RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images

["LAURIE SOLOMON" <LAURIE@advancenet.net>]

Now that is one of your more stupid arguments.  The equivalent for your
bricklayer as is the case for your mechanic would be to keep them on an
annual paid retainer or service contract so that they would be available to
furnish bricklaying services or mechanic services whatever they may be
throughout the year for you.  What you would be licensing or renting in
those cases is the bricklayer's or mechanic's services (skilled labor) and
not the product (e.g., the house he along with a bunch of other tradesmen
built or repair to your vehicle that the mechanic made).   What is being
sold and/or rented is not the fruit of the labor but the labor or services
themselves. It is not the results of the labor or services in the case of
trades people, professionals, craftsmen, artisans, or just plain old
employees who rent or sell their services by the hour and not by the
finished product).  When buying/renting the services, the price or rental
costs of the services includes the skill levels of the service person and
value of their time in addition to any expenses like materials and parts.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 6:36 PM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images


Laurie writes:

> While the res[ponse will not satisfy you,
> the answer is that the creator is not selling
> the rights but only renting them ...

So why can't a bricklayer rent the fruit of his labor instead of selling it?
You want him to build a house?  Just pay him each month for the time you
spend
living in the house; if you wish to stop paying, you must move out.