A copyright must not be allowed to last more than fifty years--after which it should be flushed from the memory banks of the Copyright Office. We need selective voluntary amnesia if Discoverers of Art are to continue to work without psychic damage. Facts should be remembered--but dreams?
The Crown is quite entitled to demand different standards of its employees than those prevailing in the private sector. It is not only entitled in law to enjoin its servants from putting themselves in a position of an apparent conflict of interest; the rationale for its doing so is patently obvious. [The Fraser judgment is quoted, including the need "to ensure that the public service is perceived as impartial and effective in fulfilling its duties".] ...Manifestly, the public service will not be perceived as impartial and effective in fulfilling its duties if apparent conflicts between the private interests and the public duties of public servants are tolerated.
"The public did not have a property right in the work"
Yes it did, if the artist did not keep the work in secrecy.
No, it didn't. Property rights (particularly in the intellectual property context) are rights to exclude. The public (collectively or individually) did not have a right to exclude others from using the work, therefore it did not have a property right in the work.
« Older A law has come into force in France which makes it... | I'm doing a (free) operating s... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt