andrel wrote:
> I think you also need to define more precise what is copyrightable and 
> what not. 

That is definitely part of the problem also. (Same with patents.)

The other part is that some things are cultural. Can the design of the 
Eiffel Tower or Washington Monument be copyrighted? If so, can you refuse to 
let tourists take pictures?  Etc.

I saw an interesting article about de facto "copyright" on public domain 
artwork. The example was the Sistine chapel, long out of copyright, but 
there's only one, and the Vatican doesn't let you take pictures. Hence, 
altho it's public domain, there are no copies available to the public.

> elaborate scheme? At what point does it become impossible for future 
> owners to repaint it differently without violating my copyright?

I don't think copyright gives you the right to prevent others from 
*destroying* your work. :-)

> What about the second one to use pointillism or cubism in a painting?
> Or would that have to be covered with patent laws?

These are all questions that would come up under current copyrights, 
regardless of the timeframe granted, really.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message