Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
except kane was arguing for a prepetual extension of copyright where you would always have to find the copyright holder and get permission before doing any deriviative work, so in all the cases where you didn't know who the real author was you couldn't use shit.
That the point idiot
go back to copying waynes world and pretending that makes you creative.
|
Actually, no I wasn't. I have been arguing that they could modify the rules so that the creator of something could have the sole copyright for a set period of time and then after that the rules lighten up. If you want to use the product for something that is non-profit like education or even your own enjoyment , you could then use the product. If you wanted to recreate it and sell it for a profit you would either have to get permission (or make a deal with) from the original holder (or their estate) or at least prove that you had made some kind of an attempt to do so. Obviously every case wont apply.
Have I said anything about copyrighting everything ever made? No.
Have I said that shit that is 1000 years old should have a copyright? No.
If you don't know who the copyright holder and have done a reasonable search (meaning if the thing is 800 years old the search could be really short, but if the product is only a few years old you could much more easily find the person) then you should be able to move forward with your project.
All I have ever argued for is that artists should have the right to control how their work is ultimately used when it comes to situations where people will use it to make money.