Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
So-o-o pleased it's not just me. Drives my wife mad that I can remember obscure Monty Python sketches from nearly 40 years ago (when I heard them) and even more obscure 60's song lyrics, plus I'm pretty good at identifying a song within the first 2-4 measures, but I can't remember who people are. I know I know their faces but...
As soon as I hear the name I'll remember everything I know about them. But I can't make that connection from the face alone, mostly.
Mr Llewellyn will tell you that I called him Steve for literally years befor he very politely corrected me at the pictures one night. I have no idea how I made that connection...
If I'm unsure of the name I used to sort of mumble something (still do on occasion) but I'm getting much better at saying "sorry, it's the ME - I know I know you but I can't remember your name" which usually works.
Of course, none of us can ever meet up in public now, as we all know we can't remember each other :-D
-
I'm not sure if I'd consider one of society's rights to take the creation of one person, and then fiddle around with it and make it into something different.
How would you ever progress a theme, then? It's what we do with Shakespeare all the time. Marlowe, Wilde - anyone who's in the public domain. It's how it works. Without reinvigorating the public domain, the whole thing goes rancid and we enter a dark age whre no one can create anything because everyone is holding onto whatever copyrights they hold (or can grab).
This is how the system works now. Or doesn't work, depending on your perspective.
Copyright is not a property right. It's a licence to gain primary benefit from the creation of some content, whether artistic, scientific or whatever.
As soon as you create something, it becomes part of the social fabric - the creator just gets first crack at making some money from it for a limited time. The issue facing us is really how long should that time be.
-
At least the little ones will be safe and that's what really matters, eh?
</irony> -
Being part of the culture is one way of enriching it, but having material available for redevelopment is another. Personally, I think 50 years is a sufficient copyright period, rather than 20.
It's not so much the making available of an existing work in new formats that enhances the culture - it's the availability of it for redevelopment e.g. taking a character that interests the reader and writing a new story about them, or envisioning an existing story from a minor character's perspective.
Islanders already expressed the idea that (to paraphrase) we can only pry her characters from her cold dead hands, so there's no possibility of doing that sort of deal while copyright governs (in this instance). However, that leaves the work as a static item rather than a part of living culture. By the time it's available for rework, most people who read the original have passed on and there's no desire to make something new out of what has gone before. It's a pebble dropped into a pond and even the ripples have vanished.
None of us create in a vacuum. There is always something that has gone before. The current view of copyright as property prevents this re-nourishment of the culture.
-
I have never advocated that, Craig. I actually believe copyright is a good thing. But for every right there has to be an obligation, which is to release the work to society to benefit society. I favour fixed terms, from the date of publishing, myself - as Matthew (I think) said earlier, you don't want people shooting creators in order to get ahold of their material.
I'd *love* to have some more pocket money for my work, but it's not likely at present. I just don't think anyone owes me anything because my efforts may have had a (marginal, in my own opinion) effect on increasing radio listening in the 80's or theatre-going in Wellington.
-
Just spotted this in my feeds:
-
Islander's identity doesn't invalidate my point, Keir. The exception never does. The problem with arts in this country is that we're too blody small. But you can requite yourself with a wee 'omigawd' on my part ;-)
Keri, when you were writing it, did you imagine it would win the prize and go around the world? Or were you writing it for you, your whanau and friends and maybe a few other Kiwis who might read it if you managed the miracle of getting it published?
I appreciate that your book has had an impact on tourism, but so have a lot of books like Beak of the Moon and Mantle of the Gods. (Funny, all South Island books). Even more impact has been felt from all the films and TV series made here - not just LOTR, but Narnia, River Queen, Hercules etc. Should the DOP or the director expect a cut of the tourism benefits that their work generates? It's a little unrealistic to expect it, after all you're in the writing (and whitebait) business, not the tourism business.
I do know something of the publishing game (I have reject letters for Africa) although more from the performance writing end. If my work is used, I get paid. If not, then not. That's the way it is. I accept that's the way the game gets played. I don't like it, but I accept it.
As you said earlier, control of the copyright is far more important than the royalty long tail, but it's worthless in the end unless you do something with it. The Internet allows greater reach for lower cost, if you can reuse the work you've done.
But, if you're at all like me as a writer, the work is built in a particular way using just the right characters scenes and words to get across exactly the message you want to impart, and 'repurposing' them feels sort of wrong.
Example: I have a play that would make a really good novel, but I don't yet know how to write a compelling novel. But the play's got too many characters to be feasible to put on stage. What to do?
One possibility is to redirect it as a radio play, or series, and put it on the Internet under a Creative Commons licence. I can muster enough people who can do the voice work - I'd still control the copyright. Finding a revenue stream out of it is the hard bit.
But the play was the important thing to me to write the play and get it done. I didn't write it for the money (ha!) but to get it out of my system (1981 Springbok tour). If it *ever* makes me a dime, it'll be a bonus.
It's late. I'm off to bed. Night all
-
I only find the links, Sacha. I leave the heavy lifting to more mathematical folks.
-
Either way I think you owe him an apology.
Alright, I'm sure we're all very sorry that Richard Prebble is drooling and has a tiny mind.
We're so fucking sorry.
-
I've often heard that said, but what statute is it in? I can't find any mention of photographs taken in a public place in the Copyright or Privacy Acts.
This is from that wonderful other source of law, case law. Anyone (to wit, Mr. Poole and myself - yes and others) can read the statutes and interpret them, although it gets bloody difficult at times given the archaic way they're worded (and, trust me, they're 200% better than they were 20 years ago!). But to really understand copyright law, for example, you've got to have an understanding of where judges have interpreted the statutes in ways that you might not have, where they've been overturned or upheld on appeal and the reasoning for the decision.
Judges decisions can be fascinating in their parsing of the law. The can bring together stands of privacy, copyright, crimes act - all sorts - and weave a brand new decision that may be held as a precedent for future decisions. All of which makes me so pissed off that Justice has been so behindhand about getting a decisions database sorted out. You can still only get Supreme, High and Appeal court decisions from their site and they're really slow. The commercial services have them up (if you can afford the subscription) much sooner than MoJ, and they don't have District ones at all.