[compute] Re: [politics] Re: [d@DCC] Senate Bill S-9
tOM at Abacurial.com
Mon Nov 1 13:49:09 EST 2004
On 1 Nov 2004 at 13:23,
Ross Jordan <discuss at list.digital-copyright.ca> wrote:
> It would seem tOM Trottier, on Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 01:12:07PM -0500, wrote:
> > On 1 Nov 2004 at 11:18,
> > Russell McOrmond <discuss at list.digital-copyright.ca> wrote:
> > ...
> > > Another technique currently discussed in the USA is the idea of
> > > out-of-print materials returning to the public domain. We should all read
> > > http://www.eldred.cc/ to see just how useful this would be to solving many
> > > of the problems we are misattributing to photographers/etc.
> > ...
> > But how does this apply to photographs? Are they "out of print" when
> > the negative is destroyed, if any? Or...
> They would be out of prints when prints were no longer being made for
> commercial purposes.
So all amateur photographs would have no copyright?
Or if the photographer refused to sell any more prints, anyone else
could make copies?
-- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur --
,__@ tOM Trottier
_-\_<, 758 Albert St., Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7V8
(*)/'(*) N45.412 W75.714 +1 613 231-6115
<a href="http://Abacurial.com">Abacurial Information Architecture</a>
</ </ I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences
(`-/---/--') attending too much liberty than to those attending
~~@~~~~@~~~~~~ too small a degree of it.-Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826)
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at list.digital-copyright.ca
More information about the Discuss