Forget The Pyramids, How About Copyrights For Michelangelo's Works?
from the hurray-for-bad-copyright dept
First we find out that Egypt is trying to abuse the concept of copyright law to add copyrights to the pyramids, and now comes a story from The Register about how things like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel are involved in a copyright mess. The article at The Register is a bit confusing, unfortunately, and jumps around to a bunch of different things without ever tying them clearly back together or making a truly coherent point -- but the key point is that the owners of certain artwork, which have long been in the public domain (much of which was created before the concept of copyright had ever been conceived of), are now asserting copyright over any photographs taken of that artwork. On top of that, the owners of such works, including the Sistine Chapel, are licensing out these "rights" over the artwork in exchange for cash to pay for restorations. So, in the case of the Sistine Chapel, the restoration was apparently paid for by the Japanese firm NHK in exchange for "exclusive rights" to the images of the restored Sistine Chapel. Unfortunately, the article doesn't discuss how limited (or broad) the specific rights really are, but it does seem somewhat ridiculous to use copyright in such a manner.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, michelangelo, sistine chapel
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paying for the pestoration work does not mean they can own the copyright!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple argument
Hand over the world's cultural heritage to the greedheads, or else.
Capiche, buddy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meanwhile...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meanwhile...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meanwhile...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taking advantage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Homo Sapien Copyright
I can imagine the emails from Nigeria.
Along with your new born's birth certificate, the hospital will add to your bill a charge for your new copy. I wonder what sort of DRM Africa will demand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Pete
Nonsen !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The evil of copyright laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
??? Profit!
Step 2: Being the classic comment-whore, check for comments every hour
Step 3: When there is no comments change the title of the post to make it seem like a new story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ??? Profit!
Step 1: Make a classically bad Mike post
Well, I don't see how it's bad, but ok. Usually, if you think something is bad, you don't just say "classically bad" you explain *why* it's bad so that at least I have a chance to respond.
Of course, if you don't actually have a reason and want to make up lies, then I guess it doesn't matter...
Step 2: Being the classic comment-whore, check for comments every hour
Actually, after I posted this on Friday night I went away for the weekend and haven't checked anything until now, two days later... but... ok.
Step 3: When there is no comments change the title of the post to make it seem like a new story
And here's where you have gone totally off the rails. When did I change the title? I didn't. The title of this post has been the same since I wrote it. And, as I said, I haven't even checked in on Techdirt since Friday evening so I'm not sure why you think I either checked on the comments or changed the title.
You also seem confused as to my motivations. If a post doesn't get comments, that doesn't bother me. I'm not sure why you think it would.
Paul, do you ever get sick of making stuff up trying to make me look bad? It's really rather unbecoming. What's funny is that I've called you on it all week every time you've put up a strawman or lied and you haven't apologized once. I'd really ask that if you're going to challenge me you at least don't do it with outright lies.
Otherwise, you just come off as being rather sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MIIIKE !! MIKE !! MIKE !!
I TOLD YOU !
HA.
NAH-NA NA-NA-NA.
Seriously. The paper I told you to read, remember the "moreover" thing in that legal thing with the RIAA? . Well, here it is. This is the "moreover".
iWin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MIIIKE !! MIKE !! MIKE !!
Seriously, could you use "thing" more and be much more vague and obnoxious in your post? I don't think we got enough of that thing in your last one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MIIIKE !! MIKE !! MIKE !!
Hmm. Actually, all that looks like is the Washington Post making the same mistake based on the same story and the same quotes from Ray Beckerman.
Repeating the same incorrect statement without any new evidence doesn't make it true...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Restoration is a derivative work
The operative word there is "restored". This would be a derivative work and could legitimately be copyrighted starting with the date the restoration was complete. They can't control old photos or reproductions of the painting, but photos or reproductions of the restored painting are copyrighted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Restoration is a derivative work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Restoration is a derivative work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyrights and Patents
P.S. One of my people drew the first rectangle in the sand way back then, so all the roofs in Egypt and elsewhere are my infringed property. Long ago a family member had a cow so rights to all bullshit belong to me, so all lawyers, politicians and bloggers can cease and desist until I am properly compensated.
P.P.S. Don't any of you say dammit either in response to my post...All the curse words are surely mine as well.
P.P.P.S. I had a college professor once who said, "There are only three things that can come out of a human's mouth: Crap.
Bull crap,
and Cosmic Elephant Crap."
Note: He said if first, but he didn't copyright it, so that too is mine.
See ya,
Coyote Davis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyrights and Patents
Where should I send the royalties?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Multiply
So.... If Wal-Mart gets caught by the copyright police for selling one "Garfield" birthday cake without paying royalties, they can be fined not just once for $100 (for example), but $200 x 3400 stores, or $680,000... Ouch!
So pay up and shut up...or Garfield will hunt you down and eat you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright Laws
We must change our focus or risk being left behind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Commissioned work
If the Japanese firm "restored" the work to its original form, I would think that they could not hold copyrights to the restoration, as it restored it to the original form, not a modification.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]