P3D Re: 3D-CD glitch

[Don Chaps <donc@xxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Marvin Jones wrote:

> Message text written by INTERNET:photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >I agree with the gist of responses to this problem. To draw a simple
> analogy: if you write a letter to one individual, or a number of specific,
> known individuals, that could be considered a private communication, with
> a subsequent right to privacy regarding the content. But write a letter
> to, for example a newspaper, and you instantly forfeit any claim to
> privacy and considerations of personal property. Do you tell the newspaper
> to exclude your letter from the microfiche copy? I think not.<
> 
> Excellent analogy. I'm always puzzled when someone on the list (and this
> has come up before) willingly blasts their message to a thousand or more
> people world-wide yet seems horrified at the thought that anyone would read
> it. But since it HAS come up before, and since it now threatens to sabotage
> an immense amount of time-consuming volunteer work by Dan on an excellent
> and valuable record, I think something should be done to keep it from
> happening again in the future. I propose that the group's charter, or
> whatever it is called, that is sent to all members upon sub*scription,
> clearly indicate that all correspondence with the mailing list is
> considered to be in the public domain (or even to be copyrighted by the
> list and not the individual). Anyone who is unhappy with the prospect of
> something they write to the list being seen by anyone should be invited to
> un*sub*scribe. Anyone second the motion?
> 
> 
Some things have to objected to on principle. I have no objection to my
posts being quoted, even though if you told me "This is for inclusion in a
book" I might have spoken differently than if I thought it was friendly
informal conversation between friends.

Let's say that as internet bandwith increases I can not only babble
about my photos, but show them to you-

"wow, I screwed my Horizon 202's to a plexiglas mount and took some cool
stereo photos." Then I showed them to you.

Do you think that you acquired the rights to my photos because I showed
them to you? If you were here in San Francisco and we met at Cafe Trieste
for an expresso or a double cap and I showed you my recent photos while we
talked, do you think you could publish my photos without my permission?

Listserv groups are like discussions among friends or like philosophical
discussions in coffeehouses. Where in this process do you see ownership of
my works being transferred to you? 

I have no problem with the free flow of ideas. Knowledge strives to be
free. I teach what I know for free; photography, visual design,
cryptography, etc. But I object to anyone taking my works, putting their
name on them, and trying to make a profit. There is a difference
between facts and creative works.


Ask me to show you the main relationships in view camera photography: The
relationship between the film plane and the subject controls
perspective and the relationship between the film plane and the lens plane
controls the plane of focus. I'll be glad to show you. Learn, put them in
your words, write your book, I'll recommend it. Copy down my words, take
my illustrations, put your name on it all and sell it... now isn't that
different?

If ideas aren't protected, why would any listserv member or manufacturer
share an idea with the list? Sharing a photo, short story, movie with a
friend or friends does not transfer the rights of creation to the person
to whom it is shown. 

Whew.....


Giving the 3d list wide accessibility is a noble purpose. But if someone
objects to be included, exclude his posts. B--- G---- and his evil minions
would like us to give up the economic value of our ideas to him. We must
resist.

Even to an artist, it is easy to write a program that removes a post from
an address that objects. If we need to get explicit permission to publish
posts in an archive, let's write a daemon that automatically responds in
email to each post saying:

	May we use this post in our archives?
	May we use all future posts unless you delete a specific post?
	If you have previously given us blanket permission, we will
		archive this post unless you remove permission for this
		particular post.





If I were in a cafe and someone was recording the conversations, I would
expect them to get explicit written permission to copy my conversation and
use it for a commercial purpose. How is this different?




------------------------------