4 ms·
It's about the precedent. Without protections like this, it's pretty hard to imagine creators being incentivized to produce new work.
by andy99 3y ago
It's about the precedent. Without protections like this, it's pretty hard to imagine creators being incentivized to produce new work.
- ok_dad 3y agoYea Michelangelo hasn’t produced in a while now probably due to motivation, it’s hard out there for an artist who is just trying to break into the scene.
- HenryBemis 3y agoI believe that it's more about protecting the image of the artwork. Imagine using the statue to promote product X. Then imagine that every icon/building/etc. being used to promote something that you/the nation goes against (i.e. the statue in the cover of a porn magazine, or a historical monument to promote the latest crypto-fraud-coin. I understand that the Colosseum, the Acropolis, or the statue of David won't be physically damaged by such an ad, but still..
- darby_eight 3y agoYou're describing a more restrictive version of a trademark. Why don't they call it such?
- int_19h 3y agoAnd why does some modern nation that didn't even exist back when these works were created gets to claim this kind of right on them?
- atmosx 3y agoMaybe he not that good after all. Sculpting is not for everyone.
- colordrops 3y agoI'm assuming this is sarcasm.
- sircastor 3y agoYeah, because without financial incentive, why would anyone bother to create anything? Even without protections, creators are going to make new stuff. Without theses protections, maybe a dozen fewer lawsuits will be filed because quite frankly, most people can’t afford to pursue legal action, whether or not they’re in the right.
- otherme123 3y agoThe sad thing is that Michaelangelo was paid to do a lot of his art. And the David was a commision, he was creating art the same we are coding today: not for the copyright, but for a wage. It was financial incentive enough.
- doctorwho42 3y agoSo what you are saying is that the statue has been bought and paid for, so why do we need to pay a licensing fees for something made 15-20 generations ago (~510 years ago) that was paid for already. Do you get royalties for the code you write for work? Will your great-grand(x15-20)-kids get paid royalties for that JavaScript you made last year?
- otherme123 3y agoYes, that's exactly what my message says... almost word by word.
- atmosx 3y agoArtists express themselves through their work primarily because of an uncanny need to do so. Not because others are going to pay of it. Most likely people are going to shit on it, which is exactly what happened to Yorgos Lanthimos (hottest filmmaker Hollywood at the moment) until his works reached a wider audience outside Greece, his home country. Wasn't about money. To this day he works only with studios that will allow him 100% "final cut" control. Are there "frauds" out there? Sure, is it always clear which one is which, no. But at it's core art is the most well established form expression, other than talking, known to man kind since _forever_.