scott wrote:
> I meant completely freely available, with the permission of the author. 
> eg when a band or author authorises their song/book/whatever to be
> distributed via the internet or bitTorrent or whatever with no
> charge/contract.  In that case I don't think they would be able to
> (successfully) sue if someone wanted to charge for copying the works.
> 

That is not how I understood the argument you were making. I read the
postcard argument up thread as duplicating the postcard itself by means
of a camera and printer. That would be a copyright violation, since you
are copying their picture directly.

I only thought that because you had suggested that radio broadcasts were
being displayed to the public and should have no copyright. Same as a
postcard on display in a public place.

Upon re-reading the discussion, I take it that you meant someone going
out and taking a picture of the same statue. In that case the
photographer could, I think, sell the picture, at least in the USA. US
Code title 17, chapter 1, section 120 covers the copyright of
architectural works that are visible from public spaces. Section 113
covers sculptures or other visual work sold or displayed to the public.
I can't parse 113 this early in the morning to work out all the fine
details, but first glance tells me that is how it works.

IANAL, TINLA

Post a reply to this message