Church of England throws a fit over computer game

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Because it's private property, that's not necessarily the case. I mostly know about how museums in the US deal with it, so this may or may not apply, but because it is a privately owned work of art the owner must authorize reproductions of it. That is, the work itself may be in the public domain, but in order to access the work to see it or photograph it you need the permission of the owner. The claim is that there is an implicit contract that comes with that permission which assigned the copyright of any derivative to the owner of the work itself.

Note that this practice has come under a great deal of fire...but for now it's how it works.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Because it's private property, that's not necessarily the case.

Yes it is, WRT copyright.

I mostly know about how museums in the US deal with it, so this may or may not apply, but because it is a privately owned work of art the owner must authorize reproductions of it. That is, the work itself may be in the public domain, but in order to access the work to see it or photograph it you need the permission of the owner. The claim is that there is an implicit contract that comes with that permission which assigned the copyright of any derivative to the owner of the work itself.

There are certainly photographs of the museum more than 50 years old (or whatever the term is in the UK), so it's tough luck for them.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Yes it is, WRT copyright.

Copyright on the work, not derivative works.

There are certainly photographs of the museum more than 50 years old (or whatever the term is in the UK), so it's tough luck for them.

I'm just giving you the argument, not claiming it's right.

[Kuciwalker]

Copyright on the work, not derivative works.

As I said, even derivative works are old enough to be out of copyright.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This is a 79 year old video game? Cool.

[Kuciwalker]

The art in the game can be a derivative work of public domain art.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And I'm sure it is. They must have worked from 80 year old photos. How else did they nail that patina of ancient, yellowed black and white photography in all their textures?

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Asher

Isn't it open to the public?

There goes that argument.

No it doesn't. The public isn't making money seeing it, or taking pictures of it. Are they? This is the crucial point. If the pictures are used in a commercial way, then it's a perfectly valid argument

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker




There is no such thing. There are several related legal concepts (e.g. copyright and patents) that are collectively referred to as IP, but there's no such thing as generic "intellectual property" rights.

http://www.hg.org/intell.html begs to differ.

[Kuciwalker]

No it doesn't. You can't read.

[Kuciwalker]

Hell, here's wiki:

In law, intellectual property (IP) is an umbrella term for various legal entitlements which attach to certain names, written and recorded media, and inventions.

Know what "umbrella term" means?

An umbrella term is a word that provides a superset or grouping of related concepts, also called a hypernym. Thus cryptology is an umbrella term that encompasses cryptography and cryptanalysis.

[Zoid]

You're putting Wikipedias word over people who actually work with it? Silly Kuci

[Kuciwalker]

If you want to get to stupid arguments like that, both my parents are practicing attorneys.

[Zoid]

Well, good for you.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
What IP rights? Copyright? Patent? Trademark?

IIRC, in the UK, there are IP rights to private property.

Originally posted by Asher
Isn't it open to the public?

There goes that argument.

Again, IIRC, not in the UK it doesn't.

I'm not entirely sure, I'm not a lawyer, but UK law tends to be slightly different on IP rights than US law.