Re: Asimov Site

["Frank Townsend" <ftownsen@iamdigex.net>]

I can't believe you would make this response, either!

But I can see why you would be confused.  You must be thinking of the Mona
Lisa of Leonardo.  I was talking about the Mona Lisa that I painted last
week and released into the public domain.

Lots of people have been over taking photos of it, and each photo is
copyrighted, each may look identical to the other, while no photo infringes
another.

Which is the point I was making . . .

The point that your objection obviously missed, instead focusing on issues
irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


"ground.ecn AppleII Librarian" <apple2pd@garp3.icaen.uiowa.edu> wrote in
message news:8plhd5$2g5$1@server05.icaen.uiowa.edu...
> In article <jkhv5.3000$J91.267601@dca1-nnrp2.news.digex.net>,
> Frank Townsend <ftownsen@iamdigex.net> wrote:
> >Jeff is correct.
> >
> >Here is just one example.  I take a photo of the Mona Lisa and I own the
> >copyright.  You may also take a photo to which you own the copyright.
Both
> >photos may look identical but neither infringes the other.
> >
>
> I can't believe I am actually reading this thread, much less responding!
>
> Poor example.  The Mona Lisa is displayed in a museum with a 'no photo'
> policy.  It is against the law to even take the photo without permission.
> Your copyright claim would be dismissed as bogus in court.  To get
> permission to take the photo, you need to sign over your potential
> copyright to the museum.  It retains the copyright, not you.  An attempt
> to display the photo in a published form is a copyright violation.