Quote:
Originally Posted by SpicyM
bump for thommy, the local expert ^^^
:-D
|
waste of time with somebody like you to discuss - you WANT to be right even when you are 1000 times not right.
live on in your barrel and tell the world you are diogenes. as long as you believe in it, everything is fine.
but back to the topic: YES he can be the one who filmed the material - he CAN be the one who first got the licence of the actors and YES it still does not mean he OWNS the material
and can do what he want.
THAT was the fucking point you donkey !!!!
and THIS can only be done in the anglo american law because there authorship (in the meaning of the word by legal juristic) IS transferable you dumb nut.
WHERE you nut did i say that he is not the author anymore when he FILMED the scene ????
i just said that his rights can be sold and that means he lose them.
are you really that stupid or do you play a game here ?
everyone (and i hope that includes you too) can read that i wrote:
Quote:
|
authorship CAN be transfered but only in the anglo american law.
|
and if you donīt have the phantasy to know that "transfering authorship" means THE RIGHTS (and that means that the buyer can write even his own name as author) and not a time machine what makes a thing undone - you are even more brain crippled as i thought you are.