Re: Attribution is not required in public domain materials

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Michael Graham <mgraham[_at_]marshallip.com> wrote:

>

Last time I checked, free speech also relates to non-political speech. Criticism of a book is an example.

> Public Domain works are works we can all freely copy (I'm considering
> King Lear), share, and base new, derivative works upon. They are not
> works which we can (there goes King Lear) republish or recycle and claim
> origination of.

I don't think that you really understand and appreciate the breadth and depth of the freedom in the public domain. When a material is in the public domain, there is virtually no claim to that material including authorship and attribution. That is how powerful the freedom in the public domain is. It is no wonder authors and artists are very scared of it.

When you attempt to attach a claim to anything in the public domain, when you attempt to attach a claim to an idea, when you attempt to attach a claim to a concept, when you attempt to attach a claim to a proverb, when you attempt to attach a claim to a short poem, when you attempt to attach a claim to a painting, when you attempt to attach a claim to a law, the public domain no longer exists for what is free of claim is now owned by an individual. It is not wise to go down that road.

> However, enough of this debate/discussion. How about them Cubbies?

Usually, debate or discussion begins with a question. The responsibility for this specific thread of discussion can be partially attributed to you-know-who. :)

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: 5,675

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. Received on Thu Jun 19 2003 - 21:07:45 GMT