Re: Attribution is not required in public domain materials

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Robert F. Bodi <lawlists[_at_]bodi.com> wrote:

>

For some visual art works, the attribution and ownership are tightly connected at the moment these works came into existence. After that point, attribution and ownership can be separated easily. So, it is not possible for an artist to claim attribution in his visual art work without claiming ownership in it. If he does not own it at the first place, he cannot claim attribution to it.

For the works that are not covered by Section 106A, attribution is not a right that authors can claim. Most of the times, they impose a condition on people, who want to copy their works, to provide attribution. In this case, attribution depends on copyright, which is loosely related to ownership, for existence.

> And I agree that, whether legal or not, attribution is a moral issue. One
> should NEVER take credit for the work of another. That is both unethical
> and immoral.

No comment. :)

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>
http://www.boycottcopyright.com

Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all knowledge of 1923 in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their copyright owners' prisons: 5,682

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. Received on Thu Jun 12 2003 - 19:17:42 GMT