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.
Indeed.
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