3 ms·
IIRC a part of copyright "activating" is publishing the content in the first place, so I don't think GP would have a good case to begin with, not that it matter
by themoonisachees 2y ago
IIRC a part of copyright "activating" is publishing the content in the first place, so I don't think GP would have a good case to begin with, not that it matters.
- gnicholas 2y agoCopyright does not require public publishing of the content — just "fixed in a tangible medium of expression". This would have been accomplished when the painting was created on paper.
- nutrie 2y agoThis is exactly what I meant. That’s why I said it just one of the implications, out of many.
- gnicholas 2y agoAh sorry, I didn't realize your comment was in response to some hypothetical new copyright system proposed upthread.
- arrosenberg 2y agoThis is essentially what I was referring to in the second sentence. Even under the current system you might theoretically have a claim, in practice you'd have a hell of a time proving it, so it wouldn't tangibly change the outcomes like OP is suggesting.