Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 71 72 73 74 75 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
Steve Barnes - what on *earth* makes you think a writer is disasociated from the *material* side of things, mate?
Never said that, just noting that your comments have tended to be more of a materialistic bent than an Artistic one. No offence intended. I would love to hear about the joy you find in creating your works.
-
As I said, somewhere in the morass of copyright threads, I am an actor, director, writer, photographer, sound designer, as well as an IT consultant. I have been paid in all those capacities, but IT has paid best.
I am also an artist (mainly 3D and computer-based) but have yet to earn in this capacity. I'm hoping to exhibit later this year, if all goes well and the creeks don't rise.
Okay. For most of those things, you get paid for the services you render, nothing to do with copyright. Although I guess it depends on what kind of writer you are - screenplays, scripts, novels, short stories? Are you published in any of these capacities? And work paid on commission, again, correct me if I'm wrong but that's a form of remuneration which often is not tied with expectation of future earnings.
All in all, if it were me I'd hesitate to call myself a copyright holder in the same way that Islander is a copyright holder. But that's just me.
-
screenplays, scripts, novels, short stories
Yes to scripts, for radio and stage. Performed but not published (still working on that).
Short stories only published in SF fanzines. Novel yet to find a publisher.
Yes, a performer does not hold copyright unless the performance is recorded, then contractual issues would decide remuneration, but probably would not hold copyright. Unless I wrote the piece as well, has happened.
Photography: terms of the contract left the copyright with me on two occasions, not on two others.
As for work on commission, the Commissioning Rule was being addressed by the previous government; not sure where that is at now.
All in all, if it were me I'd hesitate to call myself a copyright holder in the same way that Islander is a copyright holder. But that's just me.
Why? Just curious.
-
Yes it can. If you wish to place your preference with your Artistic talent over what you consider your "real job", can I suggest (via personal experience) get a job that allows creativity or get a job that might allow the brain to wonder, but not perhaps the body
Hi Sofie, yeah, I've been down most of those tracks. I've mostly been thwarted by my single parenthood of 12 years - any fantasies I had of child-free weekends or shared parenting, even, crashed and burned. Did I say that painting doesn't marry with marriage etc either??? I'm at uni doing a late degree in the sparse hope (in these downwards times) of finding better paid work that I can do maybe half-time. I'm still coaching one of my sons through Correspondence as well as full-time study and part-time work. I actually found I've had to squash the painterly creature into a box and sit on the lid, so i can do the analytical thing at uni.
But, hey, in a couple of years I'll have my time back and hopefully, plenty of that dancing space you speak of.
-
the material I create tends to uniqueness, whether in performance or sculpture
Lucky you. I thought we were talking about digital works that could be copied. But feel free to change the subject.
If I felt the need for copyright enforcement, I would use the courts, the way that we have always done.
How very RIAA of you. I was hoping for a more general answer, but there we go.
You're ok, so that's fine. -
Lucky you. I thought we were talking about digital works that could be copied. But feel free to change the subject.
We're talking about copyright. But feel free to limit your contribution.
You asked what my preferred method of funding was. I told you: I don't have one.
How very RIAA of you. I was hoping for a more general answer, but there we go.
Except that I would only bring a case where there was clear evidence of infringement causing harm to my reputation or revenue stream that could be laid directly at the feet of an infringing copy. Which the RIAA doesn't do. But feel free to make shit up, as you have been all day.
You're ok, so that's fine.
If that was the case, I wouldn't be here arguing with you. You asked me what I would do. I've told you what I would do.
-
And work paid on commission, again, correct me if I'm wrong but that's a form of remuneration which often is not tied with expectation of future earnings.
Well that is proving debatable.As we are seeing, some would
-
I have been Pilgerised damn it. that dancing quote. The whole quote would have been "If you're doing it right you're Dancing. If you're saying it right you're singing. If you think you're right you're just thinking."
It's mine I tell you. All mine.
Bwah ha ha ha. -
O well said Kerry! (By the way,every working creative person has periods of stasis- which are storing-up-honey times, either to make sublime mead or blow-yer-head-off spritzy crank.)
I'm counting on that, Islander :-)
As for the material stuff, living on the proverbial smell of oily rag is all very well, but I tell ya, I've done my best work when I'm not worrying about how I'm going to pay the bills or buy good quality materials or, worse, allow myself to buy some good brushes instead of shoes for the kids without feeling guilty.
It's not a matter of labelling an artist amateur or professional, it's the simple fact that the more time and energy you put into it, the better you will be. Every "blissful" work I've done has been recognised and "felt" by viewers/buyers. There is potency in a good work that others feel - like Sofie said, when someone else feels it, you know you've done your job. That is also a great satisfaction.
-
just thinking."
It's mine I tell you. All mine.
Bwah ha ha ha.Thinking? I was writing! Also debatable. ;)
-
But feel free to make shit up, as you have been all day.
No I haven't, Mark. Mostly I've been asking questions. Which shouldn't be so threatening.
I don't feel any of your intellectual certainty: I prefer to be open about my doubts and lacunae.
But feel free to drive off in your steam-roller to High Gudgeon. -
allow myself to buy some good brushes instead of shoes for the kids without feeling guilty.
But the guilt is the best bit. ;-)
-
As for work on commission, the Commissioning Rule was being addressed by the previous government; not sure where that is at now.
I know I risk being sucked into the death spiral by being in this thread, but here is where the changes to the Commisioning Rule are at.
-
Simon- I'm happy to take your word there's still plenty of funding behind music-making. I'm not trying to be provocative, exactly- I just want to tease out what people really think, and a little bit about why. I actually agree with Mark that we're on the cusp of a shift in paradigm- and I'm open to notion that "copyright must change".
I'm just hoping signs of a way forward that's broad-ranging, innovative, and everyone wins. ;-) -
All in all, if it were me I'd hesitate to call myself a copyright holder in the same way that Islander is a copyright holder. But that's just me.
Why? Just curious.
Because you're not in the same league. You dabble in a lot of things, hoping one day to have a work of substance or several published and recognised, and that's great, all luck and power to you. But you haven't, yet, so your personal investment in copyright is the same as that of any other shmuck who also hasn't yet, and might not ever.
Islander on the other hand is an established and internationally recognised author with a body of work who does that for a living, and whose stature as part of the cultural patrimony of the country is significant. Her views on copyright matter more than yours or mine not just because she's better at what she does than we are, but also because in light of the value that as a society we see in her work I think it's worth judging copyright provisions on the basis of whether or not they serve people like her. And if she tells us that she lives very modestly off her works, and has to fight tooth and nail for the meagre income streams she currently enjoys, then perhaps limiting those terms further and making it harder for her to work is not a great idea. Whereas in your case, well, you're not there yet, a fourteen years limit on the duration of copyright (to name but one example of an idea floated here) is not within your actual lived experience. You're not giving up anything that you currently possess.
I'm a copyrights holder of sorts too, very humbly. I wrote a PhD that some people in the business liked enough to suggest I should publish it. I put it online for free because I figured that more people in my particular field would read it that way, and it's not as if I was ever likely to actually earn much money from traditional publication anyway. Also, I had already been paid to undertake that research and I have another income stream in the professional world. That decision and what I do are still very important to me, but my experience as a copyrights holder is of an entirely different quality than Islander's.
-
@Rob. What I'm trying to say is it ain't as glum as some would have you believe. Sure it's not pretty in some corners of the recording industry but to suggest it's killing the creation of music is simply a smokescreen to cover the fact that the market is rather quickly adjusting, as it always was going to. A lot of things are being redefined in the digital world and copyright is inevitably one of them. That doesn't mean that, as far as I'm concerned, robust copyright laws are not required (and I'm not at all comfortable with a reduction in term) but I think that edges need fine tuning if you will, and not just to protect those who are finding that they are unable to clip the ticket as they have done in the past decades.
-
I know I risk being sucked into the death spiral by being in this thread, but here is where the changes to the Commisioning Rule are at.
Thanks for that ScottY. I wasn't sure if it fell into abeyance with the change of government.
-
Because you're not in the same league. You dabble in a lot of things, hoping one day to have a work of substance or several published and recognised, and that's great, all luck and power to you. But you haven't, yet, so your personal investment in copyright is the same as that of any other shmuck who also hasn't yet, and might not ever.
Which is most people, actually, but thank you for those kind words. It's not a matter of personal investment. Actually, we all have the same copyright rights and obligations.
Islander on the other hand is an established and internationally recognised author with a body of work who does that for a living, and whose stature as part of the cultural patrimony of the country is significant.
So some pigs are more equal than other pigs, eh?
I figured that this was what you were driving at, but I thought the act of writing it might make you see it for the bullshit that it is. Obviously not. That's a shame, but it doesn't affect my arguments.
Her views on copyright matter more than yours or mine not just because she's better at what she does than we are, but also because in light of the value that as a society we see in her work I think it's worth judging copyright provisions on the basis of whether or not they serve people like her.
Um no. Success in a field, or failure to succeed, has no bearing on copyright and someone who is successful at winning a prize for writing a book has no more credibility in discussing copyright than you or I. Magic realism, maybe, but not copyright. You may wish to write yourself off and defer to Islander, but don't include me in your intellectual abnegation.
And if she tells us that she lives very modestly off her works, and has to fight tooth and nail for the meagre income streams she currently enjoys, then perhaps limiting those terms further and making it harder for her to work is not a great idea.
Even though those are the rules she signed up to by publishing? We all know what the game is when we climb onto the park.
By her own admission elsewhere, her book has sold over a million copies in a number of languages. That's phenomenally successful, better than any other New Zealand writer that I'm aware of. But it doesn't mean she knows anything about copyright, or that copyright is providing the income. What's providing the income is that people want to buy the book. When they stop wanting to buy the book, well, that's it for the income. Time to write another best-seller. That's the way the business of publishing works, you know, the business you and so many others are trying to preserve?
I understood Islander's issues were actually more about control of the work, but she may have changed her mind.
Whereas in your case, well, you're not there yet, a fourteen years limit on the duration of copyright (to name but one example of an idea floated here) is not within your actual lived experience. You're not giving up anything that you currently possess.
I haven't suggested that low a limit, though it has been suggested here. To tie me to that comment is a long bow. And it doesn't matter whether or not under the law I've been successful - my work is still covered by the same copyright.
I'm a copyrights holder of sorts too, very humbly. I wrote a PhD that some people in the business liked enough to suggest I should publish it. I put it online for free because I figured that more people in my particular field would read it that way, and it's not as if I was ever likely to actually earn much money from traditional publication anyway. Also, I had already been paid to undertake that research and I have another income stream in the professional world. That decision and what I do are still very important to me, but my experience as a copyrights holder is of an entirely different quality than Islander's.
That's your decision to make, and you had your own reasons to make it. It doesn't mean that Islander knows more about copyright than you, or anyone else.
-
I figured that this was what you were driving at, but I thought the act of writing it might make you see it for the bullshit that it is. Obviously not.
Very good, then. Asked and answered, and let's move on.
-
who believes the world owes him a living for being a middleman
if you're referring to me I ain't (just) the middleman, i'm mostly a participant in all my projects (be it musician, writer, producer, engineer, graphic artist etc), and I participate in all parts of the chain from creator to distributor and also audience as I get involved in things I want to hear, but thanks for the one dimensional portrayal.
An Artist strives
grubby little hand,
that will bring an end to all suffering
ahhh, you were having a little day dream. wake up mate.
-
I've already said I don't download, so no.
so you're telling it how it is based on,......ignorance?
you don't have to download to read the data. you should do a little easy on the street research before you go pleading your case. -
no more credibility in discussing copyright than you or I
she may well have more knowledge than you based on first hand experience (not that you'll ever give credit for that) and that little notion of investment in the process, ie you're an enthusiastic amateur who doesn't derive your income predominantly from creative copyrightable activity, which gives you a completely different perspective on the whole picture. ie you have next to nothing to lose and no idea of the real magnitude of impact a change will make cos you've got nect to no rel world experience to base it on.
something about if you want to know what it's like for someone else try walking a few miles in their shoes.
on a side note, you're quite an insulting arse at times to some quite polite people. not that you care but its worth noting.
-
Um no. Success in a field, or failure to succeed, has no bearing on copyright and someone who is successful at winning a prize for writing a book has no more credibility in discussing copyright than you or I. Magic realism, maybe, but not copyright. You may wish to write yourself off and defer to Islander, but don't include me in your intellectual abnegation.
Unbelievably crass.
Um, perhaps you're not aware, but Islander is held in great esteem as a Living Treasure.
-
Um, perhaps you're not aware, but Islander is held in great esteem as a Living Treasure.
I'm not denying that, but it is as a writer, not as a repository of all knowledge. Kiri Te Kanawa is also regarded as a living treasure, but I wouldn't ask her about astrophysics.
You see insult where none is intended.
-
but I wouldn't ask her about astrophysics.
but you would ask her about opera, live performance, how she derives her income from her craft, the laws that relate to her craft and how they affect her, how technology has impacted on her, etc etc.
Islander isn't commenting on astrophysics.she's commenting on the direct field of her experience.
in this thread you're closer to the person commenting on astrophysics.
you're ideas and concepts are valid to be considered but you're not you ain't the proven expert...... yet.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.