Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Censoring an old strip?
mustang6172:
--- Quote from: Storel on 28 Apr 2013, 20:41 ---Once it's been sold to someone else, it belong to the buyer and the artist has no further right to change it. Whether the buyer has any right to edit it is another story. I would tend to say no, unless they get permission from the artist to do so, because the changed work would still have the original artist's signature on it, but would no longer be entirely their work, so it would be misrepresenting that artist's work.
--- End quote ---
Haven't all the QC archives been bought and paid for? Between traffic for advertisers and merchandise, we've allowed Jeph to make a career for himself running one of the few self-sustaining web comics on the internet. Jeph owns the copyrights, but we've been consuming his products for 10 years. Don't we own the archives as much as he does?
jwhouk:
Buy Volume 1 and the original is yours to keep.
Method of Madness:
Or, you know, go here.
Storel:
--- Quote from: Valdís on 29 Apr 2013, 15:27 ---@Storel: Well, actually.. that doesn't matter, does it? Money being exchanged just usually signifies relinquishing his rights to it. The difference between "I am giving/selling you this DVD" and "I am letting you watch my DVD". In the latter case the person being lent the DVD doesn't really have a leg to stand on if you snap your own disc.
--- End quote ---
Well, if you give somebody money so you can watch their DVD and you have to return it when you're done, then the DVD has been rented, not sold. Selling entails a permanent transfer of possession, while renting entails a temporary one. You usually have considerably fewer rights with something you're renting than with something you own, as specified by the local laws (city, state, or nation) and/or any rental contract you may have signed.
--- Quote from: Valdís on 29 Apr 2013, 17:01 ---
--- Quote from: Is it cold in here? on 29 Apr 2013, 16:43 ---According to some European copyright laws an artist has moral rights in a work that remain in place even after it's sold.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, but then it's a case of selling the rights to a work, but not the right of alteration. Basically a limited sale, but since the artist has ceased owning the work that wouldn't grant them the right to alter it. Their remaining not-sold right being "Well, you can't either!", pretty much?
--- End quote ---
That's an interesting point. With works of art, unlike most other things you can buy, it's generally understood that owning one gives you the right to do pretty much anything with it except alter it (apart from restoration work on an old or damaged work, of course, and that's not so much altering as repairing; you're trying to return it to its original appearance, rather than changing that appearance to something else). As you put it, all the rights to that work except the right of alteration were sold with it. It's also generally understood, though, that the artist doesn't keep the right of alteration for themselves; they don't have the right to come into your house or museum and alter the work. So the right of alteration basically ceases to exist when the art is sold to someone.
Unless... the local laws give the artist specific rights after sale, as IICIH mentioned. OR unless... the sale contract (oral or written) specifies that the new owner, or the artist, gains or keeps the right to alter the piece of art -- there's always an "unless" when it comes to contracts -- and the local laws don't forbid that practice. But I believe that's pretty rare.
Method of Madness:
Wait, that's absurd. Like, if I were to somehow buy The Last Supper, who could actually stop me from adding an extra 16 disciples and a mariachi band? If I owned the painting, I can't imagine anyone stopping me from doing that.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version