The U.S. Supreme Court has already established that parodies and satires are fair use of copyrighted material.
Legally speaking, Roddenberry created Star Trek as a work for hire for Desilu Productions (which was later sold to Paramount). He received royalties as its creator, but he did not own the copyrights.
Under the DMCA, they don’t even have to take him to court, merely send a letter to his ISP. Nine times out of 10, the ISP will take down his site immediately because it guarantees they won’t be liable for his copyright infringement, whether there really is any infringement or not.
Look at how quickly Google tore anti-Scientology sites from its database when the “church” sent a DMCA complaint.
Yeah, well, that’s how it goes. :shrug: They knew that going in. That’s why so many of these sites have disclaimers indicating that they’ll remove any “offending” material, if asked.
I’ve contacted many “image thieves” when I discover that no only are they stealing my pictures, they are stealing my bandwidth! (No matter how many notices I put on my site asking that people not do that, they still will.) They usually remove the stolen images right away, embarrassed at being caught. (They assumed I’d never find out.)
I’ve only contacted a web host once, but they ignored me. (I took matters into my own hands by “replacing” the rather large “stolen” image with various other bizarre images, in hopes that the bandwidth/copyright thief would be embarassed enough to remove my image, and apparently they eventually did.)
All right. I can’t take it any more. This is GD, so I’m going to phrase this as carefully as I can. Taking a cursory look at yosemitebabe’s website, I see:
A reproduction of the cover of a pulp novel from 1951: http://home.earthlink.net/~yosemitebabe/too-much-2.html
A reproduction of an Ansel Adams photograph. Ansel Adams’s work is protected by copyright until at least 2054. http://home.earthlink.net/~yosemitebabe/too-much-2.html
Two pieces of art, created by yosemitebabe, that feature the phrase “God Bless America”, which as we all know is protected by copyright until 2059 – seventy years after Irving Berlin’s death. http://home.earthlink.net/~yosemitebabe/wallpaper/index.html
These are exactly the evils you’ve been saying must be prevented with long copyright terms. You’re publishing art created by somebody else for your own profit (in order to promote your website), and you’ve created two pieces of DERIVATIVE ARTWORK!
I… I don’t even know where to start. I can’t figure out what position you’re trying to advocate any more. You’re so adamant that nobody be allowed to steal your art, but (by your own definition) you seem to feel you have the right to do the same to other people.
But that’s not the way the law works! We don’t have one set of rules for nice people and their friends, and another for evil soulless corporations.
Berlin bequeathed the royalties from “God Bless America” to the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America. You’re taking money from freaking Girl Scouts!
I’m sure you’ll say, “well, I’m not getting financial reward, so it’s okay.” But no, it’s not okay. It’s against the law. And if you don’t feel that it ought to be against the law, well, I always knew you agreed with me 
No, I am not in violation of copyrights. I post the stories initially on the show’s offical message boards, in the Offical site’s fanfic folder. There is nothing in the membership agreement that says that I can’t then put them (the completed stories) on my website, just that by using the characters I do not call them my own or attempt to profit from them etc. They’ve santioned the creation of fanfiction and to an extent support it, so they’re not very likely to take any one to court.
Well, except for: “You agree that any Message whatsoever submitted by you becomes the property of FOX…” and the WB’s board forbidding “…*nfringing anyone’s intellectual property rights, including but not limited to any copyright, trademark, rights of publicity, or other proprietary rights.” And the fact that you’d be using Sony characters on a Fox message board, and vice versa, which ain’t going to be kosher with either of them.
Yeah. It’s copyright violation. But it shouldn’t be – you’re clearly just doing it out of fun, not even profiting, doing it out of respect for shows you love. It’s fun for you, it’s fun for the people who read it. It doesn’t hurt anybody. It probably makes the world a better place. But it’s against the law, and will be for the next 95 years. And that’s my point. We ought to change that.
Did your research, eh? Have fun? This is the best you can come up with?
Where did I get all worked up about “fannish” or small web site that show copyrighted works out of admiration? Where? And yes, I forgot about the old pulp book cover. It can be removed from the site. :shrug:
However, this is NOT my work. I am not claiming this work as my own, I am not “tweaking” it artistically and making any financial profit from it. Just like some of my fannish friends are not either. Do you see me lambasting them? No, what I talk about publishing companies who are making a financial profit by ripping off other people’s works. Big distinction for me: financial profit.
Forgot about that one, too. Once again, an expression of “fandom”, (not claiming it as my own, not “tweaking” it and calling it my own, just displaying it as a fan of Adams). Care to cut and paste where I lambast other “fans” from doing the same?
But yes, since you pointed it out, it can be removed. :shrug:
Well, ignorance is my excuse here. Never knew that was copyrighted. But thanks for pointing that out. I learn something new every day.
No problem, it can be removed!
Hmmm…for one thing, I have repeatedly said that I thought 35 to 50 years after the death of the artist was enough, and in most cases, 50 years or death of artist is enough. I’ve stated that MANY times.
Another thing, I also said that I didn’t mind if people used my photos as long as they tweaked them enough so that I would no longer be automatically recognizable to me, the copyright holder. And that is what I believe I did there.
Well, it’s a long thread, and I don’t think you were always reading all that I wrote.
You did read where I made the distinction between “fans” exchanging files amongst themselves, and fannish sites, right? Doing it on a small scale? I don’t care about that. Please copy and paste any indication that I DO care about that, and want these “small fry” stomped out. (This is not to say that I want other webmasters stealing my bandwidth, and not asking me before they display my images.)
My main beef is the sanctioned and widespread publication of original works for financial profit. And sorry, you will not convince me that I have made a dime on any of these images. And you’ll also note, that I don’t really mind removing them. That comes with the territory when you put up a “fan” site, doesn’t it?
But that’s not what we are talking about! We are talking about how we’d like the law to be changed! And I’ve made my opinions clear on that.
Sigh. I did repeat that damages (financially) are a big part of the copyright violation, and no matter what you believe, that is a large issue for me—financial damages. And no, I don’t believe I caused any damages, financially.
We were discussing “fair use” before, so I decided to educate myself a little more on the issue and found this.
There’s much more, and no, I would not guess that fan fic or “fan sites” are “fair use” necessarily. But monetary damages (or publishing work for profit) is a big consideration.
You don’t take a very friendly attitude towards “fan” artwork.
You say that financial gain is the significant variable, but that means it’s okay to not pay for the right to use photos/lyrics/art that the owners want to charge for? As long as you aren’t going to make money off of it yourself? That’s like saying it’s okay to steal as long as you give away what you stole, so that you don’t profit from the theft. A bunch of fans photocopying a book and passing it around takes away from an author, even if they don’t charge for it.
I mean, I see what you’re getting at. And it’s perfectly understandable. If we could all make up the law, we’d want laws that benefit us (and those we care about) the most while restricting us the least. You make money from IP, so you want that interest to be protected as much as possible. But you want the fewest restrictions on the kind of IP usage you engage in, which is generally low-profit, done for love, etc.
Things like “who makes money”, and “which family members deserve to inherit” and “how much have you changed the work” and “do you credit the author” are fairly coarse-grained ways to slice and dice the law so that it achieves that end. But if we really started to dig into them, we’d end up with copyright that looks like the tax code. Especially when we try to apply it to every medium, every situation, every publishing contract, etc. When, really, we could achieve a lot more fairness with something as simple as “when you make a work of art, you have a monopoly on its distribution for the next forty years.”
Eeep.
Well, we’re so damned careful about copyright that when Mr P put up his website, we got permission in writing from the publishers to use the cover art of his own books because we don’t own those images. I don’t advocate one rule for fandom and another for myself. We’re as careful as it is possible to be and we would like that courtesy in return.
Funny, I thought I talked quite fondly of several fannish artist friends of mine. I have been a fannish artist. Remember, I did mention that?
Look, I freely give permission to my site’s visitors to use my work for their own t-shirts, prints, and so forth. I don’t mind it on a small scale, for mostly private use, and I’ve made that pretty clear.
I’ve mentioned this a few times on this thread already, surely it did not escape your notice? I think my sentiments have been pretty consistent througout. I don’t care about the small stuff, it’s the potential Fingerhut catalogs and t-shirt and mug factories that disturb me.
I do care if people steal my bandwidth, though, since they screw up my web stats. But you’ll notice, I don’t go for the jugular, I just email them or replace the image they swiped.
If they make a large amount of copies and exchange them amongst themselves when there is a perfectly accessable “legal” copy available to them, no, I don’t think that’s right. Did I indicate anywhere that I thought that was OK?
But since there are so many variables in the kinds of art, the kinds of situations that copyright holders have, this is not a “one size fits all” situation.
But if you want to cover all forms of art under one standard law, shouldn’t it be designed to protect the “small fry” instead of punishing them in order to get to the big companies?
Yes, I am concerned about the “small fry”, since many of the rest of you don’t seem to be. And, by the same token, I don’t get my knickers in a twist over “small fry” violations that are no more than a blip on my screen and cause me no financial damage. :shrug:
Primaflora: Yes, for your professional website, it’s a really bad idea to violate any copyright. Better safe than sorry.
However, being surrounded by fan writers and artists for so long, I guess I have put them into a different category. As long as the fan is not making a profit (selling prints for profit, etc.) I don’t worry about it, and never have. The risk always exists, though, that the copyright holder will not like it, so all fannish folk must be prepared to remove their work from circulation. And never expect to profit from it on any professional level! When they are ready to go “pro”, they need to do what Eluki Bes Shahar and Melanie Rawn did.
The phrase “God Bless America” was not invented by Irving Berling and it is not owned by the estate of Irving Berlin or any one else. Irving Berlin wrote a song titled “God Bless America”. You can’t copyright titles.
And now I’ll have to put back my “God Bless America” references on my site. Yeesh! That’ll teach me to be so gullible…
Do you know for a fact that the artwork on the cover of that pulp novel is still under copyright? If its original 28-year term of copyright was not renewed in 1979, it is in the public domain. (Works that were in their first term of copyright before 1964 did not receive an automatic extension of copyright.)
[QUOTE]
2) A reproduction of an Ansel Adams photograph. Ansel Adams’s work is protected by copyright until at least 2054. http://home.earthlink.net/~yosemitebabe/too-much-2.html
[QUOTE]
Do you know for a fact that the image is still under copyright? If the image was originally published before 1964, its copyright expired 28 years after publication unless the copyright was renewed.
Even if both works are under copyright, “fair use” must be considered. U.S. Copyright Code:
If you have written stories using characters created by another person/entity, and you do not have the express written permission from the creator to do so, you ARE in violation of copyright. All your example shows is that some copyright holders are willing to look the other way in cases where the copyright violator is upfront about what they’re doing and isn’t profiting financially from the violation (which is the case with most fanfiction).
Some copyright holders (Paramount with regards to Star Trek and Lucasfilms with regards to Star Wars) have been historically lenient towards copyright violations by fanfiction writers; as I said earlier, Paramount even unofficially encourages fanfiction, as they’ve discovered the benefits of having an involved fandom (officially, their stance is that fanfiction doesn’t exist). Unfortunately, not all copyright holders are so understanding (ask the Xena fans.)
My comment:
My comment was not well phrased, but I don’t have to worry about it “becoming true”. It is true.
I know you hate repeating previous comments. Well, I hate it, too.
Art, as has previously been said, is derivative. Your art is no exception. Your art would not exist without the works of previous generations.
What you have created is just as much a product of society as it is your product. What you have created belongs just as much to society as it does to you.
“Real owner” wasn’t clear, but you understand what I’m getting at. Society deserves access to your works as quickly as possible.
No, it is too damn long.
Rounding average life expectancy down to 70: Supposing an artist starts producing at 25 (not extraordinary, by the way - I know two people under 25 who have written novels) and lives till 70, and then the heirs get a 35 year extension after death, the copyright on the early works will last 80 years. That is longer than the average life expectancy of a decade of people who are younger than the work.
Grossly unacceptable.
I’m getting frustrated. This seems pretty obvious.
If you die tomorrow, your heirs would have just under 25 years to make some cash from your newest works under my ideal plan, and just under 50 years under the compromise plan. It’s obvious that you won’t have much saved up if you die young. Both plans allow for that.
But if you live to a ripe old age, creating all the way, and still don’t have much to leave to your loved ones, I don’t care a bit. You had your chance, and you blew it. Artistic expression shouldn’t suffer because you’re not good at retirement planning.
Stricker
can you explain to me your understanding of fair use and derivative work? I’m lost. As I read your posts I get this vision of a world where every new work needs to be substantially copied from predecessors or the originator of the new work somehow has a problem.
While I agree with you that people do build on preceding work, I don’t see it as a problem if other people have a copyright. It’s a problem if you want to write pure fan fic but TBH that’s a personal problem. If a piece of fan fic is not published, it’s probably not going to be that great a loss to fiction. Even with what you consider to be unfair laws, we still have a huge number of books published every year and very few of those end up in court.
And quit it with the snide retirement planning remarks will you? I’d be interested to know your understanding of publishing and royalties and how much control the author actually has. Writing’s not like a 9 - 5 job with built-in benefits and superannuation.
I think one problem is defining what’s “fanfic” (meaning by that term a work derived from another piece of art, and that violates current copyright laws). Depending on how loosely or broadly you define it, not publishing a piece of “fanfic” MIGHT be a significant loss to literature.
Now, no one’s likely to weep any tears if my Mr. Spock/Dr. McCoy slash piece is never published (or if I write it, post it on the net, and am later forced to take it down). But what about The Wind Done Gone? Not having read the novel, I can’t comment on its artistic merits, but for my example that’s not particularly important. What I do know is that the author was using characters from Gone with the Wind to basically invert the picture of the antebellum South that Mitchell has raised in the popular culture. The author did so using the same trick that Tom Stoppard used in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, re-telling the tale from the view of a minor character (I believe it was Pork in the case of TWDG). Are we losing something if works such as The Wind Done Gone are never published because they violate copyright? I would argue “yes”.
You’d probably reply by asking me, “What is the author doing that he/she couldn’t do by writing a story about the antebellum South using his/her OWN characters?” And my response would be that the picture of the antebellum South that most people carry in their heads has been HUGELY shaped by Mitchell’s work (both by the novel, and especially by the subsequent movie adaptation). So using the viewpoint of a minor character in Mitchell’s novel to re-tell the story of Scarlet and Rhett in a way that undercuts the rosy view of pre-Civil War Southern society that Mitchell has portrayed in her work has the potential to be far more powerful and disturbing to the reader than such a portrayal done as a completely original story would be, because it’s a view that sits uncomfortably with the reader’s previous images of those beloved characters. Scarlet O’Hara whipping a disobedient house servant or Rhett Butler raping a female slave is MUCH more disturbing to contemplate than the same actions performed by an original character mistress/master, because the images of Scarlet and Rhett that we all carry about in our heads are so much more vivid than the ones of an original character are likely to be. Gone with the Wind has become a cultural meme; The Wind Done Gone attempts to turn that meme against itself.
And my understanding (and I could be wrong; it’s been a while since I’ve read about this case) is that that’s exactly why the Mitchell estate attempted to suppress publication of the novel The Wind Done Gone - they didn’t approve of the uses to which the novelist had put those characters. So getting a license wouldn’t have been a realistic option for the author of The Wind Done Gone; the Mitchell estate didn’t want the public’s image of Gone with the Wind to be “sullied” in such a fashion. But is it a good thing for them to be able to block such a criticism of this culturally influential work in this way? Gone With the Wind has been a part of the public consciousness for around 70 years now; how long should we have to wait before its potent imagery is no longer a sacred cow courtesy of copyright laws?
Now if I recall correctly, the court eventually decided in favor of allowing publication of The Wind Done Gone - but they did so on the grounds that it was a “parody”, and therefore not in violation of copyright laws (for as Walloon previously posted, parodies have more leeway when it comes to potential copyright violations). But that was a blatent dodge on the part of the court. The Wind Done Gone is clearly not a parody, but is meant to be a serious novel. The court failed to confront the central question, probably because they were uncomfortable with the legal decision they’d have to make if the DID assume The Wind Done Gone was not a parody - ban its publication on the basis of copyright violation. The next author trying the same trick with another important, copyright-protected cultural meme may not be so lucky, and in that case, the real loser will be, not the author of the suppressed work, but the public at large. We shouldn’t need to wait until the middle of the 21st century to play with memes that have been floating around in the public consciousness since the early part of the 20th century - but the current copyright laws may force us to.
Strickler, I understand that in most cases what you propose is perfectly adequate.
See, you don’t get it, still.
Not all artists make big bucks in their lives. Sometimes they are not accepted well, sometimes their spirit or confidence is broken down by external forces and therefore they don’t possess great “promotional” and moneymaking skills. The world can be very cruel, and not all artists survive the “feast or famine” atmosphere well. Especially when much of the world has a “work for a living like everyone else” attitude, or a “you enjoy it so it must not be real work” attitude.
So they die with a not lot of money. But they did a lot of good work. They worked hard, and just didn’t get enough financial reward for it. Just because they died broke doesn’t mean that their valuable work can’t be an asset to their heirs. And the heirs may be more motivated to promote the work if they actually own it for more than a few years.
And if the artist died broke because they suck and have no talent? So what is it to you if their heirs keep rights to their work? No one seemed to value the artist when he was alive, I see no reason why that should change how that he is dead.
I don’t believe every new work needs to substantially copied. But I’ve been spending a lot of time talking about that because others have stated that substantial copying is not artistically valid, that it’s “ripping off” or “exploiting”, which simply isn’t true. Well, to qualify that, after 5 years, substantial copying could very well be exploitation, but after 70 years, no.
If a piece of fan fic is not published, you’re right, it’s probably not going to be that great a loss to fiction, but this isn’t because fan fiction is somehow artistically inferior. If a piece of non-fan-fiction isn’t published, that’s also probably not going to be that great a loss.
But there are people out there who are extremely adept at writing “original” stories, and we let them to do. And there are other people out there who are very adept at taking older stories and doing something great with them. This is just as valid a form of expression, but it’s being stifled by our current laws.
So, no, it’s not a “personal” problem that certain fan fiction isn’t getting published. It’s a societal problem, and it needs to be addressed.
I looked back at the comment, and you’re right. It was snide. It was also stupid. I will try to improve my post-writing skills.
Yes, the works of an artist could be an asset to the heirs after the death of the artist.
But if the copyright ends up lasting more than 70 years, then, although the work could be an asset to the heirs, it shouldn’t be.
My ideal is 25 years because I happen to think that contemporaries of a work should get a shot at reworking it themselves. You think otherwise. Okay.
But I draw the line in the sand when the copyright lasts so long that people younger than the work grow old and die before the copyright runs out. That is just plain wrong. And allowing the copyright to last the entire length of a creator’s life plus another 35 years would cause that to happen.
Have you read the Urhamlet? I did, a long time ago. And I don’t remember it being all that great.
The story had a lot of potential, though, didn’t it?
Oh, but our neo-Shakespeare, for some reason, is supposed to operate under a different standard. So, what happened? Did humanity somehow lose the ability to rewrite mediocre stories 400 years ago?
Of course not. Reworking the old is still a valid artistic form. And so I would like for works to entire the public domain as quickly as possible, so that our neo-Shakespeare has the greatest selection possible.
You already know how far I’d be willing to push out that copyright. It’s that far, and no farther, because the next generation deserves a shot to play with what their parents did. And you’re advocating, with the 35+ years after death extension, to take that opportunity away from them.