http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SBC_sculpture_daytime.jpg

  Almost looks like raytraced, but seems to be just a photo.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:38:13 -0400, Warp wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SBC_sculpture_daytime.jpg
> 
>   Almost looks like raytraced, but seems to be just a photo.

It is, but I don't think it's a torus, the locals call it a "bean".

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ko27e8

According to Wikipedia:

"Cloud Gate is a highly polished reflective steel sculpture that is meant 
to resemble a drop of mercury hovering at the point of landing on a plaza 
of the park."

(The object is called "Cloud Gate")

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp escreveu:
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SBC_sculpture_daytime.jpg
> 
>   Almost looks like raytraced, but seems to be just a photo.

That's it!  We should open a challenge to reproduce it in povray! XD

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> That's it!  We should open a challenge to reproduce it in povray! XD

And then include the original as well in the voting results, and see how 
many people point out flaws in the modeling of the original. :-)

-- 
   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

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> It is, but I don't think it's a torus, the locals call it a "bean".

  It looked like a torus on that photo.

  Well, then it's closer to a reflective sphere... :P

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:37:05 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> It is, but I don't think it's a torus, the locals call it a "bean".
> 
>   It looked like a torus on that photo.

Well, yeah, that's why I found the overhead shot. ;-)

>   Well, then it's closer to a reflective sphere... :P

True, a very, very deformed sphere. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:37:50 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>nemesis wrote:
>> That's it!  We should open a challenge to reproduce it in povray! XD
>
>And then include the original as well in the voting results, and see how 
>many people point out flaws in the modeling of the original. :-)

No, no, no, no. Did you see all that copyright gobbledegook under the photo?
Someone will send the SWAT Lawyers in ;) 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen schrieb:
>>> That's it!  We should open a challenge to reproduce it in povray! XD
>> And then include the original as well in the voting results, and see how 
>> many people point out flaws in the modeling of the original. :-)
> 
> No, no, no, no. Did you see all that copyright gobbledegook under the photo?
> Someone will send the SWAT Lawyers in ;) 

"Per § 107 it is believed that reproduction for criticism, comment, 
teaching and scholarship constitutes fair use and does not infringe 
copyright"

I'd quite definitely file that under "teaching and scholarship"...

Post a reply to this message

>>   Well, then it's closer to a reflective sphere... :P
> 
> True, a very, very deformed sphere. :-)

Did you know that your body is topologically equivilent to a torus?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Did you know that your body is topologically equivilent to a torus?

Only if you have really, really bad allergies.

-- 
   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

>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SBC_sculpture_daytime.jpg
> 
>  Almost looks like raytraced, 

Nah..

http://www.povray.org/documentation/view/3.6.0/147/

:-)

Any isosurface whiz want to give us a function?

Post a reply to this message

> Did you know that your body is topologically equivilent to a torus?

Are you sure? Don't things like your nostrils complicate matters?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Did you know that your body is topologically equivilent to a torus?
> 
> Are you sure? Don't things like your nostrils complicate matters?

Mmm, good point. I guess the book I was reading glossed over that one. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:55:03 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

>
>"Per § 107 it is believed that reproduction for criticism, comment, 
>teaching and scholarship constitutes fair use and does not infringe 
>copyright"
>
>I'd quite definitely file that under "teaching and scholarship"...

I can't quite get my head around how a photograph of a piece of public art can
be copyrighted. And no I don't mean to open up a discussion ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> I can't quite get my head around how a photograph of a piece of public art can
> be copyrighted. And no I don't mean to open up a discussion ;)

Or how a recording of a public place can be copyrighted. Or the sheet 
music for something written several centuries ago. Or a recording of a 
free concert. Or, hell, somebody's DNA sequence...

Post a reply to this message

Stephen schrieb:
> I can't quite get my head around how a photograph of a piece of public art can
> be copyrighted. And no I don't mean to open up a discussion ;)

Things would get interesting if some other artist built another 
sculpture right besides it, or inside it, or around it, in a manner that 
the one could not be photographed without the other: Who would then be 
allowed to distribute photographs of the smash?

Or how about architects? Can they forbid photos of their buildings to be 
distributed? How could anyone then distribute photos of any public place 
at all?

(And how does Google go about it? Do they pay royalties for all the 
sculptures they show on Google Maps?)

The US do have some crazy copyright laws.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:56:47 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

>The US do have some crazy copyright laws.

There's capitalism for you!
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> The US do have some crazy copyright laws.
> 
> There's capitalism for you!

NO, THIS IS CAPITALISM. BUT YOU DO TEND TO FIND IT IN LICENSE AGREEMENTS 
FOR SOME REASON...

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:49:57 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>>> The US do have some crazy copyright laws.
>> 
>> There's capitalism for you!
>
>NO, THIS IS CAPITALISM. BUT YOU DO TEND TO FIND IT IN LICENSE AGREEMENTS 
>FOR SOME REASON...

LOL
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:27:02 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>>   Well, then it's closer to a reflective sphere... :P
>> 
>> True, a very, very deformed sphere. :-)
> 
> Did you know that your body is topologically equivilent to a torus?

LOL

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> I can't quite get my head around how a photograph of a piece of public art can
> be copyrighted. And no I don't mean to open up a discussion ;)

Certainly the photograph can be copyrighted. :-)

Plus, making a photograph is reproducing the work, so that's also a 
copyright violation. Just because it's visible to the public doesn't mean 
it's *yours*.  The work was commissioned to get people to go to that part of 
town to look at it. The purpose is defeated if you let people copy it.

Would you object to someone building a copy of your public artwork and 
putting it somewhere else?

-- 
   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

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:08:52 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Stephen wrote:
>> I can't quite get my head around how a photograph of a piece of public
>> art can be copyrighted. And no I don't mean to open up a discussion ;)
> 
> Certainly the photograph can be copyrighted. :-)

Indeed upon creation there is an implied copyright already applied. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>> The US do have some crazy copyright laws.
>>
>> There's capitalism for you!
> 
> NO, THIS IS CAPITALISM. BUT YOU DO TEND TO FIND IT IN LICENSE AGREEMENTS 
> FOR SOME REASON...

"CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL"

"...but even with cruise control, you still have to steer"

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:08:52 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> I can't quite get my head around how a photograph of a piece of public art can
>> be copyrighted. And no I don't mean to open up a discussion ;)
>
>Certainly the photograph can be copyrighted. :-)
>

I know.

>Plus, making a photograph is reproducing the work, so that's also a 
>copyright violation. Just because it's visible to the public doesn't mean 
>it's *yours*.  The work was commissioned to get people to go to that part of 
>town to look at it. The purpose is defeated if you let people copy it.
>

I would have thought that the more people that saw the photograph, the better to
fulfil the purpose.

>Would you object to someone building a copy of your public artwork and 
>putting it somewhere else?

No, I would be chuffed.

Seriously I would be pleased. I would like to be credited but if I saw any of my
PovRay images on the web I would be over the moon. But then, chance is a fine
thing.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SBC_sculpture_daytime.jpg
> 
>   Almost looks like raytraced, but seems to be just a photo.
> 

It's pretty, but a little too big and lonesome all by itself IMO. A 
mathematical "zoo" with a variety of shapes would have been cooler. Also 
could use a bit of greenery around it. The sculpture garden in DC is 
kind of anticlimactic and blah (except for the fountain in the center), 
so maybe the idea wouldn't work.

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Plus, making a photograph is reproducing the work, so that's also a
> copyright violation. Just because it's visible to the public doesn't
> mean it's *yours*.  The work was commissioned to get people to go to
> that part of town to look at it. The purpose is defeated if you let
> people copy it.
> 

That is one of those gray areas that I can't find any cases going
significantly one way or the other. If the work is displayed in a
private gallery, private meaning not public but may allow public access
at certain times, certainly there is copyright and it would be
infringement to take a picture. Some galleries want that copyright
restriction for as long as the original is in a private gallery, even
well past the death of the creator and the expiration of the most
lengthy copyright laws.

For a work that is displayed in public, on public land . . . Well, it
would be like Ford* trying to claim copyright infringement over every
photograph of a Mustang**. They could do it if they were brave enough,
but some judge is going to break legal ground deciding the case.

*Car company
**famous model of car that they produced

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:45:41 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> For a work that is displayed in public, on public land . . . Well, it
> would be like Ford* trying to claim copyright infringement over every
> photograph of a Mustang**. They could do it if they were brave enough,
> but some judge is going to break legal ground deciding the case.

IIRC, didn't Toyota try to get its logos removed from websites that were 
critical of their products?  Or some other manufacturer?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> For a work that is displayed in public, on public land 

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

You can copyright a building. I don't see why you can't copyright a piece of 
sculpture in the public. At least currently in the USA.

-- 
   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

Sabrina Kilian schrieb:
> Some galleries want that copyright
> restriction for as long as the original is in a private gallery, even
> well past the death of the creator and the expiration of the most
> lengthy copyright laws.

Hmm... just found this on http://www.copyright.gov/:

"Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any
other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor
the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership
of any material object that embodies a protected work
does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright"

So no, the galleries have /no/ copyright on the work, i.e. they can 
/not/ prohibit anyone from copying it by virtue of using a camera.

(They /can/ possibly prohibit use of cameras on their premises, but 
that's another issue...)

All this valid for the US only of course. And IANAL.

Post a reply to this message

> Would you object to someone building a copy of your public artwork and 
> putting it somewhere else?

What about if someone aimed a video camera at your artwork and displayed it 
on a big TV across the other side of town?

What about if it was visible on Google maps?

IMO once you make something available to the public (ie they can just see it 
for free with no restrictions) then you can't really do much about people 
copying it.  If you want to enforce restrictions then make it impossible for 
people to see until they have agreed to your terms and conditions.  This is 
what happens when you go to watch Formula 1, even the free testing sessions 
which are "open" to the public, you still need to get a ticket and agree to 
the T&Cs before you are allowed to enter (this includes agreeing not using 
any photos or videos for commercial purposes).

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> IMO once you make something available to the public (ie they can just 
> see it for free with no restrictions) then you can't really do much 
> about people copying it. 

Of course you can. You can sue them for copying it. You can have someone 
there to tell them not to take pictures. Etc.

Heck, you think broadcast TV shows aren't copyrighted?

> If you want to enforce restrictions then make 
> it impossible for people to see until they have agreed to your terms and 
> conditions.  

That would be license law, not copyright law. That's not even the same 
jurisdiction in the USA.

> (this includes agreeing not using any photos or videos for commercial 
> purposes).

I don't know if you can copyright a car race, so that can be different.

-- 
   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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I don't know if you can copyright a car race, so that can be different.

  Sometimes it feels like what falls and doesn't fall under copyright is
very, very arbitrary.

  For example, if someone plays a tune of 10 notes, that is rather obviously
copyrighted. However, if someone plays a chess game of 50 moves or a go game
of 400 moves, that's *not* copyrighted (anyone can publish the game as they
want). If someone designs a sudoku problem, that *is* copyrighted (as far
as I know). If someone designs a food recipe, that is *not* copyrighted
(well, the text and its formatting is, but not the contents of the recipe).

  With such arbitrary rules, you really need to be a lawyer specialized on
copyright law to be always sure.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> For a work that is displayed in public, on public land 
> 
> http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html
> 
> You can copyright a building. I don't see why you can't copyright a
> piece of sculpture in the public. At least currently in the USA.
> 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000120----000-.html

When in doubt, Wikipedia for the chapter and section of legal code, and
Cornell for the actual words.

17.1 120 (a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.— The copyright in an
architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right
to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures,
paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work,
if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or
ordinarily visible from a public place.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian schrieb:
>> Some galleries want that copyright
>> restriction for as long as the original is in a private gallery, even
>> well past the death of the creator and the expiration of the most
>> lengthy copyright laws.
> 
> Hmm... just found this on http://www.copyright.gov/:
> 
> "Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any
> other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor
> the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership
> of any material object that embodies a protected work
> does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright"
> 
> So no, the galleries have /no/ copyright on the work, i.e. they can
> /not/ prohibit anyone from copying it by virtue of using a camera.
> 
> (They /can/ possibly prohibit use of cameras on their premises, but
> that's another issue...)
> 
> All this valid for the US only of course. And IANAL.

I didn't mean to imply that they did have copyright on the artwork, just
that some have tried to claim that they did. There was a museum or
gallery that sued a publisher for including prints of rather famous
paintings, where the originals of those paintings was in the museum or
gallery. The argument was that the paintings were in their possession,
and that taking pictures without their consent on a 'no cameras allowed'
property either gave them copyright over the pictures or made it illegal
to print them, both of which are rather silly claims.

It went to court anyhow, but I can not find anything on google about it.
 Could be that 'museum painting copyright prints' is just too vague a
search set. I will try later when I am awake.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> 17.1 120 (a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.— The copyrigh
t in an
> architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right

> to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures,
> paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work,

> if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or
> ordinarily visible from a public place.

Kewl. I guess that exception settles it. :-)

-- 
   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

Sabrina Kilian schrieb:
> I didn't mean to imply that they did have copyright on the artwork, just
> that some have tried to claim that they did. There was a museum or
> gallery that sued a publisher for including prints of rather famous
> paintings, where the originals of those paintings was in the museum or
> gallery. The argument was that the paintings were in their possession,
> and that taking pictures without their consent on a 'no cameras allowed'
> property either gave them copyright over the pictures or made it illegal
> to print them, both of which are rather silly claims.

I guess they still sued for violating their "house rules", to get at 
least /something/ out of it.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian schrieb:
> 17.1 120 (a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.— The copyright in an
> architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right
> to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures,
> paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work,
> if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or
> ordinarily visible from a public place.

Hum... then can't we just argue that the sculpture in question is an 
architectural work? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Hum... then can't we just argue that the sculpture in question is an 
> architectural work? ;-)

I think it likely is, yes.

-- 
   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

Darren New schrieb:
>> Hum... then can't we just argue that the sculpture in question is an 
>> architectural work? ;-)
> 
> I think it likely is, yes.

(I fear it actually isn't. Or does it qualify as a "building"?)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Darren New schrieb:
>>> Hum... then can't we just argue that the sculpture in question is an 
>>> architectural work? ;-)
>>
>> I think it likely is, yes.
> 
> (I fear it actually isn't. Or does it qualify as a "building"?)

Oh, sorry. Reading it again, I thought it said "structure" and not 
"building".  So buildings can be copyrighted but not bridges? Odd.

-- 
   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

Darren New schrieb:
> Oh, sorry. Reading it again, I thought it said "structure" and not 
> "building".  So buildings can be copyrighted but not bridges? Odd.

That would appear to be so indeed.

Post a reply to this message

>> IMO once you make something available to the public (ie they can just see 
>> it for free with no restrictions) then you can't really do much about 
>> people copying it.
>
> Of course you can. You can sue them for copying it.

Can you really make something that is visible to the public and then sue 
them for taking photos of it?  That seems bizarre.  *IMO* if you put 
something on display for the public to see you have no right to stop people 
taking photos and doing what they want with those photos.

> Heck, you think broadcast TV shows aren't copyrighted?

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.  I mean if you 
publically broadcast *for free* to the whole population some TV show, 
doesn't it seem a bit wrong that two weeks later you then go and try to sue 
someone for making a copy?  Anyway I don't think that happens, at least in 
Europe a lot of the major TV stations seem to putting online all their 
previous programs, so you can do it totally legally now without resorting to 
bitTorrent.

> 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.

Post a reply to this message

scott schrieb:
> Can you really make something that is visible to the public and then sue 
> them for taking photos of it?  That seems bizarre.  *IMO* if you put 
> something on display for the public to see you have no right to stop 
> people taking photos and doing what they want with those photos.

Well, it's not /that/ far-fetched: You're carrying your face around all 
day in public, too - still, if anybody wants to publish a photograph of 
that particular face taken in public, strictly they'd still need your 
agreement.

> 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.  I mean if 
> you publically broadcast *for free* to the whole population some TV 
> show, doesn't it seem a bit wrong that two weeks later you then go and 
> try to sue someone for making a copy?

Now, imagine a simger-songwriter, doing a beneficial puplic gig 
somewhere. Would that entitle people to just copy his songs and not pay 
him any royalties?

Also note that although TV stations don't charge the public for their 
broadcasts, they do charge for it in a sense: They get their money from 
companies advertising in the breaks and between the shows. So they're 
not really giving away stuff for free - they're making money out of it.

Post a reply to this message

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

Darren New schrieb:
> 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.)

That appears to make no sense to me, as copyright /always/ exists on a 
copyrightable work.

Maybe the mechanism is as follows:

(1) You officialy /register/ your copyright, which requires you to 
publish the work (in the register).

(2) From that publication, anyone can freely exercise "fair use" rights.

Versus:

(1) You refrain from officially registering your claim to the copyright

(2) Instead of making the work /publicly/ available, you only present it 
to people willing to waive their rights to "fair use".

(3) If they nonetheless copy the work without your consent, they 
automatically make their access to the work illegitimate; and as "fair 
use" copying requires legitimate access to the work, they're screwed.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> That appears to make no sense to me, as copyright /always/ exists on a 
> copyrightable work.

The laws have changed over the years. Before the Bourne convention, for 
example, this was not a true statement. You had to actually put a copyright 
mark on the work for it to be copyrighted.

-- 
   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

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:17:03 +0200, "scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:

>Can you really make something that is visible to the public and then sue 
>them for taking photos of it?  That seems bizarre.  *IMO* if you put 
>something on display for the public to see you have no right to stop people 
>taking photos and doing what they want with those photos.

That's what I thought.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> Can you really give software away for free and then sue someone for not 
> providing the source with the object code?

Assuming it was completely for free (ie you didn't make them sign or agree 
to some specific license) then I hope you can't sue them.

> Can you really broadcast a movie over radio waves then sue someone for 
> selling tapes they made of the broadcast?

Again, assuming the public are legally allowed to receive that radio 
frequency freely, then that transmission is already "released" to the 
public.  You shouldn't be then allowed to try and control what the public 
does with your transmission.  If you want to control your work, don't 
release it for free to the public.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Can you really give software away for free and then sue someone for 
>> not providing the source with the object code?
> 
> Assuming it was completely for free (ie you didn't make them sign or 
> agree to some specific license) then I hope you can't sue them.

I don't have to agree to any license at all to obtain GPL software. It is 
completely free for me to obtain it.

> You shouldn't be then allowed 

There's that word "should" again.

-- 
   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

scott wrote:
> If you want to control your work, 
> don't release it for free to the public.

I guess you lose your copyright if you give your book to the library to loan 
out?

-- 
   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