Huh, good point. Before I start, I’d like to make clear that I certainly agree with anyone who said that copyright terms are ludicrously long.
While I don’t think that the following is the reason that arts copyright terms are longer than patents, one line of reasoning that occurs to me is that it is precisely because the cure for cancer/better mousetrap is more valuable that it has a shorter protection term. Technological advances are fundamentally incremental in nature, barring the large leaps made by a very few geniuses. If patent extensions existed in the same lengths as copyright terms, then development would be seriously hampered. As music and art do not depend on their predecessors in quite the same way, the same argument doesn’t apply as well. Sure, artists influence other artists, and genres develop from others, but it’s not such direct use of the predecessors’ work. The expiry of a patent therefore has much greater potential benefit than the expiry of a copyright.
Like I say, I completely agree that copyright terms are ludicrous, but I don’t think they’re sufficiently analogous to patents that one can argue their lengths should hold parity.
The argument about the retrospective extension of copyrights is an excellent one, and one which I intend to shamelessly reproduce at a later date, assuming you haven’t copyrighted it. Why doesn’t someone point this out every time Steamboat Willie comes round for renewal? Or do they, only to be ignored? Given that pretty much everyone involved in that film will be dead by now, motivating them at this stage seems like somewhat wishful thinking :).
OK, fine. I stand corrected. I forgot about trademarks.
But this is exactly why these life-saving things do go into the public domain sooner. Because they are life-saving. No opera saved a life. No photo saved a life or cured an illness or made the trains run on time. (And in preview, what Dead Badger said about patented works.)
Uh huh.
They are doing something that is a “take it or leave it” product. No one will die if they can’t use it. And a lot don’t and won’t ever use it. Except maybe once in a while.
Artists, photographers and musicians are a dime a dozen, most don’t make much money, and none will cure cancer or invent a new widget that will make everyone’s lives easier. They do a non-essential, non-life-sustaining thing and many make just a few scant bucks off of their work now and then. But if they have work that is popular, but they decide to hang onto it and limit its release to the public, who will die for the lack of that work? Who?
You wanna extend the patents on designs? Go for it. :shrug: Unless it directly affects the usability of the invention, I don’t see why the design can’t be patented for longer.
Not in the same way—not remotely in the same way. But I’m guessing that you won’t acknowledge that difference either, just like Mr2001 won’t.
Ah yes. Of course. And we see evidence of this since Tom Clancy has stopped writing, since he’s already very rich. And Madonna has stopped singing, since she’s also very rich. Oh wait…
So you think it’s all about the money and once an artist makes money they’ll stop doing the work? Bullshit. We all know of many, many millionaire artists who are still busy cranking out new works. So this doesn’t fly.
But sure, JD Salinger hasn’t written anymore stuff lately. But don’t you think that if he loved writing, he’d still be doing it, no matter how rich he was? The shocking thing is—many writers, artists, musicians and actors love what they do. They don’t usually stop doing what they love just because they have made a lot of money.
However, if copyright were limited, a lot of artists would stop doing the same kind of work (they’d be more motivated to go for the “quick buck” and do more trendy work that would take off right away). If they want to work fulltime, they’ve got to crank out the more “popular” stuff. Or, they’d decide that they just couldn’t make a living at all, and go to some other profession, or go to “part time” and put their creative efforts on the back burner.
Some freelance photographers, for instance, still take more photos all the time, but are able to make a living wage (not rich, but support themselves) because they are able to still sell rights to 40-year-old photos. Take away half of their inventory of photos, and they might not be able to make a living anymore. And then what? One less full-time freelance photographer. And you also have writers, artists, etc., who are in the same boat. Not making a lot of money, but “getting by,” and royalties and income from 20+ year old works are helping them stay afloat. Without that income, they will have to stop being a fulltime writer/artist/photographer and work at WalMart or something.
So much for “encouraging” them to produce more work.
OK, fine. I stand corrected. I forgot about trademarks.
But this is exactly why these life-saving things do go into the public domain sooner. Because they are life-saving. No opera saved a life. No photo saved a life or cured an illness or made the trains run on time. (And in preview, what Dead Badger said about patented works.)
Uh huh.
They are doing something that is a “take it or leave it” product. No one will die if they can’t use it. And a lot don’t and won’t ever use it. Except maybe once in a while.
Artists, photographers and musicians are a dime a dozen, most don’t make much money, and none will cure cancer or invent a new widget that will make everyone’s lives easier. They do a non-essential, non-life-sustaining thing and many make just a few scant bucks off of their work now and then. But if they have work that is popular, but they decide to hang onto it and limit its release to the public, who will die for the lack of that work? Who?
You wanna extend the patents on designs? Go for it. :shrug: Unless it directly affects the usability of the invention, I don’t see why the design can’t be patented for longer.
Not in the same way—not remotely in the same way. But I’m guessing that you won’t acknowledge that difference either, just like Mr2001 won’t.
Ah yes. Of course. And we see evidence of this since Tom Clancy has stopped writing, since he’s already very rich. And Madonna has stopped singing, since she’s also very rich. Oh wait…
So you think it’s all about the money and once an artist makes money they’ll stop doing the work? Bullshit. We all know of many, many millionaire artists who are still busy cranking out new works. So this doesn’t fly.
But sure, JD Salinger hasn’t written anymore stuff lately. But don’t you think that if he loved writing, he’d still be doing it, no matter how rich he was? The shocking thing is—many writers, artists, musicians and actors love what they do. They don’t usually stop doing what they love just because they have made a lot of money.
However, if copyright were limited, a lot of artists would stop doing the same kind of work (they’d be more motivated to go for the “quick buck” and do more trendy work that would take off right away). If they want to work fulltime, they’ve got to crank out the more “popular” stuff. Or, they’d decide that they just couldn’t make a living at all, and go to some other profession, or go to “part time” and put their creative efforts on the back burner.
Some freelance photographers, for instance, still take more photos all the time, but are able to make a living wage (not rich, but support themselves) because they are able to still sell rights to 40-year-old photos. Take away half of their inventory of photos, and they might not be able to make a living anymore. And then what? One less full-time freelance photographer. And you also have writers, artists, etc., who are in the same boat. Not making a lot of money, but “getting by,” and royalties and income from 20+ year old works are helping them stay afloat. Without that income, they will have to stop being a fulltime writer/artist/photographer and work at WalMart or something.
So much for “encouraging” them to produce more work.
Because we are an anti-intellectual society that places more value on the electronically corrected voice of some flashily dressed teenie-bopper with a pre-packaged persona and a stable of professional music writers than some unassuming genius with entrepreneurial spirit who labors for years to make his vision a reality?
OK, fine. I stand corrected. I forgot about trademarks.
But this is exactly why these life-saving things do go into the public domain sooner. Because they are life-saving. No opera saved a life. No photo saved a life or cured an illness or made the trains run on time. (And in preview, what Dead Badger said about patented works.)
Uh huh.
They are doing something that is a “take it or leave it” product. No one will die if they can’t use it. And a lot don’t and won’t ever use it. Except maybe once in a while.
Artists, photographers and musicians are a dime a dozen, most don’t make much money, and none will cure cancer or invent a new widget that will make everyone’s lives easier. They do a non-essential, non-life-sustaining thing and many make just a few scant bucks off of their work now and then. But if they have work that is popular, but they decide to hang onto it and limit its release to the public, who will die for the lack of that work? Who?
You wanna extend the patents on designs? Go for it. :shrug: Unless it directly affects the usability of the invention, I don’t see why the design can’t be patented for longer.
Not in the same way—not remotely in the same way. But I’m guessing that you won’t acknowledge that difference either, just like Mr2001 won’t.
Ah yes. Of course. And we see evidence of this since Tom Clancy has stopped writing, since he’s already very rich. And Madonna has stopped singing, since she’s also very rich. Oh wait…
So you think it’s all about the money and once an artist makes money they’ll stop doing the work? Bullshit. We all know of many, many millionaire artists who are still busy cranking out new works. So this doesn’t fly.
But sure, JD Salinger hasn’t written anymore stuff lately. But don’t you think that if he loved writing, he’d still be doing it, no matter how rich he was? The shocking thing is—many writers, artists, musicians and actors love what they do. They don’t usually stop doing what they love just because they have made a lot of money.
However, if copyright were limited, a lot of artists would stop doing the same kind of work (they’d be more motivated to go for the “quick buck” and do more trendy work that would take off right away). If they want to work fulltime, they’ve got to crank out the more “popular” stuff. Or, they’d decide that they just couldn’t make a living at all, and go to some other profession, or go to “part time” and put their creative efforts on the back burner.
Some freelance photographers, for instance, still take more photos all the time, but are able to make a living wage (not rich, but support themselves) because they are able to still sell rights to 40-year-old photos. Take away half of their inventory of photos, and they might not be able to make a living anymore. And then what? One less full-time freelance photographer. And you also have writers, artists, etc., who are in the same boat. Not making a lot of money, but “getting by,” and royalties and income from 20+ year old works are helping them stay afloat. Without that income, they will have to stop being a fulltime writer/artist/photographer and work at WalMart or something.
So much for “encouraging” them to produce more work.
Not buying it. It seems absurd that we’d say “Thing X is less valuable to society than thing Y, so we’re going to give Thing X more protection.”
I understand your point, but it applies equally well to the arts. There is such a thing as derivative works. West Side Story would not exist but for Romeo and Juliet. A shorter copyright term would allow for similar experimentation with more modern works.
Remember, the whole point of copyright and patents is to encourage creative efforts. The argument goes that the longer the time period, the more people are incentivized to create. By that rationale, a very long patent term would actually encourage innovation because inventors could rest assured that they have less time-related risk – if their idea doesn’t catch on immediately, they still have a shot at profiting later on.
And let’s face it: the argument for lifetime copyrights is absurd. How many budding writers will say “gee, I only have twenty years to sell this book if I write it, so I guess I won’t bother; oh, if only I could have a lifetime to sell”? Twenty years is a long fuckin’ time. I daresay that no artist banks on waiting that long to start making dough off of his work.
This, and your related points, are answered in my response to Dead Badger. **
This is just the artist’s snobbery at play – the haughty notion that only artists can really, truly have strong spiritual and emotional ties to their work. What an utter crock of shit.
Plenty of inventors have poured their hearts, minds and souls into their inventions. Plenty of inventors have worked at their inventions with a slavish devotion that destroyed their families, their relationships with others, and their health. Artists aren’t the only ones driven by the urge to create. **
Actually, you’re the one saying it’s all about the money – that without very long copyright terms, artists will simply stop creating art. You’re the one saying that we need a lifetime of protected profits (rather than, say, twenty years) in order to keep the engine of art running.
What I did say was that very long copyright terms can act as a disincentive to creation. And clearly it does: look at JD Salinger. Sure, some artists continue to produce long after they financially need to, but others don’t – the lack of financial need cuts off a source of art, and we are all poorer because of it. **
Point of fact, I’ve read articles on Salinger that indicate he does continue to write, but elects not to publish. For which, again, we are all the poorer.
But I fail utterly to see why Salinger’s love of writing or lack thereof should have anything to do with this argument. If Salinger loves to write, then the hypothetical expiry of his copyright on Catcher will induce him to continue to create (enriching us all in the process). If he does not still love to write, then the expiry of that copyright will force him to join the rest of us in the working world as productive members of society. **
Twenty years is hardly a “quick buck.” Dare I say if you haven’t been able to make money off of your photograph in twenty years’ time, then your photograph just isn’t very good. **
If the only photos these folks can sell are over 40 years old, then they are past their prime. Perhaps they should get out of the professional photography business and find something more productive to do. Why should we subsidize, through long copyright terms, the failure of their new works to compete in the modern marketplace solely on the basis of their successes forty years ago?
People will write what they will write, and it’s true, a lot of younger writers or newbie writers won’t think so hard about the future. But they’ll get wised up soon enough. But a lot of creative folk become well-educated on their legal rights, and are taught to think ahead.
For instance, my art teachers in college brought in special guest speakers to talk about artists’ rights. Much to the dismay of many clients and art buyers who were used to taking advantage of young, eager art students.
I have negatives that are about that old. When I took the pictures I didn’t think I’d sell any of my photos, and didn’t plan on publishing them, ever.
So what exactly would my motivation be now to release them to the public, since they are over 20 years old and would automatically be put into public domain?
Or, if copyright starts at the first “publication” of the work, how will this affect the casual “publication” of photos or artwork on the web, (at one of those “photo storage” services, for instance). Suppose some newbie or “hobby” photographer posts some of their photos on one of these places for a little while, so it’s been “officially” published. If 20 years down the line they decide they want to “go pro,” will all these pictures be automatically public domain? And if so, why on earth would the photographer want to go to the trouble of releasing these negatives to the public, since they are already in the public domain so there is very little hope for a profit from them? Wouldn’t they simply skip over those negatives and never release higher res versions of them?
I’ve also (as I have mentioned in previous threads) got a ton of photos that my late father took. Beautiful, scenic photos. He’s dead. So obviously the photos should be in the public domain if they were published, right? So why should I bother showing them to anyone?
You say that you are “not buying” Dead Badger’s arguments. I’m “not buying” yours.
These are two completely different areas of work, and I don’t think they should be treated as if they are almost identical.
No, I’m saying that the outcome of the work, and the content of the work is entirely different than with inventions. By its very nature it is different. And therefore the creator’s feelings about it are going to be different.
And so have a lot of workaholics. But the work does not reflect those feelings. The work is the work. It doesn’t have the potential to tell the story of those feelings. It’s a widget, or a drug, or a new computer. It’s not an autobiography, or a religious piece of music, or a portrait of a loved one, drawn the day after they died.
No, I didn’t say that they’d necessarily stop creating it, I said they’d stop publishing it. Or, if they want to make a living off of their work, they’d create a different kind of work that is more “trendy.” Because that clock is ticking.
And he’s one guy. And he’s crowded out by the many productive and successful people who keep on creating.
If they stop creating stuff because they don’t need the money, then they aren’t enjoying the work very much, are they? Maybe they wouuld stop doing the work anyhow, no matter what. Because they obviously are not enjoying doing it that much. If they enjoyed doing it, they’d be doing it.
But does he say that he’d publish if he were broke?
He’s obviously got a weird perspective on his writing, and I doubt his sentiments are in the majority.
But if he’s not creating stuff for publication, then he’s got a reason for it. And you don’t know if that will change simply because he needed more money.
Ah. I see. “Get a real job.” I was waiting for that to crop up.
And this is exactly the point I ask again and again. If my photo sucks, why the hell do you want to see it in the public domain? It sucks. No one wants it. So if I want to keep rights to an otherwise worthless photo, why shouldn’t I be able to keep rights? How is society being hurt by not having this utterly worthless photo in the public domain? But if, after 20 years, I am able to make money off of the photo (where I hadn’t before) then why shouldn’t I make money on it, since I was the one who took it and I never made a dime on it before?
The photos, or the photographers?
If the photos are still selling, then they obviously are not “past their prime.” Believe it or not, a lot of clients still use “retro” photos. And some photos are timeless (like a picture of Yosemite’s Half Dome, for instance).
Oh, I see. This sentiment is familiar. The hostility and (dare I say?) resentment towards a full time photographer (doing something they love, full time—the nerve! Make 'em get a real job, one that they hate, like the rest of us!). I hasten to add, these “old timer” photographers are still taking new photos all the time. I did mention that before. They are still taking new photos.
A lot of non-famous photographers, (and artists, and writers) don’t make a huge hunk of cash and don’t charge a whole lot for any of their works. So do you want to encourage them to keep on working full time, producing new works (while making ends meet with the help of the income of their older works)? Or do you want them to not be able to work at it anymore and work at WalMart instead? If they work at WalMart, they won’t have enough time to take any new photos, now will they?
It’s not “soley.” They don’t make a lot of money, they don’t charge a lot for their work, and they are still contributing NEW WORKS every day. But you want to help make it harder for them to make ends meet by not allowing them to make money off of older works? Fine. Off to WalMart for them, then, doing a “real job” instead of one they actually enjoy. And no more new photos from them either. That’s ever so much better. :rolleyes:
I think you’re ascribing a more dissenting viewpoint to me than I intended - I’m merely arguing that the situations are different enough to warrant different terms, not that the present disparity is justified. It’s certainly possible to present my argument as counter-intuitive, but it depends how you view it - are we benevolently permitting the artist/inventor to benefit from his work at our convenience, or are we defining a point at which the common good becomes the overriding consideration?
Basically rather than justifying “protection”, I see it as a balance - the benefit to the artist on the one hand, and the benefit to the public on the other. To all intents and purposes, copyright at present is infinite, as we’ll all be dead by the time anything expires. Yet clearly, massive artistic innovation continues, with inspirations drawn and unchallenged by law. Were the same terms to apply to inventions, technological progress would literally grind to a halt. To me, the benefit to the public is clearly greater from patented ideas becoming public domain than is the benefit from Steamboat Willie. Therefore, the balance tips in favour of the common good, and patents get a shorter term. How much shorter, I’m not willing to speculate, but I readily agree that a fixed copyright length of considerably less than the average lifespan seems more reasonable than “life + X”.
Ahem. I should probably ammend my last post to say that, if an artist (or photographer) cannot work fulltime on their work, they’d do significantly less work, but probably not quit completely if they could help it.
However, some non-art jobs (like WalMart) can suck the energy and life out of a person, allowing them little time to do anything off hours other than stare at walls, do the laundry, and take the garbage out when necessary. (I’ve had jobs that were that stressful and exhausting.)
But will they say “gee, I won’t write this if I don’t get lifetime protection; 20 years just isn’t enough incentive?” I doubt it. **
As you correctly anticipate, I think date of first publication is the right time to start the clock running (just as patents start running as of the date of filing). **
Yup.**
Well, the photographer retains physical control over the negatives – the lapsing of a copyright does not require the photographer to make the original negatives available to anyone who asks. Certainly the photographer could charge a publisher for the privilege of using the original negatives in, say, printing up a coffee table book of her public domain photographs. **
If they’ve “already been published,” then your decision to show them or not is hardly relevant: the photos are already circulating.
But you could ask this same question of a photo taken by your great-grandfather. If you discovered a shoebox of his old photos, which almost certainly would now be in the public domain, what would be your incentive to release them? Should copyright cover your dead great-grandfather, too? Why does your dead father get more protection than your dead great-grandfather? **
I extended my argument a wee bit beyond that, dearie. It’s dishonest of you to pretend that was the full extent of my response. **
This is simply stupid. It suggests that an inventor is not emotionally invested in his work (my original assertion) because an invention does not “tell a story.” What a crock of bullshit. The inventor who, say, works out his grief over the death of his wife by pouring his time into perfecting his latest gadget would certainly contest your notion that his feelings about the invention are materially different from an artist’s feelings about his or her work.
What you’re doing here is moving the goalposts: shifting from the original assertion (the creator’s emotional attachment to his work) to a brand new assertion (the emotional expressiveness of the work itself). It’s easy to argue when you just dodge the point presented, I suppose. **
Which is itself a crock. “Hey, I wrote a great book, but I’m not gonna publish it because it might not be popular until twenty years from now.” :rolleyes: **
It’s a long, slow clock. Dare I say coming up with something that actually sells every two decades or so is hardly an unreasonable expectation for society to have of its creative members. **
I fail utterly to see why someone’s “enjoyment” should be the basis for public policy. If someone enjoyes creating and wants to make a living from the creative process, they should be expected to come up with something new (and saleable) every two decades or so. If they dislike the creative process, well, they have a solid twenty years to profit from their work and then they can go do something else. That’s hardly a bad deal. **
I don’t know if he would or if he wouldn’t, but if he didn’t have his endless supply of Catcher royalties, he’d have to make a choice: publish his remaining works, or do something else to earn a living. Either way, society benefits.
**
Again: copyright exists to encourage the production of creative works. I doubt very seriously that any professional photographer would refrain from taking a photograph and seeking to have it published solely because it might not be popular until 21 years hence.
Unless you can credibly argue that you wouldn’t have taken and published your crappy photo without knowing you had a lifetime copyright, then your argument is fallacious. Copyright is not a Christmas gift to artists. It is an incentive, nothing more and nothing less.
I could make the same argument over inventions: if an inventor comes up with a gadget that is useless at the time he files his patent, but ends up having a profitable (and perhaps unanticipated) use 21 years down the road, should he retain rights to his invention? Why is that any different? After all, he invented the device. Why should pesky little things like the passage of time affect his ability to profit off of the gadget? **
Clearly, I was referring to the photographer. If you haven’t sold a new photograph in forty years, perhaps it’s time to retire the old camera and submit that application to Wal-Mart. **
I don’t see where you get this from my posts. If a photographer can make money from his chosen profession, more power to him. I love dealing with legal concepts, and thus I’m glad to be a lawyer; I think it’s great when a person gets to do something for a living that they genuinely love. I just think they should have to continue to make saleable contributions in their field, and not be able to coast on their past laurels. **
But apparently they are taking new photos which aren’t very good; otherwise, they would not need income from efforts they made forty years ago. **
Are you suggesting that these artists are underpricing their work? If the market will bear a higher price, why don’t they charge that? If an artist wants to be charitable, fine, but the rest of society shouldn’t be made to feel guilty over his decision to do so.
Or are you suggesting that these artists can’t charge enough for their works to do that full-time? If the market won’t support a high enough price for them to be an artist exclusively, perhaps they should only do art part-time. If they market won’t pay them more than a pittance, perhaps they should consider abandoning art entirely, as they clearly aren’t very good at it.
Dead Badger: I agree that we’re not really disagreeing that much. I just propose making copyrights terms similar to patent terms because I think the length of time is about right – certainly, we have plenty of innovation and invention, even excluding derivative work, with a twenty year term for patents, and I seriously doubt we’d see a material drop in creative works if copyrights likewise ran for twenty years.
Agreed. I’m buggered if I’m going to skip on a new album today, just cos it’ll be free(ish) when I’m retired :). I’m not that patient. Conversely, I resent paying squillions of pounds for Leadbelly recordings (okay, 15 quid), when he’s not seeing a penny of it.
More likely they’ll think, “Gee, in 20 years my deeply personal religious opera could be ‘adapted’ in some really offensive way, so maybe I just will keep it to myself.” Or, “Gee, this photo of an ocarina isn’t going to make me much money in the next 20 years, so I’ll put it back in its sleeve and see if I can sell these cute photos of kittens and puppies instead.” They may sift through their photos and promote the ones which they think have the most earning potential in the shortest amount of time.
And how many publishers will be eager to publish a book of public domain photos, when they know that anyone can also print these photos as well? And what’s stopping someone from getting high res copies of the photos and distributing them on the Internet? They are in the pubic domain, after all. So how many publishers will be eager to pay a photographer a fat advance for a book of photos that are free for the taking elsewhere, and can be published by any other publisher at any time?
Ah, but only low res, low quality photos are circulating. (Let’s say, 400x400 pixel “thumbnail” jpegs.) So, why should the photographer release any higher resolution photos to the public? The jpeg thumbnails are in the public domain, but their usefulness is severely limited. So all the public will ever see are these low-res (but promising) photos, but they may never get to see anything larger—because the original photographer doesn’t have any financial incentive to release higher res versions.
None, probably. But if there is no financial incentive to publish them, does that mean that society is better off for not seeing them?
It’s not just about “protecting” my dead father in this case, it’s about some lovely photos that he took, that my family won’t have much financial incentive to release if there were no copyight in place. He took the photos and he ain’t taking any more, but if society wants to see his lovely scenic photos, they’re going to have to go through me. (I’m not going to pay to have them drum scanned—too expensive and I don’t want to part with them.) So, why should I try to “share” tons of his photos with the public if there is no financial reward for me? Frankly, I haven’t got time to scan each slide, put up a website, just so I can “donate” his photos to the public domain. So, I guess if you had your way, I’d never be able to afford to show them to the public. Is this preferable to you?
No, it means that when an artist writes a story, composes an opera or draws a portrait, they may be more apt to be turned off by the idea of their work being “adapted” in their lifetime in a way that is deeply offensive to them. (For instance, a religious song “adapted” to be sacreligious, an illustration “adapted” to be pornographic, or a song sung by Wayne Newton.)
And since you claim that copyright exists to encourage the production of creative works, you must realize that it will hamper the artist’s desire to release creative works to the public if they know that anyone can crap on it in 20 years. Maybe they won’t make the connection and start to restrict what they release to the public right away (based on what might be done to it after 20 years) but sooner or later, if they see something dreadful done to a colleague’s work (or have it done to their own) they will alter their habits and be more withdrawn with the sort of work they release to the public.
I’m not negating his deeply held feelings, I’m just saying that it’s doubtful that he’ll see his gadget turned into something pornographic, sacreligious, or sung by Wayne Newton. It might happen, but it’s far, far, far, less likely. And even though the risk exists that the gadget they invent might be used in a way that is offensive, the fact remains that that use of that gadget (even a potentially “offensive” use, according to the inventor) might still benefit society greatly, or even save lives. Something a song by Wayne Newton certainly can never do.
There are all types of creative works, on all types of subjects. Who would be able to afford to write a number of books or articles (or take photos) about things that have a limited audience? Oh sure, maybe the limited audience work might get a steady, constant trickle of income over the years, (or even decades), which might make the work worth doing in the long run, but what if there won’t be much of a “long run”? (And don’t tell me that artists NEVER think of the long run. Some might not at first, but as they get older, and especially when they see how things go with their peers, oh yes they will.)
You’re still not getting it. If they don’t “enjoy” the work, they won’t keep doing it. So, trying to limit copyright as a means of goosing a reluctant artist into producing something they don’t want to produce isn’t going to hack it. However, limiting copyright will prevent many artists from making a full time living, which will severely limit the amount of work they will be “encouraged” to produce.
On one hand, I certainly can sympathize with the guy, but on the other hand, his gadget may save lives, or make the trains run on time, which has far more benefit to society than a crappy photo.
I seem to have to keep repeating this.
The photographer is making new works. He is taking new photos. Just because he’s old, it doesn’t mean that he can’t still take photos. He sells the NEW photos, along with the 40 year photos, and is able to make a living by selling royalties to 40 year old photos, 30 year old photos, 20 year old photos, 10 year old photos, 5 year old photos, 2 year old photos, and 2 month old photos.
And so if a guy is making a decent living by selling photos that range from 2 months to 40 years old, and you want to yank away the rights to half (the 20-40 year old photos), thus forcing him to work at WalMart because he does a specialized kind photography (and a kind that requires travel, hence working part time at WalMart is out) then that’s just too bad? He needs to get a “real” job?
Look—the kind of photographer I’m thinking of specifically does not charge a lot for their photos; the publications who use their 40-year-old photos are not being treated unfairly or overcharged grossly because they are paying some modest, competetive fee for the photos. The photographer is competent and good, but, shocking as it may seem, not all photographers can be “hot shots” who make the big bucks. Some photographers cater to the smaller, niche markets. It isn’t as if these photographers are sitting on their asses doing nothing, watching the royalty checks pile up. They are doing something that benefits society; it just doesn’t pay a lot. Believe it or not, someone can be good at something and provide a valuable service, and yet not make the Big Bucks. It’s been known to happen.
Our own Primaflora, for instance, writes books with her husband (if memory serves). They definitely do not make the big bucks, but they do manage to make a living through a combination of royalties from old books, and royalties from new books. It isn’t as if their writing is bad or that they are pathetic losers. It’s just the nature of the business. Now, either you want folks like Primaflora to keep writing, or you want her to give it all up and work at an office or at WalMart (though I don’t know if there are WalMarts in Australia ).
Really, it’s not that terrible of a thing to allow someone to keep getting a modest amount of income from something they actually did, rather than throw it into the public domain while the author sits at home, trying to make ends meet. In Primaflora’s case, if her older books were in public domain, I’m sure her publisher would be more than happy to keep selling her books, while pocketing the funds that would have previously been her royalty checks. And since Primaflora doesn’t have a printing press quite as nice as her publisher’s, (or any other publisher), I think it would be hard for her to “compete” with them in selling her (public domain) book. But, oh well, there’s always WalMart. And Primaflora can’t afford to stay in the writing business, but her publisher is doing just fine selling her book.
Let me hear from an artist/inventor/creator (whatever) who’s actually had his career ruined by short copyright/patent/whatever terms.
Or consider this. Suppose 18 year old Jimmy Guitarist joins a band and proceeds to score Top 40 hits every year or two for 20 years. Let’s say the copyrights expire after 40 years. By the time the last hit goes into public domain, our hero is 78 years old. Now he can retire in the luxury of all the money he made playing music.
Except that in the real world, unless Jimmy Guitarist is one of the lucky few, he won’t get rich from album sales and his great grandkids probably won’t live to see the songs go into public domain. (Maybe that’s an exaggeration but who knows how long the term for copyrights will be 20 years from now.)
I’d guess that many an inventor cannot afford to support themselves on their inventions, since the patents run out before they see a dime. And that’s too bad and on one level seems very unfair, but inventions are different from artistic works, because they may save lives and or improve many people’s quality of life in a big way, and artistic works never will. Artistic works are decidedly non-essential and non-life-sustaining.
And, many an artist or creative person cannot afford to support themselves on their work, simply because it’s a tough business, and artists, singers, writers are a dime a dozen. But those who can and do make a living, even a modest one, well, they might very well go out of business if the copyright laws were shortened dramatically. But, since that hasn’t happened yet, I can’t bring you one who had their career ruined because of a shortened copyright.
If the copyright were Life + 35, for instance, his kids or grandkids could be responsible for releasing grandpa’s work to the public. If the public cared, which they might not. But if the public didn’t care enough to give grandpa much income during his lifetime, and the kids and grandkids don’t get much income from the sales of the music after he died, then why would they all of a sudden care and be so positively impacted after the work was in the public domain?
Sure, I understand that some heirs will sit on works and not allow them to be released, much to the chagrin of the public. And that’s a shame. But more likely, (and more frequently, I’ll warrant) the work may get a small trickle of income for the heirs (which is not so terrible, especially considering that sometimes the heirs—like a widow, for instance—helped support the artist and should be entitled to benefit from their work). Also, most people work hard to leave something for their kids. This may motivate them to continue to produce. An artist is like anyone else—they want to know that they’ll leave something behind for their heirs. And, like for instance in Primaflora’s case, she’s stated that she’d like to have her kids “inherit” some of the profits of her writing after she’s gone. And I know for myself, I have a project that I want to get done relatively soon, so if, (God Forbid) I kick off tomorrow, that thing will be in place to possibly be of financial benefit to my relatives. I can’t leave them much else yet to help “pay them back” for their continued financial and emotional support through the years, but I would feel better if I could at least leave them that. My hopes of this are contributing to my motivation to work on this project. And yes, I am thinking in the “long run” and believing that this project could slowly, gradually bring in income. It’s not something that I’d expect to make big money in a few years.
Sigh. As much as I enjoy rambling, I’m getting backlogged on a lot of other stuff so I may take a break from the boards for several days. See you later!
Good riddens Yosemite Babe. I’ll take your absence as a metaphor that your pointless struggle for business survival means nothing to a public numbering already in the tens of millions who don’t give a crap about “artists’ rights”.
I’m surprised you would cite this, because to me this is a huge advantage of shorter copyrights: it encourages the creation of derivative works, even if the original author would have disapproved. West Side Story is the classic example, but there are others. Jane Austen’s work alone has been reinvented so many times it’s truly remarkable, just to cite one example. **
I call bullshit. What kind of crystal ball does this mystical photographer have that allows her to see what photographs she has taken will be appreciated only 20 years hence? A photographer will market her work based on what she thinks its value is today, or at least in the immediate short term. Your photographer will accept offers for that photo of an ocarina just as readily as she will accept offers of the photo of that cute puppy. **
Oddly enough, I can walk into a bookstore right now and find books filled with public domain photographs – say, for example, collections of Civil War photographs. Oddly, publishers are willing to publish these works even though anyone can legally make a high resolution copy of those pictures.
Will such a publisher pay beaucoup bucks for the use of your 20+ year old negatives? Perhaps not, but I’d bet they’d make a reasonable offer to ensure they can put together the nicest reproductions they possibly can. **
Obviously, if these photographs are so great (and one wonders why, if they’re so great, it took 20 years for people to notice), having physical control of the negatives is an advantage, as per the discussion above.
But this analogy started with you talking about your dead father. Since you’re up in arms about the person who actually created the work being compensated, why is this a valid example for you to use? You didn’t create those photographs; your father did. Why should you be able to sponge off the work of your father?
And again, I could raise the same question about your great-grandfather’s creative works under current law; should his works be protected too?**
Frankly, I think most people would permit the publishing of very old photographs by the long-deceased (watch Ken Burn’s Civil War for examples – many of the photos used came from families who had held them as heirlooms). It is telling that you apparently would not. **
One wonders why, if these photos are really so great, why no one was willing to pay for them in the twenty years after they were taken. One also wonders why, if they’re so great, some publisher wouldn’t be willing to pay the relatively nominal costs (relative to publishing costs overall) of scanning the photos and perhaps giving you a bit of money for your trouble, in hopes of selling some nice photo books.
But note the shift in your argument now: you have ceased defending the rights of artists to be compensated for the act of creating, and started defending the rights of those lucky enough to inherit already-created works. Your argument has shifted away from the encouragement of creation. **
Of course, the parody fair use exception takes away much of this right straight from the get-go (*see, e.g., The Wind Done Gone*).
And again I note that copyright is not supposed to be about protecting artists from hurt feelings. It’s about encouraging the creative process. And an artist that elects not to publish because his work might be used in an offensive way after twenty years of publication isn’t worthy of the name “artist.” That’s just a risk you take by publishing. **
Spare me. Most works lose value over time – most books published in 1983 are by this time out of print. And life’s a crapshoot: no one can tell at the time of creation if their work will endure for over two decades. I find it extremely implausible that any significant number of artists would actually decline to create and publsh artistic works based on the possibility that it might not be protected twenty years hence. **
One wonders how these artists fed themselves when they were creating their popular works forty years ago, when they didn’t have a trickle of income from preexisting works (and when they faced shorter copyright terms to boot). If the work they are creating today (or within the past twenty years) isn’t enough to generate a full-time income, then these folks should no longer be full-time artists. Period. **
I find this reaction simply astonishing. Here we have a guy who is, by your own admission, doing more for society, and yet you’re willing to punish him. It seems to me that you want to encourage guys like our erstwhile inventor to keep on inventing. Given that, you’d want to give him more protection than artists get – we want to maximize entry into socially beneficial fields, right?
I mean, really – apply your own logic here. According to your logic, this guy will decide not to be an inventor and instead run off to law school (the horror!) because there’s a chance his patent will expire before it becomes useful. Why do you think artists – who, as a rule, love to prattle on about how it’s “not about the money, it’s about the art” – will be materially disincentized by a shorter copyright term, but inventors will not? Why would artists abandon art if the term is shorter, but inventors won’t abandon inventing over the same term? **
You don’t have to repeat it; I understand it. It’s just that, if this old guy’s stuff from the past twenty years isn’t good enough to keep him fed, I don’t think society ought to continue subsidizing his poor later work just because he did some good work as a younger person. **
You really have an unhealthy obsession with WalMart, y’know? There are other jobs available for those who need time to work on other things.
And to answer the question: if this guy’s current work doesn’t make enough to cover the costs of doing that work (i.e., if it doesn’t cover his travel costs, etc), then he’s making an economically irrational choice by staying in that line of work. He needs to find something else to occupy his time. **
Please define the “Big Bucks.” I never said anything about anyone being rich. I said if you can’t pay your basic living expenses doing a particular activity, then you need to find something else to do. If your current creative efforts can’t pay your rent and grocery bill, then you may not be cut out for creative work (or you may be past your prime).
