Discussion: On Copyright
738 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 30 Newer→ Last
-
My contention is that in cotemporary context this evolution of motif and ideas would be all but impossible…..
Sleeping Venus
Venus of Urbino
La maja desnuda
Olympia
I’m a bit concerned that work like this famous cover and it’s successors would also not exist in a contemporary frame.But the bit that really gets me is this and I apologise for the Doctorow reference here.
-
-
Argh, of course they'd be allowed, look at bloody Imants Tillers. Doctorow doesn't know what he's talking about at all.
In fact, the problem is that Lichtenstein got away with murder in terms of ripping off comic artists -- or rather, there's a class based double standard being invoked.
-
Hang on, hang on, who says Tizard screamed?
Seems to be unfounded to me.
-
Interesting arguments from both sides of the divide here but we all seem to be missing several basic points.
The Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill and similar legislation around the word is being driven by the industry that stands to profit. In what would normally be a civil matter i.e. I sue you for using my work without permission, is being turned into a criminal matter whereby the owner of the work in question has the backing of criminal law in the same way as, say, had their goods stolen. here we must define how the law regards theft. Theft, to permanently derive the lawful owner of said goods from or of enjoyment, use or possession.
It has been argued that by copying a work the rightful owner is deprived of gain or income from said work. This, however, is not the same as theft.
Example. You own a shop and sell widgets. I open a shop next to yours and sell identical widgets for less. I attract your customers and therefore deprive you of gain or income. That is not theft.
Now let's say that you invented your widget, I bought a widget from you and copied it. I then have two, or many, widgets. It is only when I sell those widgets that you are affected by my actions. (at this point we have a conundrum. My work involved in copying the widgets should be taken into account as should my expertise, my equipment, my time and some could say, my need)
So. From this perspective we should be looking at fair use versus commercial gain with regard to intellectual property right with respect to common law. Not using criminal law to protect those that have, historically, had the upper hand due to their expertise and equipment etc. which is now available to most. -
The argument, apart the financial one, put up relentlessly by the pro-slavers prior to 1834 was fairly similar to your yours..they are property, and any questions as to why are not rational.
Charming. Part of the reason I've lost patience here is that judged by that standard, frankly, you have not done much better.
Just because copyright has grown or changed, or will grow or change, that does not prove that it should now change in some particular way you or I might advocate.
We're either doing this completely wrong or asking the wrong question.
Oh, not that I've been following that case but surely the copyright is in (for example) the information on the master recording, as opposed to the master itself being your property. You're controlling how people use the recording, not the tape.
-
@Keir
youse don't actually know a huge amount about how culture & fine arts work, do you?
And "youse" don't know much about the people you're talking about. I've been involved in arts and creation for over 30 years, on stage, radio, film, television and paper and have made money at all of those (although not huge amounts, which accounts for my IT profession). I have a very fine appreciation of the arts, a good understanding of copyright law and history, and a deep insight into digital technologies thanks to 20 years as an IT professional, a personal affinity with technology and time in professional organisations like GOVIS and InternetNZ (as an elected official), and the NZOSS as a member.
-
@simon
There's no comparison and I think it's pretty disappointing of you to try to manufacture one. I had thought you smarter than that. -
@ Keir
BoingBoing added the "screaming" - I was told by some who were there that she indeed yelled at them. Maybe "being yelled at" has different cultural connotations in NZ... -
Charming. Part of the reason I've lost patience here is that judged by that standard, frankly, you have not done much better.
Lyndon, the most positive spin I can put on your response is over-reaction. There was no implication that anyone was a slaver or supporter of such but rather to point out the ongoing argument that it was and has been as evidence of what it will always be is spurious and less than rational.
Just because copyright has grown or changed, or will grow or change, that does not prove that it should now change in some particular way you or I might advocate.
No, but current evidence is that it is evolving in several directions, at least in the music industry. It's not neccesarily the way I'd argue it should always go but that's beside the point. I've also been a huge advocate of the Radiohead experiment on these pages.
Oh, not that I've been following that case but surely the copyright is in (for example) the information on the master recording, as opposed to the master itself being your property. You're controlling how people use the recording, not the tape.
So, since we are agreed that the tape and what is on it is physical propertry then by extending your drift, landlords have no right to charge rent.
-
@simon
There's no comparison and I think it's pretty disappointing of you to try to manufacture one. I had thought you smarter than that.Sorry, I didn't mean to offend but see above.
-
And "youse"
You are only talking to one of me, thus making the plural form incorrect. Learn your non-standard English!
20 years as an IT professional, a personal affinity with technology and time in professional organisations like GOVIS and InternetNZ (as an elected official), and the NZOSS as a member.
Well, yeah. That was kind of the point -- an awful lot of tech knowledge, not as much fine arts knowledge. In particular, I don't think youse have very much art historical knowledge in terms of the less glamorous stuff, especially, who pays the bills & how does that effect the artists?
Take the claim about artists creating for the love of it, there's a raft of Marxist art historians who could (and have) rip that to shreds.
Or Doctorow's fussing about if Lichtenstein could paint like that today, when there's a whole bunch of people doing very similar stuff.
-
Instead there has been a fairly rapid divestment of the control of copyright back the creator.
Simon, that really is good news and I think a positive development. Unfortunately the technical enforcement rights around Copyright is being placed more and more in the hands of the mega corps and *this* is what has a wide and chilling affect.
youse don't actually know a huge amount about how culture & fine arts work, do you?
Is that a joke or an elitist statement? Just how much did Caravaggio's estate get paid for the copies of his work being sold at this year's Affordable Art Show? The Renaissance was the dillitants ultimate wet dream. Are you suggesting we can only have one life experience?
I don't think people discussing these issues on this thread have to justify themselves. There seem to be some pretty interesting and valid points all round. For example, I think Islander should run classes for content producers on how best to licence their work. Her early advice was gold dust.
However, the assumptions being made by yourself and robbery (who I don't associate with big industry BTW, just bad ideas :-)) about the ignorance or otherwise of others on this thread WRT Copyright, patent, other IP issues and the arts is making an ass out of your points.
-
Unfortunately the technical enforcement rights around Copyright is being placed more and more in the hands of the mega corps and *this* is what has a wide and chilling affect.
Not in the music industry. Witness the failures of the RIAA in the past decade.
In little old NZ both APRA and RIANZ have seen a little of the control wrested from the old guard. I'd argue the same is the case in the US & UK. The powerbase has shifted a little. But then, of course, those with the most money still have the biggest voices.
Independent music is now at 30%+ in the US and in the UK higher. And many of those tied to the non-Indies now control their copyrights and simply lease. The days of overwhelmng corporate dominance of the recording and music publishing industries, which peaked about 2000, are over.
-
I've also been a huge advocate of the Radiohead experiment on these pages.
I'm given to understand it was a marketing gimmick. You can no longer buy it as a download.
Try instead the Nine Inch Nails experiment, where it was actually released as creative commons, and uploaded to torrent sites by Reznor himself, along with doing things like this.
Or, on a smaller scale, Harvey Danger. To quote their site: "Please help yourself; if you like it, please share with friends."
-
In fact, the problem is that Lichtenstein got away with murder in terms of ripping off comic artists -- or rather, there's a class based double standard being invoked.
Kier -
I'm confused (have got friday brain in) how does this rebut the point I made earlier. Lichtenstein did most of his "theft" in the 60's and Imants Tiller's most recent work would hardly raise the level of argument I put forwards. These dudes all got away with it in the past. It seems clear to me at least, that this sort of evolution is getting harder. I'm trying really hard not to use a personal example here.
To put it another way I think chracters like Jenny Lens need to tread carefully. As discussed upthread many music photographers did great work hanging out in largely uncontrolled contexts. In the modern music business this is impossible.
-
@keir
So 20 years in IT trumps 30 years in theatre, eh? An understanding of the Internet outwheighs minute bigraphick knowledge of Garrick (and I don't mean Jay) and his importance to western theatre development especially in the area of Shakespeare performance?I'm in agreement with Don - your view is sounding very elitist, and more than a touch technophobic. Could it be that your dislike of copfighters is spurred by your fear and loathing of computers in general?
-
And spellcheckers, dammit!
Bigraphick = biographic
copfighters = copyfighters -
Lichtenstein did most of his "theft" in the 60's and Imants Tiller's most recent work would hardly raise the level of argument I put forwards. These dudes all got away with it in the past. It seems clear to me at least, that this sort of evolution is getting harder.
Isn't the sort of fair use that 'fine' artists such as Lichtenstein have operated under the same as that which protects editorial cartoonists? For example, it's quite OK - or has been - to use Lisa Simpson to portray Fox Broadcasting in a confrontation with CBS, represented by Lucy from Peanuts.
-
Look, Don, your idea of an art school was the learning connexion. I'm trying very hard not to be rude about TLC, cause the people who work there do a good job, I'm sure, and they don't need some dickhead on the internet mouthing off, but, in point of fact, they haven't produced an important artist ever.
Again, the affordable art show's cool and all, but it's a middle-brow show (at best) that hangs like the Salon.
The Renaissance was the [dilettante]'s ultimate wet dream
Da Vinci went through the old fashioned Florentine guild structure; Michelangelo was professional likewise, Raphael also. In fact, that was a criticism of Raphael, taht he churned out Madonnas for mercenary purposes. Art was a professional activity in Florence & Rome, which is why we care about patronage & the Medicis.
Compared to the medieval craft structure, yeah, it was more broad, in a liberal arts sense. It wasn't dilettantism though -- it was people who worked for their living at painting or sculpting.
I'm not saying you need to justify yourself per se. I'm not arguing that you're wrong about copyright because you don't know art history. Your statements deserve to be judged on their merits, not ad hom.
I am saying it is very frustrating seeing people with little evident knowledge of art history mouth off about how artists don't care too much about getting paid etc. (Yes, they do. Some are kind of famous for it.) Or that stuff has to be in the public domain before you can build on it -- especially in the face of evident contradiction.
And, er, I don't think I loathe computers*, but fair play. That's about the level of my arguments, isn't it? O dear.
Um. Yeah. There's maybe a better argument in there, but.
* Except the GIMP. I hate that. And sound. Don't you love the little things with linux?
-
The concept of copyright hasn't actually evolved that much. Only the duration has really changed in 300 years.
This is actually highly debatable. There's a young copyright historian at the University of Birmingham, Ronan Deazley, who's been arguing that the 'strong', author-centred version of copyright we believe has been around since 1710 (or 1774) is actually mostly a creation of the last 100-150 years. The original purpose of the 1710 Act was to 'encourage learning' (it's in the title of the legislation). Deazley argues in 'The Myth of Copyright at Common Law', Cambridge Law Journal 62, no. 1 (2003) that the idea that authors have had sovereign rights over their works since the late eighteenth century is basically an historiographic myth:
In [1774], the House of Lords understood the copyright regime, first and foremost, as addressing the broader interests of society .... copyright was fundamentally concerned with the reading public, with the encouragement and spread of education, and with the continued production of useful books. In deciding the case as they did, these eighteenth-century parliamentarians did not seek to advance the rights of the individual author. Rather ... they acted in furtherance of much broader social goals and principles. (132-33).
He's also written a book outlining the distortions he believes have marred the history of copyright and their implications for IP law in the present.
-
Again, the affordable art show's cool and all, but it's a middle-brow show (at best) that hangs like the Salon.
...that put over $800,000 dollars in three days into local artists pockets. Give me the low brow approach any day if it gives food to artists.
TLC was an example of a local art school. There are of course many others. It is *far* too early to state that it has never produced a decent artist.
I am saying it is very frustrating seeing people with little evident knowledge of art history mouth off about how artists don't care too much about getting paid etc.
What I hate is people who put words in my mouth as you have now done twice.
-
And, er, I don't think I loathe computers, but fair play. That's about the level of my arguments, isn't it? O dear.
Also, I have been conflating Mark and your arguments, so that may explain the apparent illusionary interlocutor.
-
Joe -
And my point is to some extent is;
i) I truly worry that if I used a small loop of any material held by Fox in an installation I would have to pay - sufficient to make several things I would like very much to do unviable.
ii) Fair use is a concept that is actually derived from the American constitution. But not in NZ; and please do check this - not preserved under the current act going through legislation in NZ.
Isn't the sort of fair use that 'fine' artists such as Lichtenstein have operated under the same as that which protects editorial cartoonists? For example, it's quite OK - or has been - to use Lisa Simpson to portray Fox Broadcasting in a confrontation with CBS, represented by Lucy from Peanuts.
-
@ Simon
I'm thrilled that musicians are driving a new model and I hope it pays well (not sure abouttheir adult kids). Academics out of necessity will probably do the same. My worry is that good progress will be frozen to the benefit of the motion picture industry which is about where the music industry was ten or so years ago IMHO.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.