Morally? Morality is squirrely stuff. Is it wrong to spread joy by distributing your beautiful photographs to others? Is it evil to use your photograph to create a brilliant new work of art? If someone presents your photograph in ways you never could, because you don’t have their training, equipment, or sense of composition?
AFAIC, copyright exists to promote the arts, not make moral judgements. You get rights to your photographs because it is useful to society for you to have those rights.
So they’re just salary-warning working stiffs. They’re not getter an annuity. They’re not getting investment-level rewards. They’re just working for a living. Cut that copyright term and you’re taking food from the mouth of a working stiff.
And you’re giving society the freedom to create more things based on now-public domain source material. On net it’s a positive.
…so that’s a yes then? Other creators, in your humble opinion, have the moral right to take my photographs and profit from them.
Most of my photographs aren’t taken to “spread joy.” They are taken because a client has paid me to take them and licensed those images to be used in a particular way. If I wanted somebody to present my photographs in ways I never could by using their training and their equipment and their sense of composition then I would ask them to do it and then pay them for their services. But if somebody decided to do that without asking me and they did it to make a profit then I would do everything I could to stop them.
And yet here you are, making moral judgements.
I don’t think that he’s making a moral argument at all here.
Have you ever sung a song that you didn’t write personally? Did you feel that it was right or wrong? Or was it simply an act that was amoral? Is every act a moral one? Is brushing your teeth moral or immoral? Is yawning?
Some acts aren’t moral or immoral, except in the larger sense that it may be moral or immoral to follow the rules of society. But note that that doesn’t help us decide what the rules ought to be.
I would argue that you as a photographer don’t have a moral right to prevent someone selling your photograph any more than a songwriter has a moral right to stop someone from humming their tune, or a comedian has to stop someone from retelling their joke.
You have a legal right (and those other two don’t). I don’t see a moral argument either way.
…I beg to differ.
I think the question I asked was answered pretty explicitly and it has nothing to do with “singing songs in the shower.”
Lets ignore the false equivalence for a second. Why don’t I have the moral right to try to prevent someone from selling my photographs?
We might have different definitions of what it means to have a moral right to something, but I can’t tell because you didn’t really engage with the bulk of my post except to say I’m wrong.
Why does a photographer have a moral right to prevent people using their photos but a songwriter doesn’t have one to prevent people from singing their songs? Why is that equivalence, as you put it, “false”?
What you’ve described is a situation where most people break the law and get away with it. Most people are going to be okay with that. It’s the unlucky few who break the same laws and get punished who would be complaining.
I feel laws should be applied equally to everyone. I guess I can’t “make a case” for that but it’s a belief I feel most people share with me.
And I feel Russian Roulette is a good metaphor for a system where people are participating in a common activity and most are untouched but a few experience significant harm.
Finally, I don’t see what distinction you’re making between “violating copyrights is wrong" and “copyright holders should be allowed to have a say in what can and can’t be done with their intellectual property.”
… this appears to be an incorrect reading of what I wrote.
You’ve changed your premise. Shall we start with what you originally wrote? The bit where you compared selling a photograph with humming a tune?
…it isn’t a breach of copyright if the creator or the rights holder allows their work to be used in a specific way.
The laws are being applied equally.
That isn’t the system we have.
Whether or not you can see the distinction or not doesn’t mean the distinction doesn’t exist. That you can’t see it appears to be one of the reasons you started this thread.
Please clarify with a little more explanation. I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say
Feel free to answer either one, or you could just explain where you think the difference is. You think that I’m being inconsistent because I’m not using exactly the same terms in each example, but my position is consistent and doesn’t hinge on any of those differences: Copyright has no moral right component. It’s entirely a legal framework for the promotion of creation. One copyright scheme is morally equivalent to another. Some are better or worse for society, or for (some) creators. But so are countless other legal frameworks.
You think there is a moral right to some control, but not other control. So I’m asking: explain the bounds of the moral right. You clearly think that it’s ridiculous that a songwriter would be able to extract a fee from people singing (or humming) their song, so I’m asking you: why does a moral right to control ones work not extend to that example?
Society already has plenty of material to work with. It can wait a few decades for that particular work to enter the public domain. In the meantime, creators who want to use the same idea will have to come up with original expression.
Which, it turns out, benefits society far more than being able to copy someone else’s work. Culture is much richer when people have to come up with their own vampire stories instead of just copying L’Estat or Buffy.
So, society benefits exponentially more this way than they would by curtailing current creator rights.
Song writiers can’t control how their music is used.
“A few decades” is the copyright term I’m arguing for, so I’m glad we agree? A few decades is much shorter than the current minimum term of 70 years (assuming the creator dies immediately after publishing) or the more common 95 years for works for hire.
Are you familiar with the RIAA lawsuits?
I’m asking you to explain what you feel is the distinction.
…my original answers were specific enough. If they were unclear then be specific about what it is exactly you don’t understand.
You don’t see the moral difference between profiting from using my intellectual property without my permission and humming a tune in the shower?
I don’t think you are being inconsistent. I just think you don’t understand the nuances of how copyright actually works.
You have a disagreement with Cheese steak, not me. They introduced morality to this thread. I posed questions to them to explore what it was that they meant. But you have confused my questions and responses with an argument I haven’t been making .
I think it’s ridiculous that you are claiming that I think something that I don’t actually think.
… the complexities of copyright and songs are both well known and utterly irrelevant to what I said.
If you’re going to argue in bad faith, I see no reason to continue engaging you. You know very well that the “few decades” I’m referring to for is for the “life-plus” formula I’ve been supporting all along in this thread.
… yep.
The system is set up to protect the rights holders. Allowing people to use your work is “enforcing the law” as much as forbidding it. There is no contradiction there. It isn’t Russian roulette.