Discussion: On Copyright
738 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 30 Newer→ Last
-
A big hook for movies based on Shakespeare is that they are exactly that.
Not necessarily. I don't believe that The Forbidden Planet was ever hyped as being derived from The Tempest, despite the plot and characters being a very close (and clever) knock-off. In the spirit of Shakespeare's original it presented as a ripping piece of spectacular entertainment, rather than a slab of worthy culture. Pretty much proves your point about creating new art from existing, just as Shakespeare borrowed from a variety of sources for his original play.
-
Not necessarily. I don't believe that The Forbidden Planet was ever hyped as being derived from The Tempest, despite the plot and characters being a very close (and clever) knock-off.
I wasn't aware of that. I might have to go check it out, I haven't been in the video shop for all too long. Need to start making a list of what I want to see.
Pretty much proves your point about creating new art from existing, just as Shakespeare borrowed from a variety of sources for his original play.
I bet it happens much more than you'd (or, maybe just I) expect. Just don't get me started on the people who were looking to patent (or copyright? I forget which) story plot types a while ago.
-
and their work wouldn't exist but for those that came before it, acknowledged or otherwise, and so on so forth. It's turtles all the way down.
I get your logic, but I think its wrong.
in your world there is no original thought, just derivative thought.
by your reasoning anyone who uses language is copying off people who developed words. -
in your world there is no original thought, just derivative thought.
by your reasoning anyone who uses language is copying off people who developed words.Sorta, but not quite. I think there is original thought, but I think it all is inspired by other things. Whether it's fairy tales we were exposed to when we grew up, or what we read on some internet forum during the day. I think they all have a hand in providing inspiration, conscious or not. Now, most of those influences couldn't be pinned down at all, and that's fine.
However, I also think that re-expressing existing art in different ways, whether approved of by the previous creator or not is an important facet of art, and hence culture. The phrase 'social commentary' comes to mind.
As an example, take modern hip-hop music. It often contains samples from other songs. Or industrial music, which often contains samples from movies. People have been done for copyright infringement for doing this. The creator of whatever was sampled isn't going to lose out from this. Noone is going to say "well, I've heard that sample, I don't need to see the movie now".
Independant documentary makers have to be careful that they don't accidentally include a clip of The Simpsons showing on a TV somewhere, or they have to pay Fox ludicrous amounts for it. They have to be careful of incidental music playing, too.
In my mind, this is copyright stepping way beyond its goal: to promote the creation of art. In fact, it's hindering it.
Now, this is a different aspect of things than strictly looking at copyright terms, but I think they're all important.
-
There is no natural right to restrict free flow of ideas,
an elvis recording isn't an idea, its a product. why should it ever be public domain.
why should after 70 years people who are legal owners or inheriters of the recorded work suddenly have to compete with legal thai knock offs of their products.what about the recipe for kfc, or cocca cola, can you take their industrial secret after 50 years?
I don't see why mickey mouse should become public property when there is a business that legally manages and maintains that icon directly stemming from the creator and his family.
I take it when it becomes public domain we can have mickey mouse pron? how is that in thw interest of the creator? -
I take it when it becomes public domain we can have mickey mouse pron?
You mind find this interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Pirates -
an elvis recording isn't an idea, its a product. why should it ever be public domain.
No, a record containing an Elvis recording is a product.
But in answer to the question, because society says so. The artists are given the right to control copies for a limited time, in exchange for which the public gets to make copies after that time.
why should after 70 years people who are legal owners or inheriters of the recorded work suddenly have to compete with legal thai knock offs of their products.
How about they make more products then?
What it sounds like you're saying is that someone should be able to create one thing, and live off that forever. That works in almost no other space. You can give someone a building, but it doesn't produce income by default. I don't give the plumber a dollar every time the toilet is flushed.
what about the recipe for kfc, or cocca cola, can you take their industrial secret after 50 years?
Umm. They're not copyrighted. If they were patented, then sure. That's how the patent system works too. However, they're trade secret which is basically "don't tell anyone anything", but should someone leak the coke formula, then there is little the company can do about it once it's out there (there is a small amount of legal protection for trade secrets).
I don't see why mickey mouse should become public property when there is a business that legally manages and maintains that icon directly stemming from the creator and his family.
To clarify, it's Mickey Mouse. Mickey Mouse is a trademark, which is rightfully perpetual as long as it's being used. It's the old films with Mickey Mouse in them.
I take it when it becomes public domain we can have mickey mouse pron? how is that in thw interest of the creator?
It's not. And that's OK. Not everything has to be about the creator. After a while, the creator shouldn't matter. Mickey Mouse films are part of our culture now. Why should I not be able to copy those films if I want to show people about the origins of animation? Or create my own little archive of clips? Or resplice and dub over to create something different. Maybe something that comments on Disney's iron grip of copyright. They'd never approve that, but perhaps society would benefit from the commentary.
It's not about benefitting the one creator. It's about encouraging them to create so that they can further the "useful arts and sciences". Preventing people from adapting and remixing does not help that. We all lose.
-
err, errata:
To clarify, it's not Mickey Mouse. -
3410,
What it sounds like you're saying is that someone should be able to create one thing, and live off that forever. That works in almost no other space. You can give someone a building, but it doesn't produce income by default.
Yes it does, essentially. Any fool can place a classified ad, and bingo, income generation. It seems to me it's a lot__more__ difficult to produce income from a copyrighted work.
-
Yes it does, essentially. Any fool can place a classified ad, and bingo, income generation. It seems to me it's a lot more difficult to produce income from a copyrighted work.
I think I disagree, although I'm not 100% sure I get your point.
You can sell the building, and then you get one-off money for it. That's fine. You can lease it, but there is steady work involved in that.
That's why the idea of renewable copyright terms appeal to me. For example, perhaps 15 years from initial publication, and then you can renew for a small fee (basically enough to make it not worthwhile if you're not doing anything with the work) for another 15 years.
This means abandoned stuff is available to the public reasonably quickly, but for stuff still in use by the copyright holder, they can hold the rights for a longer time. I consider that kind of thing a decent trade-off between the social good and providing incentives for creation.
-
Independant documentary makers have to be careful that they don't accidentally include a clip of The Simpsons showing on a TV somewhere, or they have to pay Fox ludicrous amounts for it. They have to be careful of incidental music playing, too.
Copyright law allows some people to be dicks about it, but that doesn't mean creators don't deserve protection.
Not everything has to be about the creator.
But we should allow creators some confidence that
a) someone else wont make bajillions of dollars with their creation
b) they should be able to have some (all?) say in what happens to itIt seems a lot of the bad examples are from the owners of the "rights" - often large, profit motivated companies - enforcing those rights in some overzealous way. What if rights couldn't be bought and sold like that?
With the brilliant graphic novel Watchmen, the author Alan Moore doesn't want it made into a movie. But it is. And maybe that's ok. Hollywood originally wanted to "update" it though to be about the war on terror. If you haven't read it, take my word for it that it's a terrible idea, completely undermines the central theme and clearly demonstrates a lack of respect and understanding for the source material. Luckily Zack Snyder has a bit more vision than that and has chosen to follow the book. But we aren't often that lucky.
Copyrights entering public domain might be a good thing for innovation and access, but there will be people in there bastardising the source material and reaping the rewards while the creator looks on.
-
Not everything has to be about the creator. After a while, the creator shouldn't matter. Mickey Mouse films are part of our culture now.
I agree, Robin, and I'd like to turn this conversation around.
Culture is not made by those who create cultural products. Establishing meaning and value is a joint effort of all those who receive as well as those who produce. The meaning is not inherent in the artefacts and context is everything (and the fine art market would be the perfect example). Postmodern, I know - but even more relevant when current technologies like this blog easily make any of us creators as well as consumers.
That joint aspect may be what is distinctive about cultural products compared with baked beans, and I suspect it's why the bargain of copyright has not been completely centred on what creators might wish. Nothing is made or experienced in a vacuum, but a lot of this discussion has focused on only one end of that relationship.
A "right" to restrict copies does not "naturally" exist, so it must be granted. Limiting the duration of enforcement was a traditional way of managing the division of benefits. That worked when technology and other barriers only evolved slowly. As Rick and others have said, even our current technologies make monkeys of old-fashioned approaches.
The social contract gets muddied further by commercialisation when most of those who own and enforce rights are aggregators or distributors rather than creators, and so have a different moral relationship with the works.
Rob, I mentioned that beautiful South poster of yours a while back. Well, some of its communicative power was about knowing Ansel Adams' landscape photos or Ronnie's other work. He didn't "own" those cultural references and neither did you. But you profited from them, as they added value to your marketing material and the album cover featuring that photo. Helped me decide to buy it, for one, and I also regard it as a taonga for all New Zealanders.
I do believe that the current system is broken. It seems intuitively wrong to me that an author gets less than the bookseller who provides a distribution channel for their work, or that a record label can structure contracts so a musician never sees a dime (Albini). We really haven't found a sustainable way to honour the deeply felt custodial relationship of creators with their works, or make sure that a fair share of any increased social value goes to them rather than others.
Different cultures have their own ways of managing this. That includes non-commercial avenues like the state pension examples mentioned upthread, or social rank systems in places where mana can bring a comfortable life. The Wai262 claim also comes to mind with collective aspects of cultural ownership and kaitiakitanga..
-
That's why the idea of renewable copyright terms appeal to me. For example, perhaps 15 years from initial publication, and then you can renew for a small fee (basically enough to make it not worthwhile if you're not doing anything with the work) for another 15 years.
This means abandoned stuff is available to the public reasonably quickly, but for stuff still in use by the copyright holder, they can hold the rights for a longer time. I consider that kind of thing a decent trade-off between the social good and providing incentives for creation.
I like this idea.
Something that seems relevant is Abandonware, computer games that you can no longer buy where the copyright status is unclear. It's come about because of the young and volatile nature of the software industry where companies go bust or merge into others that might not support the game. While copyright presumably legally rests somewhere, since it is unavailable for sale and unsupported it is considered ok to download and play.
-
But in answer to the question, because society says so. The artists are given the right to control copies for a limited time, in exchange for which the public gets to make copies after that time.
yeah I know that's how it is but you're not illuminating me as to why it is. just cos we say so isn't good enough, it has to compare to similar property rights and examples of how it works in other fields, other wise it looks like its big kids beat up on the minority and steal their lunch. (which they had to get up at 5 am and make by the way)
-
What it sounds like you're saying is that someone should be able to create one thing, and live off that forever. That works in almost no other space. You can give someone a building, but it doesn't produce income by default. I don't give the plumber a dollar every time the toilet is flushed.
you make it sound like all created things are done in an afternoon (some are, most aren't by a long stretch).
the workings of creating things has been explained furher up the thread. sometimes many years of unpaid work goes into a creation which then owes that creator that time and money back, and it may take many years to deliver that. its investment in a way and yes investments in other sectors do yield dividends in perpetuity or not. if you want a more secure income get a job at macdonalds.your plumber performs one part of the task of disposing your shit. installing it. its a service job, not a production job. slightly different. pick another example that fits better.
-
Why should I not be able to copy those films if I want to show people about the origins of animation?
Er, i suspect you can -- i think it'd the criticism -- or education --? bit of the applicable law, there's probably a fair use right somewhere in there.
I'm not sure, and i've no legal knowledge, at all, but i think you could.
-
take modern hip-hop music. It often contains samples from other songs.
what do you think a hip hop artists motivation for sampling is?
its expense. that great 60's drum loop. you can re create that in a studio, but that costs money. The original artist paid to create the original recording. it cost them money to do it. why should someone have free access to cake without paying something to ward the ingredients. its only fair don't you think?
-
Rob, I mentioned that beautiful South poster of yours a while back. Well, some of its communicative power was about knowing Ansel Adams' landscape photos or Ronnie's other work. He didn't "own" those cultural references and neither did you. But you profited from them, as they added value to your marketing material and the album cover featuring that photo. Helped me decide to buy it, for one, and I also regard it as a taonga for all New Zealanders.
ronnie didn't do that photo, his brother did and iit was designed and treated by scott wilkinson from ballon d'essai. its an original work of art made specifically for that release, and I own it.
I wasn't referencing anything in choosing it cos I wasn't familiar with ansels work at the time, I was paying scott wilkinson to make me a pretty cd cover in his style, which is developed from being enrolled at polytech in chch and hanging out with a thriving scene of talented people who ( and this is the bit you're getting at) were taught about and influenced by many various sources. true, very true, but the artists I support are people who add something to the mix. that poster is very much scott wilkinson. he did the logo and the bold lines design.if somebody went an made a t shirt of that poster and started selling it as their own I'd be pissed off firstly, and secondly I'd wonder why they didn't make their own design, or filter something back to the owner of it (me) or the designer (scott) or francis van hout (the photo artist). a lot of the referencing argument is driven by laziness or cheapness. go do your own art, or front for the cost of doing your own.
-
Oops, wrong Van Hout. Ta for the detail.
I guess we've just demonstrated that some of the value to me in that work was not something that you as the owner intended or anticipated, and you've said that more than one creator was involved (including the business creativity).
"Referencing" is one way of acknowledging that broader historical/cultural context, although I'm sure you're dead right about the practical and commercial imperatives driving some people.
-
Different cultures have their own ways of managing this. That includes non-commercial avenues like the state pension examples mentioned upthread, or social rank systems in places where mana can bring a comfortable life. The Wai262 claim also comes to mind with collective aspects of cultural ownership and kaitiakitanga..
Yes and I think the contemporary Maori art movement has exemplified that - very supportive network that nurtures their own, the forest stronger than the single tree.
That was an excellent post @ 9.01, Sacha. Reminds how the law is such a blunt instrument and in this case can be utilised to OTT degree by powerful corporates, but hardly at all by lone artists who can't afford to monitor use or sue even if they want to. i fully get the meaning/context argument and creative trail - it comes down to the old where to draw the line question. Plenty of influences leave their mark on you, but they may not be explicit or even traceable in your work. And i do think that each form, music, visual arts, writing etc, has its own peculiarities that need addressing for copyright.
-
What seems to be missing from this conversation is how best to ensure to support artists, writers and so on.
The most effective help is giving exposure, routes to market. Locally I think of events like the hugely successful Affordable Arts Show, World of Wearable Arts. the Wellington festival, grants and loans to art students and support for art schools such as The Learning Connection.
The dirty little secret about the stuff in the Copyright Act and the protections demanded by the likes of robbery do next to nothing for the local artist on the one hand but have the potential to do damage to society and other sections of the economy, say nothing of our right to privacy and other freedoms that have been traded away under this dubious pretention.
This is crazy.
-
3410,
A "right" to restrict copies does not "naturally" exist, so it must be granted.
Still wondering how this is different from normal property rights.
-
Still wondering how this is different from normal property rights.
Can you handle it? Can you make copies out of nothing? In peoples' heads? Can you draw a line around it that everyone can see?
The differences seem glaring to me.
-
OK, all replies rolled into one, I need to stop procrastinating and get back to the writing that I'm supposed to be doing.
Copyright law allows some people to be dicks about it, but that doesn't mean creators don't deserve protection.
While some people are being real dicks, they are enabled by the strictness of law. And, keep in mind I'm not saying that there shouldn't be copyright - I think it's an effective method of encouraging people to create - I just think it needs to be balanced against the benefit to society at large, and currently I believe that society is getting the short end of the stick.
What if rights couldn't be bought and sold like that?
That would be interesting, but I don't think effective. IIRC, Europe has the concept of 'moral right', in that the original author can never give away their right to make copies for themselves. However, there is a purpose behind being able to transfer, or at lease, sublicense copyrights. It prevents everyone from having to become both a creator and publisher.
Hollywood originally wanted to "update" it though to be about the war on terror. If you haven't read it, take my word for it that it's a terrible idea, completely undermines the central theme and clearly demonstrates a lack of respect and understanding for the source material.
Certainly. Same goes with free speech. I don't have to agree or like what you're saying to support the idea of free speech. I think that they should be able to do this, it doesn't have to be good. Maybe something that the author doesn't like enhances the story for everyone else (although, in this case, probably not. But hypothetically.:)
Copyrights entering public domain might be a good thing for innovation and access, but there will be people in there bastardising the source material and reaping the rewards while the creator looks on.
Sad but true. But, I rank innovation and access way, way above the downside of some people making crap out of it. You don't have to watch/read/listen to the crap. Unlimited copyright means noone has the chance to make anything else from it, crap or award-winning.
Culture is not made by those who create cultural products. Establishing meaning and value is a joint effort of all those who receive as well as those who produce.
I wish I'd thought of putting it that way :) Your post is almost exactly what I'm trying to say.
yeah I know that's how it is but you're not illuminating me as to why it is.
I'm trying :) It is that way because otherwise there is no incentive for society to provide you copyright at all. Copyright isn't a natural right. If you make something, and I copy it, we're both enriched. You don't lose out on your creation, and if I modify it to make it more interesting, you can copy that and gain. But the way society works now, that isn't (always) good enough.
So, we give copyright holders a limited time to keep control, in exchange for which the public gets unfettered access in the end. If this didn't happen, there would be much less incentive for copyright to exist in the first place, as there would be no benefit to everyone else respecting the doctrine of copyright in the first place.
That's one way of looking at it, anyway.
Another way is that society doesn't want cultural items to be unusable for all eternity (so, no copyright is best in this respect), but we do want to encourage people to create works, so we allow a limited copyright.
Try looking at it from the point of view of the whole of society (damn, I'm abusing that word today) rather than that of the content creator, and working from that direction.
just cos we say so isn't good enough, it has to compare to similar property rights
No it doesn't. It's not particularly similar to property rights at all. I can't steal a copyright, I can steal a table. I can steal a book, but I can't steal a story. The most I can do is copy a story, but you don't lose your access to it.
you make it sound like all created things are done in an afternoon (some are, most aren't by a long stretch).
Trust me, I know.
installing it. its a service job, not a production job.
OK, how about building a table? Once you've sold it, you have no control over it. And that's as it should be. The catch with this is that a table is hard to freely copy, and requires significant resources to do so. Ideas don't, and naturally propagate. Why should that be hindered more than necessary?
Er, i suspect you can -- i think it'd the criticism -- or education --? bit of the applicable law, there's probably a fair use right somewhere in there.
Under the old copyright law, I don't think we had any such thing. I'm not sure about the current one. But, even then they're too restrictive for my tastes. (At least in US law) it's also not an exception to copyright, it's a possible defence against claims of infringement. Which means that it still goes to court.
But, while satire, criticism and educational use are important, they're not all that's important.
what do you think a hip hop artists motivation for sampling is?
its expense. that great 60's drum loop. you can re create that in a studio, but that costs money.
Possibly that's some motivation (disclaimer: I don't listen to hip-hop), but may not evoking memories of that other track in listeners minds be a useful goal also? I know that's why samples are used in industrial (which I do listen to). You can't recreate that, because to do so would mean that it simply doesn't work, unless you recreate it exactly the same, which is a pointless waste of time.
-
Er, i suspect you can -- i think it'd the criticism -- or education --? bit of the applicable law, there's probably a fair use right somewhere in there.
**Fair dealing in New Zealand**
In New Zealand, fair dealing includes some copying for private study, research, criticism, review, and news reporting. Sections 42 and 43 of the Copyright Act 1994 set out the types of copying that qualify. The criteria are perhaps most similar to those applying in the UK, although commercial research can still count as fair dealing in New Zealand. Incidental copying, while allowed, is not defined as "fair dealing" under the Act. As in Canada, fair dealing is not an infringement of copyright.
The factors determining whether copying for research or private study is judged to be fair dealing in New Zealand are its purpose, its effect on the potential market or value of the work copied, the nature of the work, the amount copied in relation to the whole work, and whether or not the work could have been obtained in a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price.
which is not the exact same thing as "fair use" in the US context.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.