How many people would have to react “Huh, that’s a pretty picture” to balance out one single artist being upset that his work is used without permission? A hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand?
Naturally, the more upset the artist is, the more positive reactions will be needed to balance that out. If the work in question is just a picture that could have been swapped with any other picture for the same effect, then it probably isn’t worth it. But if it’s, say, a catchy song that thousands of people listen to and are cheered up by every day, then IMO it certainly can be worth it.
Of course. But don’t forget about everything in the middle - there are plenty of reasons more compelling than “I just felt like making a copy”, even if they don’t involve saving lives. If you are going to consider the artist’s distress on one hand, then you must consider his audience’s pleasure on the other.
Personally, I don’t think producing such a very mild pleasant response in any number of people could ever be worth seriously upsetting one person. To put it in strictly material terms, we could make billions of people mildly happy by giving them each a dollar that we took from Bill Gates, but that wouldn’t make it right to rob the man blind.
In the case of art it is especially senseless to sacrifice one person’s feelings to the very mild pleasure of many since an equally pleasant response could just as easily be produced without upsetting anyone. Plenty of talented artists wouldn’t mind having their work copied at all.
I’m not really up to a debate on MP3 file sharing, and the example in your OP was a picture.
I don’t believe that there are plenty of more compelling reasons. I cannot think of any that don’t essentially boil down to “I felt like it, and I don’t care if it makes you upset.” People aren’t entitled to anything that brings them any small amount of happiness. On the other hand, I think we do have some moral obligation to do our best to avoid causing needless pain to others. Apparently you do not feel this way, and I’m afraid that’s not a position I am capable of feeling any respect for. If the idea “it’s wrong to make other people unhappy for your own amusement” is not one that you can agree with, I don’t see how either of us could benefit by continuing this discussion.
And naturally, one must consider other consequences. Such as, creating an atmosphere were the copying of someone else’s work, without their consent, without regard to their feelings, is condoned. It would put such a damper on creativity, so that there would be less stuff to copy and less stuff for people to enjoy. No one likes being treated like their feelings are of no consequence.
Even if we could point to one time where thousands or millions of people were so overcome with pleasure or joy at seeing the “illicitly obtained” creative work (which distressed the feelings of its maker to a great degree), this would be balanced out the other way by many “illicitly obtained” works that would give few people any significant pleasure (perhaps a “oh, that’s nice”) and would also greatly distress the artist. So, we’ve got a mediocre amount of people thrilled, and a lot of distressed artists.
In no way could we guarantee that only the top-notch, incredibly fabulous stuff (that would give so many greate joy) would be “illicitly obtained.” It would be tons of stuff “illicitly obtained,” with no more compelling reason other than the person just felt like it. Because if we lived in an environment of “it’s now okay to take someone’s unpublished work without their permission,” then there would be no need to justify it with, “well, TONS of people will benefit from seeing this.” There would be no reason at all.
Not only would such treatment distress all artists, it would leave them a message that this treatment is now standard. All artists would alter their behavior accordingly to safeguard their creations, in order to avoid similar distress. So, as Daniel pointed out: less art on the walls. Less art to see. Less work being created.
It’s simply a lose-lose situation.
But even if you don’t think it is “worth it,” someone else would and they’d do it. Or they wouldn’t even have to think it was “worth it,” they could do it no matter what. Or, they could swipe and distribute the work for the sole purpose of distressing the artist.
But there would be plenty of "I just felt like making a copy . . . " Or, “I wanted to embarass this person.” More petty, small-minded reasons, more malicious reasons. And to be honest, there aren’t that many works that are that great, that fabulous, that they could counterbalance the many, many times someone would swipe some completely ordinary work for no reason at all. There are far more “ordinary” works in this world than great ones. So it stands to reason that far more ordinary things would be swiped, causing the artist great distress and giving the public only minimal pleasure. The math simply does not add up. Even if you thought it was okay to distress someone for the anticipation of giving (perhaps) others pleasure. Which, like Lamia, I don’t think is justifiable.
I agree. But it would still be wrong to say that the overall effect was to make people poorer - one person got a lot poorer, a lot more people got a little bit richer, and the net effect is zero.
If you’re weighing one person’s emotional loss against everyone else’s emotional gain, it’s harder to quantify, and the net effect may not be zero, but it’s still wrong to assume that the overall effect will always be negative.
Very well. Feel free to replace “catchy song” with a uniquely chosen picture that would benefit people the same way.
I’m sorry if you got that impression. I agree that it’s wrong to cause needless pain to others - we just disagree on what’s “needless”. If people can get some enjoyment or other benefit from using an artist’s work, I think their gain absolutely needs to be weighed against the artist’s loss, and it’s much too simplistic to reduce their motivation to “They just want to copy because they feel like it.”
They may have many motivations, like, “I wanted to hurt the artist” or “I like this” or whatever. There are going to be many motivations, and not all of them are going to be "I just felt that this was going to benefit society in such a profound way . . . "
Besides, how is the temporary “gain” of some people (enjoying some work that was taken against the artist’s will) compensate for the “loss” that will follow? (That hurt artist never lets anyone see their work again, perhaps stops creating as much, is disgusted with a system that condones hurting their feelings because it might cause others some enjoyment—might.)
The well will run dry. Artists will be far more tight-fisted with their work. There will be much less work to be “shared”. People will have less creative work to enjoy and admire in the long run. How is this a “gain”? Let’s say, for instance, that someone swipes a manuscript of Mr. Great Millionaire Author and shares it with everyone. Everyone loves it. But Mr. Great Millionaire Author is so hurt and so pissed he vows never to write again. (And since he’s a millionaire, he can afford to do that.) How will the current enjoyment of his illicitly obtained manuscript compensate for the future loss of many more enjoyable books that he’ll never write, because he is so mad at what was done to him?
Daniel brought this up, I brought it up, others have brought this up, but you continually gloss past it. Why?
Well, if that’s not their motivation, then what is? I can understand enjoying a work of art so much that you want the whole world to get to enjoy it too, but if you have that much respect for the art I’d think you’d have at least enough respect for the artist to care about their wishes. To do otherwise strikes me as more than a little creepy. It would be kind of like saying, “I’m in love with this beautiful woman, so I’m going to secretly photograph her in the shower and put the photos on the Internet so everyone can enjoy seeing her hot, wet, naked body.” This would certainly brighten the day of a few people, but I don’t think it would be worth the pain it would cause the woman. I also don’t think any decent person who knew the full story could really enjoy looking at the photos, no matter how beautiful the woman was.
There’s a singer/songwriter I like who, quite a few years back, had his writing notebooks stolen out of his dressing room. I’ve heard second and third hand reports that pages from this notebook were copied and illicitly distributed or sold in record shops, although no one I know has ever actually seen one. Anyway, the songwriter was naturally crushed by the theft and invasion of his privacy. I believe he even considered getting out of the business altogether. The theft also must have prevented a number of songs-in-progress that would otherwise have been completed, recorded, and released from ever seeing the light of day. But we’ll set aside those issues for the moment.
Now, whoever stole the notebook did get the chance to glimpse “behind the scenes” of the songwriting process, something he would not otherwise have been able to do. Whether the thief really made copies or not, he undoubtably showed the notebook off to his friends. They probably thought it was really cool. And I must admit I’d be curious to see such a thing too – but I don’t think I could get much pleasure out of it if I knew that my doing so was hurting the very person who created the work that I cared about so much. If the lost notebook were somehow to come into my hands I doubt I’d be able to resist peeking at it (I’m only human), but I know I wouldn’t scan it and post it on the Web for all to see. I’d try to contact the songwriter so I could return it to him. And I think the same fans who’d be most interested in the notebook would understand my reasons for depriving them of their only chance to read it.
This discussion reminds me of Franz Kafka. His friend Max Brot promised to destroy all the works that Kafka had not published during his lifetime. After Kafka died, Brot published them. But they were so good they should have been published.
Or so you claim. I am not convinced that’ll be the case - certainly some artists will create less, but many won’t, and some others (who are now able to build on any existing work) will create more. Whether the new works will outnumber the works that won’t be created is a matter of speculation.
There’s more than just “current enjoyment” of his manuscript; there’s also the enjoyment that will come from derivative works made from the manuscript and his other existing works: sequels, translations, fan fiction, movie versions, more books featuring the same characters, and so on.
Whether that will compensate from the loss of his future works depends, of course, on exactly what he would’ve created, and exactly what derivative works his fans will create instead. Since you’re making up this hypothetical situation, you could certainly ask “But what if nothing his fans create is as good as what he would’ve written himself?” And then the answer would be “Uh oh, I guess it’s a net loss.”
But in real life, we can’t see the future; we don’t know what he’ll write, we don’t know whether he’ll decide to stop writing because someone uses his work without permission, we don’t know what his fans will create based on his work, and we don’t know if anyone will like any of the later works at all (either the authors’ or the fans’). Your hypothetical is an interesting question, but it doesn’t help us understand whether the net effect would actually be positive or negative.
I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. I love Billie Jean, but I have a pretty low opinion of Michael Jackson, and I’m not inclined to care about his wishes any more than a stranger’s.
I agree that’s creepy, but I don’t think it’s the same. Liking a song or a painting is different from liking the person who made it.
Well, considering the number of voyeur sites out there, I’d say there are plenty of people who especially enjoy looking at photos that were taken without the subject’s knowledge or approval.
Indeed. I feel the same way about a lot of artists, but not all of them, and I don’t think respecting someone’s wishes (to the point of presuming that his loss is more important than anyone else’s gain) is a prerequisite for enjoying his work.
Exactly - and we’re all better off now because of it.
Nope. No way. I think it’s safe to say that most creative people want to keep rights to their own work, and would be appalled at what you would propose. (Not even being able to have stuff in their own house safe, for crying out loud.) And yet you think that enough of them would continue to keep working, like business as usual?
The only ones that would be 100% happy with such a policy would be the blatant knock-off artists, who cannot do anything original on their own. Like we need more of them, right? :rolleyes: Most of the rest of us want some rights over our original works, including the right to not publish and to set our own prices. Take that right away from us, and yes, there will be a severe backlash.
It’s far less of a matter of speculation from my side, since I am an artist, since I am familiar with the sentiments of the artistic community, and you’re (most obviously) not. Hell—one doesn’t have to be a member of the artistic community to know that almost all people want to have the right to refuse to publish their work, and the right to not have the stuff in their own homes published without their consent.
And there’s this other point that you keep repeatedly ignoring. That when it’s acceptable to copy anything from anyone’s house, you won’t just be getting people copying that ultra-wonderful painting that Artist so-and-so is “sitting” on, while the world pines to see it. You’ll get far more examples of people copying works from others’ houses, not for the purpose of enriching the lives of so many people, but out of malice or thoughtlessness. There are far more mediocre or ordinary works out there than there are extraordinary works. So, you’ll have a whole lot more people paranoid about showing anything in their home, and many people angry, hurt and frustrated by the violation of their privacy. How is this a gain for society? How is having everyone afraid to leave anything of theirs out in their own house a good thing? Clearly, few people want to live like this. And yet you think that it’s just the thing to do.
Hmm… I thought I knew from the other thread how you felt about uncited reports of others’ opinions, but apparently your views on it are much more, er, nuanced.
Tell you what: Because you’re so intent on using that 7 month old thread as a distraction, I’ll amend my proposal. Permission from the creator is now required for anyone who wants to copy a work on his property (unless it was set up for public display, e.g. on the lawn), or a work that was illegally removed from his property.
Ah yes. Goodbye, DJs! Goodbye, fan fiction authors!
Well, Jackson as an example muddies the waters a bit. If he’s guilty of half of what he’s been accused of he deserves to be locked away for a long time, and his public behavior has understandably earned him a bad reputation. But he is atypical in this regard, and his personal character isn’t really relevant to the issue of his rights in regard to his own artistic work or the rights of artists in general.
I don’t care about the wishes of artists who are not known by me any more than I do about the wishes of other strangers either. But the thing is, I do care some about the wishes of strangers – at least insofar as I believe it is wrong to knowingly and intentionally cause them unnecessary pain. I’m not asking that artists be given special emotional consideration, only the same amount I think any ordinary human being deserves.
Morally speaking, you don’t get to hurt people because it’s fun. You don’t get to hurt people because you feel like it. You don’t get to hurt people because they have something you want. You don’t get to hurt people because it might potentially lead to some form of entertainment or amusement for others. And if you can think of reasons other than these for copying someone’s artwork against their wishes and without their consent, I’d very much like to hear a detailed explanation of what those reason are.
Thinking someone has a hot butt is different from liking the person who has the hot butt too, but that doesn’t make it right to distribute photos of said hot butt without the knowledge or consent of that person.
I didn’t say “any person”, I said “any decent person”. I have no issue with voyeurism as a fantasy or consensual voyeuristic roleplaying, but someone who gets their jollies planting hidden cameras in unsuspecting people’s showers is neither behaving decently nor within the boundaries of the law.
I think it’s a bit of an exaggeration to say we’re all better off. There must be millions of people on Earth for whom the published works of Franz Kafka have made no difference at all. But I think a significant fact in this case is that Kafka’s wishes were not violated until he was beyond further worldly suffering. There are other possible arguments to be made against Max Brot’s actions, but concern for the feelings of the artist isn’t one of them because the artist was already dead.
You seriously want a cite for something that you already believe will happen?
You’ve already admitted on the other thread that you know there would be a severe backlash and you don’t care.
No. Like I told you on the other thread, no way in hell can you wave that away. Not after you’ve repeated your convinction in it just recently on one of these threads. Not after the long-drawn-out debate we had over it. To simply try to wave it away now is gutless. Completely gutless. I don’t believe for a second that you really think there’s anything wrong with copying something that you have “access” to (whether it be in someone’s home, the photo lab, the framing shop) and you’re not off the hook for it now, simply because it poses an inconvenience for you in this debate.
I know lots of fan writers. They have the ability of doing just fine, by adapting their stories to make them original and then getting them published. Oh, here’s one here! And here’s another one!
Both these ladies started out as fan fiction writers and then adapted their fan stories into books that are now available on Amazon. Fan writers are not forever trapped in their fandoms, and they can (and do) adapt their fan efforts into original, profitable works.
No, it isn’t - but it is relevant to your contention that you can’t respect a work of art without respecting the artist who created it.
There are plenty of other artists whose public behavior has offended others, or tarnished their reputation somehow, yet they still have fans who are able to separate their love for the work from their disdain for the artist. I doubt that every single pro-war fan of the musicians, actors, and comics who opposed the Iraq war immediately threw away their CDs and DVDs, for example.
Again we disagree on what constitutes “unnecessary” pain, and I fear we won’t make any progress toward agreement.
So, then, what about writing a negative review of someone’s work that hurts their feelings? The reviewer doesn’t need to publish his review; no one will die if they can’t read his opinion of the work. Isn’t he “knowingly and intentionally caus[ing] them unnecessary pain”?
Now you’re getting into the question of whether it’s right or wrong to take the photos; you’ll find no disagreement from me there.
So no one who enjoys the content on those sites is “decent”? Hmm, sounds like something I once heard about True Scotsmen.
I’m not willing to paint all those people with that brush. I think most people are able to make a distinction between liking a person and liking what they’ve created, or (in this case) liking their body.
True. It’s certainly an easier choice to make once the artist is dead.
Well, what’s your goal? You’ve failed to change my mind so far, it doesn’t look like you’re going to be successful any time soon. You are wasting your time and mine by focusing on my ideals; I’m tired of going in circles and I hope you are too. Focus on my compromise proposal, which is now free of your biggest objection.
Well, they’re not fan fiction writers any more if they aren’t writing fan fiction, now are they? For someone as concerned with artists’ feelings as you, it seems out of character to dictate what they are and aren’t allowed to create.
Goodbye DJs, we don’t need to hear any remixes or mash-ups. Goodbye fan fiction authors, you’ll have to find something else to write about. And goodbye everyone who likes those works, you’ll have to find something else you’re allowed to enjoy. Your feelings only matter if you’re creating or enjoying an approved work.
I didn’t say you had to, or should, respect the artist’s personal lifestyle, political beliefs, etc., merely that by virtue of creating their own artistic work they deserved the respect of allowing them to have a say in how its distributed.
As do I, especially since you seem unwilling or unable to explain what could possibly necessitate this pain. As I’ve said repeatedly, it all seems to boil down to “I felt like copying your art, and I don’t care about your feelings”. And that is, interestingly enough, an appeal to emotion. You haven’t been able to come up with anything better than “But what if people want to copy art?”, and that’s an argument based on feelings – and pretty mild feelings at that.
If it’s wrong to make unauthorized photos of someone’s body, why isn’t it wrong to make unauthorized photos of artwork that they created? Photos of their body don’t prevent them from using and enjoying their body and they don’t cause them any physical harm. The only argument against doing such things is the emotional appeal that it would be really, really upsetting to the person so photographed.
What definition of “decency” are you using that allows people who get their kicks peeking into windows (or looking at photos taken by people peeking into windows) to claim that title? The “True Scotsman” fallacy is a fallacy because someone can in fact be a Scotsman by virtue of being Scottish whether or not their behavior is consistent with that of the typical Scot. It’s not a fallacy to say “You’re not a True Scotman because you’re not a Scottish citizen, you’ve never been to Scotland, and neither have any of your ancestors”, nor is it a fallacy to say “You’re not a decent person because you do not behave decently.”
You don’t have to respect the sleeping habits of an artist in order to respect the fact that he was able to create said art. For that matter, you don’t even have to respect the ideological position the artist is trying to convey (in the case of art which portrays such things). Heck, you don’t even need to respect the art much at all to be able to respect the artist for his ability to create art.
Respecting an artist for creating art does not mean respect each and every aspect of that artists life.
I don’t expect to change your mind, but it’s nice to see your “ideals” being the focus of this thread, and under the scrutiny of people far smarter than me (like Lamia and many others).
It is curious that you want to dismiss the whole “copying works from the home” concept for the sake of this discussion, while never really distancing yourself from it in any other way. Why is that? Why, since it’s something you are convinced is right, do you want it removed from this debate? Why have you tried to imply that since the whole issue came up 7 months ago, that it is no longer a valid subject or something?
If you don’t believe it anymore, fine. Just say so. But you won’t do that, will you? So why can’t I bring it up. Especially when you use words like “access,” which, in Mr2001-speak, can include seeing someone else’s work in their own home.
Why should I go along with your revised proposal? It’s gutless. Especially this late in the game. And especially because we know what your definition of “access” is. You’re only “allowing” to exclude it (after all this time) because it’s going over like a lead balloon.
You mean they can’t be both? One of my friends started out as a writer for Star Trek (the series) and for a lot of other shows and now she writes fan fiction.
Fan fiction gets written. It gets published on the web, often with no problems. (You’d be surprised about how much I know about fan fiction.) What it doesn’t get is a “free pass” or the right to profit without the sanction of the copyright holders. But if a fan wants to profit from their own work, there’s no problem. Just do what my aforementioned friends have done—adapt the story, and get it published as an original work.
And same with DJs. If they are truly talented and capable, they’ll be able to create original works as well.
The person who has more stake in the originality of the creation trumps the one who wants to exploit their originality.
It seems like the only “feelings” you are concerned with are the ones of the people who have contributed nothing to the creation of the work, but only want to consume, consume, consume, unfettered with the constraints of morality.
You mean DJs don’t exist? News to me.
“Feelings”? What’s this strange foreign word you use? It’s not something you care about, especially in relation to anyone who does any kind of creative work. So don’t start boo-hooing now about the “poor, poor writers” now, because it won’t wash.
I don’t have a problem with fan works, since I obviously have ties to fan fiction (and art). I just think that there’s a difference between putting your fan story up on a Star Wars Geocities page and selling it for a profit off of Amazon.com. I think that most copyright holders look the other way with fan works and I’m glad they do. But I’m also glad that they still have rights over their work and can, if pressed, decide to reign things in if they get out of hand.
I don’t think someone who creates a work I like is any more qualified to tell me what I should do with it than to tell me what I should say to my friends about it, or what charities I should give to. As a programmer, I certainly don’t feel as though anyone who likes my software should take my advice on how they should distribute it, or any other work.
Well, if you don’t see anything I’ve said about that as an explanation, then I doubt I will convince you. I think wanting to share one’s experiences with others is a good enough justification in this case. You clearly don’t.
Speaking of necessitating this pain, though, I hope you will address my point about the review. Why does the desire to share your opinion of a work justify causing the artist pain, if the desire to share the experience of enjoying the work itself doesn’t justify it?
An interesting point.
There are certain categories of photos that I don’t think should be distributed without the subject’s permission, not necessarily because doing so would hurt her feelings, but because the release of those photos could impact the way people treat her in a way that isn’t really deserved. In an ideal world, no one would care if they saw a nude photo of you in the shower - taking a shower is normal, being nude in the shower is also normal. But unfortunately, some people will look down on you if they know your shower photos are all over the internet.
OTOH, a photo of someone walking his dog in the park does not fall into that category.
I suppose there are some categories of artistic works that should be treated similarly, and I’m willing to make exceptions for those. But I think that’s a small minority of all works.
You lump those two groups together, but I don’t. Someone who takes a shower photo without permission is a jerk; someone who looks at it later isn’t.
Look at shows like “Punk’d” and “Crank Yankers” - playing tricks on people just to get a laugh at their expense is a pretty nasty thing to do. But despite that, it’s still funny, and someone who watches the show after it’s been recorded and aired isn’t being nasty at all; he’s just watching TV.
Exactly!
I can respect someone’s talent if I see that he’s putting effort into doing something well, even if I don’t respect what he does in his personal life, what he says on talk shows, his political views, or what he thinks I should do with his work. And vice versa - if I respect his talent as an artist, that doesn’t imply I should respect his opinion on those other topics.
yosemite: I wrote a longer response to your post, but… eh, why bother? As I expected, you’re ignoring the compromise that was the whole point of my position in the last thread (which has spilled over into this one), and focusing instead on what I was arguing last year based on ideals alone. You clearly have no idea what it is that DJs do. You continue to pretend you know my motivations and what I “care about”, when you obviously have no idea - though you might if you had actually read the posts where I explain them myself. Go ahead and have the last word; I will spend my time on those who aren’t so arrogant, presumptuous, and hostile.
Well, I notice you slipped in “what he thinks I should do with his work”. As we discussed before, as long as you limit this sentiment to things like how you will enjoy a particular work of art we can find common ground. As soon as you try and expand this principle to eliminate intellectual property rights we cannot.
