13 Feb
2013
13 Feb
'13
12:41 a.m.
On Tuesday 12 February 2013 18:27:53 Al Thompson wrote:
On 02/12/2013 11:31 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Only because the law gives you an unnatural monopoly. Many of us get how the
law works and how it is used and abused. We get how influence is brought into
play such that the law gets worse and worse and the terms get extended such
that the deal that was supposedly made with the public keeps getting changed
after it is made such that the public gets screwed royally. Some of us don't
like it.
Telling us how we can be abused by using a law that permits this abuse is a
small comfort indeed.
When I sold my work, I also delivered the
ownership of this work. When I
sold a graphic, it would have been unethically for me to still own
nearly all rights for the usage of this graphic.
Keep in mind that there are different meanings to "selling your work."
Take a song, as an example.
Let's say that I've recorded and released an album.
Let's say that some big-name pop star buys the album. He buys it for
$10. That gives him the right to listen to it. He can't record it
himself. I still own all the rights to the usage of the song.
Let's say that he likes the song, and wants to record it and release it
on his next album. I then agree to give him a "mechanical license"
for a few cents per album he releases. I still own all the rights to
the usage of the song.
Then, let's say that he wants to be able to do more with the song - he
can buy the copyright, and then all the rights to the song will be his.
I have no rights to the song from that point on.
Somehow fashion designers manage to make what seems to be decent money
designing original fashions even where they do not get copyright protection
for their fashion designs.
Is it that fashion designers are more astute when it comes to getting paid for
hteir creations? Are they more intelligent than songwriters?
all the best,
drew