Not so - I understand the concept. I understand that you agree with it. I just don’t agree with it myself. I can see why you want total control over everything you create, but I don’t think you should have that much control.
I’m sorry you don’t see the difference between “getting” the concept and agreeing with it. If you feel you’re wasting your time, that’s only because you haven’t even presented an argument for why that form of ownership is something that should be granted to artists.
Look, if you’d like to convince me that artists should be able to decide who can enjoy their works, then go for it… I’m willing to listen. But when you simply assert that you deserve that right, you don’t convince me any more than I convince you by asserting the opposite.
Well, yes and no. Most of the paintings I’ve been copying (and you may remember a post or two of mine some weeks or months back where I commented on the fact that I was copying these types of paintings in order to learn how to paint as I am a novice painter and have only been at it less than a year. Prior to that time, and my discovery of the excellent “Drawing On The Right Side Of The Brain,” I thought I couldn’t draw a straight line) are vintage posters from the turn of the (20th) century up to the twenties and thirties. People who have seen my paintings often want them so since they are in the public domain I’ve been accomodating them. I do look forward to the time when I can create my own work and be as satisfied with it as I am with my copied work. However, for now I’m content to be a “reproduction artist.”
And yes, you are right. I would like to be able to legally copy some of the more recent works I’ve seen, many of which if not all, are very likely not earning anyone anything, and some of which I haven’t even been able to locate the copyright holder on those few occasions when I wanted to copy something more recent and wanted to ask permission. With others, I can’t even determine who the copyright holder is so I just have to assume “someone” has it in order to protect myself and not copy it.
But mostly, if copyright law had always been what it is now, I wouldn’t even be able legally to copy the 80 to 100 year old paintings I’m copying now. I think there has to be a reasonable cut-off somewhere. I do understand your point about a creative artist wanting time for an audience to develop, but honestly how many times does this actually happen versus the number of artists working and producing images? I’d wager that there is no pent-up demand for as much as 1% of the work that is being produced (and of course I could be wrong, and I’m sure you would have a more educated idea about this than I), and that therefore at least 99 out of every 100 works produced would be copy-prohibited even though the artist that created them wouldn’t be harmed in the least by their being reproduced.
In other words, it seems to me that if your desires were to be law in this matter, some 99 images would be kept from the public domain so that 1 image may or may not find a profitable home. And in my case and the case of others like me, the chances of hurting an artist financially or reputationally by me would be so remote as to virtually nil. I doubt very much that my piddling sale of a copy or two of an original work produced anywhere in the country would have any impact at all…or even be known to be in existence…by the original artist or his patrons.
These things are only my opinions and I realize you may find them offensive, at least to some degree. I regret that as you have offered helpful and friendly advice to me in the past, and perhaps we can just agree to disagree and remain friends. I truly hope so, and from what I’ve seen of your postings and the kind of person you seem to be, I don’t think there will be that much of a problem. I just think that copyright law as it currently exists is overkill in the extreme.
I apologize for any spelling or grammatical errors. I’m pushing the nightly cut-off and want to get this off before it’s too late, so I don’t have time to preview my post.
Just popping in to remark that in The Netherlands copyright law has an exception for making copies of physical books and scores for personal use. You are allowed to make copies of small parts, and in case it can be reasonably be assumed that no new full copies will be made available to third parties for any payment whatsoever (article 16b(2)a Dutch Copyright Code).
This legal exception shows an acceptance that it is ethically accepted over here to ‘violate’ copyright for such works in case the copyright owner doesn’t exploit it anymore. Note that the exception does not cover ‘digital’ works. Furthermore it only applies to works that have previously been published, not for works that the creator never wanted to have published.
To me this seems a fair arrangement with which quite a lot of the previous posters seem to agree.
Yes, I remember. And what you’re doing is pretty typical and normal. I did it myself when I was starting out!
I can’t recall, but didn’t we decide that if you are doing the work for study purposes, it’s probably fair use? I can’t remember. Anyway, it sounds like it could be considered fair use. As long as you’re not selling it, anyway.
I don’t know. It doesn’t happen 100% of the time, but no doubt artists would definitely feel damaged if their original work could be in the public domain a mere 10 years after they created it. (At least many of the artists would feel this way. I know that a lot of other people wouldn’t care, but we’re not talking about them right now.)
Ehhh… you don’t know. I have had people request to publish some of my rather ordinary photographs, (for use on their small business web pages, etc.) and trust me—these photographs are not that extraordinary. People use images and IP for a variety of reasons, big and small. If you are halfway decent, odds are that someone eventually wil want to use your work. The question is, are you going to make any money off of your work, or are you going to sit by and watch others use it for free, while you never had the opportunity to get compensated for your time and effort?
Let me also add that only a few years ago, I neverEVER would have anticipated that any of my photographs would earn me money. Never. But the Internet changed all of that. You just never know. And besides, I’ve seen a lot of (what I consider to be) mediocre artists make money off of their work. Maybe not a fulltime living, but money. I think that all these people are entitled to make this money, and not just for a few years. Most of us are generally underpaid for all the time and effort we put into our work in the first place.
I doubt it too, and I think that most of the time, you’re morally in the clear (I won’t say legally, because I don’t know) if you copy these works.
The thing that concerns many of us wouldn’t with what you are doing, the problem would be with a customer seeing (for instance) some prints I have for sale for $100, deciding that $100 is too much, and going to you and offering you $50 to copy my artwork. Or, someone simply swiping one of my photographs and publishing it, as-is, for their own profit. And so forth. In other words, it’s not the one-on-one piddley stuff that concerns many of us, it’s the bigger stuff. That, and our feeling that we should have control over the manner in which our work is used. (For instance, I don’t care how much someone wanted to pay me, I’d never want for one of my nude drawings to be used in pornography. That’s my choice.)
Oh, sure, sure! No big deal! After all, you are obviously very smart (since you’ve got Mr2001’s number and all).
Let’s put it this way—I would not fall over from shock to discover that some years from now, when you’ve had time to develop your skills and you’ve had more experience under your belt, you might change your mind.
Okay, okay, now I really need to go back to lurk mode!
Am I mistaken or are these in the public domain. Most of these were made in the 30’s through the 40’s. My grandfather had a bunch of these on tape and if I remember correctly, the copyright had run out.
When did you see the tape? It’s possible that the copyright either had expired or was about to until some of the legislation passed in the nineties extended it.
I’m curious as to whether most of HP Lovecraft’s copyrights have expired. I had been downloading files containing the full text of his works. The site had a rather detailed and lengthy explanation of how nearly all of his copyrights had lapsed. Then it disappeared without explanation. I’m not sure whether it was a standard lack of funds, or time to maintain the site, or if the works were actually copyrighted and the site was shut down for that reason.
Similarly, I wouldn’t be shocked to learn that someone who favored strict environmental regulations might change his mind when he inherits his uncle’s pollution-belching factory.
It’s not a case of “seeing the light” and realizing the regulations are wrong; it’s merely self-interest at work. If ridiculous copyright terms help you make money, then you’ll have a reason to favor them, whether or not they’re fair.
So someone who spends years perfecting their skills and educating themselves so they can produce original creative works (instead of always relying on the copying others’ works) is akin to “inheriting” a pollution-belching factory? So working hard and developing a skill is “inheriting” something bad and selfish?
Just one more example of you completely not getting it!
No, actually. And, (I’ll put this in really bold letters for you):
This is something that I NEVER expect you to understand (because obviously you’ve never experienced it yourself). Once you start doing your own original work, from your own heart (so to speak) you start to feel differently about it and what it means to you.
But, never mind. I know you will never understand this. You’ve never experienced this feeling and haven’t a clue. (Even though I expect that you’ll claim you understand. You’ve failed repeatedly to prove that you understand, but you’ll keep claiming it anyway.)
Starving Artist completely has your number, so I think I’ll follow his (or her?) lead and leave it at that.
Those are your words, not mine. The point I was making was obvious to anyone who isn’t being deliberately obtuse: When a law benefits someone, he will tend to favor it whether or not it’s a good law.
Ah yes, this again. The intellectual work I do doesn’t count because I’m just a lowly programmer, not a noble photographer.
I have experienced the desire to control the things I’ve created once they leave my hands, but I recognize that other people deserve to make use of them whether or not I agree with that use.
Seriously, if your whole argument comes down to an appeal to emotion - “You’ll understand when you’re in MY shoes!” - then it’s a pretty sorry argument indeed.
No, not because you’re a programmer. Some programmers understand, and can articulate why they understand. You never have been able to articulate this, however. You’ve been giving many chances to explain something that shouldn’t be too hard to explain, and you just can’t seem to get it. That’s no slam against you—you don’t have to get it. But it is lamentable when you claim you do when in fact you don’t.
I have a friend who thinks she has a great singing voice. She really does. She think she understands about melodies and harmonies. But she’s tone deaf. She’ll never understand that. She’ll never hear that. And I don’t think that someone else telling her that she doesn’t understand will help her grasp it.
I also know a lady who is a very talented potter, but she has NO clue about color theory with her glaze applications. Just. Can’t. Get. It. I’m sure she’s tried to study harmonious colors, but it just ain’t there. I have no doubt that if asked, she’d say that she understands color. I’m sure she’s quite satisfied that she does understand color. But to those of us who do have a color sense, it’s obvious that she doesn’t. But I doubt that any careful explaining to her about her color deficiency will help her understand. She won’t get it.
:shrug: That’s pretty much all there is to say about that.
Here we go again. Someone who understands something can articulate and explain it. And explain why they disagree with this concept that they understand.
Someone who doesn’t understand something simply cannot articulate or explain it. And you’ve never been able to articulate or explain it. Never. Never. Never. Never.
My tone-deaf friend (who thinks she’s got a fabulous voice), and my friend with no color sense, don’t understand that. They think that because they open their mouths and make sounds that they’re singing, or that because they dip a paintbrush into color that they understand color theory. But. They. Don’t.
I don’t want to imply that all tone-deaf people or people with no color sense have no clue that they don’t “have it.” Many do. Probably most do. But there are those lamentable few who have no clue, and when asked, will insist that they understand. Even when it’s pathetically obvious to the rest of us that they don’t.
While the nonexistence of any compelling legal or economic reason for copyrights to last longer than patents speaks quite strongly for such limited lengths, my perception is that most people believe that artistic creators should maintain control over their works for at least the length of their lifetime.
At times just thinking about the current law makes me want to retch, but if there is any hope at all of bringing it down to an even halfway reasonable length (and part of me needs to believe that some slight hope still exists), the approval of those who favor at least a lifetime length (i.e. > 50 years) will be required.
Seems to me it might be possible to work out a compromise: allow the original creator a free copyright for the first 20 years or so. After that, if the creator wishes to maintain the copyright, he can - but ONLY if he re-registers it (and possibly pays a small fee) at 20 year intervals. (We can also allow his heirs at least one free 20 year cycle that they can extend ONCE by filing a new, paid registration).
Those creators who are fortunate enough to produce something with long-term commercial value will obviously be highly motivated to renew their copyrights, so they’ll be able to maintain the profits from their creations over the course of their lifetimes. Those creators who only produce a very small body of work, where it won’t take much money or effort to keep all their copyrights renewed, can also keep control of everything they create, whether it’s valuable or not. But creators who produce large volumes of work, most of which declines in value quickly, will probably be forced to be picky about what copyrights they decide to keep in force, resulting in at least SOME work passing into the public domain.
And since all works will automatically pass out of copyright 20 years after creation unless the copyright is specifically renewed, the problem of “abandoned” or “lost” copyrights goes away - if the work isn’t on the copyright register 20 years after its creation, a person who wants to use it knows it’s definitely a public domain work; if it is on the register, the person will be easily able to find out who to contact to get permission to use the work. No more silly Catch-22 nonsense like Mighty Maximino described earlier in this thread, where people wishing to use a work are unable to do so because literally no one knows who holds the copyright any more, and thus obtaining the required legal permission from the copyright holder is impossible.
Since the benefits of these extremely long copyright periods go primarily to the copyright holder and not to society at large, why not shift some of the resulting burden these very long copyrights produce back onto the shoulders of the copyright holder instead of forcing society at large to bear them?
Ooops! I didn’t mean to imply that such a solution wasn’t workable. In fact, it’s a fresh breeze of common sense in what can otherwise turn into a stagnant, circular discussion. I just wanted to mention to others who are in favor of copyright lengths that are similar to patents that some sort of solution that allows for longer lengths in certain situations will definitely be necessary. If, of course, the major media corporations will allow the law to be changed at all.
Back to something previously discussed in this thread, whether the creator of a work has a right not to distribute it: I can’t find it anymore, but I know I read a post here that said the instruction in a will for the destruction of a work upon death does not necessarily have to be carried out, and I think that’s a wonderful thing.
If you’re intent on something not getting distributed, you’d better destroy it when you got the chance (i.e. when you’re alive). The story of Max Brod and Franz Kafka works well here. Kafka died wanting his writings destroyed. Brod, Kafka’s friend, knew Kafka’s wishes and instead of fulfilling those wishes, he published the works.
Another possible approach would be to require registration for all copyrights that the author wishes to be able to enforce, thereby creating a quasi-public domain area. A copyright holder could register the copyright at any point during its term, but couldn’t bring an action against anyone who made use or was continuing to make use of the work from before that point.
