Re: [Patch] Request for addition to the publications list

[Valentin Villenave]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Jonathan Wilkes <address@hidden> wrote:
> From a moral standpoint, what's the difference between the two cases?

>From a moral standpoint: none whatsoever, both are wrong IMO (unless
you really really love your grandgrandfather and his money, that is
:-).

>From a *legal* standpoint: although people tend to forget it these
days, public domain is the rule and copyright is but a temporary
exception. The fact that through some shenanigans (such as what
Richard Stallman refers to as "obfuscation") someone may "confiscate"
material that would otherwise be in the public domain, is just wrong.
Other examples include:
- a photography of a 500-years-old painting is *not* public domain, it
is copyrighted by whomever took the picture.[1]
- in Paris (and probably other cities), taking a picture of a
centuries-old monument is ok... BUT at night it becomes illegal, since
the lightning is copyrighted. [2]

Cheers,
Valentin

[1] 
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Virtual+collections%3A+National+Portrait+Gallery+v+Wikipedia-a0210869149
[2] http://www.tour-eiffel.fr/teiffel/uk/pratique/faq/index.html (this
also applies to the 16th-century Louvre Palace, for instance).