[photo-3d] More on Copyright

[boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

>   From: "Mr.Lizard" <mrlizard@xxxxxxxx>
...
>holder can lose the copyright if they don't make an attempt to protect it.

I don't really have time for this, and this is barely relevant to the list
- but several people have essentially called for me to weigh in on this
topic.

Let it be known from the outset that I have broken copyright law myself.
First in a video that I produced in the late '80s, where try as I might, I
could not get the copyright holders (or publishers) to even reply to my
inquiries for permission.  Then, similarly, in 1997 when I put on my NSA
slide shows to recorded music of my favorite artists.  Maybe I'll not do
that again...

Chuck Field wonders whether I should have to defend myself or lose
ownership.  That's preposterous.  Copyright law exists, like the "rule of
law" in general, to protect individuals' rights and properties
_efficiently_.  As much as I am an advocate of principled self-defense, it
is pure folly to suggest that people hire armies to actively protect their
properties (intellectual or otherwise), for fear of otherwise losing them
to the marauding barbarians.

That said, the law does have some feature by which I lose copyright, but I
am not sure it applies unless my images have been stolen and distributed to
such an extent that they essentially become common household words.  Like
"Aspirin" or "Crescent wrench" or "Scotch tape" - and I believe even in
these cases copyrights have not been lost technically, though perhaps
practically.

The remedy (i.e. the fine or restitution) in a suit over copyright is based
on several factors, among them: actual lost income (such as when George
starts selling dupes of my nudes to Mr. Lizard, thereby taking sales away
from me), and lost value to my property (such as when George's dupes are so
crappy, they tarnish the carefully constructed image of high quality in
STAROSTA's marvelous nudes).  In a suit against George, I believe I would
have to show actual numbers representing these losses.

More important to me than direct monetary considerations is the matter of
artistic control.  It is my hope that when George remounts my slides in
R-format, he does so only where appropriate.  SOme of my vertical images
really need the whole 35mm of height, and to crop these to 23mm high would
be misrepresenting my art.  (Besides which I am a decided fan of 2x2x2, and
would not smile upon a use of my art to promote the 101x41mm format.  But I
know that is not what is happening, right?)

To his credit, Ron Labbe (or maybe it was Ray Zone, I can't remember, it's
in my files somewhere) did ask for permission to show my images publicly,
and I granted the permissions under certain conditions.

Respectfully submitted,





- Science is the part of culture that rubs against the world.
-
-                                     Stanislaw Lem, _His Master's Voice_

Boris Starosta                        boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Stereoscopic Art & 3-D Photography    http://www.starosta.com
usa - 804 979 3930                    http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase