What’s Wrong with Copyright

Notice-and-takedown is creaky, and the intellectual foundations of copyright are creakier still. But the whole thing more or less works. Kind of. Until you see this — the Rothko Chapel with Barnett Newman’s Broken Obelisk — pixelated to protect the artist’s copyright.

(Explanation of “FOP” (Freedom of Panorama) here. Unpixelated Broken Obelisk here.)

Please do be so kind as to share this post.
Share

4 thoughts on “What’s Wrong with Copyright

  1. I think this is less a problem of “copyright” and more one of Wikipedia’s increasingly ridiculous bylaws. They need to realize that they will never really be much of a reliable source.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  2. It seems to me that this, like most of the other problems raised in the last few years (the unwarranted extensions of copyright on old material, the ongoing erosion of Fair Use by DMCA and the NET Act and now the ACTA Treaty, and D”R”M systems that restrict actions the seller isn’t entitled to restrict) are not problems with copyright itself: they are just problems with the regulations that have been built on top of copyright.

    Federal laws regulations are almost never about the problems they purport to solve, and the ones related to copyright are no exception. Every Federal law written since the New Deal is simply the latest round of an endless game of “My lobbyist has a bigger bag of cash for bribes than yours.” If you’re not well-enough heeled (or poorly-enough equipped with morals) to play that game, you’re simply not represented in Congress.

      Quote  Link

    Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *