Re: [Leica] Re: Copyright questions

["James R. Nelon" <jnelon@netvigator.com>]

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.