XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: jimgysin@geemail.com   
      
   Ian Galbraith sent the following on 10/28/2009 7:44 PM:   
   > On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:15:00 -0500, Jim Gysin wrote:   
   >   
   >> Ian Galbraith sent the following on 10/27/2009 9:06 PM:   
   >   
   > [snip]   
   >   
   >>> No-one in this thread is saying get rid of copyright.   
   >> You're wrong there.   
   >   
   > OK FrankFrank/Seamus is saying that but he's the only one.   
   >   
   >>> By the time its out   
   >>> of copyright there are other considerations like allowing others to use   
   >>> cultural icons to produce their own culturally enriching works and   
   >>> allowing competitive forces to ensure the works in question are still   
   >>> available in some form.   
   >> If their new works can't stand on their own and need to benefit from the   
   >> work of others who preceded them, then they should pay for the right to   
   >> the predecessor's work, as their own work is obviously not good enough.   
   >   
   > Like I said to Fred using cultural icons can give a work a resonance it   
   > would otherwise lack even using created characters as close as possible   
   > to the original.   
      
   And that added resonance that would not otherwise be there presumably   
   increases the value of the newer work.  Why shouldn't the present legal   
   owner of said cultural icons get a share of that increased value?   
      
   > Its not non-artistic to use them in interesting ways.   
      
   I'm pretty sure that I never said that it wasn't artistic.  Rather, I   
   just implied that it must be pretty bad art if it can't stand on its   
   own.  Heck, there's a lot of bad art out there.  :)   
      
   --   
   Jim Gysin   
   Waukesha, WI   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)