Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/07/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - ------_=_NextPart_001_01BEDAC0.CD7BDB88 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > What Voigtlander did to Petzval or what Nikon and Canon did > to Zeiss and > Zeiss Ikon and Leitz was not a case of improving on an > existing product. > It was a straight theft. No improvement. No further > research. Just a > direct copy. > > Again, put this in line of a professional photographer's > copyright to his > work. If someone prints one of this professional's pictures > and sells it, > then he or she has committed a copyright violation and owes > Big Bucks for > the infringement. Well, that is precisely what I am speaking of. <devilsadvocate> So by extension of this analogy - if I were to take a copy of someone else's photo, and then "improve" it, say in Photoshop, and then sell it - is this a lesser offence? </devilsadvocate> Of course the answer is "no", but then at what point are we all required to come up with truly original premises for everything we do? Humankind (and progress) don't work like that. Paul Chefurka - ------_=_NextPart_001_01BEDAC0.CD7BDB88 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2448.0"> <TITLE>RE: [Leica] Re: Lens Designs and history- the only take</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <P><FONT SIZE=2>> What Voigtlander did to Petzval or what Nikon and Canon did </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> to Zeiss and</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Zeiss Ikon and Leitz was not a case of improving on an </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> existing product.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> It was a straight theft. No improvement. No further </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> research. Just a</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> direct copy.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Again, put this in line of a professional photographer's </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> copyright to his</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> work. If someone prints one of this professional's pictures </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> and sells it,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> then he or she has committed a copyright violation and owes </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Big Bucks for</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> the infringement. Well, that is precisely what I am speaking of.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2><devilsadvocate></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>So by extension of this analogy - if I were to take a copy of</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>someone else's photo, and then "improve" it, say in Photoshop,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>and then sell it - is this a lesser offence?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2></devilsadvocate></FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>Of course the answer is "no", but then at what point are we all</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>required to come up with truly original premises for everything</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>we do? Humankind (and progress) don't work like that.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>Paul Chefurka</FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> - ------_=_NextPart_001_01BEDAC0.CD7BDB88--