scott wrote:
> Can you really make something that is visible to the public and then sue 
> them for taking photos of it?  That seems bizarre.

Can you really give software away for free and then sue someone for not 
providing the source with the object code?  Can you really broadcast a movie 
over radio waves then sue someone for selling tapes they made of the broadcast?

> Oh I know they are, but *IMO* if you give something to the public you 
> shouldn't expect to be able to keep control of it after that.

Well, if you're arguing about "should"s rather than "can"s, I have no comment.

>> That would be license law, not copyright law. That's not even the same 
>> jurisdiction in the USA.
> 
> But I think if the person has explicity agreed to some condition it is 
> easier to prosecute them, rather than having to get involved with 
> whether what they did actually broke copyright law or not.

Sure, but then we're no longer talking about copyright. Indeed, having a 
copyright on something can actually *reduce* the things you can sue over. 
For example, if you copyright a picture, then have a contract that someone 
signs before you let them see it saying they're not allowed to do something 
with it that fair use allows, that part of the contract is unenforcable. (Or 
at least was before DMCA - now I don't know.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message