Mailing List Archive

Re: Article: Public Domain Art in an Age of Easier Mechanical Reproducibility (Sage Ross)
There are much morer statements than by Hamma and Hirtle, see:

http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5405864/
http://hangingtogether.org/?p=692

Klaus Graf

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Article: Public Domain Art in an Age of Easier Mechanical Reproducibility (Sage Ross) [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
I had a read of the first one. While it is nice that there is an
understanding that copyright has to do with authorship, the fact of the
matter is that it is not the author that benefits from copyright. This is
best understood in the way they define the types of copyright:
*commercial
*scholarly

In this way it is forgotten that there is research by people who are none of
the above. In this duopoly it is easy to give to companies what should not
be theirs in the first place.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/7/13 Klaus Graf <klausgraf@googlemail.com>

> There are much morer statements than by Hamma and Hirtle, see:
>
> http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5405864/
> http://hangingtogether.org/?p=692
>
> Klaus Graf
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Article: Public Domain Art in an Age of Easier Mechanical Reproducibility (Sage Ross) [ In reply to ]
"the fact of the matter is that it is not the author that benefits from
copyright"

unfounded and untrue.

I wish you health and true happiness.
teun

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hoi,
> I had a read of the first one. While it is nice that there is an
> understanding that copyright has to do with authorship, the fact of the
> matter is that it is not the author that benefits from copyright. This is
> best understood in the way they define the types of copyright:
> *commercial
> *scholarly
>
> In this way it is forgotten that there is research by people who are none
> of
> the above. In this duopoly it is easy to give to companies what should not
> be theirs in the first place.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> 2009/7/13 Klaus Graf <klausgraf@googlemail.com>
>
> > There are much morer statements than by Hamma and Hirtle, see:
> >
> > http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5405864/
> > http://hangingtogether.org/?p=692
> >
> > Klaus Graf
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Article: Public Domain Art in an Age of Easier Mechanical Reproducibility (Sage Ross) [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
Why ?
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/7/13 teun spaans <teun.spaans@gmail.com>

> "the fact of the matter is that it is not the author that benefits from
> copyright"
>
> unfounded and untrue.
>
> I wish you health and true happiness.
> teun
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I had a read of the first one. While it is nice that there is an
> > understanding that copyright has to do with authorship, the fact of the
> > matter is that it is not the author that benefits from copyright. This is
> > best understood in the way they define the types of copyright:
> > *commercial
> > *scholarly
> >
> > In this way it is forgotten that there is research by people who are none
> > of
> > the above. In this duopoly it is easy to give to companies what should
> not
> > be theirs in the first place.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > 2009/7/13 Klaus Graf <klausgraf@googlemail.com>
> >
> > > There are much morer statements than by Hamma and Hirtle, see:
> > >
> > > http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5405864/
> > > http://hangingtogether.org/?p=692
> > >
> > > Klaus Graf
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l