Suggestions for new copyright paradigm

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by cj finn *
To the extent that you believe that anyone in this thread has actually stated that “creative people aren’t entitled to get paid for their work” I believe you are wrong.

Well, I certainly don’t believe that you think that, but I question some others.

This is the usual case, so if you have someone’s artwork, remember that you probably don’t own the copyright.

Yeah, I figured that. But the thing is, one of the points of logic being brought up is that once an artist “lets their work out into the world, they can’t take it back”. Which means, once an artist lets anyone else have access to it, all bets are off. I wondered if that would apply to someone else actually possessing the original artwork. I should think that some people would think that they’d have every “right” to distribute the artwork and publish it, because, well, they’ve seen it, so it’s “out in the world” now. Obviously, I don’t agree with that myself, and I’m glad the law doesn’t either.

Intellectual property relates to ideas and more particularly to the expression of ideas. It is only the EXPRESSION of an idea that gets any protection at all. This concept is valid for all areas of intellectual property law.

I understand that more nebulous “ideas” are harder to define, but is a specific image of a photo I took, or a drawing I made an “idea”? Or is it an accurate and very specific representation of a single entity—a negative I took, or a drawing I did on a piece of paper? These things are more than just nebulous “ideas”, they are tangible, specific things.

Each of these policies is obviously flawed. By coming to some compromise, the flaws can be minimized and the benefits maximized. Creativity and hard work can be fostered by ensuring that the benefits flow to the person(s) that deserve them. In addition, society gains access to the creativity of the creative and can build on that creativity instead of having to start from scratch each time.

That’s fine, and I don’t see why someone holding a copyright necessarily stops that. After all, if someone wants to “adapt”, say, one of my photographs, all they need to do is pick up the phone and ask me. Just because I hold a “monopoly” on something it does not necessarily follow that I will rigidly restrict all use of the image. Most of us won’t.

At present, our Congress has determined that the life+70 term coupled with the legal restrictions copying is the proper balance.

I think it’s mostly appropriate, except that maybe the +70 could be lowered to +50, or +35 or something.

I, however, believe that this is not the case. I feel that a system wherein a work is accorded no more than 50 years, whether the author is alive or no, is more proper.

Well, this is where we differ in our opinions. Because I don’t want to see my © removed from my early work, when I’m in my 60s and 70s. And, I want to leave something to my heirs. Just like anyone else does. And I’m glad that my dad was able to leave his negatives to me.

At other times in our history shorter periods have been put forward. Those earlier terms were shorter and the trend has been for ever increasing terms. In short, the terms have been steadily increasing and I am not aware of a significant increase in the creativity of the American people that could not be accounted for in the prevalence of higher education and inexpensive means for putting works out (i.e. easier and cheaper publication using typewriters, mimeographs, copiers, laser printers, and the computer).

I am not convinced that just because in earlier times copyright was more limited that it’s better that way. A lot of things were different years ago, but that doesn’t mean we should go back to the way things used to be.

I feel that it should be pointed out that the balance struck as between the natural rights crowd and the anything goes crowd will always screw someone.

Yes, I agree. I understand that you don’t want to screw anyone, and that you do have the artists’ interests at heart (even though we disagree on several main points). However, there are plenty of people who seriously think that artists shouldn’t have many rights, that they all live high off the hog, resting on their laurels.

I’ve also seen plenty of instances (as I described before) of resentment and contempt for artists. We are all “born” with talent, something we do nothing to cultivate, something we did nothing to earn, so why should we get any “rights”? Seriously, some people think that I didn’t have to study and practice to draw. They think that I just was born with it, and its cultivation required no effort on my part. So, they think that I should “get a real job” (well, actually, I do have a “real” job) and stop bellyaching about actually getting compensated for my artwork. And I think that’s a screwed up attitude, to say the least.

Mr2001 wrote:
In that case, inventors should deserve the very same protections, because surely they work just as hard as photographers.

I’d agree with that ordinarily, but inventions often have life-saving and grand technological breakthroughs. So there’s a different dynamic there, and I think especially when it comes to human lives on the line, some adjustments have to be made.

Do you think that my Yosemite photo is going to save a life? Is a novel going to save a life? Feed starving children? Light a city? Arts and creative works are inspirational and (very often) entertainment. They are not even remotely life-sustaining. People want them, and want them for cheaper, but society won’t be crippled if these forms of entertainment are not put into the public domain after a relatively short amount of time.

If anyone could just grab someone else’s car (or house, clothes, …), there would be chaos.

Oh, but the government could deem the property not “yours” anymore, and take it away. The government could decide that you can’t write a will and leave your possessions to your heirs if they wanted to.

That’s pretty harsh. He made that masterpiece in the understanding that he would receive a copyright on it for a certain time. If his copyright can be revoked before it expires, the notion of copyright terms becomes meaningless, and society has broken its promise to the artist.

But I don’t see why. The only (“only”—your words) reason for copyright is to “encourage” the artist to keep creating. So, since you want copyright laws changed anyway, why not change the “promise” to the artist, so it reads, “You get copyright for so many years, only if we deem you still capable of producing more work. If you refuse to create more work, or are unable to, you will lose copyright to your existing works.” Wouldn’t this still be consistent with the belief that copyright ONLY exists to “encourage” the artist to keep creating? And wouldn’t the “threat” of losing copyright “encourage” the artist to be even more productive? I mean, after all, copyright is there ONLY to encourage the artist to create more stuff.

I assume you want a moral answer, not a legal answer. If that’s the only copy of the painting in existence, then yes, because the only use for a copyright at that point would be to control access to a work that he has already sold in its entirety.

So, if copyright law was changed, would you advocate changing the law in this regard as well? So that once a collector bought the original artwork, they also could distribute it and publish it, without any further agreement from the artist?

[yosemite]

I forgot to add another thing: I have sold many artworks to private collectors, but before I let the work leave my hands, I always take several photos of it, for my records (and my portfolio).

I’ve scanned these photos of my artwork, fixed them up in Photoshop, and I can make prints of the artwork. I also can (and have) published the pictures of my sold artwork on my website. I half expect to get an irate email one of these days from a disgruntled private collector of one of my pieces of art, complaining that I’ve published “their” artwork. (Because, after all, they own the original, so they “own” it.) Maybe no one will ever be that clueless, but I’m learning to never underestimate the ignorance of some people.

If you could change the law, would you “allow” me to sell prints of my these artworks, even though the original is in someone else’s collection, and they’d paid good money for it? Would you “allow” the private collector to have any say or control over the publication or distribution of the work?

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
**I’d agree with that ordinarily, but inventions often have life-saving and grand technological breakthroughs. So there’s a different dynamic there, and I think especially when it comes to human lives on the line, some adjustments have to be made.

Do you think that my Yosemite photo is going to save a life? Is a novel going to save a life? Feed starving children? Light a city?**

Is a new method of making holograms going to save a life? No, guess it shouldn’t be patented then.

But what about a control program for a vital piece of hospital or aviation equipment? That could save many lives, but since it’s software, it’ll be copyrighted for over a century, and by the time it enters the public domain, the computers it ran on will be no more than a footnote in a history book.

A first aid textbook could certainly save lives. Should its copyright term be shorter so more people have access to it?

What about a thought-provoking political documentary? (Or, say, the Federalist Papers?) It might not save lives directly, but it could sure change enough minds to end policies that cause suffering and death. Wouldn’t society benefit from free use of that documentary within their lifetimes, more than a new hinge design or (my favorite patent) “one click shopping”?

Oh, but the government could deem the property not “yours” anymore, and take it away. The government could decide that you can’t write a will and leave your possessions to your heirs if they wanted to.

Indeed, that would be a simple extension of the estate tax. I can’t say I’d agree with it, but it’s not a radical change.

The government could declare property not mine any more, and take it away - by force. Because you can’t take someone’s property away against his will without a fight (key difference between real property and intellectual “property”).

Of course, the notion of private property ownership is fundamental to the way our society works. No one would buy anything if they couldn’t count on it being theirs. No businesses would exist because no one would buy their products or stock.

The same is obviously not true of intellectual “property”.

But I don’t see why. The only (“only”—your words) reason for copyright is to “encourage” the artist to keep creating. So, since you want copyright laws changed anyway, why not change the “promise” to the artist, so it reads, “You get copyright for so many years, only if we deem you still capable of producing more work. If you refuse to create more work, or are unable to, you will lose copyright to your existing works.” Wouldn’t this still be consistent with the belief that copyright ONLY exists to “encourage” the artist to keep creating?

Nope. The promise of copyright isn’t an enticement to keep creating, it’s an enticement to create things in the first place; and if you break the promise by revoking copyrights before their time, it’s no longer an enticement at all.

Suppose John Ashcroft offers $1 million to anyone who provides information leading to the conviction of terrorists. He receives information from Bob Snitch, convicts a terrorist or two, then decides not to pay Bob the million bucks after all. Now that all the other snitches know they won’t get paid, they won’t come forward either. The offer is only an incentive if the people you’re trying to entice know you’ll make good on it.

So, if copyright law was changed, would you advocate changing the law in this regard as well? So that once a collector bought the original artwork, they also could distribute it and publish it, without any further agreement from the artist?

Hmm, I don’t see why not, at least in this specific situation. Obviously the artist is in no position to publish the painting; if the collector who owns the only copy of the painting can’t publish it, then who will?

(This wouldn’t apply if the painting were stolen, only when the artist willingly gives up his ability to control or profit from it.)

Now, things get muddier if there are several copies in existence, but none of them belongs to the original artist. I’ll have to think about that some more.

If you could change the law, would you “allow” me to sell prints of my these artworks, even though the original is in someone else’s collection, and they’d paid good money for it? Would you “allow” the private collector to have any say or control over the publication or distribution of the work?

Ah, this is different. It doesn’t matter who has the particular photo that came from your camera, because copyright applies to the image, not the medium. You still have a copy, so you’re still able to use it for your own benefit.

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
But what about a control program for a vital piece of hospital or aviation equipment? That could save many lives, but since it’s software, it’ll be copyrighted for over a century, and by the time it enters the public domain, the computers it ran on will be no more than a footnote in a history book.

Believe it or not, I don’t really see a practical reason to copyright software for that long—not because the creator doesn’t deserve to keep their work, and not because they don’t own it, but because software has such a woefully short shelf life.

But, then again—so many programs do the exact same thing, or close to it. But I’m not a software designer, so you tell me: Is Adobe Photoshop the only software out there that is able to edit images? Or are Paint Shop Pro, GIMP, Fireworks, Corel Paint, and probably many other programs performing similar things? So, is it really hurting if Photoshop keeps their copyright, since that doesn’t prevent Paint Shop Pro from designing excellent image editing software as well?

A first aid textbook could certainly save lives. Should its copyright term be shorter so more people have access to it?

Oh please. You can do better than that. Is First Aid a secret “protected” bit of information? Or are there umpteen medical books out there, basically giving the same information? And, when someone imparts information, isn’t it possible to repeat the information (using your own unique wording and forms of expression) without plagarizing or violating copyright? I think so. Which explains the plethora of books out there, all covering exactly the same subject.

What about a thought-provoking political documentary? (Or, say, the Federalist Papers?)

See above.

Of course, the notion of private property ownership is fundamental to the way our society works. No one would buy anything if they couldn’t count on it being theirs. No businesses would exist because no one would buy their products or stock.

And you don’t think it would be extremely “discouraging” for creative folk to see everyone else who works hard to produce something, (a business, for instance) get to “keep” it, while you would expect the creative person to sit by and watch others profit from their work after a certain amount of years? No one wants to work for something if they can’t keep it. No one wants to work on something if they can’t hope to make an income off of it. No one wants to work on something, only to watch their hold on it taken away, while they stand by and watch others profit from it.

And, no one wants to address the fear that some creative folk would have (if their work would be in the public domain within their lifetime): That their labor of love could be “adapted” by someone else in a way that was abhorrent to them. In previous threads, writers have said that they wouldn’t want to still be alive and watch someone else mangle the fictional characters they created. I can understand that feeling.

Visual artists might worry that their artwork would be exploited in a book, movie or website that espoused values that they (the artist) found abhorrent. Perhaps it’d somehow “adapted” into a porn movie, a right-wing (or left-wing) book, or what have you.

Nope. The promise of copyright isn’t an enticement to keep creating,

Well, that’s not what you wrote above. Here, let me remind you:

Mr2001 wrote:

The only reason to grant a monopoly on that arrangement of words is to give the author a profit incentive to keep writing books. And the reason we want the author to keep writing books is so the public can read them…

I think you made yourself pretty clear there.

if you break the promise by revoking copyrights before their time, it’s no longer an enticement at all.

Well, you want to “break the promise” of copyright right now, because you want to change the current “promise” of Life + 70.

So, if you were to get your wish, and “break the promise” that all artists now have in copyright (once again, Life + 70) why not change the promise? We’ll all know up-front what the “promise” is—we must keep on producing creative works (remember, your words—keep on) in order to keep our copyrights. So, we know the deal up front. No promise will be broken if we fail to keep producing. We knew the deal beforehand.

Hmm, I don’t see why not, at least in this specific situation. Obviously the artist is in no position to publish the painting; if the collector who owns the only copy of the painting can’t publish it, then who will?

Except that the collector did not buy the painting to publish, the collector bought the painting to display in their house. If the assumption were to be (with all purchased artwork) that the buyer has rights to publish the artwork and profit from it, can you imagine how expensive original artwork would be? The artist would know they were selling the publishing “rights” to their artwork, not just the original. They’d want to get paid for their contribution, up front.

Besides, it’s a rare artist who doesn’t make a photo of their painting before they sell it. And, in the case of drawings or artworks that can be easily placed under a flatbed scanner, a very high quality scan can be made, so the artist could then make high quality prints from the scan. So, even if the artist didn’t still own the original, it doesn’t mean that they don’t have an excellent digital copy of it, does it? So why should the owner of the original get to have publishing rights to the artwork, unless they pay for the rights?

Ah, this is different. It doesn’t matter who has the particular photo that came from your camera, because copyright applies to the image, not the medium. You still have a copy, so you’re still able to use it for your own benefit.

No, not exactly the right reason—I am able to use the photo of my own artwork for my own benefit because I never sold rights to the collector who bought the original (they never paid me enough for that). If I wanted to sell rights, I’d charge them a whole lot more. And they’d gripe. But that would be too bad. I don’t want to sell any original so bad that I’d sell all rights for a mere pittance. Few artists would.

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
Believe it or not, I don’t really see a practical reason to copyright software for that long—not because the creator doesn’t deserve to keep their work, and not because they don’t own it, but because software has such a woefully short shelf life.

What about other copyrighted works with short shelf lives, like newscasts and bad movies?

So, is it really hurting if Photoshop keeps their copyright, since that doesn’t prevent Paint Shop Pro from designing excellent image editing software as well?

That’s true, it doesn’t.

And yet, you’re willing to deny that same protection to inventors. Why doesn’t Dr. Smith, inventor of Dr. Smith’s Life-Extending Tonic, deserve to “own” his invention for life + 70? That patent doesn’t stop Dr. McGillicuddy from inventing his own Health-Preserving Elixir.

And, when someone imparts information, isn’t it possible to repeat the information (using your own unique wording and forms of expression) without plagarizing or violating copyright?

It would still be “recognizable” as the same content (especially if the information was first made available in that book), just like one of your photos run through a few filters would still be recognizable as the same image, even though the actual details are different.

And you don’t think it would be extremely “discouraging” for creative folk to see everyone else who works hard to produce something, (a business, for instance) get to “keep” it, while you would expect the creative person to sit by and watch others profit from their work after a certain amount of years?

That’s the nature of intellectual “property”. If they don’t like it, perhaps they should spend their time making something that can only be in one place at a time, so they can keep an eye on it.

And, no one wants to address the fear that some creative folk would have (if their work would be in the public domain within their lifetime): That their labor of love could be “adapted” by someone else in a way that was abhorrent to them. In previous threads, writers have said that they wouldn’t want to still be alive and watch someone else mangle the fictional characters they created. I can understand that feeling.

Oh, I can understand it, but I don’t agree with it. Parody is a valuable art form in itself.

Visual artists might worry that their artwork would be exploited in a book, movie or website that espoused values that they (the artist) found abhorrent. Perhaps it’d somehow “adapted” into a porn movie, a right-wing (or left-wing) book, or what have you.

And you believe the artist should be able to stop that?

So I guess they don’t just “own” the expression of their ideas (book featuring those characters), they “own” the ideas themselves. Where does it stop?

[Nope. The promise of copyright isn’t an enticement to keep creating,]
Well, that’s not what you wrote above.

I was a little unclear. My apologies.

The promise of copyright on book #1 isn’t an incentive to keep writing books #2 through #10. It was the incentive to write book #1, and the promise of copyright on the future volumes #2-#10 is the incentive to write them.

If we revoke the copyright on book #1, the author has no incentive to finish the series because he knows we’ll revoke those copyrights as well. Other potential authors will also have no incentive to write their first books, because they saw what happened to this guy.

Well, you want to “break the promise” of copyright right now, because you want to change the current “promise” of Life + 70.

No, breaking the promise would mean shortening copyright terms retroactively (to a shorter term than the author was promised when he wrote the work). Changing the copyright term for works that haven’t been written yet is quite different.

Except that the collector did not buy the painting to publish, the collector bought the painting to display in their house.

How do we know that? Did he sign a contract?

So, even if the artist didn’t still own the original, it doesn’t mean that they don’t have an excellent digital copy of it, does it?

Aha, so it isn’t the only copy. Let me know when you’re done changing the scenario.

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
What about other copyrighted works with short shelf lives, like newscasts and bad movies?

Can newscasts and bad movies still be shown on TV and play on VCRs?

How much software written in 1978 can run on a 2 GHz Pentium computer running Windows XP, and is competetive and as useful as software written today?

And yet, you’re willing to deny that same protection to inventors. Why doesn’t Dr. Smith, inventor of Dr. Smith’s Life-Extending Tonic, deserve to “own” his invention for life + 70? That patent doesn’t stop Dr. McGillicuddy from inventing his own Health-Preserving Elixir.

Well, “health preserving” seems a little more “life sustaining” than a movie, doesn’t it?

It would still be “recognizable” as the same content (especially if the information was first made available in that book),

Give me a break. Are you seriously trying to contend that someone who has written a First Aid book actually holds a monopoly on the First Aid information it holds? If that is the case, why are there so many First Aid books out there? Why so many books on Beethoven, all discussing his life? Why so many books about Windows XP, or Photoshop, or raising birds? All these books cover the same topics. How dare they do that?

just like one of your photos run through a few filters would still be recognizable as the same image, even though the actual details are different.

If someone did enough radical changes to my photo so it was no longer recognizable as my photo, then who will even know it started out as mine? Surely not me, so no harm done to me. But if it is still obviously recognizable as mine, then they haven’t done enough changes to make it their own, have they?

Oh, I can understand it, but I don’t agree with it. Parody is a valuable art form in itself.

We’re not talking about parody, which is already allowed under “fair use”.

And you believe the artist should be able to stop that?

If the work does not fall under “fair use”, then yes. Because the artist did not create the work so it could be exploited by a pornographer, a right-wing or left-wing person, or whatever. If they knew that it could be exploited that way against their wishes, perhaps they’d think twice about releasing it to the public in the first place.

So I guess they don’t just “own” the expression of their ideas (book featuring those characters), they “own” the ideas themselves. Where does it stop?

The specific characters, with specific characteristics, names, the author created them, yes. The author does not “own” generic plot developments, or general plot “ideas”. But a character can be as individual and specific as any real person, and some authors feel very strongly about their fictional characters.

I was a little unclear. My apologies.

Ah, the famous backpedal!

It was the incentive to write book #1, and the promise of copyright on the future volumes #2-#10 is the incentive to write them.

Nooo…you and others have repeated, several times, the concept of continuing or to keep on creating. It’s already been hammered into my head, thank you. I won’t now start buying that it was merely a typo or a blooper.

If we revoke the copyright on book #1, the author has no incentive to finish the series because he knows we’ll revoke those copyrights as well.

Oh, but we’ll only revoke it if the guy can’t write anymore! (Like he has a stroke or something.) Able-bodied authors don’t have to worry about that, do they? Besides, they’ll all know what the deal is beforehand! So, no surprises for them.

How do we know that? Did he sign a contract?

If no contract was signed, how do we know what “rights” he bought? Should he just “assume” that he retains all rights? The way the law currently is, no. Unless a contract is signed, specifying what is being sold along with the original artwork, why should the buyer assume that he gets the whole ball of wax?

Aha, so it isn’t the only copy. Let me know when you’re done changing the scenario.

Oh please. You really can’t be that dense. I’d already mentioned how I’ve taken pictures of my artwork, and how I’ve published it on the web. Why would you assume that I or any other artist wouldn’t keep a copy of the picture, for our records and for our portfolios?

A copy isn’t the same as the original, and I should think you’d know that. Art buyers will not pay as much to display a print of some artwork as they will to buy the original. That’s why those Van Goghs in the art museum are considered “priceless”, while the Van Gogh prints can be bought anywhere. Originals are more valuable because they are, well, the original.

Just because an art buyer buys an original at a higher price than he’d buy a print, he shouldn’t assume he can publish the painting and make a big profit off of it. And if the law were to be changed so that he could legally do that, each artist would factor in how much their “share” of the profits of publication would be, and ask for that amount up front. And that would make all originals way out of the price range of all but the most wealthy art buyers.

Of course, like you mentioned before, I suppose the art buyer could sign a contract before buying, indicating that he understood that he wasn’t buying publishing rights. But why would he assume that he had them in the first place, if he wasn’t paying a rather large chunk of money for the artwork? Why would anyone expect to get all rights to artwork for (let’s say) a few hundred bucks? (A lot of original artwork by your run-of-the-mill average artist sells for that, or even less.)

[cj_finn]

Yosemitebabe:
When you sell a drawing/painting/photo. Make sure that your sales agreement simply states that you are selling work itself. You could positively state that the copyrights remain with yourself, but in general, to transfer a copyright you need to actually state that you are transferring the copyright. Not a clear explanation, I know, but an example will suffice:

1. “I hereby transfer all rights and title to the painting to A.”
2. “I hereby transfer all rights and title, including copyrights, to the painting to A.”

#1 does not transfer copyrights. #2 does. This may seem like a legal trick and I guess one could argue about whether #1 does transfer copyrights, but in my experience, if one does not use the word “copyright” in the transfer agreement, then copyrights do not go with the work. The metaphor commonly used is that of a bundle of sticks (rights). The courts have made it difficult for authors to inadvertently give away the entire bundle of sticks in one slip up. You may well still own the copyrights to every item you have ever produced.

Another point to consider is that your copyright in a photo is related to its creativity. If your photo is a purely mechanistic replication of a pre-existing work, then you may not be entitled to a copyright. However, to the extent that one’s copy of an Ansel Adams photo requires some on the fly creativity in setting up the shot, then you will be entitled to a copyright.

cj

[yosemite]

cj finn: In my old days I never had an agreement on my artwork, I just sold it. But I did have a © by my signature, which I hope would give the buyer a clue that I still considered myself the owner of the copyright.

We had some lawyers and legal types speak at my art school (umpteen years ago) and I came away with the basic idea that if I didn’t specifically sign my copyright away, the buyer was not to assume they’d bought it, and that legally, they’d not bought it. Meaning, in order to prove that they owned copyright, they’d have to show some document that I’d signed, showing that I’d sold publishing rights along with the original. I continue to read this same information on art sites today.

Frankly, I don’t see why anyone would assume that just because they paid $100 or whatever for a painting, they now own all “rights”, including copyright. Such people would be living in a dream world, in my opinion.

[InquisitiveIdiot]

Okay, there seems to be a lot of bickering going on between both sides. So, I’m going to try and elaborate both positions from step one, as I see them. If you think I’m wrong, correct me.

Sides are indicated by A for those arguing for shorter copyright durations, and B for those arguing against. I would fall staunchly on side A, so you may have to edit out any unconscious bias I may give, though I am trying to present both sides fairly.

On the foundation of Copyrights:
All parties agree that copyright law was instated to induce works of creativity that positvely influence society. However, side A says that term limits were applied to 1) return the work to the public domain and 2) to provide incentive to make more work. No reasoning has been given from B to explain the initial copyright limits.

On the nature of Copyright:

B seems to believe that copyright is (or should be) an unalienable right such as that stated in the constitution In this sense, owning rights to a work of art is like owning a desk: yours until you say otherwise. Copyrights are ideally used by the artist in order to get permanent return for his work, where otherwise income is unfairly restricted by the loss of the monopoly.

A contends that copyright is a privilege intended to eventually benefit society by providing incentive to work in the form of a temporary monopoly, then returning the work to society in a timely manner. If additional incentive is not provided, or if the work is not returned while it is still relevant to society, the copyright has failed in its primary purpose. In short, copyright is a license, given by society for society’s own eventual good, to practice a monopoly over works of art.
The problem:
Both sides negate the others’ argument.

A says that copyright is a gift from society to the artist. It is not an right, so the artist’s well-being, wish to give to children, etc. are inapplicable. Copyright is for the good of society and only for the good of society. It is generally believed by A that artists can usually make a fair amount of money in the first X years (20, 50…) and that copyright limits beyond that would be unfairly denying the public domain the work.

B says that copyright is a natural right, so should not be restricted. Long copyright limits are also essential for the artist to make a living, and possibly even leave something for their children when they die. Thus, it is inethical for copyright limits to be restricted to less than the lifetime of the artist. After all, it’s the work of the artist and no one else, so why should anyone else benefit from it without going through the artist?
The current state:
Currently, the law clearly favors side B, though arguably not for the beliefs presented here.

With copyright limits being life+50 (70?) years, A contends that when works finally lapse into the public domain, they’re out of date and culturally irrelevant, as well as provding no income worth debating for the author. Therefore, reduced copyright limits would return the state of copyright law to one that is fair to both the artist and society again.

B responds with the arguments presented here, A says they’re irrelevant, B says A’s arguments are, this thread eventually stales and falls off the end of the message board, and Disney extends copyright by another 20 years anyway via the pursestrings of Congress. So it goes.

So it goes.

/\ Still under copyright by Vonnegut. So sue me.

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
**Can newscasts and bad movies still be shown on TV and play on VCRs?

How much software written in 1978 can run on a 2 GHz Pentium computer running Windows XP, and is competetive and as useful as software written today?**

Twenty year old newscasts can still be used, but they may require extra equipment or effort to play on modern sets, and of course no one wants to watch 20 year old newscasts in most cases. They obviously can’t compete with contemporary shows, either in terms of production values or news value.

Likewise, 20 year old software can still be used, but it may require expensive or rare equipment, or emulation to run on modern computers, and of course no one wants to use 20 year old applications in most cases.

OTOH, some old newscasts are still valuable. I expect the live coverage from 9/11/2001 will be replayed in the future. And some old software is still valuable; old text games like Zork that were written 20 years ago can still be played today, on everything from PCs to Palm handhelds.

I’m still not seeing a difference.

Give me a break. Are you seriously trying to contend that someone who has written a First Aid book actually holds a monopoly on the First Aid information it holds?

Of course not. But he has the same natural “right” to “own” the information he first published that a photographer does to “own” the images he first captured–that is, no right at all.

But if it is still obviously recognizable as mine, then they haven’t done enough changes to make it their own, have they?

So it’s OK to rearrange words in a book to make it your own, even though the content is obviously still the same, but if you apply a mosaic filter to an image, it still “belongs” to the original photographer?

We’re not talking about parody, which is already allowed under “fair use”.

Who decides that using your characters in a pornographic movie isn’t parody? The author only owns the expression of his ideas (words in the book), right?

If the work does not fall under “fair use”, then yes. Because the artist did not create the work so it could be exploited by a pornographer, a right-wing or left-wing person, or whatever.

The pornographer isn’t including any of the original work in his movie, just the characters, which are merely ideas.

Captain Kirk is an idea, The Wrath of Khan is an expression. If you can’t “own” ideas, you can’t “own” characters.

Nooo…you and others have repeated, several times, the concept of continuing or to keep on creating. It’s already been hammered into my head, thank you. I won’t now start buying that it was merely a typo or a blooper.

Yeah, you seem to have a much easier time dealing with strawmen than with actual arguments. Suit yourself.

If no contract was signed, how do we know what “rights” he bought? Should he just “assume” that he retains all rights? The way the law currently is, no. Unless a contract is signed, specifying what is being sold along with the original artwork, why should the buyer assume that he gets the whole ball of wax?

As long as we’re changing the law, then why not? Why should he assume that he doesn’t really get to do what he wants with that painting?

After all, he bought it, and the artist didn’t say a thing about “Oh, by the way, you can’t take a picture of this painting, or exhibit it for money, or scan it to your web site.”

Of course, like you mentioned before, I suppose the art buyer could sign a contract before buying, indicating that he understood that he wasn’t buying publishing rights. But why would he assume that he had them in the first place, if he wasn’t paying a rather large chunk of money for the artwork? Why would anyone expect to get all rights to artwork for (let’s say) a few hundred bucks?

Well, when I spend a few hundred bucks on a physical object, I expect to be able to take a picture of it for my web site, charge my neighbors to look at it up close, or whatever else I feel like doing with it. The only reason anyone would expect otherwise is copyright law, as it stands today.

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
Twenty year old newscasts can still be used, but they may require extra equipment or effort to play on modern sets, and of course no one wants to watch 20 year old newscasts in most cases.

But, they have value, (as you later pointed out) for historical or reference reasons.

I’m still not seeing a difference.

Well, an old bad movie or old bad TV show never fed a starving child or lit up a city.

Of course not. But he has the same natural “right” to “own” the information he first published that a photographer does to “own” the images he first captured–that is, no right at all.

Sigh. You are being deliberately obtuse.

Here. Let me illustrate it for you, so there will be no more (affected) confusion:

Half Dome
Half Dome

Now, are these two images indistiguishable from each other? Are you going to get confused about which is which? Do you see anything different between the two? Do you think that any person with a brain in their head would have trouble telling them apart?

They are both images of Half Dome, in Yosemite National Park. Neither photographer “owns” Half Dome. Half Dome is there for anyone and everyone to visit, to photograph, to paint, the sculpt. Whatever.

But these two unique, individual images of Half Dome are the manifestation of two photographs, taken by two unique individuals. And both these individuals own (or have owned) the rights to their photos, and the duplications of their unique photos.

So yeah, while Half Dome (and First Aid information) is not copyrightable, an individuals unmistakabley unique representation of what it is to be Half Dome (or what they think First Aid is) is indeed, copyrightable! And yes, an infinite amount of people are able to take pictures of Half Dome, and are able to write books about First Aid, all without stepping on each other’s toes, or copyright.

Golly. There it is, all in a nutshell.

So it’s OK to rearrange words in a book to make it your own, even though the content is obviously still the same, but if you apply a mosaic filter to an image, it still “belongs” to the original photographer?

I know you know the difference. Just like you can tell the difference between the two Half Dome pictures above.

Who decides that using your characters in a pornographic movie isn’t parody?

The courts. The artist doesn’t have final word about what is or is not parody, they have to take it to court. And no, of course it isn’t a perfect system, trying to discern what is and is not parody.

The pornographer isn’t including any of the original work in his movie, just the characters, which are merely ideas.

No, characters can be very specific detailed things—name, characteristics, specifically and deliberately associated with the original author’s book, and therefore some will see the association between the porn movie and the original book. The porn movie will exploit the fame and popularity of the book to promote their own movie, and the original creator will fear that the porn movie will “dilute” or “corrupt” what the original character was always meant to be. (Kind of like smearing the character of a, well, fictional character. Making him the laughing stock, possibly damaging the sales of the original author’s future books. Who knows how far it could go?)

Besides, who says we’re talking just about fictional characters? I happen to draw and paint nudes (many years of Life Drawing class). I didn’t draw these nudes so they could be put on a porn site. I don’t want my work supporting and associated in any way with a porn site. I don’t want my repuation associated with porn, I don’t particulary care to help “support” (even passively) someone else’s porn site. Porn’s fine for someone else, but it’s not my bag, just like bowling and country music aren’t my bag. I’m not all that keen to have my work associated with those things either.

Captain Kirk is an idea, The Wrath of Khan is an expression. If you can’t “own” ideas, you can’t “own” characters.

Oh dear. Sez you. You give me nothing to back this up; you just state it, as if it is so. Please.

Yeah, you seem to have a much easier time dealing with strawmen than with actual arguments. Suit yourself.

Sorry, I just didn’t buy your backpedal. Call it a strawman, I call it a logical and possible progression of what you seem to want (but now want to distance yourself from).

As long as we’re changing the law, then why not? Why should he assume that he doesn’t really get to do what he wants with that painting?

Sure! And expect all art collectors to pay through the NOSE for original works of art! Original art prices will skyrocket. If the buyer wants all rights, they will PAY for them. They aren’t paying for all rights now. And the prices of original art reflect that.

Or did you expect that the prices would stay the same, even if the law was changed?

After all, he bought it, and the artist didn’t say a thing about “Oh, by the way, you can’t take a picture of this painting, or exhibit it for money, or scan it to your web site.”

No, there is no, “Oh, by the way, you can’t do this or that.” It’s cheeky of the buyer to assume he’d be getting it in the first place. He pays a ridiculously low price for something, and expects that this low-priced thing comes with a possible great earning potetial? Why would he assume that? Ever heard of “you get what you pay for”?

Well, when I spend a few hundred bucks on a physical object, I expect to be able to take a picture of it for my web site, charge my neighbors to look at it up close, or whatever else I feel like doing with it. The only reason anyone would expect otherwise is copyright law, as it stands today.

I suppose you’d also think that if you pay $10 for a book, you can make copies of it, and sell each for $10. Of course, it would never occur to you that the reason the book is only $10 each is because it comes with limited rights. Because, once again, you get what you pay for. Writers and artists don’t sell cheap copies (or originals) of something for no reason. They sell them cheaply (or cheaper) because the rights are limited.

Kind of like how educational software is cheaper than standard versions of the same software—different rights are included in each version. The educational version is cheaper because its intended use is for educational purposes only, not professional (profit-making) purposes. And so the price is lower. Because the profit-making ability of the lower-priced piece of software is, well, lower as well.

And same with royalty-free CDs. Different CDs cost different prices. Some high-end, high-quality royalty-free graphics on CD cost hundreds of dollars. Because the assumption is that the buyer will use the graphics on the CDs for professional purposes, and therefore they are paying all the rights “up front”.

In contrast, I have some images on my web site that are free—anyone can download them and look at them. But they are “free”, and with that low price, comes limitations. They are low-res images, not high quality. Almost no rights are included to the person who downloads them. I only give permission for the user to print a single copy out on their inkjet printer, for their personal, private use.

People get what they pay for. Anyone who thinks they can pay a pittance and get a whole ball of wax is either: cheap, stupid, naive, or a combination of all three.

[Cheesesteak]

Yosemitebabe, what would you think about a comprimise solution like this one… Works would get an automatic copyright of Life, with extensions available by registering the work for a fee. As long as you register and keep up the fee payments, you keep control of copyright.

I see 2 benefits over today’s version. First, works of limited or uncertain value will become Public Domain, and can then be used and built upon by others. While Life seems long, not all artists are 20 years old, and even they will most likely die within 50-60 years. I’d bet that the average length of copyright would be on the order of 40 years, which is a bit longer than I’d prefer, but is not outrageous. Until I thought about it that way, Life seemed a lot longer than 50 years, but that’s not really the case. It has already been mentioned that Life is much easier to manage legally than a defined length of term.

Second, those works that are valuable and still actively used (Mickey) can have a perpetual copyright as long as the owner pays for it. I’ve been a bit conflicted over the Mickey problem, since Disney has been the driving force of these longer copyrights. I hate these outrageous copyright lengths, but I also can see why Disney shouldn’t lose control over their corporate symbol.

Interesting things like old pictures, movies and songs would become public domain if the copyright owner doesn’t keep them active. Not too many people/companies will pay to maintain copyright on works they don’t intend to publish. Your decendants can keep rights over your work, or at least, the parts they want, and the rest of it will be freely available to all.

Fees can be varied by the type of work, movies being expensive, and pictures cheap, and by registrant, corporations paying more than persons.

[InquisitiveIdiot]

I don’t see this as an improvement at all, rather, it’s a step back. Works that no one cares about (not even the artist) don’t much benefit the public domain, while works that would are potentially copyrightable to infinity. Moreover, popular works generally tend to make enough money over the course of the years, while the unpopular ones are what yosemitebabe is referring to when she mentions artists that barely make ends meet. They wouldn’t be able to afford the fees, so their work would go PD anyway. This simply isn’t a viable solution.

[cj_finn]

Cheesesteak:
Your idea has merit. It would weed out those that no one was interested in keeping up. It would also keep those that are of value in play for a longer period of time. You’d need a final time limit however as the Constitution states:

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

cj

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
But, they have value, (as you later pointed out) for historical or reference reasons.

So do old software programs, as I also pointed out.

So which is it: software deserves to be “owned” as long as newscasts, or newscast copyrights should be shortened along with software copyrights?

Well, an old bad movie or old bad TV show never fed a starving child or lit up a city.

Neither did a hinge or a hologram. Do inventors deserve to “own” their intellectual output as long as authors, or not?

No, characters can be very specific detailed things—name, characteristics, specifically and deliberately associated with the original author’s book, and therefore some will see the association between the porn movie and the original book.

Yeah, they have details, but so does any idea.

The fact that people may see an association between the porn movie and the book is irrelevant, as long as the movie doesn’t claim to be endorsed by the book’s author. Gap commercials with bullet time are “associated” with The Matrix, but clearly that doesn’t violate any copyright.

[Captain Kirk is an idea, The Wrath of Khan is an expression. If you can’t “own” ideas, you can’t “own” characters.]
Oh dear. Sez you. You give me nothing to back this up; you just state it, as if it is so. Please.

Please, enlighten us. How is a character–not the words used to describe the character, but the concept of that character itself–an “expression” that should be covered by copyright?

Sure! And expect all art collectors to pay through the NOSE for original works of art! Original art prices will skyrocket. If the buyer wants all rights, they will PAY for them.

Sounds good to me. If the artist wants to keep his “ownership” of the image, he can write a contract, and sell the painting for a lower price with the understanding that the buyer won’t copy it, exhibit it, hang it upside down, or whatever other restrictions he wants.

**No, there is no, “Oh, by the way, you can’t do this or that.” It’s cheeky of the buyer to assume he’d be getting it in the first place. He pays a ridiculously low price for something, and expects that this low-priced thing comes with a possible great earning potetial? Why would he assume that? Ever heard of “you get what you pay for”? **

Uh… you’re saying he shouldn’t expect to be able to do what he wants with his own painting because he got it for a low price?

I have a $60 DVD player. That’s pretty cheap. Since I got it for such a low price, should I not be allowed to take it a friend’s house, hook it up to my stereo, or play rented movies on it? Is the low price enough notice that I’m not getting those “rights”, or should I have to sign a contract if the manufacturer wants to retain them?

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
So which is it: software deserves to be “owned” as long as newscasts, or newscast copyrights should be shortened along with software copyrights?

Well, software has a short shelf life. Frankly, a shorter shelf life than most old movies or newscasts (a few ancient games notwithstanding). I don’t think it’s wrong for software designers to keep copyright for Life+70, but I doubt any of the designers are going to get any income from their software for that length of time. So, in a pragmatic sense, there’s no real practical reason for their copyright to last so long.

The same cannot be said for copyright owners of old movies or old newscasts, (especially old movies. Like “Gone With the Wind”—that’s an old movie, isn’t it?). These may actually generate income for the original copyright owner for years to come.

Neither did a hinge or a hologram. Do inventors deserve to “own” their intellectual output as long as authors, or not?

But do you know that a hinge has never been used on a life-saving device? And do you know what technology might spring from a hologram, that might bring great advancements in science or technology?

As far as I know, a photo or old movie never transformed themselves into a technology that was able to save a life or light a city.

Yeah, they have details, but so does any idea.

“Idea” means many conflicting things to you, so it seems.

The fact that people may see an association between the porn movie and the book is irrelevant, as long as the movie doesn’t claim to be endorsed by the book’s author. Gap commercials with bullet time are “associated” with The Matrix, but clearly that doesn’t violate any copyright.

That’s a more tenuous connection to the Matrix. A chariot race is a tenuous connection to Ben Hur. Any movie or book can have a chariot race, and they’re not violating the copyright of Ben Hur. Hell, Ben Hur probably got the “idea” of the chariot race from somewhere else. (And, there’s a sort of “chariot race” in The Phantom Menace—such ideas and themes are recycled over and over again.) But if someone were to make a movie with a guy called Ben Hur in it, with an actor who dressed and looked just like Charlton Heston, who had a best friend who dressed and looked just like Stephen Boyd, and they all lived in the same city in the same era as the original story, and they all had the same jobs, same relatives, same temperaments, then that’s more than just an “idea” like a chariot race. That’s lifting an entire “universe” of characters, scenarios and situations, and leeching off of the other author’s original ideas. Not just an “idea”, but ideas—enough of them that there will be no ambivalence—these characters are obviously and especially intended to be the same people as described in the original novel.

On a recent thread about fan fiction, I remember reading something about authors having to clamp down on fan writers who wanted to write in the author’s “universe”, because the fan writers sometimes turned around and sued the author for stealing the (fan writer’s) plot developments and storylines! Some authors now consider fan writers to be a liability. They can’t win for losing with them—allowing others to write in your “universe” can be a perilous thing and often not worth the hassle.

Sounds good to me. If the artist wants to keep his “ownership” of the image, he can write a contract, and sell the painting for a lower price with the understanding that the buyer won’t copy it, exhibit it, hang it upside down, or whatever other restrictions he wants.

And that’s simpler than we have now? Why? Most art collectors don’t really have an interest in publishing the art they collect. To make each and every art collector (even casual art collectors) to sign a contract is silly, when odds are that they aren’t going to publish the art in the first place. (But of course the artist will want to price the art to include any publishing profits the art could earn, “just in case” someone does publish it down the line.)

And what if they sell the art to someone else, but neglect to pass along the “contract” of rights not given? What if the art gets found in someone’s attic, but doesn’t have any “paperwork” with it (but no one knows if it ever had paperwork or not)? What then? Do we assume that the artwork does have publishing rights, or doesn’t come with publishing rights?

Why burden each and every drawing and scribbling with a burdensome contract, when it would be so much easier to only need to obtain a contract assigning publishing rights when the rights are actually desired?

Uh… you’re saying he shouldn’t expect to be able to do what he wants with his own painting because he got it for a low price?

He can burn the painting. He can line the bottom of a bird cage with the painting. These things are not profit-making.

A person who buys an educational version of Photoshop can also burn the CD. They just aren’t allowed (legally) to use the software for professional purposes. Because they didn’t pay for that.

I have a $60 DVD player. That’s pretty cheap. Since I got it for such a low price, should I not be allowed to take it a friend’s house, hook it up to my stereo, or play rented movies on it? Is the low price enough notice that I’m not getting those “rights”, or should I have to sign a contract if the manufacturer wants to retain them?

Look in the DVD player’s documentation. There’s usually a license agreement of some kind there.

Whether you know it or not, a lot of the things you buy come with “rights” given and not given. A book you buy usually does not come with publishing rights. A car you rent often does not come with the “right” to drive the car to Alaska (unless you rented it in Alaska or nearby) without paying an extra fee. Just because you paid to rent the car and they give you the keys, it doesn’t mean you can drive it just anywhere, you know. Or didn’t you know that? Just because you paid money for it, it doesn’t mean that there aren’t limitations. Some things come with limitations, and the price you pay for them reflects the limitations (or lack thereof).

If you don’t read the fine print, that’s no one else’s fault but your own. And if you don’t understand what “publishing rights” are, and how they are not automatically included with, say, a $100 painting, then (as I said before) you are either naive, stupid, cheap, or a combination of all three.

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
But do you know that a hinge has never been used on a life-saving device? And do you know what technology might spring from a hologram, that might bring great advancements in science or technology?

You’re suggesting that’s a valid reason to limit the inventor’s natural “ownership”: his invention could maybe possibly save someone’s life someday?

Seems pretty weak. And if a hinge could save a life and a hologram could lead to great advancements, and that justifies the shorter term of patents, then why shouldn’t a cutting-edge medical handbook have a shorter copyright term? And why should a book that could spark great advancements in society, like The Jungle did, be kept under the author’s control for 150 years?

Isn’t it a lot less contradictory to just admit there’s no natural “ownership” of ideas or expressions, and rely on the practical reasons for granting patents and copyrights?

But if someone were to make a movie with a guy called Ben Hur in it, […] That’s lifting an entire “universe” of characters, scenarios and situations, and leeching off of the other author’s original ideas. Not just an “idea”, but ideas—enough of them that there will be no ambivalence—these characters are obviously and especially intended to be the same people as described in the original novel.

Of course.

The question is, why does that infringe on the author’s “ownership”? Why does the author have control over who can use her ideas in other works?

Her actual work is not being used. To use a photography example, this would be like someone getting inspiration from your Half Dome pic, going to the same spot and using the same camera to take a picture of the dome. It’s derivative of your ideas, and some people who’ve seen both photos might associate this one with yours, but it’s still a separate work that doesn’t incorporate any of yours.

Why burden each and every drawing and scribbling with a burdensome contract, when it would be so much easier to only need to obtain a contract assigning publishing rights when the rights are actually desired?

Because copyright law is the only reason those rights aren’t transferred along with the painting. If we’re going to reconsider copyright law, we must reconsider where those rights come from and why they shouldn’t be transferred with the painting.

He can burn the painting. He can line the bottom of a bird cage with the painting. These things are not profit-making.

Ah. So he can upload it to his web site and share it on Kazaa, since those don’t generate profit either, right?

Look in the DVD player’s documentation. There’s usually a license agreement of some kind there.

Hmm, nope, because I didn’t license it. I bought it.

(Do you have a cite for the claim that DVD players usually come with license agreements? I’ve bought more than my fair share of electronics, and I’ve never seen a license agreement for anything but software.)

Yet I expect to have full rights to use that DVD player as I want. The company doesn’t get to say “Sorry, you can’t use it on a TV larger than 19 inches unless you buy the $300 model. You should have known that from the price tag.”

Hey, for that matter, what about cheap cars? A brand new Kia is only $6000… should someone who buys a Kia not expect to be able to drive it wherever he wants, change whichever parts he wants, or charge for rides?

And if you don’t understand what “publishing rights” are, and how they are not automatically included with, say, a $100 painting, then (as I said before) you are either naive, stupid, cheap, or a combination of all three.

Again, this is due to copyright laws as they stand today. You’re suggesting that someone who buys a cheap painting should not expect to have full control over it, with or without those laws, aren’t you?

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
Seems pretty weak.

But that’s the premise of patents, to my knowledge, anyway. (A person with more expertise on patents, feel free to correct me.)

And if a hinge could save a life and a hologram could lead to great advancements, and that justifies the shorter term of patents, then why shouldn’t a cutting-edge medical handbook have a shorter copyright term?

Because as long as one person has a copy of that cutting edge book, they can use the information in that book to save lives. Just like someone can use the information in the First Aid book to perform First Aid, or to write their own First Aid book.

We’re going over old ground here.

The question is, why does that infringe on the author’s “ownership”? Why does the author have control over who can use her ideas in other works?

Because when it is patently obvious that the story is meant (very meaningfully intended to be) the same exact characters, “universe” and so forth as the original story, it is still recognizable as being indelibly related to the original book.

Just like if someone does some light Photoshop filtering to my Half Dome photo, but everyone who sees the filtered Half Dome photo still recognize the original source, then it’s still too close to the original. And if someone does that to my photo (doesn’t change it enough, doesn’t make it “their own”) then they’ve violated my copyright. If they put it through a few more filters, maybe I wouldn’t recognize it anymore. But they didn’t do that. Just like when a writer makes a point of copying a story, characters, “universe” and everything else to the point that everyone who reads it knows what the “source” is—well, that’s copyright violation too. But if they change it enough, make it “their own”, then, no copyright violation. Even if they were originally inspired by the other author’s book.

To use a photography example, this would be like someone getting inspiration from your Half Dome pic, going to the same spot and using the same camera to take a picture of the dome.

But as you can see, I stood in almost the same place as Ansel Adams did when he took his Half Dome picture, and they look different. Why is that? Because I ain’t no Ansel Adams. (Also, I didn’t take my photo in the Winter. )

It’s derivative of your ideas, and some people who’ve seen both photos might associate this one with yours, but it’s still a separate work that doesn’t incorporate any of yours.

Oh, bullshit. They won’t associate it with my Half Dome photo, they’ll associate it with about a million Half Dome photos they’ve seen all over the place. Half Dome is Half Dome. It is what it is. It isn’t a complex fictional plot.

I’d hazard a guess, though—if someone tried to emulate exactly (in every detail) a famous Ansel Adams photo, by using large format film, using B&W film, taking the same shot of Half Dome during the same season, etc., and so it was virtually indistinguishable from the original—well, my guess is that the Adams estate might feel entitled to sue.

Because copyright law is the only reason those rights aren’t transferred along with the painting. If we’re going to reconsider copyright law, we must reconsider where those rights come from and why they shouldn’t be transferred with the painting.

OK, have it your way, then. Expect each and every piece of art to come with a huge price tag. Because artists are not going to sell original artwork with all publishing rights attached if they don’t get PAID for them.

Ah. So he can upload it to his web site and share it on Kazaa, since those don’t generate profit either, right?

:rolleyes:

Ah. But he will be depriving potential profit from the original creator. This is old stuff you are recycling here.

(Do you have a cite for the claim that DVD players usually come with license agreements?

I have no idea. It was just a WAG. Doesn’t exactly invalidate my point, which is that some things come with rights restrictions. So if a DVD player has no rights restrictions, doesn’t mean that other things won’t, or can’t.

Yet I expect to have full rights to use that DVD player as I want. The company doesn’t get to say “Sorry, you can’t use it on a TV larger than 19 inches unless you buy the $300 model. You should have known that from the price tag.”

They can if they want to. They could somehow cripple the DVD player’s technology, if they wanted to, so it would only play on certain TVs, or whatever. They could include any restrictions along with the sale that they chose.

You’re suggesting that someone who buys a cheap painting should not expect to have full control over it, with or without those laws, aren’t you?

Oh no. Actually, if you want to change the law so that a cheap painting automatically includes all rights, fine and dandy.

Just realize that there won’t be any more “cheap” paintings. Because contrary to your delusion, artists won’t give away all rights to their artwork without getting paid for them. So if that’s what you want, fine and dandy. If you want it bassackwards, where people pay for something they don’t want, instead of paying extra for what they do want, then fine.

By the way, you never did address how it would work if an artwork was found in an attic, and didn’t have its “paperwork” (contract limiting rights) attached to it. Or it was re-sold, but the contract didn’t go with it.

Would paintings that are found “secondhand” (i.e. not bought directly from the artist) be assumed to have all rights, or not?

[yosemite]

I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring you, Cheesesteak…

*Originally posted by Cheesesteak *
Interesting things like old pictures, movies and songs would become public domain if the copyright owner doesn’t keep them active. Not too many people/companies will pay to maintain copyright on works they don’t intend to publish. Your decendants can keep rights over your work, or at least, the parts they want, and the rest of it will be freely available to all.

Fees can be varied by the type of work, movies being expensive, and pictures cheap, and by registrant, corporations paying more than persons.

Hmmm…I think this may have some merit, though InquisitiveIdiot does have some valid concerns as well.

I don’t see any reason why “abandoned” works shouldn’t be pushed into the public domain quicker. The creator is dead, no one wants them, no heirs have claim over them, so why not let 'em go into PD?

The only concern I’d have is with the fees, and how to manage the whole registration and fee thing. How much would a person be expected to pay? And could one fee cover an entire body of works, including unpublished or undiscovered works? How much of a “grace period” or time limit would a person have to register?

If I had to pay even one dollar to keep rights to each single slide of my dad’s, I’d have a difficult time doing it. (I’d probably still do it, but it would cost me thousands, since he left thousands of slides.) I haven’t even scanned through a fraction of his pictures yet. Of course, they are unreleased, but if I do release them to the public, when would I have to pay my fee? Right after his death, when I publish his first photo, or what?

I think in such cases as with my dad, a flat fee (very low fee) would be reasonable. I don’t even know which of my dad’s pictures I will publish, and I can’t anticipate what kind of income they’ll generate. Maybe they’ll generate no income. But I still don’t want to lose rights. And if I can’t have rights, I won’t ever let them out into the public, because it wouldn’t be worth the bother. So it’s hurting no one if I get to pay a low fee to keep rights.

And in my own work—my heirs couldn’t possibly catalog all the stuff I’ve done. And I have tons of sketchbooks—would each doodle on a page have its own copyright, or each page of sketches in a sketchbook, or just the entire sketchbook carry one copyright? And what about the stuff I’ve sold, but still retain rights to? Same goes for all my negatives and slides. Once again, it would be easier for them to pay a flat (low-priced) fee to keep rights to all my work.

[Cheesesteak]

I’d say one of the main points of the fee is to make it a bit troublesome and a bit expensive to maintain the copyright. Sort of a disincentive to copyright, ensuring that only works which will be actively used are under copyright. In my “Not a Copyright Lawyer” mind, you would only have to pay for those works you publish, when they are published, but you MUST maintain continuous coverage, else the copyright will lapse permanently. Works that are published before the artists demise would require prompt registration, maybe give a grace period, or make copyright Life+5.

InquisitiveIdiot, this plan should not affect our starving artist negatively, since they will automatically get copyright for life. The original artist will never have to pay a fee, only those wishing to continue holding the right after his death.

The question of infinite copyright is an interesting one. Should works that are valuable and in current use go public domain? The greedy capitalist in me says that if Disney is still using Mickey Mouse, still creating works with the character, still using the image on products, that they should still hold control over it. Remember that a work is only valuable if you use it to generate income, and the only way to do that is make it available to the public.

I think the positive part of this is that while you may be able to copyright forever, you’d have to pay forever to get it, thus you’d want to do something with the work, not just keep it locked up tight.