They own the rights to any reproductions of the painting, obviously. Sure, if you come to an agreement where the creator feels reasonably compensated. I think I've said this three times now; do I really need to repeat it again? It's not hard to understand.

No i don't see how they would keep those rights.

Then again i suppose you have hundreds of ghost writers just writing for other people and just waiting to get called, so they can publish movies/paintings/books/autobiographies under someone else's name that's famous instead of your own. I'm totally sure that is how you would run a successful set of works.

No, am just failing to see how a product that they had no idea to make of beforehand they'd have the rights to keep on copyright and distribution/royalties, and never would have made if they hadn't been commissioned for, and once it was done the likelihood of it being reprinted while in their hands vs the commissioner would ever work. And assuming they could just create the work and sell it themselves, why they would ever want to be paid by someone to make it since they would want exclusive rights to it as they commissioned it.

Maybe i'm seeing labor to benefit the one paying you is just weird. If i hire someone to stock shelves in a store, when i start stocking shelves i don't expect to get sued because 'they did it first'. Rather the employer gets the full benefits for what he paid for, not haggling royalties and ownership rights of a shelf after he leaves.

a numpty is gonna numpt.

Yeah, obviously. When you come up with utter brain-slop like this: Well. That's the most mind-numbing attempt at an "analogy" I think I've ever seen. You clearly despise people who have actual ability and talent (the usual jealousy thing, I have to assume), and people like you who want to prey on them to your own gain while screwing them as hard as possible are the reason why copyright laws exist. I kind of had the feeling this was the case, but didn't expect you to out yourself as blatantly and quickly as you did.

The analogy of the shelves and work is akin to doing work, but somehow said work (and thus where and what he worked on) somehow belongs to the hired help, where there shouldn't be anything for the hired help to take away from it. Claiming 'work' and a 'result' as his rather than the work he was hired to do, which was stock the damn shelves.

Going back to the painting, if a portrait was painted and i have the portrait, it should be mine, not mine with a ton of limited restrictions no it should be mine, should i decide to share it, resell it, destroy it or otherwise. I don't see why any part of it remains under the painter's pervue once he walks away. If he wanted to have a copyright over it, he should have done it himself on his own time/energy/resources, and not under my resources or request, and not be able to sue over something he hasn't had any influence over since he finished it and has no proof (other than maybe a bill for some type of work) that he did it in the first place.

You've totally lost me. And I seriously don't see how paying for a job to get done, and the product of that job the results are my property/benefit (usually physical but maybe in other ways too) or how that outs me as jealous, or screwing them over when they clearly agreed to it and got paid for it.

Though, if what you are saying is how Copyright SHOULD work? Then a ton of secretaries need to be suing their bosses to own half the paperwork in the company. We're talking memos, filing paperwork, billing information, everything... yep... sounds like a ton of unclaimed copyright going to waste to me.

Road construction guys? Yeah they should copyright the road, 1000 workers setting up toll booths every 5 feet to use their road.

The guy who paints the lines of crosswalks and the lines? Yeah he needs to copyright that too. City that paid him better get permission before they submit a photo for any type of newspaper or anything.

Kids who did math papers? Double copyright (of the kid and teacher who marked it...).

Here's a big one. News guy, owns the copyright on every segment he ever appeared on or uttered a word. Yes! Lowly man gets to own multi-million dollar network due to copyright.

Fill out a tax form? Now it's copyrighted to him.

Fill out an application? Don't get it back in a week? Sue for not returning property since you own the copyright on that paper!

Re-arrange magnet letters on a Fridge? Copyright!

Paint my house, and it shows up now on Google-Maps? Sue for copyright infringement now.

Make a subway sandwich with 1 more olive than the recipe calls for? Copyright that too.

Changing the warning output words on a electric highway sign? Better copyright that too...

Reminds me of a Richard Jenni skit:
Are you between the ages of 3 and 150?
Have you ever:
Been outside?
Used a product?
Interacted with another person?

You could be Eligible for Millions of dollars!

All i see is unless under every instance you sign away your copyright (and it better be in writing), then you keep copyright on everything you ever affect or do. At least, that's how i see it.

I disagree with your insinuation of me insulting anyone.
On the contrary, I have been exceptionally cordial and have already posted my opinion on the matter.
I should not be concerned whether you find it agreeable or not.
With all due respect, it is unbecoming of you to backseat moderate, any thread.

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/stop_supporting_piracy/post1

I apologise for calling you racist, you clearly have some deeper issue going on.

Can you please say what you mean in simple words, so that they are not misunderstood?

For example, when before you said: You could have said:

"I don't care about piracy"

Instead of saying: You could have said nothing at all.

When you said: You could have engaged your brain and realised that piracy is inevitable and using DRM to penalise pirates, ultimately penalises paying customers more in the long term, and that DRM is generally a bad thing. But you keep practising your English by posting meaningless platitudes, no matter who it hurts.

Again, I should not be concerned whether you find it agreeable or not.
Whether the point was to converse or to blog post, I shall neither comment on that nor further.

If you believe there is an issue, I suggest you refer to the authority of the moderators.

Ok.

Dear forum member, the only one to blame for your misfortunes is yourself.
I hope this addresses all of your concerns and wish you to stop harming the consistency of this thread, with replies concerning the seemingly inexplicable and inexistent issue you believe there is.

I truly believe it's for the best and am glad we reached an understanding.

misfortune, not misfortunes.

non-existent, not inexistent.

Are you a member of a cult? I'm guessing you're Chinese but you seem to be particularly obnoxious.

Done.

'misfortunes' is acceptable in English. Either is appropriate in the context it was used.

It has been pointless since the beginning.
Peace out.