I started this thread, so I see no problem hijacking it.
This argument will never end, but I’d like to see us at least come to a consensus on ONE issue: what copyrights are, exactly.
I say that copyrights are a priviledge granted to the artists by society for society’s own long term good. It exists as a reward for enriching society with creative work, and therefore should be revoked while the work is still relevant to society. Just because after 50 years the artist can still use the copyright to make money in no way justifies its continued existence.
Yosemitebabe (I think) says that copyright is an inherent right of the creator, and should be protected by society until the creator or his descendents can no longer benefit from the work/ really care whether they have copyright or not. Society is not meant to be the primary beneficiary of the copyright, the artist is.
IMO, copyright law was created with my use in mind, but has since been altered (primarily by companies such as Disney) to Yosemitebabe’s. I would like to be able to decide which definition SHOULD apply, and see where we go from here, as this seems to be the main rift in these arguments.
So: if you support one defintion over the other, tell us why yours is the one that should be present in today’s society, or why the other one shouldn’t.
The copyright holder can keep someone from getting a copy of the book, just like an inventor could use his patent to keep someone else from building a copy of his lifesaving machine.
Another author can use the information in the first book to write another first aid book, similar in content but different in expression, just like another inventor can use the information in the first guy’s patent application to design another device, similar in function but different in construction.
What’s the distinction?
Just like a review of Moby Dick is indelibly related to Moby Dick.
Why should authors be prevented from incorporating others’ ideas (characters, original settings) in their own works? What’s so bad about one work being “related” to another?
That doesn’t follow. They haven’t lifted any more than the names from the original book, and while it’s “related”, it’s obviously a different story. Different things happen to the same people, in different situations, for different reasons.
The Sword in the Stone and A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court share some common characters, but clearly neither “steals” from the other.
What’s stopping them from offering a deal, in the form of a contract, to someone who only wants to hang the picture on his wall?
The only things that come with license restrictions are copyrighted works. Can you come up with one example of a tangible product whose manufacturer retains “rights” after selling it?
Let’s see who’s deluded here.
If you can find a post where I said that would happen, I will send you $5 via PayPal. Think of it as the Randi Challenge for Yosemite strawmen.
It would be up to the artist to prove that he retained rights when he sold it, just as it’s up to the artist to go after copyright infringers now. A well-written contract would allow the artist to sue the original buyer if he sold the painting without informing the new buyer that distribution rights still belong to the artist.
I see the ownership of information as absurd, mainly because the things that make it sensible to own physical property don’t apply to information, and the implications of owning information are unfortunate and illogical.
There’s a good reason that physical property is owned: it’s scarce. A car can only be in one driveway at a time. Whose driveway? Well, for many reasons, it’s good policy to let the person who paid for the car choose which driveway it stays in. But someone has to choose, in any case; otherwise we would all be in a never-ending struggle to steal our neighbors’ property. Information, on the other hand, can be used by everyone on the block at the same time. In the absence of copyright law, things would still get created and distributed; no one would worry about songs or poems being “stolen” from his mind while he’s asleep.
If a piece of information can be owned, it is owned in all its forms. If you own an image, you own the number that represents that image as a JPEG, the number that represents it as a GIF, as a PNG, as a zipped JPEG, a zipped TIFF, a PGP-encrypted PICT, and so on. You own every single number that can possibly be translated into a useful representation of your picture.
Problem 1. What if one of your numbers clashes with someone else? What if the encrypted PICT representation of your picture happens to be the same as the zipped PostScript representation of my e-book? Do we both own it?
Problem 2. What if one of your numbers is useful for another purpose? Suppose a scientist calculates the mass of the universe as exactly 478,027,482,904,728,904,238,907,184,234,087 million tons, publishes it in a journal, and Lars Ulrich says “You know, if you type that as a hex string, reverse the bytes, and unzip it, it’s a one-second RealAudio clip that sounds just like a drum sample from one of my songs.” Is it a coincidence? If the journal publishes that number, it is publishing the drum sample from Ulrich’s song, whether it’s a coincidence or not.
The DeCSS Gallery is a great example of the implications of owning information, if you substitute “copyright violation” for “circumvention device”. If you own a picture, you must also “own” a prime number, a haiku, a T-shirt, a square dance song, and anything else from which the picture (or a similar enough picture) can be produced.
If no one has a copy of the book, how do they know the book exists? Unless you think the author has the magic ability to make every copy of his book that is in circulation suddenly evaporate.
No, not “just like”. It may be more difficult to find an out-of-print book, but most can be found. Try Abe Books. Or, if the book is proving to be a real bear to track down, there’s always the Library of Congress. Once the person reads the out-of-print book, they can glean the necessary information they need to write their own book. Their own words, forms of expressions, insights. But based on the information in the book.
Good grief. Once again, more affected cluelessness. You really aren’t this dense. I don’t believe it.
Is a review of Moby Dick a work of fiction? No.
We keep on going over old ground here. It is getting tiresome. Because the unauthorized but “related” book may have offensive themes or material in it, that are not what the original author would want associated with their book and characters. Perhaps having their characters do things that the original author would never have them do. “Smearing” the fictional characters’, well, character.
Why would an author want to build a whole “universe”, put all that effort and work into it, when they know that any jerk can dillute their “universe” and screw around with it, possibly confusing the author’s core audience about what the “universe” is really about? Why would the author put all that effort into this “universe”, when anyone can exploit the “universe” in a way that is somehow distasteful or reprehensible to the original author? Why should the author, (even passively) “contribute” to a derivative work that the author finds abhorrent?
Oh yeah, actually, they do. They are using the same characters. It’s only acceptable and allowable because the original story is in the public domain. If someone did that today, with contemporary characters, it would be copyright infringement. You mean you didn’t know that?
You know, I guess this is as good a time as any to ponder about some of you on this thread—what is your creative background? (Not just you, Mr.2001, just everyone.) I mean, seriously—I’m honestly curious.
I am getting the impression here (and I concede that I may be wrong) that at least some of you do not dally regularly in the creative arts. Could this explain why I am having to explain some really basic concepts to some of you? How much of your igorance is deliberate, and how much of it is just clueless? I confess, I am beginning to wonder.
(Of course I must add this caveat—just because I’m an artist, it doesn’t mean that I speak for all artists, or that I will share the same opinions with all other creative folk.)
What’s stopping them indeed? If you want all that extra paperwork, just so the few people who actually intend to use rights don’t have to sign a contract, well, fine. It’s all backasswards, though.
:shrug: Like I wrote before, the manufacterer can limit what the product can do. But so what, anyway? Just because some products don’t come with “rights”, does it mean that others can’t?
:rolleyes: You didn’t “say” it would happen, but you wrote this:
As if such a thing as a “cheap painting” would really exist… My dear, if all paintings come with all rights, the concept of a “cheap painting” will be nigh onto nonexistent. Got it?
Oh, I get it. Well, that’s just so much better.
So, a person buys some art from a third party. Is assured that it comes with all rights. Person starts a whole business selling prints of art. All is fine and dandy. They quit their day job and sell prints. Things are going great!
One year down the line, original artist sees the prints, sues to have distribution of prints stopped. They show proof that they never sold rights. The person who bought the art (in good faith that it came with all rights) is now screwed. No more business for them, even though they did nothing wrong. The “third party” who sold them the art has skipped town. Cannot be found. Or, the “third party” who sold them the art claims that they too were a “victim”, since they bought the art from some mysterious phantom seller who cannot be found.
So, who do these victims all sue, in order to get their investments back? How long will it take to collect any money, if they actually track down the right person to sue? What will the guy who just saw his nice business trashed do now? Does he have to give all the profits he made from the art to the original artist? After all, he had no right to sell the prints, he just didn’t know it.
And so it goes. After a few of these scenarios pan out, we can see how comfortable people will be buying art with the hope of publishing it. How many people would go ahead and invest time and finances publishing art, willing to take the risk—that just because it came without paperwork, it actually never had paperwork? How many people will be willing to gamble and assume that they won’t be sued sometime in the future?
Oh yeah. What a fantastic system! I must say, you seem to have a preference to convoluted, expensive solutions to simple problems.
Let me ask you something straight out: Do you think it is preferable for all original art to have a very high pricetag? (Like, at least 10 times what it would go for today?) Is this what you want? REALLY?
Do you know what the difference between “information” and “unique creative expression” are? I don’t think you do, since you seem to think they are interchangable. Yikes.
Look, I realize the author might not like it. I just don’t see why the author should have the legal power to control what other people do with her ideas.
The author might not want offensive themes “associated” with her characters, but, well, why should that matter? The author might not want bad reviews published either, or competing books with better plots, settings, and characters. But she doesn’t get to put a stop to those things just because she doesn’t like them.
You say it’s because she came up with the characters. Does she get to control how other people use every piece of information that originates with her, or only the ones she works hard enough at, or maybe just the ones she deems important? Does she get to decide if other people can wear the same outfit as her, take the same route to work, or use the same idioms? Buy the same list of things at the grocery store? Give their kids the same names as hers?
And that is wrong. Neither work detracts from the other; anyone whose knuckles don’t drag on the ground can see that they’re very different works that only happen to take place in the same place and time, with a few of the same people.
I’ve been programming for about 15 years. Sometimes I get paid for it, but usually I just do it because I like to. My biggest project now is an application I’ve been developing for the past 5 years, which (gasp of gasps!) I give away for free. I’ve never done any other serious art or writing.
The manufacturer limiting what a product can do is like an author limiting what she puts in her book.
The point is, when you buy a DVD player or a car, or anything else (except copyrighted works), the manufacturer can no longer tell you what to do with it, because it doesn’t belong to them.
Creators of copyrighted works want to have their cake and eat it too: They want to make money from their work, but they don’t want to part with it. That doesn’t fly for anyone else; it shouldn’t for authors either.
If!
Alternatively, prices would stay about the same as they are now, and buyers would be fully informed of what they can or can’t do with the painting before they buy it, because buyers would sign away the rights the artist wants to keep. Artists could choose to place any limits on the buyer that they want, not just duplication and publication.
Yeah, that’s tough. Like when you buy a TV from the back of a van, only to find out it’s stolen, and the police want to take it away from you? You didn’t do anything wrong.
What I want is for things to be sold in their entirety, unless the buyer explicitly agrees otherwise. I don’t want the guy who sold me a car telling me where I can drive it, I don’t want the guy who sold me a TV telling me what I can watch on it, and I don’t want the guy who sold me a painting telling me whether I can take a picture of it or charge people to look at it.
He can charge whatever he thinks is fair for the painting. If he wants $10k for dogs playing poker, and that’s his final offer, then I’ll tell him exactly where he can stick his painting.
On the other hand, if he wants to lower the price on the condition that I won’t copy it, I’ll listen. If he wants to lower it some more on the condition that I won’t charge people to look at it, or hang it upside down, or frame it, then I’ll listen some more. I’ll decide what I want to use the painting for and how much that’s worth to me, and if he agrees then we have a deal.
Here’s a tip: Anything you can put on a computer is information.
That pretty background image on your desktop? It’s just a sequence of numbers. It could even be considered one huge number, and you could factor it or use it as a key to encrypt a secret message. It’s information.
I understand you’re an artist, not an information theorist or a computer guru, and you don’t think about these things this way. But a lot of us do, and this is how it is. This is what makes computers work, which in turn makes the modern world work.
Because the other authors leeching her ideas are possibly causing damage to her income. There was another thread recently, on fan fiction. One fan writer (if memory serves, it was a fan writer) commented that it was so much easier to write fiction in someone else’s “universe”. Why? Because all the legwork, all the working out of characters, qualites, locations and so forth has already been done. They just have to plug in their own storyline and “adventure”. Does that mean that the fan writer is a no-talent hack? No! Some friends of mine are fan writers and I think they’re great writers. But the fact remains—they are leeching creative content from someone else. And because the original author is allowed to make a living off of their work, they (and the current copyright law) do not smile on other people “leeching” off of their work without authorization.
I don’t really know how else to explain it to you. I think you are on a different wavelength, with all due respect, and I don’t know if you’ll ever understand.
I’m not saying that they are objectionable, I’m just telling you how it is. Sure, a lot of deritative works are wonderful: some of my fan writer friends have produced delightful fan fiction, that I have no doubt would not make the original copyright holders shudder. But that’s not the point. One work leeches off of the other (providing the “leeching” is from a contemporary source, not a historical figure, which is open season to everyone), and that is unacceptable without authorization.
I’m not sure if you are trying to tell me that you are a “creative” person or not. Because, with all due respect (and please forgive me, I concede I may be mistaken), I don’t know how “creative” programming is. Certainly I think it must have “creative” aspects, but whether these “creative” aspects are the same or similar aspects that writers, musicians and artists share, I cannot say. But I doubt it. Seriously. With all due respect of course, and once again, I concede I might be wrong. But if I’m not, (and I rather doubt that I’m wrong at this point) it might explain why you do not understand some of the concepts here. (Note that I am not trying to imply that I think all people with programming backgrounds rather than art backgrounds wouldn’t understand; just in this specific instance.)
Also, I see that you often give away your work because you enjoy doing it. Surely you are not assuming that because you have such a generious attitude about your own work, that others should share it? Because that’s an attitude I’ve seen on this thread, and others. “If you enjoy it anyway, why charge for it, or why worry about getting paid for it? You’d do it no matter what, right?” (No, I’m not directly implying that you said that, or think that. But certainly, some people do.)
Well, I guess we could do things your way, where no artist keeps rights to their works by default. Which means that original art prices will skyrocket. Because to be brutally honest, the convoluted scheme you’ve come up with to allow all artwork to automatically come with rights is beyond impractical.
You want to simplify creative works into something like a washing machine or a car, and they are more complex than that. One size does not fit all with the different kinds of “products” we all produce.
Why would they stay the same if the artwork comes with all rights? Do you think artists are chumps who will give away rights for a pittance?
Do you really think such a convoluted system would work? Every little sketch, every little doodle would have to come with paperwork. On my recent Pit thread, SPOOFE talks about giving away artwork (or selling artwork) to schoolmates. Kids are creative too, you know. Do you really think that 12 year old kids are going to discuss “rights” to their schoolmates when they pass along a drawing? Because if they don’t, then whoever ends up with their drawing owns all “rights”, which could seriously (in a few cases, anyway) screw over the youthful artist. Not exactly an artist-friendly situation.
Look—you aren’t making any sense. Anyone can have a painting. There’s nothing shady or unique about owning original art. Anyone can produce new artwork at the drop of a hat, too. (Maybe it won’t be very good, but anyone can produce it. Just scribble something on a piece of paper. Voilà! Artwork!) This certainly cannot be compared to people selling “hot” TVs.
A potential art buyer could buy the painting from the most reputable place in town. Or they could buy if from their neighbor, a garage sale, a thrift store, or just get it from a talented 12 year old. And they’ll either have to take the word of the person who sells it to them that it comes with all rights, or they’ll have to assume that it doesn’t, just to be on the safe side. So, what do you think will happen? Most people will err on the side of caution, and assume that the painting does not come with all rights. Kinda sounds like right now, doesn’t it?
Well, welcome to the complex world of intellectual property. Because you aren’t going to get the simplified, uncomplicated system you want. Because it won’t ever be simple. Because artists will not want to give away rights just like that. They won’t. Not ever. So anyway you slice it, it’s going to be complicated. Either it’ll stay the way it is now (where rights are automatically not included with original art) or it’ll be the way you want—each scribble will have to come with “paperwork”, or its “rights” will be ambiguous.
See, and that’s where the breakdown of communication between us comes in. You are coming from a computer geek perspective (and nothing’s wrong with that…). You are young enough that you don’t remember a time before computers, right? Well, believe it or not, there was a world before personal computers, and artists still created artwork, even without Photoshop. No, really! They did!
There are different ways of defining “information” other than computeresque terms.
But it wasn’t “information” in its original form: A negative I took. (Yes, I use my own wallpaper.)
And just to clear one thing up, here’s dictionary.com’s definition of “information”:
I have a sketchbook full of drawings. Are they “information”? They are my drawings, on paper. Graphite pencil on acid-free paper. I don’t call that “information”, and no one at my art school called it “information” either. It is art. So, when you talk about “information”, do you mean my graphite drawing on acid-free paper as well? Because that’s what it is now. And that’s what people will see if it becomes digitized (even though, in your uber-geeky mind it’s also a sequences of numbers).
My graphite drawing on acid-free paper does not fit dictionary.com’s definition of “information”.
So, sorry to break it to you, I don’t think that anyone should be telling me that my so-called “information” should be freely shared, or that I can’t “own” it. Even if it becomes published in a book. By the way, what does my graphite pencil on acid-free paper drawing become when it is published in a book? It’s not a sequence of numbers, it’s ink on paper.
And I understand that you’re a computer guru, not an artist. And I think that’s the crux of why we are not communicating very well on this issue.
InquisitiveIdiot: We’re just ignoring you. Don’t take it personally. We’re on a roll here!
Because the other authors leeching her ideas are possibly causing damage to her income. There was another thread recently, on fan fiction. One fan writer (if memory serves, it was a fan writer) commented that it was so much easier to write fiction in someone else’s “universe”. Why? Because all the legwork, all the working out of characters, qualites, locations and so forth has already been done. They just have to plug in their own storyline and “adventure”. Does that mean that the fan writer is a no-talent hack? No! Some friends of mine are fan writers and I think they’re great writers. But the fact remains—they are leeching creative content from someone else. And because the original author is allowed to make a living off of their work, they (and the current copyright law) do not smile on other people “leeching” off of their work without authorization.
I don’t really know how else to explain it to you. I think you are on a different wavelength, with all due respect, and I don’t know if you’ll ever understand.
I’m not saying that they are objectionable, I’m just telling you how it is. Sure, a lot of deritative works are wonderful: some of my fan writer friends have produced delightful fan fiction, that I have no doubt would not make the original copyright holders shudder. But that’s not the point. One work leeches off of the other (providing the “leeching” is from a contemporary source, not a historical figure, which is open season to everyone), and that is unacceptable without authorization.
I’m not sure if you are trying to tell me that you are a “creative” person or not. Because, with all due respect (and please forgive me, I concede I may be mistaken), I don’t know how “creative” programming is. Certainly I think it must have “creative” aspects, but whether these “creative” aspects are the same or similar aspects that writers, musicians and artists share, I cannot say. But I doubt it. Seriously. With all due respect of course, and once again, I concede I might be wrong. But if I’m not, (and I rather doubt that I’m wrong at this point) it might explain why you do not understand some of the concepts here. (Note that I am not trying to imply that I think all people with programming backgrounds rather than art backgrounds wouldn’t understand; just in this specific instance.)
Also, I see that you often give away your work because you enjoy doing it. Surely you are not assuming that because you have such a generious attitude about your own work, that others should share it? Because that’s an attitude I’ve seen on this thread, and others. “If you enjoy it anyway, why charge for it, or why worry about getting paid for it? You’d do it no matter what, right?” (No, I’m not directly implying that you said that, or think that. But certainly, some people do.)
Well, I guess we could do things your way, where no artist keeps rights to their works by default. Which means that original art prices will skyrocket. Because to be brutally honest, the convoluted scheme you’ve come up with to allow all artwork to automatically come with rights is beyond impractical.
You want to simplify creative works into something like a washing machine or a car, and they are more complex than that. One size does not fit all with the different kinds of “products” we all produce.
Why would they stay the same if the artwork comes with all rights? Do you think artists are chumps who will give away rights for a pittance?
Do you really think such a convoluted system would work? Every little sketch, every little doodle would have to come with paperwork. On my recent Pit thread, SPOOFE talks about giving away artwork (or selling artwork) to schoolmates. Kids are creative too, you know. Do you really think that 12 year old kids are going to discuss “rights” to their schoolmates when they pass along a drawing? Because if they don’t, then whoever ends up with their drawing owns all “rights”, which could seriously (in a few cases, anyway) screw over the youthful artist. Not exactly an artist-friendly situation.
Look—you aren’t making any sense. Anyone can have a painting. There’s nothing shady or unique about owning original art. Anyone can produce new artwork at the drop of a hat, too. (Maybe it won’t be very good, but anyone can produce it. Just scribble something on a piece of paper. Voilà! Artwork!) This certainly cannot be compared to people selling “hot” TVs.
A potential art buyer could buy the painting from the most reputable place in town. Or they could buy if from their neighbor, a garage sale, a thrift store, or just get it from a talented 12 year old. And they’ll either have to take the word of the person who sells it to them that it comes with all rights, or they’ll have to assume that it doesn’t, just to be on the safe side. So, what do you think will happen? Most people will err on the side of caution, and assume that the painting does not come with all rights. Kinda sounds like right now, doesn’t it?
Well, welcome to the complex world of intellectual property. Because you aren’t going to get the simplified, uncomplicated system you want. Because it won’t ever be simple. Because artists will not want to give away rights just like that. They won’t. Not ever. So anyway you slice it, it’s going to be complicated. Either it’ll stay the way it is now (where rights are automatically not included with original art) or it’ll be the way you want—each scribble will have to come with “paperwork”, or its “rights” will be ambiguous.
See, and that’s where the breakdown of communication between us comes in. You are coming from a computer geek perspective (and nothing’s wrong with that…). You are young enough that you don’t remember a time before computers, right? Well, believe it or not, there was a world before personal computers, and artists still created artwork, even without Photoshop. No, really! They did!
There are different ways of defining “information” other than computeresque terms.
But it wasn’t “information” in its original form: A negative I took. (Yes, I use my own wallpaper.)
And just to clear one thing up, here’s dictionary.com’s definition of “information”:
I have a sketchbook full of drawings. Are they “information”? They are my drawings, on paper. Graphite pencil on acid-free paper. I don’t call that “information”, and no one at my art school called it “information” either. It is art. So, when you talk about “information”, do you mean my graphite drawing on acid-free paper as well? Because that’s what it is now. And that’s what people will see if it becomes digitized (even though, in your uber-geeky mind it’s also a sequences of numbers).
My graphite drawing on acid-free paper does not fit dictionary.com’s definition of “information”.
So, sorry to break it to you, I don’t think that anyone should be telling me that my so-called “information” should be freely shared, or that I can’t “own” it. Even if it becomes published in a book. By the way, what does my graphite pencil on acid-free paper drawing become when it is published in a book? It’s not a sequence of numbers, it’s ink on paper.
And I understand that you’re a computer guru, not an artist. And I think that’s the crux of why we are not communicating very well on this issue.
InquisitiveIdiot: We’re just ignoring you. Don’t take it personally. We’re on a roll here!
Because the other authors leeching her ideas are possibly causing damage to her income. There was another thread recently, on fan fiction. One fan writer (if memory serves, it was a fan writer) commented that it was so much easier to write fiction in someone else’s “universe”. Why? Because all the legwork, all the working out of characters, qualites, locations and so forth has already been done. They just have to plug in their own storyline and “adventure”. Does that mean that the fan writer is a no-talent hack? No! Some friends of mine are fan writers and I think they’re great writers. But the fact remains—they are leeching creative content from someone else. And because the original author is allowed to make a living off of their work, they (and the current copyright law) do not smile on other people “leeching” off of their work without authorization.
I don’t really know how else to explain it to you. I think you are on a different wavelength, with all due respect, and I don’t know if you’ll ever understand.
I’m not saying that they are objectionable, I’m just telling you how it is. Sure, a lot of deritative works are wonderful: some of my fan writer friends have produced delightful fan fiction, that I have no doubt would not make the original copyright holders shudder. But that’s not the point. One work leeches off of the other (providing the “leeching” is from a contemporary source, not a historical figure, which is open season to everyone), and that is unacceptable without authorization.
I’m not sure if you are trying to tell me that you are a “creative” person or not. Because, with all due respect (and please forgive me, I concede I may be mistaken), I don’t know how “creative” programming is. Certainly I think it must have “creative” aspects, but whether these “creative” aspects are the same or similar aspects that writers, musicians and artists share, I cannot say. But I doubt it. Seriously. With all due respect of course, and once again, I concede I might be wrong. But if I’m not, (and I rather doubt that I’m wrong at this point) it might explain why you do not understand some of the concepts here. (Note that I am not trying to imply that I think all people with programming backgrounds rather than art backgrounds wouldn’t understand; just in this specific instance.)
Also, I see that you often give away your work because you enjoy doing it. Surely you are not assuming that because you have such a generious attitude about your own work, that others should share it? Because that’s an attitude I’ve seen on this thread, and others. “If you enjoy it anyway, why charge for it, or why worry about getting paid for it? You’d do it no matter what, right?” (No, I’m not directly implying that you said that, or think that. But certainly, some people do.)
Well, I guess we could do things your way, where no artist keeps rights to their works by default. Which means that original art prices will skyrocket. Because to be brutally honest, the convoluted scheme you’ve come up with to allow all artwork to automatically come with rights is beyond impractical.
You want to simplify creative works into something like a washing machine or a car, and they are more complex than that. One size does not fit all with the different kinds of “products” we all produce.
Why would they stay the same if the artwork comes with all rights? Do you think artists are chumps who will give away rights for a pittance?
Do you really think such a convoluted system would work? Every little sketch, every little doodle would have to come with paperwork. On my recent Pit thread, SPOOFE talks about giving away artwork (or selling artwork) to schoolmates. Kids are creative too, you know. Do you really think that 12 year old kids are going to discuss “rights” to their schoolmates when they pass along a drawing? Because if they don’t, then whoever ends up with their drawing owns all “rights”, which could seriously (in a few cases, anyway) screw over the youthful artist. Not exactly an artist-friendly situation.
Look—you aren’t making any sense. Anyone can have a painting. There’s nothing shady or unique about owning original art. Anyone can produce new artwork at the drop of a hat, too. (Maybe it won’t be very good, but anyone can produce it. Just scribble something on a piece of paper. Voilà! Artwork!) This certainly cannot be compared to people selling “hot” TVs.
A potential art buyer could buy the painting from the most reputable place in town. Or they could buy if from their neighbor, a garage sale, a thrift store, or just get it from a talented 12 year old. And they’ll either have to take the word of the person who sells it to them that it comes with all rights, or they’ll have to assume that it doesn’t, just to be on the safe side. So, what do you think will happen? Most people will err on the side of caution, and assume that the painting does not come with all rights. Kinda sounds like right now, doesn’t it?
Well, welcome to the complex world of intellectual property. Because you aren’t going to get the simplified, uncomplicated system you want. Because it won’t ever be simple. Because artists will not want to give away rights just like that. They won’t. Not ever. So anyway you slice it, it’s going to be complicated. Either it’ll stay the way it is now (where rights are automatically not included with original art) or it’ll be the way you want—each scribble will have to come with “paperwork”, or its “rights” will be ambiguous.
See, and that’s where the breakdown of communication between us comes in. You are coming from a computer geek perspective (and nothing’s wrong with that…). You are young enough that you don’t remember a time before computers, right? Well, believe it or not, there was a world before personal computers, and artists still created artwork, even without Photoshop. No, really! They did!
There are different ways of defining “information” other than computeresque terms.
But it wasn’t “information” in its original form: A negative I took. (Yes, I use my own wallpaper.)
And just to clear one thing up, here’s dictionary.com’s definition of “information”:
I have a sketchbook full of drawings. Are they “information”? They are my drawings, on paper. Graphite pencil on acid-free paper. I don’t call that “information”, and no one at my art school called it “information” either. It is art. So, when you talk about “information”, do you mean my graphite drawing on acid-free paper as well? Because that’s what it is now. And that’s what people will see if it becomes digitized (even though, in your uber-geeky mind it’s also a sequences of numbers).
My graphite drawing on acid-free paper does not fit dictionary.com’s definition of “information”.
So, sorry to break it to you, I don’t think that anyone should be telling me that my so-called “information” should be freely shared, or that I can’t “own” it. Even if it becomes published in a book. By the way, what does my graphite pencil on acid-free paper drawing become when it is published in a book? It’s not a sequence of numbers, it’s ink on paper.
And I understand that you’re a computer guru, not an artist. And I think that’s the crux of why we are not communicating very well on this issue.
InquisitiveIdiot: We’re just ignoring you. Don’t take it personally. We’re on a roll here!
YB and MR2001:
Man you guys are on a roll! One might think that you two like to argue.
I’m give my own personal opinion here, but I feel that it is not particularly useful to assign “moral” value to creative works, whether they fall into the patent arena or that of copyright. There does seem to be some of that going on here. Those types of value judgements are a bit more subjective than other modes of assigning value. Granted, assigning monetary value by determining how much one is willing to pay is also subjective, but at least we could get an “objective” view if enough people are offered the chance to buy the work. Ideas are ideas. I feel that the difference between types of ideas (literature v. hinges) is that it is actually easier to describe the hinge idea than it is to describe the literature idea. Because we can describe hinges with a relatively great degree of specificity, we feel more comfortable granting very strong monopolies that have a limited life. Defining the ideas that underlie a novel is harder. Therefore we feel more comfortable granting much weaker monopolies that last longer. The definition issue is the main difference between patents and copyrights and the ideas they cover, not whether they have a greater or lesser moral value.
The other issue that I’d like to bring up is that IDEAS are never covered by copyright or by patents. Only the EXPRESSION is covered. Otherwise the Magnificent Seven might never have been made. I once read that every concievable plot device possible had already been written and that all modern literature is merely a rehash of those plot devices. A cynical statement with which I don’t necessarily agree, but there is some practical truth in it. Under the copyright law I can use someone’s characters, someone’s plot devices, and even someone’s settings. I just need to express these things in a new and creative manner. Even if someone could determine the “source” of my inspiration, as long as the new writing takes only the ideas and not the expression, its a new work entirely unburdened by prior copyrights. The idea of “source” is a trademark issue and can come into play with modern “characters” such as Captain Kirk. Captain Kirk is a character from story, but the idea of a strong willed starship captain that can’t sing is an unprotectable idea. Kirk’s appearance and name, on the other hand, have become a trademark for Star Trek. Therefore, if you create a character that uses only the unprotectable idea of a starship captain, but use enough of Kirk’s image to evoke Star Trek, expect a trademark suit.
The point of my last, overly wordy paragraph is to state that one shouldn’t confuse trademark law and copyright law.
And now back to your regularly scheduled argument/debate.
Ah, the old “it’s immoral to get something for nothing” ploy. Are people not going to watch Star Trek because they can read Star Trek fan fiction online for free? (Or is this explained in the other thread?)
Oh, you are mistaken. Certainly, there aren’t many direct parallels between writing code and writing novels, but neither are there between writing novels and taking photographs. Paul Graham does a decent job of explaining:
No, although the fact that I give my work away for free, as do thousands of other programmers, shows that a profit incentive isn’t necessary to make good software available. In a world where programmers weren’t guaranteed exclusive rights to profit from their work, high quality software would still be created and maintained. I’d say the same is true of most art forms, but I still support the existence of copyrights.
No, but I do think you should read to the end of a sentence before writing a shocked reply to the first half of it.
Alternatively, prices would stay about the same as they are now, and buyers would be fully informed of what they can or can’t do with the painting before they buy it, because buyers would sign away the rights the artist wants to keep.
Yes, in that specific situation.
You aren’t just claiming to own the graphite and the paper. You’re claiming to own the image - that is, the specific arrangement of that graphite on that paper. If you were to arrange ink on a whiteboard, stones on a beach, or pixels on a computer screen in the same pattern, it would be the same image.
Call it a concept or an idea if you like those words better than “information”, but you’re still laying claim to a specific arrangement of pigment, an abstract thing that can exist in many forms (some of which might not be immediately recognizable), in many places simultaneously.
Indeed, but the “image” is still nothing more than the arrangement of ink on paper. You don’t own the ink or the paper in the book, but you do claim to own the arrangement. The arrangement isn’t represented by numbers in that form, but it could be, hence it’s information.
cj: yes, we like to argue. We do it a lot on these boards! You gotta have a hobby, I guess…
Thank you for pointing that out. Very interesting. That makes a lot of sense to me.
Thank you once again. Exactly what I was trying to get at!
There is A LOT of truth to this. Many of my writer friends comment on this same thing.
OK, I think maybe I kinda get it. But I am a little unclear—would your average author have to “trademark” their characters in order to protect them? Because that isn’t quite the way I understood it. I’d always assumed that authors (for instance) who had published a popular series of science fiction novels (let’s see, something like the Anne McCaffrey “Dragon” series comes to mind) could prevent other authors from writing stories that were definitely in their specific “universe” (as in McCaffery’s “Dragon” universe). Is this only because she’s trademarked her “Dragon” series, or could any author who had written any book that had a specific “universe” sue if someone blatantly leeched off of it?
Mind you, I’m not talking about an author writing about a “Dragon” universe (something similar but not quite the same) or writing about similar situations that are even obvious “knock offs” of the “Dragon” series (but they just don’t paint themselves as being in the same “universe” as Anne McCaffrey’s “Dragon” series, and don’t advertise themselves as being from the McCaffrey “Dragon” series). Would a trademark be needed to stop people from writing in the McCaffrey “Dragon” universe and profiting from the books?
No…it’s about someone leeching off of someone else’s content, confusing the audience, and possibly diluting profits that the original author could be making.
Noooo…as much as I was enlighted by Paul Graham, and as much as I respect what he had to say (and I have no doubt that he probably knows where the artists, writers and musicians are coming from), no, it’s not the same as what I’m talking about.
I just don’t see how it can be. Sure, there is a strong “creative” aspect to coding (as Graham describes) but there are different kinds of creative expression. And I don’t think hacking or coding are as “right brain” and as emotional as a lot of forms of art.
Trying to not ramble on endlessly (as I am wont to do ;)), but there’s a storytelling and symbolic aspect to art. There’s the “feel it come through your arm down to the paper” aspect. The emotion of color. Not just theory, emotion—raw emotion. It takes time for us to fight our rational selves, and loosen up and just let our feelings spill out on the paper. The emotion and expression of line. Not theory, not working it out so it’s “correct”, just raw emotion. Endless “gesture drawing” exercises in class. Color theory (which also is a lot about emotion) studies. Color used symbolically, to tell a story. Design used symbolically, to tell a story, and so on. Art is often created to express feelings in the artist, feelings about their personal life, or their environment. I just saw a movie tonight (“Far From Heaven”) which used color (yes, just color) in a symbolic and emotional way to help tell us what the main character was feeling, or what emotional “state” she was in. Wow. That was some movie. Very powerful. Made me want to cry. (On the other hand, software never makes me want to cry, unless it makes my computer crash! :))
As wonderful, brilliant and useful (and sometimes amusing) as software is (and boy, do I appreciate it—especially Adobe Photoshop) I can’t help but think that software designers have an entirely different goal in mind. I don’t think they study even remotely the same kinds of things in school, and I don’t think their goal is telling a story through symbolism of color, line, and design, and so forth. I don’t think they are trying (or are encouraged) to “reveal their inner selves”, or “expose themselves” in their work. There are just completely different dynamics going on.
Once again, not to say that software design doesn’t have a “creative” aspect, but just not in all the same areas. And I think that’s why a lot of artists (and writers, composers, etc.) feel very strongly that they “own” their artwork, because they put so much of themselves into their work. And I think that some people don’t understand this feeling of “ownership”, because they haven’t done the same kind of work. Just my opinion, of course.
On the other hand, I can see that some of the more sophisticated 3-D computer games have more opportunities to “tell stories” and perhaps these games allow their designers some means of expressing themselves in a more personal way. (Not that I am much of a gamer. Snood is about it for me.) No doubt, there is some great artwork in some of those games. But I assume that those big name 3-D games have a whole team of people working on them—some doing the 3-D art, others planning out the “story”, and so forth. Just a WAG on my part, of course.
Possibly true, but software is not music, film, or art.
You are ignoring the impracticality of this whole scheme. Why make every scribble (even made by children) come with paperwork? Because, if you have your way, every scribble will have to have paperwork (that will need to be stored in a safe place) in order to assure that the artist does not give away rights. And I see no reason why artists should give away rights, do you not agree? So the only way to protect them, when they don’t sell rights, is for the artwork to always have the paperwork with it, following it wherever it goes. And I can see how complicated and convoluted that would be, even if you refuse to acknowledge it.
And, according to your scheme, the only way an artist can stop someone from profitting from their artwork even though they haven’t sold rights is to sue, after the fact. Which, of course, can be a long, drawn-out process.
And I don’t recall you answering my question—what will an artist do if he discovers that someone is selling prints (or whatever) of some art that they (the artist) never sold rights to? Will the court confiscate all the profits the unauthorized prints earned and give them to the original artist?
Boy, you’ve never tried to “arrange” ink on a whiteboard, or stones on a beach, have you?
See, this is where we part company, once again. You obviously were trained (I guess the word “trained” is as good as any) to have a different mindset on this. I was “trained” (by fellow artists, art books, art school) to have a different mindset from you. That’s how it is.
You can’t copyright an “idea”, as cj finn said.
If it still looks like pigment on paper, if it still looks just like my drawing to anyone with a brain in their head, then it’s still mine. Sure, someone else may have copied it (I’ve seen people do their own versions of some of the drawings I post on one of my art tutorials—freaky, I tell ya) but if they copy my work closely enough, then everyone will see that they slavishly copied it, they were not bringing in enough of their own emotion and personality into it. Now, frankly, I don’t have a problem with a little academic “copying” (I’m all for it, actually) but those kinds of work are for education, not for professional use.
Oh, bullshit. Art existed long before computers did. My ink drawing does NOT fit the definition of “information” (according to dictionary.com). You are grasping at straws here. In your computer geek world (not that that’s a bad thing ;)) perhaps this is what “information” is, but the rest of us (including the folks at dictionary.com) don’t see it that way.
It’s immoral to get something for nothing (“leech off of someone else’s content”).
Star Trek viewers can’t tell the difference between official content and fan fiction.
People will stop watching Star Trek because they can read fan fiction instead.
It may not be “emotional”, but it’s still creative.
Possibly?
The most popular web server, Apache, is free software. GIMP, a full-featured image editor, is free software, as is Film Gimp, which has been used in several Hollywood films. Linux, an operating system that runs on everything from Macs to mainframes, PCs to PDAs; GCC, a C compiler for every system imaginable; and Emacs, a text editor that has become a religion; these are all massive, successful projects, and they’re all free software. They’re copyrighted, but those copyrights aren’t (and cannot be) exploited for profit.
True, other free art forms haven’t been quite so successful. But even today, the web is chock full of free entertainment, from amateur movies and Flash cartoons to collaborative novels, which was produced without a profit incentive. The profit incentive is only really necessary for things that need a large investment (e.g. big-budget movies) or can’t be produced by collaboration.
That’s no different from any other copyright enforcement. You can’t prevent someone from copying a movie, you can only pursue him once he’s already done it.
If it’s just a scribble, why does the artist need to keep rights? If it’s an important enough work that he wants to keep rights, it should be important enough for him to fill out a form and put it in a safe place.
Yes, something like that. Just like if you buy a stolen TV, the police can confiscate it, even though you paid good money for it - the TV doesn’t really belong to you, because it never really belonged to the guy who sold it to you.
Not personally, but I’m confident it could be done. Arranging stones on a beach to make the Mona Lisa is the same process as handing out colored cards to fans in a stadium to spell “GO HUSKIES”, just a bit more complex. Don’t you agree that if someone did that with your Half Dome photo, you’d “own” the resulting image?
Merriam-Webster gives a definition of “information” as the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects.
The arrangement is the layout of ink on paper (or stones on a beach), the alternatives are all the other ways you could lay ink on paper, and the specific effect is that the resulting paper is recognized as your original image.
If an arrangement isn’t information, then what is it? Surely you agree that a photo of Half Dome, a JPEG of Half Dome, and a stones-on-beach reproduction of Half Dome all share the same quality, and that quality is what you “own”.
While I would not call it “immoral” to “leech” off of someone else’s content (in particular contexts) it is generally not respected as much (in particular contexts) as creating your own content. Especially if you “leech” off of the more popular content in an attempt to cash in on the popularity of the person who actually originated the content.
“Fan fiction” that is distributed for fun rather than profit (and is not specifically discouraged by Paramount) is not a problem. (In fact, I think it’s rather a fun idea.) But, as I alluded to before, some authors have had trouble with fan authors suing them for “stealing” their (the fan writers’) “ideas”. Also, if one is making a business from selling their series of books (about, say, windmills), and now the market is flooded with windmill books that are deliberately associating themselves with the original windmill books, then yeah, that takes away profit from the originator of the windmill books. And since he or she came up with the whole “universe”, the others who write about it (specifically to cash in on its popularity) are kinda like parasites.
Now, as it is now, there’s no stopping the “parasites” from creating “knock-offs” (similar but not the same) but the law does not permit them (as far as I know) from directly affiliating themselves with the original work.
And I already said, right from the git-go, that I believed that programming was “creative”. I just said that it wasn’t the same as the “emotional” kind of personal soul-revealing storytelling that some forms of art are designed to convey. (And even the art that isn’t over-the-top “soul-revealing” usually has a lot of personal emotional stuff in it. It’s almost impossible to leave that stuff out, even if you’re trying.)
And the link you provided, (I confess, I skimmed over it)—let me ask you—have you produced any of the “software art”, as described in that link? Because it kind of sounds like an “alternative” form of software, not exactly something that every programmer dabbles in full time.
Also, have any of your studies in programming included exersises that in any way resemble the stuff I rambled on about in my previous post? Do you comprehend that perhaps there’s a different mindset going on with some artists, which makes them feel like they “own” their work in a more personal way?
Hey, listen—I’m not saying that programmers in general are all unable to understand, I’m just wondering if you understand. Because I think that’s what’s going on here—I don’t understand you, and you don’t understand me on some basic level, because the “subcultures” in which we reside have some different mindsets about these sort of things. (And of course, now that I’ve stated this, some other artists will come along to tell me how I’ve got it all wrong…) Bear in mind, I can’t possibly speak for all artistic types, I’m just relaying the attitude that I’ve always seen around me, and that was taught to me by my peers, and through my classes. And I don’t think you’ve experienced the same things as I have, just like I know I haven’t experienced the same things you have.
You know what, I already understand the concept, thank you.
So, some of us “give away” content, because we choose to. I “give away” a lot of content on my web sites. Because I choose to. Doesn’t mean that I could make a living giving it away, even if these software providers are giving it away and surviving. By the way, do you have a cite that indicates that visual artists, writers, sculptors, etc. could make a living “giving it away”? Because that would be more useful than citing GIMP, etc.
So if you’re saying that it isn’t “necessary” for a lot of works, what is your point, then? That those who expect a profit are out of line? Or that because it can possibly be produced without a profit in mind (someone can work a dead-end job while producing creative works on the side) that they’ve got a “lot of nerve” expecting to make a living? I’m not sure of your point here.
But you are still ignoring a very important detail: the copyright infringers of today infringe under the understanding that they are violating copyright. And they do it anyway. With your scheme, they’d do it out of ignorance—because they’d assume that since the artwork came without paperwork, all rights are included. Because under your scheme, all artworks come with all rights unless specifically stated otherwise. “All rights” would be their default state. And if someone buys (or discovers in an attic) some artwork without paperwork (because the paperwork was mislaid), they might assume that it comes with all rights. Because all rights would be the default state of all art.
Are you suggesting that an artist shouldn’t want to keep rights to their work, even if it’s just a scribble? Some of Picasso’s “scribbles” are worth quite a bit, you know
Oh, good freaking grief. You really don’t hang out with artists much, do you? Some of us have a lot of sketchbooks, a lot of drawings everywhere. I do a lot of doodles by the phone. While I’m not desparately worried that anyone would swipe my doodles are publish them, some of my doodles are actually not that bad (a lot of us can crank out such doodles in few minutes). It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that such a doodle get picked up, passed through many different “owners”, until someone eventually decides that they have a need to publish it. So, why should every single one of my doodles (and I can do dozens a day) be saddled with paperwork? Why should I be forced to be so careful and extra protective of everything I do, when I don’t have to do that now? Oh right. Just so your impractical scheme can pan out.
Face it. It’s a flawed, flawed scheme. To the highest degree.
But with your scheme, a lot more people will be infringing on copyright, using work they have no right to use, simply because they didn’t know any better. Or else, they’ll err on the side of caution, and not use any work that comes without paperwork. Which actually means that they might miss out on using something that actually did come with all rights, bought and paid for. (The only way to assure that everyone know which rights an artwork comes with is to include paperwork on ALL art, whether rights are given or not. Is this a scheme which you’d prefer?)
I don’t think you’re getting it. If they did something like that with a logo I’d designed, they’d need to have my permission first to do it, especially if they were to publish it or to somehow make a profit from it. And I see no problem with that. But a Half Dome photo is far too sophisticated and detailed to be properly translated with stones on the beach.
It’s art, my dear.
Yeah, I own it all right. Because, for the kajillionth time, it will be automatically recognized as “mine” by almost any human eye who sees it. And human eyes don’t give a rat’s ass whether it’s pixels on a screen, or ink on a paper. They see it, they recognize it, and they know who did it.
And just because you want to parse it (once again) and bring up techno-geeky definitions of “information”, (not that there’s anything wrong with techno-geeky ;)) it still doesn’t mean that it’ll wash in the non-techno-geeky world, which is where the rest of us live.
YB:
Your questions regarding copyright v. trademark law get kind of complicated. Suffice it to say that one CAN write a series of books involving dragons, hidden technology, and the ability of the dragons to teleport, from a copyright standpoint, so long as the author of the new books does not use too much of the McCaffrey books. What defines TOO much is a question for the judge/jury but its been discussed here before and the concept, at least, is not unclear.
But, since McCaffrey likely has either registered or common law trademarks in many of the characters, names, and plot devices, or could at least persuasively argue that she does, she could use her trademark rights to effectively extend the scope of her copyright protections. Copyrights cover the exact wording, trademarks cover the work-source connection. There is a lot of bleed over in this example though and if a lawsuit were filed, the issues would be horribly intertwined.
I’ve actually got to write some patent and trademark applications in the next few weeks, so I’ll be bowing out of this thread.
My God! You all REALLY like to talk about this subject…
Here are my two cents…
More harm than good comes from extended copyrights. I believe they should be renewed on all art mediums every ten years, this way, more culture gets into the public domain faster. If the artist cannot pay for the copyright, it would reflect the idea that he/she isn’t making any money on the art anyway, and thus, in theory, remove the need for protection. This, I believe, will motivate artists to either sell their art, or keep it to themselves, either bringing it to the mainstream or not, rather than the “you can see it but you can’t have it” game most artists play.
FTR, I’ve published several poems and sold several photographs, and I’d love personally to see them out there in the world, and moreover, I haven’t bothered to waste my money on the process, I get to keep my money, and my art gets out there, for me, it’s win-win. I know, I’m small time, but really, who isn’t?
