Re: [Leica] Re: Copyright questions

[ray <razerx@netvigator.com>]

Whoa big Jim....I am learning something from Mr. M.

"James R. Nelon" wrote:

> A couple of years ago or so I had an incoming message filter set up to send Anthony
> A********'s messages directly to the round file.
>
> Ditto now this guy. Perhaps a clone? Or the same guy?
>
> Message bandwidth is too precious.
>
> Jim Nelon
> Hong Kong
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > Steve Unsworth writes:
> >
> > > Just in Paris, Eiffel tower, Notre Dame, many
> > > people visit these places because of the
> > > architectural statement they make.
> >
> > Sure, but neither structure was intended primarily as a pretty image.  In other
> > words, the Eiffel Tower was built to be the highest structure in the world, and
> > Notre-Dame was built to serve as a place of worship.  Their interest as pure
> > images, if any, is very accessory to their primary purpose.
> >
> > > Would people queue to go up the Eiffel tower
> > > if it were a 10 metre high plain brick building?
> >
> > Turn this around:  If the Eiffel Tower were just a picture, would anyone be able
> > to go up inside of it at all?  In other words, the Eiffel Tower is primarily a
> > structure that people enter and use, not an image.
> >
> > There comes a point when something passes from the domain of a creative work
> > (protected by copyright) into the domain of a useful product (protected by a
> > patent), or still again into the domain of an important symbol (protected by a
> > trademark).  There is a lot of overlap, but it seems extreme to me that an
> > architect--who is paid primarily to build useful structures--should assert
> > copyright protection over the mere _image_ of what he has constructed.  And this
> > can be tested simply:  Replace the appearance of the structure with some other
> > appearance and see if it fulfills the same function--the answer is yes.  Now
> > replace the structure with something else, leaving only a similar appearance,
> > and see if it fulfills the same function--the answer is no.  Therefore
> > appearance is not of the essence of the architect's work, no matter how much he
> > might like to believe otherwise.  Apparently U.S. legislators agree, because
> > they removed copyright protection of the mere _image_ of an architectural work
> > explicitly in statute.
> >
> > > If you believe that the answer is no, then surely
> > > you accept that the building's appearance has
> > > an effect on its revenue generating potential.
> >
> > Both of the buildings you name would be just as famous, and just as capable of
> > generating revenue, even if their appearances were quite different.  People go
> > to the Eiffel Tower because it is famous and tall and provides a good view; this
> > would still be true even if it looked like a giant soup can.  Similarly, people
> > visit Notre-Dame because of its historical importance as a religious edifice;
> > and this would still be true even if it looked like a giant breadbox.  Indeed,
> > Notre-Dame and the Pompidou Center (the one with all the pipes on the outside)
> > get many visitors, and for reasons that are more similar than different, even
> > though they look nothing at all like each other.