Ask Lemmy

26858 readers

1702 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

If the logic of copyright/trademark/IP law applied to everything, what's the most peculiar possible implication you can think of for it? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Was thinking of this after a conversation I had on a thread about dreams. Someone joked “I was dreaming of the events of The Matrix, then I was woken up by someone worried my dream was infringing the Wachowski’s copyrights”, and it turned into a whole train of thought in my mind, like violating IP law because you stole fire from Zeus which was his intellectual property.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

He doesn't own it. He has an exclusive license to use it in art. Surrey NanoSystems Limited owns the patent on VantaBlack. Stuart Semple was so angry that Kapoor received that license that he had a blacker black material created and licensed it to anyone but Kapoor. When Kapoor obtained a sample anyway, Semple had a still blacker material created, to spite him.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/shortcuts/2019/aug/05/black-30-anish-kapoor-and-the-art-worlds-pettiest-funniest-dispute