Copyright: Where do you draw the line?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-01-01 03:09pm

I'm currently in Nova Scotia spending christmas and new year with a friend here and we visited the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia the other day. When we entered we were informed that photography was not allowed inside the gallery or the Ancient World exhibition. I asked if it was due to flash photography damaging the paintings etc. I was informed that it was due to copyright issues.

The items in the exhibit date from 5000 BC to 350 AD...and apparently cannot be photographed due to copyright. Exactly where does the line get drawn with ownership of culture and history in your opinion?

Happy Birthday for example is still copyrighted and will remain so until at least 2030...what ever happened to the public domain?

Majin Gojira · Post by **Majin Gojira** » 2006-01-01 03:11pm

Disney keeps lobbying to extend Copyright laws, because they are built on charactes created by a guy who died over 30 years ago.

As long as they can, they'll extend the date. It's assinine what they do.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-01-01 03:33pm

Majin Gojira wrote:Disney keeps lobbying to extend Copyright laws, because they are built on charactes created by a guy who died over 30 years ago.

As long as they can, they'll extend the date. It's assinine what they do.

I cant get over the idea of copyright applying to canopic jars dating back thousands of years. There is a definite disconnect in terms of logic there...

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-01-01 03:44pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:I cant get over the idea of copyright applying to canopic jars dating back thousands of years. There is a definite disconnect in terms of logic there...

It would make sense to me if the exhibit is using photos of the jars for promotional purposes, for example, or if they'd allowed a business or magazine or something to use the jars' images. Then images of the jars would be copyrighted, but not the jars themselves.

Jew · Post by **Jew** » 2006-01-01 04:10pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:I was informed that it was due to copyright issues.

There's always the possibility that whoever told you that was lying or mistaken. As for copyright, personally I think 14 or 28 years should be sufficient.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-01-01 05:18pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:I'm currently in Nova Scotia spending christmas and new year with a friend here and we visited the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia the other day. When we entered we were informed that photography was not allowed inside the gallery or the Ancient World exhibition. I asked if it was due to flash photography damaging the paintings etc. I was informed that it was due to copyright issues.

They had it wrong. It's not about copyright issues, it's about ownership. Whoever owns the pieces does not want them photographed without permission, and the museum has to respect that.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-01-01 05:22pm

Poor choice of the words on part of the museum staff. There's money to be made and publicity to be had with postcards and magazine deals. It's not like some Spartan mask is actually (c) 230 B.C., Hephaestus.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-01-01 05:37pm

Hi, I stole this from a grave. I dont want anyone to take pictures because its mine now!

Qwerty 42 · Post by **Qwerty 42** » 2006-01-01 06:43pm

well, the old Mickey Mouse should be public domain by now, but his later incarnations are protected by copyright still. For example, covers of the Memphis Minnie "When the Levee Breaks" are fine because they're public domain, but if you specifically cover the Led Zeppelin version, you need to pay up.

Fleet Admiral JD · Post by **Fleet Admiral JD** » 2006-01-01 07:22pm

I think it should depend on what the object is. For example, the cultural items such as in the OP have existed for thousands of years. They are pieces of culture, part of our history. It's like saying the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution can't be photographed.

William Shakespear's Othello, on the other hand, shouldn't be able to be reprinted by any fucktard who want's to make a quick buck. The copyright on that should remain in the hands of, well, the people who hold the copyright.

But that's kind of asinine that you can't take pictures due to a copyright infringment.

Qwerty 42 · Post by **Qwerty 42** » 2006-01-01 07:25pm

Fleet Admiral JD wrote:I think it should depend on what the object is. For example, the cultural items such as in the OP have existed for thousands of years. They are pieces of culture, part of our history. It's like saying the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution can't be photographed.

William Shakespear's Othello, on the other hand, shouldn't be able to be reprinted by any fucktard who want's to make a quick buck. The copyright on that should remain in the hands of, well, the people who hold the copyright.

But that's kind of asinine that you can't take pictures due to a copyright infringment.

Well, you can't use flash when taking pictures of the Bill of Rights, Constitution, Declaration of Independance, or the Mona Lisa, and that's just off the top of my head. The flash damages the ink.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-01-01 07:27pm

Fleet Admiral JD wrote:I think it should depend on what the object is. For example, the cultural items such as in the OP have existed for thousands of years. They are pieces of culture, part of our history. It's like saying the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution can't be photographed.

William Shakespear's Othello, on the other hand, shouldn't be able to be reprinted by any fucktard who want's to make a quick buck. The copyright on that should remain in the hands of, well, the people who hold the copyright.

But that's kind of asinine that you can't take pictures due to a copyright infringment.

Othello? What THE FUCK?

The author has been dead for hundereds of years, why should the rights not be in the public domain? Why should someone make a living trading off the work of someone that has been dead for centuries? What effort have they put in to get a profit? They're trading in the rights to culture.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-01-01 07:28pm

Qwerty 42 wrote:
Fleet Admiral JD wrote:I think it should depend on what the object is. For example, the cultural items such as in the OP have existed for thousands of years. They are pieces of culture, part of our history. It's like saying the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution can't be photographed.

William Shakespear's Othello, on the other hand, shouldn't be able to be reprinted by any fucktard who want's to make a quick buck. The copyright on that should remain in the hands of, well, the people who hold the copyright.

But that's kind of asinine that you can't take pictures due to a copyright infringment.
Well, you can't use flash when taking pictures of the Bill of Rights, Constitution, Declaration of Independance, or the Mona Lisa, and that's just off the top of my head. The flash damages the ink.

Yes, however with digital cameras you dont need it.

Qwerty 42 · Post by **Qwerty 42** » 2006-01-01 07:40pm

Exactly, I was just saying that places of that variety do have their reasons for prohibiting flash photography, not that it's always prohibited.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2006-01-01 07:44pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:Happy Birthday for example is still copyrighted and will remain so until at least 2030...what ever happened to the public domain?

Er...what?

Since when did "Happy Birthday" get copyrighted? And by who?

Assuming this is just the words "Happy Birthday" here and not some band/song/movie/whatever.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-01-01 07:51pm

RogueIce wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:Happy Birthday for example is still copyrighted and will remain so until at least 2030...what ever happened to the public domain?
Er...what?

Since when did "Happy Birthday" get copyrighted? And by who?

Assuming this is just the words "Happy Birthday" here and not some band/song/movie/whatever.

I think he's talking about the song

Happy birthday to you!
Happy birthday to you!
Happy birthday, dear *mumblemumble*!
Happy birthday to you!

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2006-01-01 08:51pm

Life of the author/creator plus a reasonable timeframe for direct heirs to enjoy the fruits of the labor. As far as the museum they may not have copyrighted the artifacts themselves, rather they may have decided to be cute and copyrighted the arrangement, exhibit, or whatever.

They have a far better case of simply banning cameras for insurance reasons.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-01-01 08:58pm

Fleet Admiral JD wrote:William Shakespear's Othello, on the other hand, shouldn't be able to be reprinted by any fucktard who want's to make a quick buck. The copyright on that should remain in the hands of, well, the people who hold the copyright.

But that's kind of asinine that you can't take pictures due to a copyright infringment.

Othello and every other Shakespeare play has been in the public domain for hundreds of years.

Under US law, copyright exists for the life of the author plus seventy years, for works created after 1977. That's enough time for him and two generations of heirs to profit from it, and then I guess they figure if the work is still read or watched by then, it's a genuine piece of culture.

There's no way to copyright an artifact dug up from the ground, but as Tharkun said, they may have copyrighted the exhibit itself, or the owners of the artifacts loaned them on the condition of no photography.

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2006-01-01 10:12pm

So long as you're not profiting from it, and so long as an uniformed observer couldn't mistake the copy as the original work of the copier, then it's fine. I don't see why artifacts at a museum would be considered private domain (unless it's not publicly funded), but if you don't plan to sell the copies, what's the harm?

Braedley · Post by **Braedley** » 2006-01-02 03:27pm

The Aliens wrote:So long as you're not profiting from it, and so long as an uniformed observer couldn't mistake the copy as the original work of the copier, then it's fine. I don't see why artifacts at a museum would be considered private domain (unless it's not publicly funded), but if you don't plan to sell the copies, what's the harm?

AGNS recieves some funding from the province, but by far most of it comes from patrons and donations (can't give you source, but if you ask the staff, this is what they'll tell you). They only receive money from the province because they are a cultural/educational institution.

As for the reason, it's BS in this case. There has always been a policy of no flash photography at AGNS (just like most other museums and art galleries), and I assume there are numerous reasons for this, including copyright and the protection of the works, but there are probably many more than these.

disclaimer: It's been many years since I've been in the AGNS.

Cyborg Stan · Post by **Cyborg Stan** » 2006-01-02 11:02pm

Hmmmmmm... that reminds me of a story I read once.

The People That Owned the Bible

Hethrir · Post by **Hethrir** » 2006-01-04 03:30am

[quote="Keevan_Colton"]The items in the exhibit date from 5000 BC to 350 AD...and apparently cannot be photographed due to copyright. Exactly where does the line get drawn with ownership of culture and history in your opinion?/quote]The museum would be banning photography so people will pay to get in still. If you can see pics on the 'net, why would you visit the museum?

As for the copyright laws, it's not just the expiry date that's an issue to me, it's the fact that copyright no longer protects to the creator, but the holder of the licence.

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2006-01-04 06:12pm

Personally I think that the person having the copyrights should have some sort clear connection to creator of the orginal product (aka the Creator him- or herself, the family of said person, the company said person worked for during the time he made said product and so on..)

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-01-04 06:55pm

Lord Revan wrote:Personally I think that the person having the copyrights should have some sort clear connection to creator of the orginal product (aka the Creator him- or herself, the family of said person, the company said person worked for during the time he made said product and so on..)

That would make it effectively impossible for a creator to sell his rights.

Jew · Post by **Jew** » 2006-01-05 08:57am

RedImperator wrote:That would make it effectively impossible for a creator to sell his rights.

That's the point. The original reason for copyright is to benefit the public by providing a way to let artists (aka creators) profit from their work, thus allowing them to spend all their time on creating new stuff for the insatiable public. Allowing a creator to sell his copyright opens up opportunities for businesses to abuse the creator by buying his copyright for a pittance, making lots of money off it, and not paying him any royalties.

A better system would be to give the creator a non-transferable copyright (he can't sell or give away the copyright) and then have compulsory licensing fees for anyone who wants to use his copyrighted material. That way businesses can use his copyright and make bucketloads of money, but they always have to give him a percentage of the takings.

It would work very much like music radio does today. Today, radio stations don't have to run around to each copyright holder and get permision to play a song on the radio. They just play the song and pay the compulsory licensing fee. The songwriter and singer don't have the power to prevent the radio station from playing their song, but the radio station must pay the government-mandated license fee to the songwriter and singer. We should have a similar system for all types of copyrighted material, not just songs.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Copyright: Where do you draw the line?

Copyright: Where do you draw the line?

Re: Copyright: Where do you draw the line?

Re: Copyright: Where do you draw the line?

Re: Copyright: Where do you draw the line?

Re: Copyright: Where do you draw the line?

Re: Copyright: Where do you draw the line?