----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Another contribution to the copyright discussion: the whole area of
"reproduction rights" is, I believe legally quite cloudy. Can it be -- should
it be -- that , say, the Louvre has the right to control all reproductions of
all works in its collections, forever. Copyright of all other forms of
intellectual property expires, sooner or later: the novels of Joyce, the operas
of Mozart, etc., all become available for copying and reproduction by anyone.
Why is a painting different? Obviously a museum can control the right to take
photographs of the original; but is there any strong moral or legal argument
for limiting use of "second-generation" images? Guaranteeing a revenue stream
for rights holders (I recently heard someone say) was not the core intent of
copyright law; how does one justify the unique status of works of visual art?
William Lang
Rare Book Department
The Free Library of Philadelphia
|