No, like I said, you must do SOMETHING with the song before you redistribute: remix it, use it in a mash up, make a (non-trivial) video with it, use it as atmospheric music in a film etc.
But we’d never have had those wonderful Nolan Batman movies in that world. Instead we’d just have ten thousand shoddy Batman movies. Nobody would invest the money needed to do it if they had no control over the brand.
Then again, we probably wouldn’t have ten thousand shoddy Batman movies because nobody would ever have heard of him; DC Comics would not have spent the hundreds of millions they’ve spent developing the brand over the decades. We’d live in a world without these awesome big budget Batman movies.
You can do that already; plenty of films have songs in them, and they weren’t performed by the director!
We have a licensing structure especially for that sort of thing.
I know, and the structure is rather crap. It stifles creativity and only allows those of a high budget to have the most artistic freedom (though this is often stifled by the people giving you the money). The mandatory low percentage model allows creativity to be expressed at all levels of the income scale without giving up the ability of making money on your work.
And I don’t see why nobody would invest in Batman if he were public. It’s just a matter of having the better Batman. And if you create a legacy character that everybody simply ADORES, more money in your pocket whenever a ripoff makes some cash.
…well that’s a bizarre stance. Branding is something that business’s do to help them differentiate them from other business’s and to help them make money. Why do you think that companies shouldn’t be allowed to create a unique identity for themselves?
Sure. Thats the status quo now. Why do you want to change it?
If a business chooses to use stock imagery they run the risk of running the same image as another business: this is a choice they make.
Or they could decide to spend more money, hire a creative director, a stylist, some models, make up artists, photographers and assistants, to take a unique set of images to suit their brand.
Your system takes away that choice. It will drive down prices, put people out of work and others out of business. Ultimately it will lead to a reduction in the creativity that you crave because there will be less money to create the original work in the first place.
How does image attribution pay my rent?
But why are you deciding what I am entitled to? Do you understand how a free market works? I create something or someone commissions me to create something, I create that thing, the client pays me the amount that we agreed on and we walk away content. That is the current system. That is exactly how it works now. How is this broken?
But what if I don’t want them to do this? What rights do my models have under this system? Right now they sign a model release with a set of conditions that we both agree to. Typically in the industry the model release will allow the licence of the likeness for a certain amount of time for certain usages.
Under the current system someone can’t use their image to promote their ad-free neo nazi blog. Under the current system I would ask them to take down the image, send them an invoice, or file a take down.
Under your system? The model is no longer protected. Under your system the neo-nazi site has to attribute me as the photographer. I will be forever linked by the law you have created to something that i find abhorrent. And to make things worse I wouldn’t even get paid for it. How is this a good thing?
Models and actors make money because they have a unique look or set of attributes. A model can expect to make money for a limited time only: having their image associated with a neo-nazi website will decrease their ability to earn a living. Under the current system there are remedies under the law that will protect their rights. The system isn’t broken. Why does it need fixing? How do you protect the rights of the model in a system where there is no control over the use of their image?
Exactly as it is now. Why do you want to fix something that isn’t broken? How do you police and enforce this under a system where I would have less copyright protection than I have at the moment?
Exactly as it is now. Why do you want to fix something that isn’t broken?
Of course, it wouldn’t work this way under your system. You said that if a company chooses to use an image of mine, they can simply do so by cropping it differently and changing the colour tone, then paying the “industry wide agreed percentage.” There is absolutely no incentive to pay higher than this rate: there are no unique images anymore, no unique brands, and I would have no ability to negotiate. What you suggest I do is only possible under the current system: it wouldn’t be possible under your new system.
Prove to me that this is a problem. I’m sure that there are cases out there where this is true, but enough to throw out a system that is currently working for one that has so many unintended consequences? The system now works. Prove that it doesn’t.
Well, I disagree. I’ve invested three years in learning the craft of photography. I invested $5000 to attend the best Photoschool in the country, and spent $100 per week for six months on petrol driving out there and back. I’ve developed my own unique artistic vision. I create stuff noone else can create. Why shouldn’t I have complete control over what I create?
With your system is the people that benefit the most will have invested the least amount of time, effort and money.
Thisis probably my favourite photograph that I have taken. It was taken at Moa Point: about five minutes drive from my house, early one evening as part of my first 365 project. The equipment to take this photo cost me over $2000, and the image was the result of over a year of learning photography, trial, error, petrol, and hard work.
I’ve gone back to this location many times to try and duplicate the shot: there were a few technical things I wanted to fix up that weren’t quite right, but I’ve never been able to get a shot as good as this again. There were always subtle differences in mood, in lighting, in the way the water moved and the way the sky looked. This is a unique image. It inspires me. It inspires my photography friends. I choose to share it on messageboards and flickr. I decide how its used.
If someone wants to use it in a personal project, its simple: they can click on the buy button and they can licence the images. Or they can send me an email and if they want to use it for something worthy then I might send them the hi-res image with a licence for unlimited usage. My choice.
Your system takes away my ability to make choices on what to do with what I spent time, effort and money to create. Its hard enough to make a living as a photographer right now: your system would make it next to impossible. It will not inspire creativity, your system will stifle it. Given a choice of, as you say, “putting it out there” or not putting it out at all, many, if not most creative professionals will simply choose not to put it out there.
What, under the current system stops wonderful things happening?
Star Wars has been mentioned several times so far in this thread. Have you seen the creative works derived from Star Wars? How is the system broken? What under the current system stops creative people creating wonderful things? You really need to stop being so abstract and start providing concrete examples of how the current system is broken and how creative people can’t do stuff because of the "big corporations. Because as I see it the current system gives us little guys a chance. After three years of preparation my photography business is one month old. The existence of copyright allows me the freedom to try to make a living doing what I love. Under your system I wouldn’t even bother trying: your system offers so little incentive to work hard because ultimately I wouldn’t even be able to cover my investment in gear. As I said before: your system benefits those who invest the least and this will ultimately lead to a less creative society and the opposite of what you want.
…why is it crap? Because you say so? How exactly does it stifle creativity? What stops people creating stuff?
What the mandatory percentage model will do is take away my ability to set my own prices for my own work. Every business has its own unique cost of doing business: and if the mandatory percentage model doesn’t cover those costs, then “making money” won’t mean much. Look at what microstock has done to the stock industry: there is now an oversupply of stock images in the market that provide a very small margin to the photographer. And when you pay small percentages the creativity goes down. 1364 pages of sunrises: all of them looking pretty much the same. Your system does not inspire creativity, it stifles it.
No, I do not believe the artist has any right to control the use of their intellectual property the second it leaves the gate. If a Neo-Nazi site wants to use it, go for it. It’s up to the populace to not confuse reuse with endorsement, and I don’t think they’re that dumb. In short, yes, I’m taking away your choice as you say so often. I am aware of this, and I think it’s fair because ultimately it affords more choice to everyone.
And no just cropping and changing the colors isn’t good enough, there would have to be some (preferably publicly available, no or low-cost) legal dispute system that would analyze what constitutes “significant changes” that would prevent something that simple from being an “adaptation” as opposed to a reproduction.
And Star Wars is rather good about allowing fan content, good for them. A lot of music companies freak out at videos of a 3 year old singing 30 seconds of one of their songs. I can’t provide a cite for a lot of these things because, well, youtube takes them down the second they’re reported. I have known of plenty of creative music video channels that get completely shut down. Again, I can’t provide a cite because they don’t exist anymore. Gone forever, maybe living on in the hard drives of the creator and a few fans with the foresight to download the videos. Even the Nostalgia Critic/"<Movie> in Five Seconds" got copyright bombed on Youtube by businesses despite the fact that it was rather clearly parody and/or critical analysis, because they didn’t like it or god knows what other reason. I suppose that worked well because now he’s on Blip making money instead of Youtube making nothing, but just because it works out doesn’t make it right. Sure, maybe the music videos and covers you can argue for, but businesses are also using it as an excuse for shutting down any mention of their work they’re not particularly fond of on the big sites, even if it’s technically fair use.
Sure, “they can always sue if it’s legitimately fair use.” But small companies and internet reviewers don’t exactly have the cash to go toe to toe with Fox and expect anything other than a bunch of lost money, even if they win the case, they don’t really gain anything other than the ability to have a Youtube video put back up.
And in case you’re wondering because of my frequent mentions of a specific site, no, I’m in no way affiliated. In fact, I have no vested interest, and I’d likely never even use the privilege of percentile fee adaptation if it was passed, I just think it reflects the state that art should be in better than the current model.
Because, if you want to make something that you think an existing work would complement perfectly you generally have to pay out the ass unless it’s under creative commons or is by a more indie person that you have a chance of getting permission from directly. Licensing fees are expensive otherwise, certainly out of the budget of people making art for free just for the sake of beautifying the internet or making profound statements. Again, certain companies are good about it, but many companies aren’t.
Most of those sunrises look nowhere NEAR the same to me.
And of course, you can still peddle your services to companies to have first dibs on a unique image, or to get a shot that is “better” than the existing ones. And you can still a negotiate a fee for your services that they’d pay. The law wouldn’t stop you from doing that, or from keeping your work private and holding out until you find a stock company willing to pay your fee rather than put it up publicly and have everyone pay you only percentage. It’s just that after first public use it’s fair game. And plenty of free art is good, a lot of shit, but that’s true of things with a budget too. I’m not worried about creativity stifling by giving MORE people access to the ability to create art.
Hate to repeat myself, but I have to reiterate that I simply don’t agree with you. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I doubt that I’m alone in this.
I really, really do not believe it would work. I honestly believe that the result would be that people would stop creating cool stuff for us to enjoy because their incentive has been taken away.
I’m with you in that the system is currently flawed; but I can’t agree that this is the solution. I wish I had a solution, but I don’t.
So I assume that if a pedophile organization, say Nambla, decided to plaster ads everywhere with your picture that pushed for the legalization of sex with 6 year olds, you’d be ok with that. Right?
Everytime this issue is discussed the side wanting to relax or do away with the current legal framework seems to miss one important thing and that is the changes do nothing for the creators and actively hurt their interests. Artists can already give their work away if they choose. They have that option.
Slee
Go for it.
Edit: If anybody asks I’ll deny I’m affiliated, but I see no reason they can’t use my picture if they wish, provided said picture was taken from a public channel.
And of course under the parameters I stated that they’re required to both source the image and make a clear message that the creator (me) is not affiliated with them.
That’s not copyright; that’s trademark. If you wanted to create your own movie, with new actors playing Leia and Luke and Han, and didn’t use any excerpts or scripts from the originals, there would be no copyright infringement in that. The objection would be that LucasFilms owns trademarks on the likenesses of those characters (at least, I would assume they do). If LucasFilms let the trademarks lapse for lack of defense, you would then be able to make new Star Wars movies, but still wouldn’t be allowed to copy the originals. On the other hand, if they continue to enforce their trademarks, but the copyright expires, then you’d be able to copy the originals, but would not be allowed to make new ones.
But the inescapable fact is that it would be associated with you. That’s how brand association works; it’s human nature. And it’s why companies spend so much money creating and then protecting their brands.
You might not care, or you might not personally believe it would happen, and that’s fine; if you ever create anything, feel free to attach a perpetual unrestricted worldwide non-rescindable, open license to it. It’s your decision to make; making that decision for others, though, seems somewhat unfair.
There used to be one, sort of. When I was growing up, stuff was copyrightable for 28 years, renewable once. If people didn’t think it was worth the effort to fill out the form to renew their copyright, it lapsed after 28 years.
I really can’t see why copyright holders are deserving of a longer period of protection than patent holders. Makes sense to me that they should be the same.
I think you should be able to leave the fruit of your life’s efforts to your children. That may be a house, or other material goods, but it might also be a valuable IP which you’ve worked on and developed.
…well again I disagree. And as an artist if I were to loose the right to control my work when it “left the gate” i would simply no longer create. My work costs money, time and effort to create and if I can’t control it I can’t make that money back. And I wouldn’t be the only one to make that choice.
Of course they are that dumb! I actually thought that Eminem was homophobic right up until he took the stage with Elton John. If Brad Pitts image was used on a Neo Nazi website of course people would think he would have an association with the site. If people didn’t make those assocations business wouldn’t spend millions of dollars creating unique brands. Your solution not only takes away my rights as a photographer but also the rights of the models that I use in my images. Rights that are protected under the current system but would be removed under yours.
Well you are wrong. Again. Its not fair. I’ve gone to lengths to explain to you how much it cost me in time, effort and money to take a single photograph. It is not fair for me to go to those efforts and to have someone else profit off those efforts for a tiny percentage of money that is less than what I want them to pay for it. The current system is fair. If you want to use something that cost me time, effort and money to produce, then you either ask me or pay me. How is this unfair?
You are not demanding that mechanics or bakers or wedding planners or accountants get paid an arbitrary sum: but you think I should be. You think that I shouldn’t be allowed to set my prices to cover my cost of doing business. This is not fair by any definition of the word.
You see, this is why fortunately your system wouldn’t get off the ground. This is fantasy. It would never happen. Look at some of the things that would have to happen to get your idea off the ground.
You would need to create a legal dispute system to determine what is significant change. You call it low cost: but thats a load of rubbish. At the moment its hard enough to get different countries to adhere to the Berne Convention, who is going to raise money and run this legal dispute system? How will it be funded? How will it work internationally? This would never happen in the real world, you wouldn’t get the support.
You would have to develop exactly what is transformative work is and potentially throw out decades of case law. You would have to do this for every creative industry from photography to music to movies. Your saying cropping and colour correction wouldn’t be enough: then what would be?
Yeah, Star Wars is a prime example of why the system isn’t broken.
So you want to change the entire copyright system because of stuff like this? (NSFW, bad language) (The video has been online since 2008 and survived two take down requests.) The system isn’t broken.
But seriously, you want to change the entire system because of stuff that has been taken off youtube that are less creative than the Baking a Cake video?
This is why your proposals don’t make sense. You are trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. If something truly is fair use then they will be able to use it. Might it get yanked off Youtube because they are extra-sensitive to claims of copyright? Well yeah. But its a free platform and you get what you pay for. The Nostalgia Critic is happily creating content and making money under the current system. Why do you want to fix something that isn’t broken?
Show me this is a problem right now. Your solution would require an investment of millions of dollars and the cooperation of nations. You would need to set up special legal dispute system that is recognized internationally for your system to have a remote chance of working. Your idea is a nice fantasy but it would never have a chance of happening in the real world.
Show me this is a problem where the only solution would be for me to give up my rights. You’ve cited one example where it looks like the guy is doing quite well for himself under the current system.
And again: what is wrong with this? Why shouldn’t I, as the guy who has invested my time, effort and money into a creative work be able to decide how my work is used? Why should I invest my time, effort and money into creative work if I can’t cover my costs of business? If someone is creative enough to do something with my work surely they are creative enough to create their own work.
Yet, if they want to create something that is a true trans formative work that will be different and truly new art they can contact me and I will give them permission. Under the current system this isn’t a problem. This isn’t broken.
This response confirms my suspicion that maybe you aren’t the best person to make judgement’s on what should happen with the art world. These images are all technically perfect shots but are relatively easy to produce, shot at similar times of day with with similar camera settings and similar processing. This is the “fast food” of photography. Nothing wrong with that at all: and considerable time, effort and money would have been spent creating these images.
But these image aren’t great examples of the “creativity” that you hope to inspire. These are all microstock images, an industry that sprung up with the growth of the internet, that pays photographer a tiny fraction of what they would have earned under traditional stock. By paying less you do not inspire creativity you encourage conformity. The stock industry is now mainly catered to by the “technical” shooter and not the creative one because in order to make the same money with lower prices you need to sell more product. This is basic economics. if you do not reward creativity you will see less creativity.
But what value is there to first dibs? Under your system, absolutely nothing. First dibs without copyright protection would last mere seconds. Companies won’t want to pay extra for first dibs because there is no value to it.
What leverage do I have to negotiate under your system? None at all. The law would restrict what price I sell after I make my first sale, would it not? How can I negotiate when I don’t have control of my product?
What stock companies? They can’t make money under your system. THEY WILL NO LONGER EXIST AS THEY WILL NOT BE PROFITABLE.
I sell my image to the stock company (first sale.) The image is now free to be used by for not profit sites and anyone who make significant alterations only has to pay a fraction of what they would now. Non-profit organizations like the Red Cross or the United Way would no longer have to pay my for their images.
They won’t even be able to cover their webhosting costs under your model, let alone pay their staff. You have a fundamental misunderstanding on how business works. There are so many holes in your plan that I could fly a starship through it.
But you haven’t convinced me that the changes you propose would give more people the ability to create art. The few examples in this thread that you have posted are youtube videos. You haven’t shown that creativity is on the decline or that people can’t create new stuff. You haven’t shown that there is a problem that needs fixing.
Here’s what I’d like to see:
There’s an initial grace period on creative works where copyright is automatic: 20 years from first publication, or, for unpublished works, 20 years from the death of the creator, for example.
If you want to extend a copyright beyond the grace period, you need to re-register the work every decade. There’s a re-registration fee that increases over time. It starts out at a nominal amount, say $5, but eventually escalates to something really substantial, like $10,000. However, as long as you’re willing to keep paying the re-registration fee, you can keep ownership of a copyright indefinitely.
The idea behind this system is to encourage long-term copyright holders to work hard to keep their properties in wide public circulation, earning enough income to justify paying the high license fee. And to move less-popular works into the public domain more quickly in the hopes that someone might find some marginal value in them. It still rewards a brilliant creator by giving them ownership over an asset with long-term value, while eliminating the “copyright camping” we see now where works are allowed to fall out of circulation, but remain out of the public domain.
i don tkno’w im to stupid to haven an opinion im sorry im biting myself right now i didnt men to offend everyone i hate myself im soryr i forgte not to post things in gret debteas
edit: bear ill inflict physical injruy on myself in any manenr you choose im sory i didnt mean to be mean
…there is nothing wrong with having an opinion and expressing it: and noone is upset in this thread, especially me. 