3 ms·
The right should follow the intent, as evidenced by the photograph itself. If the evident intent is to document a public space, than you should have absolute ri
by x0054 11y ago
The right should follow the intent, as evidenced by the photograph itself. If the evident intent is to document a public space, than you should have absolute right. But if the intent is to reproduce one particular building or sculpture, or broadcast (in your example), then the authors should have some rights. Though, I thing that any sculpture placed on public property should be in public domain, after all, the public has paid for it, right?
- themartorana 11y agoAnd more importantly, the artist/architect has been paid for their work. I have this conversation with artists sometimes. If I buy a print, yes, you retain copyright, but I expect an exemption when I post a picture of my print on Facebook, hanging in my living room. On the other hand, many artists want to retain the copyright of an original I purchase - which I usually disagree with. I can offer an exemption to my copyright which I purchase with the work that allows you to continue to sell prints. But if I'm going to pay a hefty price for an original work of art (or architecture) I expect to own it, copyright and all.
- thaumasiotes 11y agoNo. Who paid for the statue of liberty? People donate monuments to public areas all the time. But the public owns it, so yes, it should be public domain.
- ecopoesis 11y agoThe problem is defining intent in legislation has proven to be notoriously hard. Did the framers of the U.S. constitution intend to allow gay marriage? Or did they intend to allow equal rights for all? How about the 2nd amendment? Did they founders intent for folks to own machine guns? My point was that calling anything an "absolute right" is problematic. Absolute allows no opportunity to assess intent, and the intent of a right of panorama is obviously not to allow rebroadcasting of soccer matches.