🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <By6xAx.K5I@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.012853.14667@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>>   I think that if they aren't being hurt, that most creators would be happy
>>that others are making good use of thier works. At least works that they
>>have exposed to the public. Since I think a.b.p.e is harmless, I think most
>>creators wouldn't object to it. I don't think I would.
>
>Humph!  You don't think you would do you?  Why do I get a funny
>feeling you haven't ever "created" anything?
>
   I have a little trouble with this point of view. Once a picture is published
in Playboy, it has been widely exposed. Why should the creator them object
to a person scanning it and posting it to a.b.p.e?
   The only reason I can see is a zero tolerance view of copyright. That by
posting it you might take away a very very minute market.

   Artists don't genarally have total control over thier work once it it
released. Sure, you can keep your best painting in your basement to fulfill a
sence of control, but how much control do you expect to have over how people
treat your work?
   Certainly you expect people not to use your work in commercial enterprises.
You expect them to not compete with your own enterprises. But you don't
expect them to obey your every wish merely because it was yours.

DanZ


-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.