[Upd-discuss] software/intellectual property, portraits and hollywood

[Michael Hart]

Actually, I think it is legally possible to sell a painting/portrait
today without selling the copyright along with the original.

I think I heard of this actually being done several years ago.



Thanks!!!

Give the world eBooks in 2006!!!

Michael S. Hart
Founder
Project Gutenberg

Blog at http://hart.pglaf.org



On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Richard Stallman wrote:

>    Does anyone else spot any pattern above?
>
> The pattern is real, but associating it with the concept of
> "intellectual property" is an error.
>
> Copyright law (one of the laws that some people label as "intellectual
> property") is relevant in your instances 1 and 3.  But it is
> irrelevant to instance 2.  What was sold was the physical object, the
> portrait--not a copyright (and I think that portrait is in the public
> domain by now, meaning it isn't copyrighted any more).
>
> Therefore, what these examples show is that the issue is not
> specifically about copyright, or the other "intellectual property"
> laws.  It is a broader issue: that the system typically favors those
> who have more power--and that usually doesn't include artists or
> writers.
>
> Copyright does contribute to this effect, and so (in other areas) do
> patents.  But the effect is not limited to them.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Upd-discuss mailing list
> Upd-discuss@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss
>