Re: Photos of National Gallery Paintings

On Mon, 03 Jan 2000, Robert A. Baron <rabaron[_at_]pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/1/00, Don Roemer <droe2[_at_]earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > You certainly have a broad view of "public domain." A rather
> > socialistic one at that. 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.
> >
> > 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 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.
>
> I'm not an attorney, but I always thought that there was a difference
> between real property and intellectual property.

Of course there is. Real property being real estate (aka land) is not the same as other tangible property (a work) nor the same as intellectual property (the copyright in the work)

> If I publish a picture of the Statue of Liberty, I certain expect that
> I'm not going to be arrested for having stolen the statue. If a work
> is in the Public Domain, it seems to me that this means that its
> "intellectual" component is given over to public ownership.

Nonsense. It merely means the "public" cannot be criminally, or civillay, convicted for using the work sans permission.

> That is what "no claim of copyright" means. Using the intellectual
> component of Mr. Smith's public domain Raphael painting still leaves
> him with the painting, and Southeby's won't auction off my photo of it
> for 45 million.

If you followed the thread there seemed to be an arguement that the value, IF the copyright had expired and it fell into the "public domain."

> Further, it serves no purpose to dismiss such notions "socialist."

Pardon me!!! But it DOES!!! Those who advocate that any work in which the copyright has expired belongs to all the people rather than the owner of the work is a FLAMING SOCIALIST bordering on being a COMMUNIST!!! And I make no apologies for such characterization.

> The readers of this list expect our discussion to be free of implied
> invective and deserve better. Anyway, the entire idea of copyright
> is meant to strike a balance between the private interests of
> individuals and the interest of the public.

Maybe. The ELECTED Congress has seen fit to establish the length of copyright protection in a work. Once that term expires -- regardless of the length of the term -- it does not mean that the work, as physical property, belongs to Joe Sixpack. It merely means that there is no longer civil/criminal penalties for duplication of the work by those who do not have the copyright owner's permission. Not hard to fathom, eh?

> To deny that is evidence of a profound misunderstanding of the
> function of copyright law in the United States since the ownership
> of intellectual property is vested in creators by the Constitution.
> In other words, the ownership of intellectual property is not innate
> to its creation but is a grant given to creators for social and
> economic purposes. One might argue, even, that intellectual property,
> without such a grant, would be understood to be the property of the
> public -- like the air we breathe.
>
> What does "Public Domain" mean anyway? My dictionary defines "domain"
> as "A territory over which rule or control is exercised." My Gifis
> Law Dictionary defines "public domain" as "lands owned [by the U.S.
> Government and] the several states, as distinguished from lands
> possessed by private individuals or corporations." For intellectual
> property, this dictionary states that it is "Information, the source
> of which is available to anyone..."
>
> It seems reasonable to conclude that if the owner of a work whose
> intellectual property component is in the "public domain" prevents the
> public from making use of that element, he is illegally seizing assets
> that are not his.

W/o more, that is nonsense.

> In states where the ocean front is held to be public, owners of
> private land that inhibit public access to the beach are frequently
> required to provide for public access, by an easement, if necessary.

Let's not go there. A whole can of worms you don't want to open and certainly not germain to this discussion.

> Finally, it won't do any good to "Kill Don" to get his intellectual
> property. If we do that, then it will just go to his heirs. No, there
> is a much easier way to get it -- just wait for 70 years after he dies.
> But Don does have one point. I think he has figured out a way to speed
> up the process.

Under a Socialist or Communist regime -- or for that matter a Democratic one -- the "lets kill Don and steal his s**t" (the s**t being a takeoff on George Carlin's definition) is exactly what happens when someone determines the work is better suited in the hands of the public rather than the lawful owner.

Don Roemer
<droe2[_at_]earthlink.net> Received on Sun Jan 09 2000 - 00:00:10 GMT