From: Jim Carlile (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Jun 11 2008 - 15:34:12 PDT
First of all, if the artist owns the copyright, no one can use the work
without authorization. So if someone comes along and mangles it, there is
adequate legal recourse possible in the U.S.
If the offending artist relies upon 'fair use' as a defense, then they can't
take very much of the original work, so they can't in any sense ruin it for
the originating artist.
But so what if someone comes along and extracts the work in parts?
Big deal. It's not going to kill you and it might even be fun. Just make
another one-- or improve the one you have.
If your original work can't withstand a little abuse, then it's not much of
I also suspect-- with all this offense being taken at "money"-- that if your
work were suddenly worth big bucks, the U.S. copyright-as-money aspect would
be important to you, too!
In a message dated 6/11/2008 1:58:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
email suppressed writes:
First: There are many different copyright ideals. The US ideal is all about
money. It sees films as products, and it's never about protecting the
integrity of the artworks, it's about protecting the vallet. You don't sue
because your artwork is being missused in a bad way, i.e. re-edited, has
commerical breaks or if it has been adapted to
what-is-suitble-to-screen-on-a-particulare-tv-channel, all this is common
chow in the US and nobody cares - because it is _all_ about the money.
**************Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.