Re: "Against Intellectual Property"

Robert Cumbow wrote, in part
"I can infringe a
photographer's work by using a second camera just as I can infringe a writer's work by using my own pen (or computer)."

I agree with this. But the hypothetical was not given as looking at the photograph and trying to make something that looked like it; the hypothetical was several photographers all taking a picture of the same subject. In fact, in the hypothetical, it was at virtually the same time. To me, none of the photographers are copying from each other, especially since none of them (in the hypothetical again) were involved in setting up the subject.

But I completely agree that one can imagine a scenario that not only is prohibited by existing copyright law, but even "strictly limited" folk like myself would agree should be prohibited.

Roland J. Cole, Executive Director
SOFTWARE PATENT INSTITUTE
11 SOUTH MERIDIAN STREET
INDIANAPOLIS IN 46204-3535
317-231-7799; fax 317-231-7433
cole@spi.org; http://www.spi.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cumbow, Robert" <RCumbow[_at_]GrahamDunn.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 2:17 PM Subject: RE: "Against Intellectual Property"

> I'm in sympathy with a lot of Mr. Cole's remarks. However, I have to take
> exception with this:
>
> "I would never consider a second photograph a copy of the first if a
second
> camera was involved. Copies use copying technology; re-creations (in my
> mind) are something else entirely."
>
> It's important to recognize that when copyright law was first developed
the
> only "copying technology" was ink and paper. Copyright law was around long
> before it was applied to xerography--the exact photo-reproduction of an
> original. Copyright law was designed to protect against two different
> things: (1) rote copying of the work of another without authorization, and
> (2) what is often called "plagiarism," the unrestrained borrowing of
> significant elements or features of the original work of another. The use
of
> copyright to protect original works against unauthorized photocopying,
using
> copying technology, is a comparatively recent arrival on the copyright
> scene, definitely not part and parcel of what copyright law is about. I
> suspect that what Mr. Cole calls "re-creations" are precisely what
copyright
> law was originally intended to protect against. I can infringe a
> photographer's work by using a second camera just as I can infringe a
> writer's work by using my own pen (or computer).
>
>
> Robert C. Cumbow
> Graham & Dunn PC
> 1420 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
> Seattle, WA 98101-2390
> 206.340.9619
> 206.340.9599 fax
> rcumbow[_at_]grahamdunn.com
> http://www.grahamdunn.com
>
> Big law firm experience
> > without the big law firm experience®
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roland J. Cole [mailto:cole[_at_]spi.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 6:53 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: "Against Intellectual Property"
>
>
> The digital age has created a situation where actual, literal, bit for
bit,
> byte for byte copying is extremely easy. That kind of copying is one sort
of
> activity; another is represented by what jazz musicians do to standard
folk
> songs (or "perhaps" what George Harrison did to a song sung by the
> Chiffons.)
>
> I admit I am in the shorter is better camp (say 28 plus renewal for 28?)
> when it comes to actual literal copying. Moreover, I am in the "keep
> protection extremely narrow" when it comes to derivatives, jazz
extensions,
> etc. Especially if copyright lasts a long time, its scope should be narrow
> (literal copying). For instance, I would never consider a second
photograph
> a copy of the first if a second camera was involved. Copies use copying
> technology; re-creations (in my mind) are something else entirely. (I
> recognize that many judges and juries would disagree, and consider a
> re-creation a copy; I just think the world would be better off if they did
> not.)
>
> I would also note that in today's world, making copyright longer does not
> necessarily protect the creator. Both record companies and publishers are
> famous for demanding full assignment of copyright, and in some cases suing
> the original creator when he or she "came to close" to repeating a work so
> assigned. The termination right provides some protection; but so would a
> renewal scheme, where only the original creator could renew. So would a
> shorter copyright term, or a narrower scope to copyright.
>
> Roland J. Cole, Executive Director
> SOFTWARE PATENT INSTITUTE
> 11 SOUTH MERIDIAN STREET
> INDIANAPOLIS IN 46204-3535
> 317-231-7799; fax 317-231-7433
> cole@spi.org; http://www.spi.org
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> This email message may be protected by the attorney/client privilege, work
> product doctrine or other confidentiality protection. If you believe that
it
> has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender
> that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you.
>
>
Received on Thu Aug 31 2000 - 21:23:10 GMT