Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

On 9/10/98, Thomas Workman <tworkman[_at_]erols.com> wrote:
>
> Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
> >
> > Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > My creations are not public property. My creations are mine. I
> > > can destroy them without penalty. I can determine if, when, how
> > > many copies may be published and how many times they may be
> > > performed. I have no obligation to the public. The public has
> > > no say.
> >
> > No they're not. They're "shared" property which you have (for a
> > limited time) the exclusive right to copy. If they were "all yours",
> > you wouldn't need to publish them, would you! It is the sharing of
> > them with others that gives IP its peculiar value and status.
> > Imagine writing novels for no-one to read. Making music only for
> > yourself. (Beethoven did not even get to hear his own works!, but
> > others did. He would think your proposal absurd.)
>
> Not even close, Michael. The great composers destroyed much of their
> own works, when they were not happy with them. The great artists often
> painted over their own canvas, when they felt a previous work was not
> their best work (even though we may find them to be masters today, they
> were destroyed by the artist).

Albert's right -- artists have copyright over personal creative expression; approximately seven forms are outlined, at least in American copyright law. That's why computers are throwing such a cog into this matter; many forms of translation of meaning and blurring of original intent is at stake; an artist can basically do whatever he/she wants with his/her work. Once OWNERSHIP has been transferred, the work of art is cut from the womb of its maker and then that's a different story entirely.

Madeleine Fix
<fix.3[_at_]osu.edu> Received on Mon Sep 14 1998 - 18:29:20 GMT