http://blog.frankwales.com/2009/07/20/for-the-public-good/
stellt die richtigen Fragen:
If the Gallery are the official custodians of works that have been acquired for the public, then by what right do they restrict the public’s access to those works no longer in copyright, beyond that necessary to physically safeguard the works themselves? How does limiting the public’s use of these works advance their stated aim “to promote the appreciation and understanding of portraiture in all media“? How does restricting people from seeing, or using, out-of-copyright works promote the appreciation and understanding of those works?
Zuvor hier: http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5833706/
stellt die richtigen Fragen:
If the Gallery are the official custodians of works that have been acquired for the public, then by what right do they restrict the public’s access to those works no longer in copyright, beyond that necessary to physically safeguard the works themselves? How does limiting the public’s use of these works advance their stated aim “to promote the appreciation and understanding of portraiture in all media“? How does restricting people from seeing, or using, out-of-copyright works promote the appreciation and understanding of those works?
Zuvor hier: http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5833706/
KlausGraf - am Montag, 20. Juli 2009, 23:34 - Rubrik: Archivrecht
