What handouts from society? Legal ownership was left to them for a very limited period of time. If they didn't want the painting in the stupid movie, that was their decision to make. They didn't try to sell permission - they simply said no. Clearly Cameron understood that since he asked their permission in the first place. If that particular painting - it's image - wasn't so important to his story, he'd have picked a different one.
The thing about copyright and art in particular is that a works value increases significantly after the artist dies. Most artists don't see any of the real rewards of their work - usually after a lifetime of poverty. Those laws are in place so that the artists descendants can reap some reward and not get screwed the same way their parents did. It's the rare individual (i.e. Damian Hirst)_ who can trick the public into valuing their work while their still alive. There laws don't prevent the original from being displayed - they only prevent assholes from making money off of someone elses work for awhile. 70 years after the creators death really isn't that long, especially in the lifetime of a piece of art.
Clearly the principal has never been choked, at which point instinct tends to make one bite, flail, hit, and kick - where any of these blows might land tends to be happenstance unless once is trained in self defense, which I very much doubt this first grader was. Good for the kid for defending her/himself. Shame on the principal for not addressing the real problem - that one student thought it would be a good idea/fun/appropriate to choke another student.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Marie.
I didn't think it was possible to loathe that women more than I already did...
SURPRISE!!!
Re: Re: really?
What handouts from society? Legal ownership was left to them for a very limited period of time. If they didn't want the painting in the stupid movie, that was their decision to make. They didn't try to sell permission - they simply said no. Clearly Cameron understood that since he asked their permission in the first place. If that particular painting - it's image - wasn't so important to his story, he'd have picked a different one.
really?
The thing about copyright and art in particular is that a works value increases significantly after the artist dies. Most artists don't see any of the real rewards of their work - usually after a lifetime of poverty. Those laws are in place so that the artists descendants can reap some reward and not get screwed the same way their parents did. It's the rare individual (i.e. Damian Hirst)_ who can trick the public into valuing their work while their still alive. There laws don't prevent the original from being displayed - they only prevent assholes from making money off of someone elses work for awhile. 70 years after the creators death really isn't that long, especially in the lifetime of a piece of art.
I'm definitely in the 10+ to function range. Glad to see there's research to back me up.
shame on him...
Clearly the principal has never been choked, at which point instinct tends to make one bite, flail, hit, and kick - where any of these blows might land tends to be happenstance unless once is trained in self defense, which I very much doubt this first grader was. Good for the kid for defending her/himself. Shame on the principal for not addressing the real problem - that one student thought it would be a good idea/fun/appropriate to choke another student.