[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Free Art License

On Thu, 04 May 2006 09:08:24 +0200 Frank Küster wrote:

> Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> > It *does* mean you would be forever required to keep updated
> > information on  where recipients can access the original artwork.
> >
> > (For the Mona Lisa, the answer would be The Louvre.)
> >
> > The freeness of this is arguable.  I think it's supposed to be
> > primarily a  form of attribution or credit, and it doesn't seem
> > unreasonable to me.   However, it may be overbroad.  Convince me. 
> > Perhaps keeping track of the  movements of the Mona Lisa as it's
> > sold to different museums *is*  unreasonable.
> Especially since it could be stolen.

Am I required to catch the thieves before I can distribute copies
again?!?   :-|

> On the other hand, it is
> important for a free piece of physical artwork that it be publically
> accessible; the one who has power over the license (the Louvre, I
> guess) would also have to make sure that, when it is sold, it will not
> end up in a private house.

The licensor is not bound by the license.
The licensee is.

If the original ends up in a private house, I, as a licensee, am not
anymore able to specify where the recipient will be able to access the
original, since he/she could be unable to access it...
Another problem.

    :-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
  Francesco Poli                             GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpr9RLOPeH4W.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: