At 12:51 PM 4/17/96, Julia E. Harmatz wrote:
>
> The only way to curtail economic loss to creators of content is to
> devise means of rewarding them for their efforts. Although well
> into the public domain, is the posting a the Mona Lisa's smile
> merely a minor use?
Yes.
> Or is it representative of the entire work?
No, except as synecdoche.
> I believe the creative content provider is worth paying a royalty to
> for their work.
Believe me, so do I; but nothing is gained and much is lost if "creative content providers" (too many nouns and not enough targeted modifiers there) start being identified as people who shoot for the reductio ad absurdum of compensation. Then they start looking like greedy, grasping moneygrubbers no better than the Engulf + Devours of the world (tip o' the pixel to Mel Brooks).
> Organizations such as NWU, and the newly formed Federation, consisting
> of a variety of creative folk, have formed union backed voices to
> demand their full due. Perhaps, finally, they will have some leverage
> when it comes to negotiations.
Pardon me if I don't get out my cloth cap. While the NWU is performing a good service for its members by waging legal war on outright thievery, I don't see that it does society any good for everyone who bangs at a keyboard to go on the offensive against anybody who is indulging a natural curiosity about the content of their writings. There are even instances in which it ought to be permissible to make money off of someone else's work without paying royalties: for example, if someone were to cull the mailing lists like this one for commentary on a particular subject, and edit the results and publish them, those of us who posted here without any expectation of compensation shouldn't take umbrage at someone else's profit from the "sweat of the brow." Are these technical copyright violations? Very possibly, but you've got to choose your battles carefully lest you lose the war for winning them.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:20 GMT