Bizarre English copyright case.

Started Jan 26, 2012 | Discussions thread
Hen3ry Forum Pro • Posts: 18,218
Yes and no, Sante

Sante Patate wrote:

The idea that people who write books are the paradigm of the person who benefits from copyright is out of date. Copyright is the tool of the television, movie and music industries, not of the creators. That is why US copyright law has such weak "moral rights" provisions compared to other jurisdictions.

The weakening of copyright laws in respect of authors and the lengthening of copyright provisions (and the same with patents) in respect of holders is new reflecting the power of corporations and the loss of power by individuals in the world generally, at the behest of corporations/big money.

I agree, it's disgusting.

The reason fashion changes every season is precisely because the designs are not copyright: the only thing they have is novelty. You can argue about whether ever-changing fashion is a good thing, but it disposes once and for all of the idea that if there were no copyright there would be no creativity.

A fashion design can be copyright and designs are licensed. Didn’t you know? Generally, the labels don't bother, though because they use designs for such short periods -- they change with the seasons so have a life of two to three months -- and the label is more important than the banal designs.

Creativity? That's extending the meaning of the word in respect of clothing design!

Cheers, geoff
Geoffrey Heard

 Hen3ry's gear list:Hen3ry's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic G85 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 45-175mm F4.0-5.6 ASPH OIS +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow