3 ms·

I don't know, perhaps ones wife has some boudoir photos taken. Just that they exist would entitle anyone to the right to view them, if they could get them?

I don't know, perhaps ones wife has some boudoir photos taken. Just that they exist would entitle anyone to the right to view them, if they could get them? Moreover, say her husband does things to restrict said access, would people really say that that is immoral? That doesn't seem quite right to me. Does the content creator (since there would be no 'owner' without copyright) have any say over the use or distribution? I think of all those rock stars that have had politicians misappropriate their songs and then asked them to stop using them over the years. I wonder what that felt like, you wrote this hit song that was powerful and evoked emotion and then someone you are ideologically opposed to tried to use it for their purpose.

Qwertious 11y ago
>Just that they exist would entitle anyone to the right to view them, if they could get them? You've got the "rights" the wrong way around - it's not that people have the right to see the boudoir photos, it's that people have the right to copy photos they own, and the husband/wife are not allowed to infringe on that right. Basically, it's not "thou shalt not kill", rather than "right to life", although people implicitly do have the right to copy. The exception being, obviously, copyright - which is a temporary state-sanctioned monopoly on the right to copy your works (in other words, you're temporarily the sole holder of the copy right), for the sake of producing more artistic works for the general public.