file://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151840&cid=12745413

That’s the Gary Gross case.

There are several links on this page to “the facts.” It appears clear, however, you are simply unable to make meaningful use of them.

I can make use of them, having now seen them. My point about droit de suite and ever other form of copyright over-compensation. Not every use or dealing with a work should demand payment to the copyright owner; in fact, very few of them, ultimately, should.

It certainly was your tangible object. Unless you are using ectoplasm rather than vinyl, or pressing the records in ‘Second Life’.

The people who put the music on the record were the engineers and labourers who got the spiral scratch onto the disk. They have no further claim on it, unless you want tupperware to come with shrinkwrap licenses.

To answer the point you are trying to make: pleading for stronger copyright “for creators” on the basis of edge-cases (however tragic) is like pleading to make eviction easier so that more homeless people can be relocated into mantions.

Should authors of books get a cut of used book store sales? Perhaps bricklayers should get paid again each time a house is resold.

Wow, did you blow that one. So if I record a copy of a record and press it into a record myself it was MY ‘tangible object” that was sold and those who actually put the music on the original record have no legal claim to their work?

There are several links on this page to “the facts.” It appears clear, however, you are simply unable to make meaningful use of them.

I am not “a”.

Was he paid when he first took the photos, for paying them?

What right does he have, or should he have, for a cut when a tangible object is re-sold between two strangers?

Should authors of books get a cut of used book store sales? Perhaps bricklayers should get paid again each time a house is resold.

I’m all in favour of copyright. I’m also all in favour of legal, logistical, temporal, and spatial limits to copyright. Like, say, life+50. And like, say, no droit de suite, and the abolition of droit de suite where it exists.

Give me some more facts of this case, and I’ll decide how close your argument comes to being droit de suite.

This point has zero application to this context. Those pictures of Brooke were taken by Gross, they were original and he does have copyright on them and still sells them to this day. He hired Brooke from Ford, paid her five hundred bucks, and when Brooke got famous and her mom decided she didn’t want them published any more he sued Terri over his right to do exactly that.

They are, in every way, original works. An essentially exact copy of this original work, however, is not. Yet if Gross had even an inkling of a chance at victory in court it would have been pretty easy to get an attorney to defend his claim and he could have come away with a lot mroe than a mere two thousand dollars even after giving the lawyer half the judgement. Yet he didn’t — why do you think this is so?

And WJM, are you just “a” with a new nic? Or are you one of those copyright abolishionists? I think it is obvious why Gross deserves to be paid for work he created, you are the one not providing reason or sound argument.

Branko, you missed again.

A copyright is the right to create copies of works in a tangible form. In other words, the “progress of arts” (creativity) is interpreted by Congress as the production of works.

The pictures were taken, the “creative” part is fulfilled. Your post argues nothing at all in your favor in fact you are posting nearly completely out of context.

If an artist has already created a work but cannot find a publisher to reproduce that work en mass (and that is, at its heart, what we are talking about here in a photo processor refusing to make copies of her work) how are her rights in any way infringed? A publisher cannot be legally compelled to publish material they do not want to publish and a business cannot be compelled to provide services they do not wish to provide.

There are countless photo labs and even if every last one of them were to refuse to offer this service she can just go buy a good printer and do it herself. In fact, if she were to do this, she would then have a whole new opportunity to earn income by offering thiis service to other artists who find themselves in the same predicament.

You say this like something bad happened.

Why should he have gotten anything, let alone “all of $2000.00”?