism for "promoting the sciences and the useful arts" -- not as an inherent right. that individuals make the fruits of their creativity available to all is the eventual goal - being able to enrich themselves is an encouragement towards that goal, it is not the goal itself.

cheers,
christopher

Christopher Gwyn
<christopher[_at_]icopyright.com> Received on Mon Jan 03 2000 - 17:11:04 GMT