Just found this bit about/concerning copyright.

I gotta say, the way they go with copyright laws right now is really frightening. Next thing you know, you won't be able to look at something on your way to work without paying for having the extraordinary pleasure of seeing it.

And what's with copyright laws being extended to over a hundred years? That's just rediculous. I mean yes, I do believe that if you create something original and/or beautiful, you should be compensated for it, but THIS is just going way over the top.

Personaly I disagree. People do take pictures of rare and beautiful things and try to sell them; thats why you aren't allowd to take cameras in most museums now adays since you could try and sell pictures of the artifacts.

Yeah but that thing is out in the open, not in some special building!

You have to pay to get into that open area

I still think it's rediculous. That thing has cost $475 million already, and that's not enough for that guy? I mean, they're argueing that taking pictures of that thing violates HIS rights... how much does he want? :verysad:

It cost that much to make it doesn't mean he made that much profit.

Yeah perhaps, but it should still leave enough :confused:

In most museums you CAN take pictures. In places where you can't its not because you might try and sell a copy, its because on older paintings, many many flash bulbs over time can damage them. They've actually lessened that rule now that people can often take pictures without a flash, and some museums state "no flash photography". You can take pictures in the Smithsonian, for example, even in the galleries.

Anyway, that is a beautiful sculpture, but that artist is either being a jerk or he is doing it as a media stunt to get more attention for his piece (which is very common in contemporary art).

I mean, look at how people are reacting. They are taking LOTS of pictures and posting websites despite him. Wowie, free promotion. I don't thik that artist is as dumb as it seems at first.

As an afterthought:
Maybe the piece in itself is in part conceptual. Maybe it's about "who owns copyright in reflected images." I mean really. it wouldn't be ANYTHING the same if it was a matte material, would it?

I think there's a lot more to this than meets the eye, heh.

There was a great Heinlein? short piece about a plan to extend copyright to the heirs of the original author/artist for some unbelievable period- like maybe in perpetuity and to make it much broader.

The "hero" finally explained to a politician that, basically, they were stifling the creation of any new works, because there are only a limited number of plots, perspectives, musical arrangements, etc.

With the new laws, anyone who wrote or painted anything would be in violation of someone's copyright.

WTF!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

That's CRAZY!!!

I think I'm gonna get a patent on HOT WATER and everyone who makes himself a hot tea would have to pay me 400 $ or what?
That would be quite cool

oh boy....well..hmmm I´m going to make coffee.....how much ???

50 € per litre

uh-o...hmmm Ok so I give you 10euro..... ...but..BUT....I´m heating it myself hahaha.......

*have a coffee...it´s on me*

or do you prefer a Warsteiner? or a Krombacher instead?

Faithless: "Greed... is the weapon of mass destruction"
That thing is for the people and the people should have it, in one form or the other. I`m sorry I can`t put some really clever argument here, I just think this is c**p and that guy is a greedy owl`s muffin.

p.s. : I *am* allowed to say "Owl`s muffin", right ?
p.s. 2: Warsteiner is niiiice, thanx Minque !!

hello to everyone, and happy valentines day...

does enyone have a information (a rumour will do too) about the release date of Oblivion?

There's neither an official nor unofficial release date.

Unofficially, the end of the year-ish. Which probably means in a year or so.

To tell you the truth, we don't have the same censored words as on the Official Forums.

I believe copyrighting is a good thing, but you are right, the extent to which certain things are protected does seem a little over the top, put on a little too strong, you might say. However, I know that I would want my work to be given credit even after I died. This is easily achieved though, if a record is made that the idea was first thought up/created by a certain person; it's not to say that it can't be used by others, credit is the most important thing to me. Copyrights seem to be a tool to protect monetary investments and those alone; it doesn't look like anyone cares about anything else.

Ang

Don't be so unrealistic.

It'll take until July 19, 7209. You and I both know it, lol.

hmmm a patent for hot water. Ill take a patent for cold water, room tempeture water and luke warm water!

Whats that your drinking some water form the tap? $50 please

also, lol the last post on this was back around Febuary 2005.

I agree with you Stargel, I thinks its a very mean spirited thing to do. Imagine if you spent good money to see some big, increadibly expensive pieve of useless metal (well, thats how I see it atleast) and then was told "Oh, sorry, we don't want you to take pictures of this, because even though its enormous and out in the semi-open and pretty much a gift to you, its copywriting to take a picture so you can cherish this moment the rest of your life".

I agree its ridiculous. A photograph is not a reproduction. I mean, if you're going to argue that taking a picture of a piece of art is reproducing that piece of art then you might as well argue that taking a picture of a human being is stealing a piece of his soul.

umm how old is this thread? I can't beleive the important people posted that long ago....


anyways, I think it is somewhat rediculus(man I can't spell) It is beautiful sculpture. Can't make a good point... but yeah charging for a picture is stupid, all you need is a camra with exelent zoom