IP is tangible, you want to be an IP specialist but basic knowledge seems to be absent from your understanding. An image is copyrighted once it is fixed in a tangible form.
Nobody owns an idea, they however DO own their expression of that idea.
400 years? Research, you need to do it, try more like 300, the first law to be considered a copyright law was British and was enacted in 1709, however that law related to printing rights due to the rise of the printing press, the aim of that law was just the same as current law albeit only aimed at printers. The aim was to promote creation and the dissemination of information by ensuring the creators could earn a living from their creations.
Copyright law as we know it now in the form of the Berne convention didn't show up until 1886 and was not widely adopted until the 1920's where upon many other types of creative output came under the same protections as printed works had been under.
The concept of copyright however is more than a thousand years old, the earliest case of who owned the rights to a created work took place in Ireland in AD 557.
No, we're the ones who hold true to and understand what copyright law is for, you're the one who hasn't done enough research and is spouting half baked theories. I do not believe we need to add more to copyright law as it stands, but I don't believe that taking away the rights of creators is a good thing and I know it will not foster creativity because people do not create when they cannot retain even recognition for their hard work or earn a living with it.
Tell that to artists who have had their copyright taken and given to other people due to failure to enforce. Just because you haven't heard about it? Well we've already established a base lack of information on your part.
Except there was NO discrepancy, the wording on the first copyright law and the wording for the intention of the current copyright law are virtually identical, they were intended to do the same thing. Do some bloody research will you already!
Taking something that does not belong to you = theft. The examples you gave of Shakespeare and Mark Twain if they did as you claim, could be considered to fall under fair use depending on how they were done, also Shakespeare was born and died long before the first copyright law and Mark Twain again was born and actually died ten years before the US signed into modern copyright law. Ergo, they living in a time when the laws to protect the livelihoods of artists did not exist yet. Still I think it's awfully insulting that you are comparing what you claim two highly acclaimed historical artists did, to someone violating the law by STEALING and PROFITING from the artwork of others.
"The sad thing is, I'm likely one of the most learned people on the subject, especially when it comes to theory."
Only if 'learned' translates as you're making stuff up as you go along since you actually don't know anything about the subject it seems. To be blunt, I hope you never end up in a position working with IP law because your ignorance of basic facts about copyright would be a legal liability to whatever group you'd be working for.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-06-22 11:50 am (UTC)IP is tangible, you want to be an IP specialist but basic knowledge seems to be absent from your understanding. An image is copyrighted once it is fixed in a tangible form.
Nobody owns an idea, they however DO own their expression of that idea.
400 years? Research, you need to do it, try more like 300, the first law to be considered a copyright law was British and was enacted in 1709, however that law related to printing rights due to the rise of the printing press, the aim of that law was just the same as current law albeit only aimed at printers. The aim was to promote creation and the dissemination of information by ensuring the creators could earn a living from their creations.
Copyright law as we know it now in the form of the Berne convention didn't show up until 1886 and was not widely adopted until the 1920's where upon many other types of creative output came under the same protections as printed works had been under.
The concept of copyright however is more than a thousand years old, the earliest case of who owned the rights to a created work took place in Ireland in AD 557.
No, we're the ones who hold true to and understand what copyright law is for, you're the one who hasn't done enough research and is spouting half baked theories. I do not believe we need to add more to copyright law as it stands, but I don't believe that taking away the rights of creators is a good thing and I know it will not foster creativity because people do not create when they cannot retain even recognition for their hard work or earn a living with it.
Tell that to artists who have had their copyright taken and given to other people due to failure to enforce. Just because you haven't heard about it? Well we've already established a base lack of information on your part.
Except there was NO discrepancy, the wording on the first copyright law and the wording for the intention of the current copyright law are virtually identical, they were intended to do the same thing. Do some bloody research will you already!
Taking something that does not belong to you = theft. The examples you gave of Shakespeare and Mark Twain if they did as you claim, could be considered to fall under fair use depending on how they were done, also Shakespeare was born and died long before the first copyright law and Mark Twain again was born and actually died ten years before the US signed into modern copyright law. Ergo, they living in a time when the laws to protect the livelihoods of artists did not exist yet. Still I think it's awfully insulting that you are comparing what you claim two highly acclaimed historical artists did, to someone violating the law by STEALING and PROFITING from the artwork of others.
"The sad thing is, I'm likely one of the most learned people on the subject, especially when it comes to theory."
Only if 'learned' translates as you're making stuff up as you go along since you actually don't know anything about the subject it seems. To be blunt, I hope you never end up in a position working with IP law because your ignorance of basic facts about copyright would be a legal liability to whatever group you'd be working for.