Copyright Infringement IS NOT THE SAME AS Theft

[Tabby_Cat]

@Princhester

Sorry but you are not seeing the wood for the trees.

Let’s use a simplified example. Say there are only five people in the world. I have the exclusive right to copy Work A. Each of the other four people in the world just copy Work A for themselves. You say, no appropriation of my rights, no theft, because none of them claimed to be the only one able to copy.

But if one of the other four people usurped me, made four copies and distributed them, then there has been appropriation.

I can see there is a logical distinction, but there is no practical one. You’re position is good only in fairyland.

You’d outlaw murder but allow a lynching.

Practical distinction:

Copyright infringement is only recoverable in civil law. It is not criminal (as has been pointed out), and you can only recover damages. For one bootleg copy, probably not much, if any, damages will be recovered.

Theft is a crime, which may result in jail.

This, in itself, is already significant - they are trying to give a civil wrong a criminal air. Do you think a parking ticket is a crime? Do you feel like a criminal? This “criminal feeling” is vastly important. Now, if you think that copyright infringement is in itself a bad thing, you might think that “criminalising” it would be a good thing. Why hasn’t the government done it yet? It might be useful to look at the historic use of the copyright.
As you admit, in the law, they are not the same. The issues involved in both are vastly different, and should not be confused with one another. As someone else has said, copyright was made so that innovative material would be available to the public, in the same vein as patents, and the author would be rewarded.

However, both copyright and patent are limited in time, copyright much more so than patent: a copyright does not protect the idea, but merely the expression of the idea. This is to ensure that this material will eventually benefit all of mankind, rather than concentrate the benefits in the hands of a few, or to allow the author to destroy it for all future generations. In fact, when patents and copyright is registered, a description has to be made public, as all of you who have trawled through the patents office will attest.

This is what the companies are trying to get around by using “theft” to describe copyright infringement. They are trying to imply that you have no right to the copyrighted material, that they, and only they, can decide what happens to the material.

As some on you on this thread are already thinking.

In reality, you could make copies of everything on earth, if you paid the damages. That’s what copyright is for: allowing the holder of the copyright compensation, while making the material available to all. I’m not talking about piracy; there is a difference here. I’m talking about one copy, for your personal use, not for economic gain. In normal cases, it would be called “buying a copy”.

Incidentally, that’s why you do not appropriate the right to reproduce: you simply owe damages, not assume the right of reproduction. What a copyright is, is a tool to ensure that the holder of the copyright is compensated when copies of the work are made.

And then, after all that, you have the problem of large corporations (music industry, I’m looking at you) who don’t compensate artists very much at all, and who own the copyright to the music which the artists produce. Do you think giving them more power to control what music you get to hear is good?

You might then ask why artists sign away their copyright in the frist place, if they aren’t really getting much in the form of royalties. That’s because the record companies have the distribution networks, and artists need the exposure. Courtney Love, on copyright.

Now, think about the soundbite “Copyright infringement is theft” again. Not so simple.

[andros]

@Lightnin'

Ethics, morality, and semantics aside, I think the recording companies need to rethink their strategy.

Pursuing downloaders and copiers has apparently not put a dent in file-sharing… it’s only engendered ill will towards the recording industry. You can’t litigate technology out of existence- it’ll only keep getting better and more advanced.

They need to embrace filesharing. It’s not going to go away, no matter how many people they sue.

Except I don’t think they’re trying to. ISTM they’re more interested in trying to change the attitude of entitlement which leads to abuse of the technology.

[js_africanus]

@andros

It it owned by someone?

Yes, Bob owns a copy of London Calling

Do you have the owner’s permission to have it?

Yes, I have Bob’s permission to have it.

If the above answer is “No,” then it is theft.

Therefore it is not stealing. Period.

With all due respect, attempting to apply the notion of stealing to a good that can be reproduced at effectively zero cost is ignorant. Please, take the time to learn an effective analytical method for investigating the problem.

[andros]

Oh, read the thread before being a dick, willya?

[Brainiac4]

@Evil Captor

Actually, my interest isn’t DVD copying or bootlegging music or whatever. I’m more concerned with the way current copyright laws restrict the rights of artists to do things like sampling (in music) and collage (in art). Right now if you use an identifiable image that belongs to someone else in a collage, even if it’s just part of the collage, and the collage recontextualizes the original artwork, you can get sued. Same with music samples, I believe. It’s way too restrictive. It’s difficult to even comment on others’ artwork – I’ll bet Warhol would have a lot more trouble with those soup cans in our modern environment.

My apologies for misrepresenting your position.

[duffer]

Huh, has there ever been a Pit thread that could (minus insults) be moved TO GD? I don’t think I’ve ever seen this happen.

[Gary_Robson]

@Evil Captor

It’s difficult to even comment on others’ artwork

I disagree. Critiques and parodies abound. Newspapers and magazines are filled with book, movie, and art reviews. I’ve written a bunch myself. They’re protected free speech.

[yosemite]

Princhester’s done a really good job of explaining things so far. Thanks, Princhester.

I have a few rambling points, as usual.

I have given this example before, and I’ll do it again: I wrote a book a while ago and because of the prevelance of P2P and file sharing, I made a BIG effort to never, NEVER share the PDF (digital) version of this book. It’s only available in print. Why did I do this? Because I knew that if it was available digitally, it would be shared hither and yon, and I’d sell very few print copies. Screw that. Screw those people who want something for nothing. I worked very hard on that book, invested time, expense and I’m not going to see copies of it exchanged for free everywhere I look. I did that work so I could be compensated financially for it, not so I could give it away and have a warm fuzzy feeling. (By the way, I do occasionally “give away” work for the warm fuzzy feeling it gives me, but I think I should be able to decide when to “give away” and when not to.) So, I have purposely limited the ways in which it was distributed. Some people ask me why I won’t make an “eBook” available, but the truth is, it ain’t ever going to happen.

Sure, people can photocopy the book, but it’s a pretty big book and it would be easier to buy a new copy than to photocopy it.

There are people who believe that artists must create, and will create, no matter whether or not they are financially compensated. Well, this isn’t really so. Sure, we all create—we all love to create—but we will have no incentive to work on certain projects, or work on a grand scale, if we knew that anyone could copy, copy, copy away and there’d be nothing to stop them. We’re like anyone else—we like to eat, and we like to get compensated for the time we put into our work. If that isn’t going to happen, things change for us. Our priorities and motivations change.

There are also times when we simply don’t want anyone and everyone to copy our work. We may have allowed some minor party to make a few copies, but that was it. That was the extent of it. That’s all the work was intended to be. We don’t “owe” the world that work. It’s our work. If you want to wrest our work away from us, we’ll just start withholding it altogether.

[kidchameleon]

@Evil Captor

Actually, my interest isn’t DVD copying or bootlegging music or whatever. I’m more concerned with the way current copyright laws restrict the rights of artists to do things like sampling (in music) and collage (in art). Right now if you use an identifiable image that belongs to someone else in a collage, even if it’s just part of the collage, and the collage recontextualizes the original artwork, you can get sued.

I have little pity for people who rely on others to make money. Slapping a few songs together to create a ‘new’ song isn’t nearly as difficult or creative as making a new song. If you really have a desire to do so, get permission from the people who spent a lot of time and effort on it rather than ‘just doing it’. I can’t walk on someone else’s property just because I want to, even if my motivations and effects may be minimal. Christ, I make diddly off of what I write, but all it would take is a small portion of my audience to start using copies instead of buying new books and that would be the end for me.

[asterion]

@yosemite

I have given this example before, and I’ll do it again: I wrote a book a while ago and because of the prevelance of P2P and file sharing, I made a BIG effort to never, NEVER share the PDF (digital) version of this book. It’s only available in print. Why did I do this? Because I knew that if it was available digitally, it would be shared hither and yon, and I’d sell very few print copies. Screw that. Screw those people who want something for nothing. I worked very hard on that book, invested time, expense and I’m not going to see copies of it exchanged for free everywhere I look. I did that work so I could be compensated financially for it, not so I could give it away and have a warm fuzzy feeling. (By the way, I do occasionally “give away” work for the warm fuzzy feeling it gives me, but I think I should be able to decide when to “give away” and when not to.) So, I have purposely limited the ways in which it was distributed. Some people ask me why I won’t make an “eBook” available, but the truth is, it ain’t ever going to happen.

First, people still are not really able to read straight off a computer screen. Even if I save a paper as a result of a literature search, I still print out a hard copy for actual reading. Secondly, printing costs time and money in supplies. Let’s say your book is 200 pages. That’s somewhere between 100 and 200 pages of paper used, plus a lot of ink. Then you’ve got a massive printout, that you can’t really easily read unless you punch it all and put it in a binder. A binder is not really conducive for reading. Thirdly, it will not be exchanged for free everywhere you look, unless you’re a best-selling writer or there is something uniquely special about your book.

[Tabby_Cat]

Um, not to be a wet blanket, and not to say that yosemite et all have no point (I think it’s valid - it’s the reason for copyright), but OP: “Copyright Infringement IS NOT THE SAME AS Theft”.

Yes, yosemite, you have the right to be compensated. No, the person who scans your book is not guilty of theft.
Oh, who am I kidding. This is the Pit. Go FUNKING NUTS!!!

[Tabby_Cat]

@Tabby_Cat

Oh, who am I kidding. This is the Pit. Go FUNKING NUTS!!!

I mean, fucking, not funking. And I don’t mean that one side of the argument are crazy, I mean generally “go nuts”, as in, go hog wild on whatever wild tanget you can come up with. Or something.

[yosemite]

@asterion

Thirdly, it will not be exchanged for free everywhere you look, unless you’re a best-selling writer or there is something uniquely special about your book.

I have written a rather specific “how to” book. I don’t pretend that my “audience” is huge—it isn’t. But it’s not tiny, either. Since it’s a “how to” book so it doesn’t have to be read from cover-to-cover. It’s kind of like a reference in some ways.

You don’t know my “audience.” I do. I know what message boards they frequent and what their attitudes are. A certain percentage of them are reluctant to buy books when they can get recourses on the web. Free resources. I don’t doubt for a second that they’d make sure that an eBook would be distributed effectively amongst their circles.

There’s another out-of-print book that covers a similar topic, and it’s available in PDF versions in several places. Apparently it’s a really old book so it’s legal to “share” it, but the fact is that people are downloading this book and will continue to do so. For free. There’s no doubt in my mind that they’d do the same with mine if there was an eBook available. No doubt at all.

And you know what? Even if I’m wrong, it doesn’t matter. It’s my book and I don’t want it released in an eBook form. If some people don’t like it, that’s just too bad.

(And sure, I know that if someone really wanted to, they could scan every page of my book and release it on PDF. But I am not terribly concerned about that—at this point my book isn’t that big of a deal and I don’t see people going to the bother. But if I had made an easily downloadable version available for sale? It’d be all over the place by now.)

@Tabby_Cat

No, the person who scans your book is not guilty of theft.

Whatever you want to call it, they’d be a sleazeball scumbag for doing it. The book is readily available for sale so there really isn’t any excuse.

Thankfully, there are no PDF files of my book circulating. And I’m not losing sleep over the people photocopying snippets of the print book. Some of that is fair use, after all.

[Princhester]

@Steve MB

Copyright is not a property right.

You wish.

@iamthewalrus(:3=

That is not a compelling argument against the claim that big corporations receive an unfair benefit from current law. It could be applied to any case in which restricting the ability of people to do something provided a monetary benefit to a corporation.

Quite. The problem being…?

@Tabby_Cat

Practical distinction:

Copyright infringement is only recoverable in civil law. It is not criminal (as has been pointed out), and you can only recover damages. For one bootleg copy, probably not much, if any, damages will be recovered.

So what?

That’s what copyright is for: allowing the holder of the copyright compensation, while making the material available to all.

[My emphasis]

Balderdash. I thought you were supposed to be a law student or something? There is absolutely no requirement or obligation anywhere in copyright law that copyrighted material be made available to all.

I’m not talking about piracy; there is a difference here. I’m talking about one copy, for your personal use, not for economic gain. In normal cases, it would be called “buying a copy”.

Umm. What? Helping yourself to a copy would be buying yourself a copy? If it weren’t for the fact you are helping yourself to a copy, thus not buying a copy I should think. What the hell are you saying?

Incidentally, that’s why you do not appropriate the right to reproduce: you simply owe damages, not assume the right of reproduction.

Why do you owe damages? Because you appropriated a civil right that wasn’t yours.

And then, after all that, you have the problem of large corporations (music industry, I’m looking at you) who don’t compensate artists very much at all, and who own the copyright to the music which the artists produce. Do you think giving them more power to control what music you get to hear is good?

You might then ask why artists sign away their copyright in the frist place, if they aren’t really getting much in the form of royalties. That’s because the record companies have the distribution networks, and artists need the exposure. Courtney Love, on copyright.

Exactly. You shoot your own point here. If the artists weren’t financecd by the large corporations I wouldn’t hear of them at all. So mechanisms that make it worth the large corporations’ while to finance artists are good things.

Now, think about the soundbite “Copyright infringement is theft” again. Not so simple.

No, not simple at all. But basically correct.

@Tabby_Cat

Um, not to be a wet blanket, and not to say that yosemite et all have no point (I think it’s valid - it’s the reason for copyright), but OP: “Copyright Infringement IS NOT THE SAME AS Theft”.

I don’t think anyone’s arguing to the contrary in any literal sense. But morally it’s hard to split the two in many ways.

@js_africanus

With all due respect, attempting to apply the notion of stealing to a good that can be reproduced at effectively zero cost is ignorant. Please, take the time to learn an effective analytical method for investigating the problem.

The reproduction cost is not the issue. I’m sure you’d regard stealing a car as immoral, but a very large part of the costs of a car is production line establishment, not the cost of producing an individual car. Please, take the time to learn to read: this point has been made and not refuted, earlier in this thread.

[Tabby_Cat]

@Princhester

You wish.

I wished… and it came true! Wow! (Hint: A property right is a right in ownership of a item with no time limits. It is a real right. Copyright is granted by the government over intangible information, and is not a property right, only a temporary monopoly)

Hell, I’ll google it for you.

On the copyright issue, the Fifth Circuit concluded that a copyright is not a property right within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment.[36]

http://www.utexas.edu/law/journals/tiplj/volumes/vol7iss1/thurmon.html#_ftn37

So what?

So, it’s, um, different?

[My emphasis]

Balderdash. I thought you were supposed to be a law student or something? There is absolutely no requirement or obligation anywhere in copyright law that copyrighted material be made available to all.

My apologies, I was thinking of patents. But the only way to make certain that your work is not copied (with you being compensated) is to not make any copies to distribute at all, in which case you might as well not have copyright. In addition, it decends to the general use after a number of years, after which copies may be made without compensation, which basically makes it available to all. So it’s a bit delayed compared to patents, but it ends up the same.

Umm. What? Helping yourself to a copy would be buying yourself a copy? If it weren’t for the fact you are helping yourself to a copy, thus not buying a copy I should think. What the hell are you saying?

Helping yourself to a copy with compensation, in normal circumstances, is buying something. Think about it.

Why do you owe damages? Because you appropriated a civil right that wasn’t yours.

Holy crap, you mean if I pay you damages I could appropriate your right to life and decide if you live or die?

Exactly. You shoot your own point here. If the artists weren’t financecd by the large corporations I wouldn’t hear of them at all. So mechanisms that make it worth the large corporations’ while to finance artists are good things.

Opinion here. I personally would prefer NOT to have my artist harassed, controlled, limited etc by corporations. Of course, I don’t listen to mainstream stuff, no promos and all that, but my CDs still cost the same. To top it off, I can’t find any copies of my favourite stuff where I am now. Do I think d/ling without compensation is bad? Generally, yes. Is it theft? No. Do companies deserve compensation? As much as I don’t like it, yes. Does that make it theft? No.

No, not simple at all. But basically correct.

I don’t think anyone’s arguing to the contrary in any literal sense. But morally it’s hard to split the two in many ways.

Man, did you hear all that about what is a property right and what is copyright? About why copyright was invented in the first place? About how equating it to theft is the symptom of companies trying to wrest more away from the people, rather than promoting the value of the work to society as a whole?

I think I’m wasting my time here. Let me guess, you’re a big corp lawyer? You seem to be only seeing the side of “I don’t get my compensation!!! THEFT!!!” and not the reason why you’re getting compensation, and why getting your compensation by comparing it to theft is reducing the rights of the people, and giving them to the corps.

[Princhester]

@Tabby_Cat

Hint: A property right is a right in ownership of a item with no time limits.

Really? What about leases? Try again.

Copyright is granted by the government over intangible information, and is not a property right, only a temporary monopoly)

And a lease is a right granted by a landowner, backed by government, and is a temporary monopoly on occupation. And is a property right.

Indeed insofar as the whole system of property is enforced ultimately by law (and therefore government) it is a system of rights granted by government giving certain monopoly rights to owners.

http://www.utexas.edu/law/journals/tiplj/volumes/vol7iss1/thurmon.html#_ftn37

Pffft. Your quote only says that copyright is not the type of property right that attracts Fourteenth Amendment protection. Here’s another quote from your cite:

The Fifth Circuit fails to acknowledge that a substantial number of decisions have recognized that a trademark is a type of property. In fact, the Supreme Court’s decision in In re Trademark Cases[47] supports such a proposition.

And you’re from the UK, right? Well how about you check out your very own Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. Perhaps you should start with section 1(1) right up there in front. You know, the one that starts:

Copyright is a property right…

Oh dear.

So, it’s, um, different?

Yes. And copyright has 9 letters and theft has only 5. But can you think of any differences that are germane to the argument?

The only way to make certain that your work is not copied (with you being compensated) is to not make any copies to distribute at all, in which case you might as well not have copyright.

Do I understand you to be arguing that because someone may do the wrong thing by me I may as well not have the rights they may take off me?

Helping yourself to a copy with compensation, in normal circumstances, is buying something. Think about it.

I tried thinking about it but I stopped because my brain was threatening to explode. So no doubt you think stealing someone’s car is the same as buying it because you pay them criminal compensation? Jesus H Christ on a bicycle, grasshopper, join us over here in the real world when you feel ready.

Holy crap, you mean if I pay you damages I could appropriate your right to life and decide if you live or die?

Holy crap that’s the second biggest non sequitur I’ve faced this week.

Opinion here. I personally would prefer NOT to have my artist harassed, controlled, limited etc by corporations.

Ah yes those nasty corporations. They just land on the artists out of the blue and use their mind control powers to cause the artists to accept money for promotion and distribution, and then unilaterally snatch the poor artists rights away.

Some may suggest that artists want recording deals, want promotion and marketing and tour funding, and that they willingly sign up. But no, Tabby knows better.

Man, did you hear all that about what is a property right and what is copyright?

Yep. And from better sources than you.

About why copyright was invented in the first place? About how equating it to theft is the symptom of companies trying to wrest more away from the people, rather than promoting the value of the work to society as a whole?

Remind me again which people it is that the big bad companies are wresting more away from? Is it the pension plan owners they are wresting away from and the copyright leaches they are giving dividends to or the other way round? I forget.

Let me guess, you’re a big corp lawyer?

Ad hominems don’t substitute for having a working knowledge of the law and a sense of logic. And before you go attacking who I am and what I stand for, and while you are on your high horse defending the “harassed, controlled and limited” artists, you might like to do a review of this thread. I haven’t checked carefully but from memory approximately 100% (it may be as little as 90%) of the artists participating in this thread side with my point of view. And that includes not just members of Metallica and other corporate megastars but various minor authors, photographers and other artists.

Think about it, grasshopper.

[Evil_Captor]

@kidchameleon

I have little pity for people who rely on others to make money. Slapping a few songs together to create a ‘new’ song isn’t nearly as difficult or creative as making a new song. If you really have a desire to do so, get permission from the people who spent a lot of time and effort on it rather than ‘just doing it’. I can’t walk on someone else’s property just because I want to, even if my motivations and effects may be minimal. Christ, I make diddly off of what I write, but all it would take is a small portion of my audience to start using copies instead of buying new books and that would be the end for me.

Save your pity for yourself, I don’t want it and I doubt if most collagists and samplers want it. Also, you can keep your straw man for yourself. It sounds like you are thinking of someone basically copying large sections of a song, intermixing it with both sections and calling it their own, with the basic appeal of the new music being the two or three songs used to create the “new” music. I agree that that should not be allowed. That’s what is implied by the phrase “recontextualizes.”

I think some samplers have tried the “combine a couple of hits and present them as my own work” thing with very little success. And I’m glad. They’ve offered nothing new to the culture, they’re just trying to re-brand someone else’s product as their own, which I get the impression is what you think all sampling is about. You are, of course, completely wrong.

Most samplers use small portions of other songs which they import into the music the’ve created to make their own work more culturally resonant. So a song about “Vanity” might include the refrain “You’re so vain” by Carly Simon, but nothing else from that song, and only in a couple of spots within the framework. Might also include a couple of other bits relating to vanity. It’s musical collage, and the test of whether it’s worthwhile is whether it says something new, whether it adds to the culture something that wasn’t there before.

Since I’m not a sampler, or for that matter, a musician, I can’t speak with much authority on these matters, but I think I’ve roughly described the situation in music as I understand it.

Now, suppose I’m an artist (much closer to home) and I borrow images of a dinosaur, a naked woman running, a lush tropical landscape and a fast food joint. I combine them into an image of the naked woman running toward a fast-food joint located in a jungle, with a dinosaur chasing her. Maybe I add a few images of people staring at her. I put in a caption with the woman thinking, “C’mon, big boy – over one billion sold!”

Now, the people who created all these elements did not have anything like what I’ve created in mind. My image is new. It could have been produced by other means, but it’s a moot point – the fact is, I’ve created a new context for all the images I’ve used. As things stand now, they can sue my ass off (especially the fast food joint) but you know, I think creativity ought to be prized no matter what tools it uses.

I think the best way to handle something like this would be to get the permission of all the people who created the art, and maybe even give them a share fo the proceeds of the artwork if it has any commercial success. But there’s no mechanism for doing that, because everybody is so sure their work is going to be the next winner in the Pop Culture Lottery and they’ll be MILLIONAIRE artists and musicians, so they aren’t letting anybody else use their work for NOTHIN!

Properly handled, I see this as a source of new revenue for artists, but I don’t think most artists are bright enough to see the possibilities.

[yosemite]

@Evil Captor

I think the best way to handle something like this would be to get the permission of all the people who created the art, and maybe even give them a share fo the proceeds of the artwork if it has any commercial success.

You can still do that. You can still go to the artist and get permission, and if they accept, you can use their work. What makes you think you can’t?

But there’s no mechanism for doing that, because everybody is so sure their work is going to be the next winner in the Pop Culture Lottery and they’ll be MILLIONAIRE artists and musicians, so they aren’t letting anybody else use their work for NOTHIN!

Or, maybe they think your collage idea is CRAP and they don’t want their hard work to contribute to it in any way. Perhaps they dedicated the work to one use only, and they don’t want it used for anything else (at least not while they’re alive).Or, maybe they believe that if you can express your “creativity” on the back of someone else’s original work, but not theirs.

It’s not always about the money. Sometimes it’s about what the artist had in mind for their work.

However, with that said, I’ve often mentioned that if someone can “sample” one of my photos in such a way that I no longer can recognize it as mine, then they have my full permission. I think that some artists go too far when they try to make a stink about someone using the smallest of snippets of their work, or when someone alters it so much that you’d not recognize it as the original unless you were told. In fact, I think that few artists would make a stink about something so trivial, but I guess that some do. That’s a shame.

@Princhester

I haven’t checked carefully but from memory approximately 100% (it may be as little as 90%) of the artists participating in this thread side with my point of view.

I’m pretty sure you’re right.

I can’t speak with authority on what art schools and colleges are teaching these days, but I doubt that things have changed too much since I was in art school. We had special sessions and classes about our rights. Lawyers came to speak to us about our rights. We were also warned about certain “big” companies (Hallmark was one that comes to mind) that would trample our rights if given the chance. (Don’t know if this is still the case.) Without this education, more of us would have fallen prey to the big corporations who wanted to suck us dry without proper compensation.

I go to artists’ message boards today and I don’t see any indication that the climate has changed that much. Oh sure, a few people are upset about copyright laws as they stand now—usually these are people whose work depends on the original work of others. But most of us, I think, are glad that we have copyright protection. We are not all signed up with big corporations. We are just little fish in a big pond. And we enjoy protection just like everyone else.

[Skywatcher]

@Evil Captor

It sounds like you are thinking of someone basically copying large sections of a song, intermixing it with both sections and calling it their own, with the basic appeal of the new music being the two or three songs used to create the “new” music.

Sort of like when Vanilla Ice took a song and added a note.

[kidchameleon]

[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Most samplers use small portions of other songs which they import into the music the’ve created to make their own work more culturally resonant. So a song about “Vanity” might include the refrain “You’re so vain” by Carly Simon, but nothing else from that song, and only in a couple of spots within the framework. Might also include a couple of other bits relating to vanity. It’s musical collage, and the test of whether it’s worthwhile is whether it says something new, whether it adds to the culture something that wasn’t there before.[/qoute]

So Carly, who put time and effort into making that song shouldn’t get any choice in whether her VOICE can be used? What if it were a song about supporting white supremacy or murder? And if the song makes a lot of money for some reason, she shouldn’t get paid? Despite her contributing to it?

Now, suppose I’m an artist (much closer to home) and I borrow images of a dinosaur, a naked woman running, a lush tropical landscape and a fast food joint. I combine them into an image of the naked woman running toward a fast-food joint located in a jungle, with a dinosaur chasing her. Maybe I add a few images of people staring at her. I put in a caption with the woman thinking, “C’mon, big boy – over one billion sold!”

Now, the people who created all these elements did not have anything like what I’ve created in mind. My image is new. It could have been produced by other means, but it’s a moot point – the fact is, I’ve created a new context for all the images I’ve used. As things stand now, they can sue my ass off (especially the fast food joint) but you know, I think creativity ought to be prized no matter what tools it uses.

Well, if you can’t be bothered to create your own woman, dino and caption, you should get permission from the folks that worked to create said images. I’m sure they want to be compensated for their time and effort and to make sure that their work isn’t being used to support something they don’t believe in.

I think the best way to handle something like this would be to get the permission of all the people who created the art, and maybe even give them a share fo the proceeds of the artwork if it has any commercial success.

Yes, the world needs something like this. How about Copyrights? In order for the boys who make South Park to have Cartman sing ‘Sailing’ they had to get permission from the songwriter and pay him royalties from their proceeds. Same thing if they wanted to sample from it, except they would need permission from everybody who owned rights to that performance of the song. In fact, you can use someone elses song without their permission thanks to parody laws, though you will pay an extremely high level of royalties. However, if you’re going to use their actualy voice, performance or artwork, you need to get their permision.