No. This shows you don’t get the “public domain” concept yet. Again, that link I posted a while ago takes you to the actual laws
That still goes on to this day. Credits and dedications and citations and footnotes give that credit. The monetary credit goes to the people who published, promoted and distributed this NEW WORK. The author gets a slice of that.
Jesus said “the servant is worthy of his hire”. Does the Catholic Chatechism negate that?
Well, if you look at the bottom of this webpage, you will see this notice: “Copyright © 2004-07, Catholic Answers.” And if you look at the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ website, you will find the following at the bottom of the page: " © USCCB. All rights reserved." I hope they are not violating Church doctrine.
If Shakespeare is what sells best, there’s no reason for publishers to pay writers, with or without copyright law.
I am against limiting the benefit of anyone’s work to other people beyond what is necessary to allow those who labor to obtain just remuneration for their labor.
I am not saying the composer would have to print and distribute the music.
I do understand the public domain. If a work is in the public domain it can be used for the purposes I mentioned above. While a work is under copyright it is not in the public domain, and therefore can not be used in the cultural processes I described above. Until a few hundred years ago, everything was in the public domain, no matter how newly written it was.
If these other contributors mentioned in the credits, dedications, citations, and footnotes don’t deserver a monetary cut from the proceeds of the copies of the book, then why does the author if someone other than the author is the one who makes and sells copies of the book.
The Catechism is does not negate that, and neither do I. For creative people to be hired, whether as regular employees or contractors, is exactly what I’m advocating.
First, as you may realize, Church officials have violated the teaching of the Church on many occasions, so what particular groups in the Church do can not be taken as an indicator of Church teaching.
This just means that an artist should prefer to sell his art to a public art gallery rather than a private collector, so that it can be seen by a wider audience; it doesn’t mean that he should allow himself to be ripped off, or have to give his work away for free just because someone can’t pay. Galleries are also a lot more likely to honour the copyright law, and give him a portion of any sales of greeting cards, calendars, etc. that they make from his art.
That’s not how the creative process works, though. Paintings, books, and music can’t be produced assembly line style at a minimum hourly wage, with the expectation of so many paintings, or so many books, or so many songs, in a specified period of time. The creative process isn’t like factory piece-work.
That’s why you don’t “hire” creative people - because they don’t produce labour for personal services. You just buy their finished works, or the copyright to make copies from their finished works, after the creative process is over.
Even in a public art gallery, literally billions of people will not be able to see it if copies can not be distributed to other parts of the world, including those parts who can not afford to pay to see it.
I agree it means he shouldn’t be ripped off. If someone has hired him to create a work or wants the physical piece of art, they need to pay him. If he doesn’t want to give his labor away for free, he doesn’t have to. He can just wait to do his labor until he is hired.
How is whether an art gallery will abide by copyright law relevant to whether the restrictions spelled out in copyright law are just.
You are correct that it isn’t usually done like factory work, but it is frequently commissioned, in which the artistic laborer is hired to create a particular piece or set of pieces. If a company wants a mural in the lobby of its office building, it hires an artist to paint the mural. If a movie company wants a soundtrack for a movie, they frequently, admittedly not always, hire a composer and musicians to produce the music they need.
And if they are also going to want to include the work in a book, or make greeting cards, calendars, etc., or make a stand-alone recording of the music for sale to tourists and/or fans of the movie, then they include that in the contract, as well - the artist or composer knows exactly what is going to happen to the work once it is delivered to the client.
If the gallery wants to make postcards or art books that include these artworks, the artist is informed of it, and gets paid to release the copyright to the gallery so that they can do that. The process is not all that difficult; it’s just a matter of open and honest communications.
If what is included in the contract is fair remuneration for the labor done, then as long as the employer abides by the contract, the artistic laborer has his fair remuneration, regardless of what else is done with the fruit of his labor or copies thereof.
That still does not address access by people who can not afford whatever cost the art gallery decides to charge.
This is only true if the artist is an employee of the client, which isn’t exactly the norm, for the simple reason that most people’s hour to hour day jobs don’t entail making paintings. But if you make paintings for your regular employer, then yes, the copyrights belong to him,and he can do whatever he wants with them. You are remunerated by having a full-time job with a secure wage; you don’t have to depend for your survival on royalties.
In the case of an artist or other creative person, it’s not a contract for labour: it’s a contract for a finished product. Hiring an artist is not like hiring a secretary or a delivery boy.
If they can’t afford the buck fifty for a postcard, then how are they going to afford a camera to steal the image with?
First, how are they stealing it if it is still there?
A contract employee is still an employee. Whether the terms of the contract are for hourly pay vary from contract to contract, and is part of what needs to be considered when determining whether the remuneration in the contract is just.