Virgil also requested that the Aeneid be destroyed upon his death if it wasn’t complete, a likewise fortunate exercise of executorial power.
Never been able to articulate or explain… what, exactly? This is the first time I’ve been asked to articulate and explain a belief that I don’t hold.
Many artists who create intellectual works become attached to them, and believe that since they put so much time, effort, or emotion into them, they “own” those works and deserve to have control over who can enjoy, benefit from, and build upon them. They often justify it with an analogy to physical products - “If I had put that much time and devotion into making a car or a sculpture, no one would deny that I get to decide who can use it.”
I disagree because, IMO, the only reason to grant someone that much control over a physical product is that a physical product can only be in one place at a time; therefore, someone has to decide who can use it. No such choice is necessary for products that can be copied freely; there’s no reason for anyone to be in charge of deciding who can use it if everyone can use it simultaneously. As Jefferson said,
If you’re going to claim, as you have before, that I still can’t “understand” the desire to control one’s works because that desire has never been as strong for me as it has for you, or for some other artist, then I’m sorry: That’s a fallacy, a meaningless appeal to emotion. Just because someone feels really, really strongly about having control of his works doesn’t mean that he should have that control.
Are you suggesting that the idea “I deserve control over this book/painting/etc because I made it” is an unprovable axiom that just has to be accepted?
I haven’t seen one attempt to actually convince me that it’s true, only repeated assertions that it is true, and that if I don’t believe it then I must not “understand”. I think anyone who’s been following the thread can see that no argument has been made in support of it.
Explain how artists feel about their works. You don’t even know what I’m talking about, do you?
Artists often have to write an “Artist’s Statement” about their work. About what it’s about, how they feel about it, and so forth. Once a while ago, I asked you to explain something similar about your programming. Dude. You couldn’t do it. At least not on anything remotely relating to an artist’s statement. You didn’t have a clue what I was asking you to do. And you still don’t know.
It’s like I’m getting a virtual glassy-eyed stare, like I did with the friend who didn’t understand color theory (but thought she did). It just ain’t there, man. Give it up.
You don’t understand what it feels like to be an artist.
Complete and total whoooooooooooosh.
That’s it.
OK, let me try a different tack: Why does it matter if I understand what it feels like to be an artist? If the idea that artists deserve total control of their works is only true to people in a certain mindset, then why is it a valid idea at all?
You apparently agree that your position is nothing but an appeal to emotion; you haven’t denied it. Do you not realize that’s a fallacy, or that here in GD, reasoning is preferred to emotional appeals? You say you need total control of your works, but you have consistently failed to justify that with anything but your feelings. That isn’t debating, it’s just begging.
There are plenty of situations where someone does something awful, and then tries to justify it with “You’d do the same in my situation” or “Until you’ve been in my shoes, you can’t understand what this is like.” And the proper response is: “Big deal. Your feelings don’t justify your actions.”
Mr2001, Starving Artist is right, and is undeniably much smarter than me.
We’ve already discussed all of this before, multiple times, and it’s the same old thing from you—whoooooooosh.
I have no energy to go through it with you again. It’ll end up with the same result. You don’t get it. Won’t get it. Will pretend you get it, (or will pretend that it doesn’t matter whether you get it or not) and on and on we go.
Nope. Not this time.
yosemitebabe, first let me apologize for being so long in responding to your gracious post.
And jeez, what a bundle of gobbledegook my last post was. Next time instead of rushing to beat the 3:30 a.m. (central time) cut-off, I should just take my time and then copy my post into a word processing program for posting when the SDMB comes back on line.
I understand your point of view and I have to confess to having been somewhat guilty of tunnel vision in my opinion that perhaps copyrights should only last 10 or 15 years. While you are viewing these considerations in the light of photography, I am looking at those concerning individual paintings or drawings. I can see where photographs could be important to an artist financially for longer than 10 or maybe 15 years. They can viewed and sold on their own as art, or to various types of publications as the need for them to illustrate a book, magazine article, etc. should arise. Photographs also need strong protection because they can be duplicated and mass produced so easily and inexpensively.
I was speaking more of an individual painting or drawing that will exist for the most part only in the artist’s studio, a gallery, or in the possession of an individual. I would think that if the painting in question were to sell at all, 10 to 15 years should be more than enough time. This should (I would think) protect the artist from having the value of his work degraded by the sale of mass produced and widely distributed copies.
However, even this raises interesting questions on its own. If the painting had not been sold and become well known, accepted, and then highly regarded, where would the demand come from to justify mass producing and distributing it? The painting or drawing would languish in a gallery or in the artist’s studio and most likely nothing would ever come of it. I would think that it would be highly unlikely that a struggling artist would suddenly become successful after years of striving to learn and perfect his craft, and then once his artwork is in demand by collectors, the value of it would be lessened by the easy availability (and knowledge of this easy availability) of inexpensive copies somewhere else. I would also point out again that the number of artists who eventually do become commercially viable by dint of their own talent and creativity are a very, very small minority…probably comparable to the relatively small number of people who eventually become movie or music stars compared to the thousands and thousands who try.
Then there are also complications regarding artists who are selling giclees or other types of prints made from their work. I can see where their sales could be diminished by an outside company printing thousands of copies of the work and selling them at a much lower price. Still, though, don’t you think 10 or 15 years (or even 20, which would still seem reasonable to me although I originally said 10 or 15) should be enough time for them to earn just about all they’re going to by selling their own prints?
And then there’s the question such as you proposed where someone may have a painting or print for sale for let’s say $500, but someone comes to me and offers me $50 to paint it for them. Your position in favor of longer copyright protection is that if I were to do that I would be depriving the artist of a legitimate sale, one he has every right to make and at whatever price he thinks is right. I know you probably won’t agree with me here, but at least in regard to most of the people I know, if such a scenario were to occur in the first place, and I were to refuse to paint the painting, the person who requested I paint it for them would simply do without the print or painting. I can’t imagine that someone who could afford to pay the $500 would settle for an inexpensive reproduction by a local artist, but then finally cough up the $500 if he couldn’t make the deal.
And then, what if I were to take it upon myself to paint a reproduction of a painting I saw online or in a book or magazine and put it up for sale (let’s say for $100) and someone likes it and buys it, is that going to deprive the original artist of anything? I would say the odds are astronomical that it wouldn’t. The person buying my copy would have no idea how to go about finding and buying the original even if he/she wanted to and could afford to, and the great likelihood is that he’s already sold it anyway or it wouldn’t have come to light in the first place.
But to get back to my original point, your last post to me highlighted yet another flaw in current copyright law. All creative material is afforded basically the same protection, yet the market for the material is vastly different and the time span in which the creators of the material can earn a return on their efforst is vastly different also. For example:
A painting may be sold one time and the artist will never again have anything to do with that particular piece of work.
A record album may be released and earn a substantial amount of money for several years. It could then earn even more if the band or musician has subsequent hits which create new demand for the older work as well.
A movie may earn money for a short while in theaters, then on cable t.v. or video/DVD release and in foreign countries for considerably longer than that. It could also be re-released every decade or so such as was previously the case with “Peter Pan” and many of the Disney movies. And of course, old movies and classics continually appear on television and earn residuals for their owners.
And then, like we’ve discussed before, there’s the question of the millions of images out there (on the internet, in books and magazines, etc.) that may or may not be “abandoned” and no one has any idea how old the work is, who the creators are or how to contact them. And while some of the posters to this thread seem to think that its somehow incumbent on the artist to allow reproduction if the person doing the reproduction is willing to pay a fee, this is by no means a given, as I’m sure you know. Artists can withhold permission for any reason they see fit, even if out of nothing but sheer capriciousness. I do agree that it’s their right to do so, but not for life plus 50 years, etc.
(An example of the capriciousness I just spoke of would be in the case of the movie about Pablo Picasso starring Anthony Hopkins. Picasso’s heirs didn’t like the way Picasso was to be portrayed and therefore withheld permission for the producers to use any actual Picasso images in the movie. So instead, the producers had Picasso look-alikes painted and they were used instead. While I can understand the viewpoint of Picasso’s heirs, and I would agree that there is a visceral connection between Picasso’s paintings and his heirs, but as a practical matter I can’t see that any harm whatsoever could be done to the value of Picasso’s art as a result it having appeared in the movie. And besides, the vast majority of Picasso’s art is in the hands of others and they have been for decades.
I believe it’s patently unfair for an artist or his/her heirs to continue to have say-so over work they haven’t even seen themselves for decades.) But I digress. 
As far as I can see, the purpose of copyright is to prevent the “big boys” from moving in on a good idea and capitalizing on it to the detriment or sheer exclusion of the person or entity that created it. Similar to patent protection to keep large companies from stealing inventions from inventors and capitalizing on them before the inventor has had an adequate opportunity to license his invention or otherwise bring it to market. However, patents run out in much less time and for pretty much the same reasons that I outlined above. It’s believed that the original creator or developer of some new product has a right to a reasonable amount of time to capitalize on his/her efforts and their results, but not in perpetuity. The underlying principle is that after a reasonable amout of time has passed, others should be able to manufacture or create the same (or at least similar) product, thus ensuring competition and low prices for the public at large while still allowing the original creator the opportunity to earn the lion’s share of profits the product generates.
What would you think of a completely overhauled copyright system that set up different protections for different types of artistic endeavor? A relatively short time for paintings, drawings, sculpture and the like, say 10 years? And a longer time for photographs and recordings, say 20 years. And perhaps 50 to 70 years for movies?
I also thought Mighty Maximino’s suggestion was excellent. To wit: “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.”
I would also love to see some way to determine whether or not a particular image is in the public domain or copyrighted, but I can’t imagine how it would work…particularly in the case of computers and the Internet where images can easily be edited to cover or remove copyright notices and where images are copied and pasted freely over and over again and from website to website.
Sigh…it’s a conundrum.
Again, I’m going to have to post without preview. I’m sure there are grammatical and maybe spelling errors, but it’s been a busy day and I still have some things to do. However, I wasn’t quite as rushed as last night so I’m hoping this post won’t be quite as convoluted.
yosemitebabe, I’ll be looking forward to your response.
You might want to get to know me better before throwing around such wild accusations as that!
But seriously, thank you for the compliment. I’ve seen your posts however, and some of your work online, and I’m not at all convinced that your assessment is correct. 
Your post seems to be earnest and sincere. At the risk of causing yosemitebabe’s assessment of my intelligence to diminish :D, I will make a good faith effort to answer the things you say above. However, I’m running out of time and will have to try to do so tomorrow.
And yosemitebabe, I also intended to answer your last post to me in a more comprehensive, point-by-point way, but alas I ran out of time. My apologies. I’ll try to answer the questions you posed more specifically tomorrow.
Just so you know, I consider my primary artform to be drawings and paintings. I don’t really take myself that seriously as a photographer. It’s just that I occasionally sell something, that’s all.
I just sold limited rights to a drawing I did 12 years ago (a man playing a guitar) to a web designer. It was for his client, a Country Western singer. Why would this 12-year-old drawing be somehow exempt from copyright protection after 10 years, when my photographs would still be protected?
You assume that all artwork is presented in a gallery and sold that way. And yes, in that case, if it were collecting dust for 10-15 years in a gallery, one has to wonder if anyone will ever want to use it. But with many of us, we don’t sell our work in galleries. We sell limited print rights, while keeping the original. We don’t make a whole lot on each sale, and we have a lot of work to pick from. And all of this work represents a lot of time and education. We don’t always know which piece (of the many we produce) will make us any money, but eventually (like with my guitar player drawing) something does sell. And I’d like to think that we’d have more than 10-15 years to finally get paid back for something that we did, for no pay, all those years ago.
Eh…but a lot of artists do make money from their art. And sometimes it’s just a little bit—enough to pay for art supplies and compensate them for their efforts over all the years. If they are a “marginal” artist and they can’t give away their work, how does it harm anyone that they are keeping rights to work (that no one else wants)? If they finally hit it big (after years of struggle), why can’t they finally get paid back for all the work that was ignored before, but now is getting some attention? They certainly waited long enough for their ship to come in.
No, not really. Some artworks sell slow but steady. And I don’t understand why someone’s artwork would have such a short “shelf life.” Unless it’s some trendy, current event type of subject, why can’t they keep making money off of it after 10-15 years?
We are not talking about not afford, we’re talking about cheap. Some people want something for nothing. Rather than actually compensate the person who came up with the painting (with its ideas, composition, sense of color, theme, etc.—all of which are unique to that artist and can take years to cultivate), they’ll look for the best deal that they can find. Which means that if they can get someone to merely copy the work—and that person won’t need to have the years of effort it took to cultivate that unique perspective, sense of color, composition, etc., all they’ll need to be able to do is reproduce color with paints and know how to use a projector or grid—then they’ll do that instead. Hey! What a bargain!
Not if you’re just going to do it for your own enjoyment. But what if you display it and claim it as your own? But it really isn’t your own. You just copied someone else’s idea.
Why would you want to deprive the buyer of the knowledge that you swiped this idea from someone else? If they like your artwork, don’t you think they’d be at least interested in seeing what the original looks like?
If you know that the original artist has sold the original and doesn’t have any prints for sale, then that’s one thing. But unless you know this, it doesn’t seem right to profit off of someone else’s idea, does it?
Even if they sell it, they still own copyright (unless they sell all rights). I have artworks that I sold over 10 years ago, and I still display pictures of them on my website. I’m glad I still have copyright protection for these older works.
In some instances I would agree with you.
But I think that artists are entitled to be “capricious.”
For instance, I have been asked for my artwork to be published in small private publications that had subject matter that was—how shall we say—not my cup of tea. I didn’t want my artwork in there. So no. I said they couldn’t put my artwork in there. Totally my choice, totally my whim.
:shrug: I don’t know. If I knew a guy and I felt that a movie was trashing his image, perhaps I’d be “capricious” in controlling what I was able to control. In this instance, the use of his artwork.
Not knowing anything about this story, (never heard about it before), my initial hunch is that they are trying to control the only thing they can control (the use of the paintings) because they feel that this third party (the movie makers) are slandering the image of someone they cared for. (I could be totally off base with all of this, though.)
As I explained above, no. That would not do at all.
Interesting. I am ambivalent. I’ll have to think about it.
I didn’t mind the idea of having to re-register works every 20 years. I think that the fee should be pretty low, or that artists can register groups of things (instead of registering every single doodle in a sketchpad, register the whole sketchpad). I don’t have a problem with someone having to put in a little effort to keep everything up to date. But I think that some consideration should be made towards prolific people who have a lot of okay stuff that sells from time to time, but with no one big “money maker.” For instance, with me, I sell a drawing here, a photo there, and I can never predict which from my vast collection of stuff will sell. Nothing sells oh so great that it alone will earn me even a fraction of what I put into my body of work, but between all of them, it’s not too bad. If registering all this work was too expensive or exhaustive and I had to cherry pick which works I’d register, I don’t know which I’d pick or how I’d do it.
I thought I explained why in the post you’re answering.
Why are you interpreting the expiration of copyright to mean you would no longer get paid? If someone was looking through your drawings and wanted to buy one for his or her website I don’t see how an expired copyright would prevent you from being paid. You’d still have the right to charge for your work.
Again, the same thing. Why do you assume no payment after expiration?
Well, here we are yet again. They *can * keep making money off it. It’s just that some guy in Nowhere, USA could make and sell a copy of it too if he wanted.
In this scenario, yes, it is. But if you’ve already had 10, 15 or like I said, even 20 years to sell it yourself, what’s wrong with someone else providing a copy after that time? This is basically what has been allowed in the past, only after a somewhat longer time. It appears you feel no one should *ever * be able to legally reproduce a work of art without original artist approval. Am I correct? If not, what is the distinction between 15 years and whatever time you have in mind? It seems to me that philosophically one would either think a person should never have unapproved access, or else the argument is nothing more than semantics over length of time. If your position is that other people should never have unapproved access, I think this is just as inflexible and unreasonble as Mr2001’s position, only at the opposite end of the scale. He seems to feel that an artist’s feelings and perceived rights have no merit, you seem to feel they have the only merit.
I’m not talking about claiming anything, at least in my case, as my own. And no, I don’t necessarily think he’d want to see the original. And even if he did, he’d probably assume it’s in a private collection somewhere.
And what of the overwhelming majority of images that would truly qualify as “abandoned,” or where the reproducing artist genuinely has no way of determining if the work is still under copyright, or if so, who owns it?
It does if a reasonable period of time (and I would not be averse to anything up to 20 years) has gone by. And remember, just because somebody somewhere is reproducing an item of your work, the odds are astronomical that a potential buyer of yours would be aware of it.
Two points here: One, why are you glad? How would you be harmed if you no longer had copyright protection over them? And how would you know one way or the other, given the ease of copying and pasting images on the Internet? And number two, you may well be glad but once again, but how does your gladness impact on the amount of time that should go by before your work would become part of the public domain? And for that matter, why even have the concept of a public domain in the first place if no one but the artist is ever to have rights to the images? To me, the concept of public domain and the fact that it has been accepted in most, if not all, countries tells me that it is a legitimate and emminently worthwhile concept, and it by its very nature trumps artist control after the appropriate period of time has passed. This tells me that your self-concerned (and I can understand how it can be so) point of view therefore gets trumped at some point by the greater public good, as has been held to be the case, again, the world over. The question then becomes, how much time should pass beforehand.
I do, too, yosemitebabe. But not in perpetuity. After a reasonable period of time I think work should become part of the public domain and available to everyone. Or again, why even have a public domain?
Understandable. But again I think after 10, 15 or 20 years you should no longer have that right, not because you aren’t a perfectly good person, but because it serves the greater public good that all images not be kept forever under the dominion of the creating artist. I just think that under the concept of public domain, which after all is intended for the greater public good, an artist’s preferences should govern for only so long.
I’m sure you would, and I probably would as well. But I just don’t think we should have that right forever, as I’ve just described.
But again, you seem to feel that once the copyright expires, you’ll no longer be able to profit from your work. This assumes that someone who is exposed to an item of your work will like it, would be willing and able to pay for it but not want to pay you, would have access to the image to try to have someone else copy it, would know where to find this person, would be agreeable to the price the other person would charge, and that, having lost that sale, no one else will ever want to buy it from you in the future.
I just don’t see all of this happening on a scale anywhere near large enough to justify your many concerns and belief that once copyright expires you are somehow cut out of the picture altogether.
In closing, I must say that perhaps my last post has caught you in a somewhat testy frame of mind, maybe as a result of doing battle with **Mr2001 ** in the other thread (which I briefly skimmed prior to the 3:30 a.m. central time SDMB lock-up). If so, my answers are probably going to annoy you even more, and I regret that. But I must say it’s kind of odd from my perspective. I seem to be right smack in the middle – philosophically speaking – of your position and that of Mr2001, and I guess as a result of that I’ll wind up on the outs with both of you. (Sigh)
Copyright isn’t about creative control over your works. It’s about financial control. If you want creative control, don’t publish, just keep it locked in a safe in your basement cause that’s the only way it’ll happen.
In that light, I would say a yearly relicensing scheme after the first 15 years or so might do the trick, provided you could only relicense it for so long. But I wouldn’t make it a nominal fee. I’m talking more lke $10,000 a year or so. Great pieces like Casablanca would stay licensed longer, other works would enter the public domain sooner.
I apologize, I admit that my eyes started to glaze over a little in that last post.
Paid a lot less because every Tom, Dick and Harry can also sell my work. It’s not like I make huge buckets with it as it is.
And, people can just make a copy and give it away for free. There’s no question that when something is in the public domain, it’s far less likely to make money. Not impossible, but far less likely.
And that’s just one less sale for many artists, who don’t make all that much to begin with.
Because for a variety of reasons, it may not have sold very well at first. It could have been too obscure, too out of fashion at the time. Or it could be a modest work that didn’t get a lot of exposure and only sold a copy now and then.
There is fair use, after all.
We’re not talking about just “feelings” here, we’re talking about an artist making a living, or not making a living. A living may mean that they’ll be able to afford to keep working.
I think that the artist does have more rights. Without them putting the effort into the work, there would be no works for others to enjoy, or make money off of (eventually), or copy, or adapt, or whatever. So when they see their own work making someone else money (while they eke by) then it’s kind of like saying to them, “Thanks, you did your bit, you spewed out the stuff we wanted to consume, now go away. We got what we wanted out of you.”
I’m not sure I understand. You mean that you will show them the picture that you used to copy from, or not? Will he know the name of the original artist?
That’s a problem, and we are trying to discuss a solution for it here. As for me, I’m all for allowing truly abandoned works to be open to the public domain. But I don’t think that my 12-year-old sketchbooks are ready to be in the public domain yet. And I don’t care how much someone else wants to use them. I’m not ready to give them up yet.
Because someone could put them in a publication that I found objectionable, because I can still possibly make a little money off of them, without wondering if someone else (who did nothing but copy a .jpg of my drawing to their hard drive) is selling my drawing instead.
I know that people steal my work off of my website. I also know that professional people are usually afraid to steal it, and therefore will contact me and buy it. If it was already in the public domain, they’d just "Save as . . . " and that would be the end of it. I can do the math. I can figure out that 0 + 0.00 = 0. And that’s how much people would pay me if my web work was out of copyright.
What? You mean that there are no artworks in the public domain?
I think that we have to decide which is better: to have people’s work go into public domain while they are still in middle age, perhaps supporting kids, perhaps with many obligations (and therefore not making as much money, not being able to afford to do more work), or do we let them have exclusive rights over their work (so they can make money off of it) while they are alive?
Some people don’t care. They’ll say that if the artist can’t make a living off of the work that they’ve done in the last 20 years, screw 'em. Let 'em get a real job. Other people figure that most artists don’t make that much, so let them know that at least they’ll be able to keep what they’ve got while they’re alive. Some think that becuase artists enjoy working on their art, and they’re going to do it anyway, why do they need to get paid at all. They enjoy it, after all!
Other people believe that just like with any other profession or business, people work very hard throughout their lives to build up something, and moreover, to leave something for their kids. And they figure that artists should have this same right. After all, artists are rarely paid as they do the work. They aren’t always paid for years after (when maybe they are “discovered.”) So they do the work, and keep doing it, and nobody cares. Until one day, someone does. And then, perhaps, they’ll finally get paid. But if they are not discovered in time, they don’t get paid—at least not nearly enough.
I think it was artemis who brought forth the 20 years and keeping-on-renewing idea. Do you have any objections to that?
Can you not concieve that perhaps some people take a while to get “discovered,” and to finally start to make money? And do you not realize that some people create works for a specific (sometimes very personal reason) and they don’t want to see those works “polluted” (at least while they’re alive)? For instance, a devout Catholic doing religious paintings might not want to see someone else use these paintings for a “satantic” rock album. If an artist knew that in 10, 15, 20 years someone could do something that was (in their mind) so sacreligious, do you think that perhaps they might think twice about releasing their work at all?
Is not artemis’s proposal acceptable to you? It certainly would allow for a healthy public domain.
We’re not talking about forever here (at least artemis isn’t). We’re talking about the artist having time enough in their lifetime to make money—perhaps enough money to keep on working. And also to not see others (legally) be able to (possible) do something that they deem to be appalling to their work.
I guess it’s a judgment call. Do we care whether the people whose work we enjoy (and wish to encourage to continue to producing) are making a living? Or not? :shrug: Because if all their work went into public domain in 10-20 years, there’s no question that they’d be making a lot less money.
You have far more faith in people’s integrity than I do.
The kind of stuff that I sell is often on the web. Yes, anyone can take it, and not pay me. If it’s in public domain, do you seriously think they’ll pay me anyway?
And if someone needs to use a high-res digital image of one of my images, how much do you think they’ll pay me for the use on a—say—catalog cover? $300? Why would they pay more? But once they have that high res digital copy, anyone can use it, (if it’s 10 years old, or whatever) and they never have to pay me again!
You are working from a perspective of a person who is doing works and selling the original. I am coming from the perspective of producing works that are shown digitally and sold that way. The chances that someone will get a digital copy of some of my work and pay me for it anyway are minimal. Sorry. People are cheap.
It’s okay. I can tell you’re a good natured soul.
Yeah. And like I said before, since you’re still kind of new to this, (and still more in the “copying other people’s works” mode) I can appreciate where you’re coming from. But when you have been working at this for many years, have tried to cultivate your own style, educated yourself enough that you can make up images all from your imagination (for instance) then it kind of takes on a different perspective. You feel more personally about it.
:shrug: I’ve been in these kind of debates before and no doubt there will be plenty of people telling me that I should just suck it up and not complain when people use my work in any way I see fit, or tell me to get a real job, or tell me that I owe them my work. I’ve heard it all before. And yes, I guess I’m jaded. Over the years I’ve seen too many cheap people, too many unappreciative people who think art is “easy” and not “real work” (therefore not worth any money). People can be pretty crappy and can begrudge the artist any pay or say over their work. I’ve seen it time and again. I don’t see it getting any better if artists’ works go in the public domain in a decade or two. I just don’t see it.
No to the first question, maybe or maybe not to the second. I would show my painting myself as opposed to in a gallery. I would explain that it is a reproduction I painted after seeing the original in a magazine, book, online, etc. If the copyright holder wasn’t known I would say so. If the copyright owner was known, but the painting had passed into the public domain, I would say so as well. If the original were still under copyright protection, I wouldn’t paint and sell it…which is where I am now.
Under lifetime plus 50 or 70 years, I wouldn’t even be able to reproduce the vintage paintings I’m doing now, although I’m quite confident that my efforts aren’t harming a single soul anywhere after all this time.
Three things:
One, I said I wouldn’t be averse to 20 years. It’s these artist’s lifetime limitations – let alone tacking on another 50 or 70 years – that I object to.
Two, a person could make the exact same arguments you’re making, only for 30 years, or 40, or 60, etc. Wouldn’t their point of view have the same validity as yours?
Three, why do you feel 20 years will give you the protection you want, but 10 or 15 won’t? And what of your concerns that your work would wind up in some sort of publication you disapprove of? And doesn’t the question become at this point what length of time is correct rather than whether or not something should become part of the public domain?
Okay, that sounds fine. But I don’t see why you couldn’t paint it anyway, just for your own enjoyment. I did it all the time. I remember this one children’s book that had all these great fantasy drawings—I copied 'em all, in my sketchbook. It was fun! And even though this is in a different category, I did a lot of fan art. A lot of people do fan art and I think it can be a great deal of fun—and I think the case can be made for some of it being fair use (as long as they’re not making a profit). Once again, :shrug:
In a lot of cases, I’m sure you would be right. If the painter were dead, and the heirs were either dead or didn’t keep track of his/her work, then you are absolutely right—the paintings would be essentially “abandoned” and who would you be hurting if you copied them?
But that’s pretty different from wanting to copy something I did ten or twenty years ago, right?
I don’t understand this. I don’t understand why this bothers you. An artist can live a long time. So many of them are making dribs and drabs of money off of their art, selling a print here, one there—and they really could use all the years available to them to make any decent money. I understand that not all artists are like this, but more are like this than are making huge hunks of cash on their old works.
And then you’ve got instances of young artist doing a whole lot of work but not making much money until shortly before their (untimely) death. But what happens to their heirs (widow, small kids, people who loaned the artist money) after he is dead, if the work automatically goes into public domain?
That’s one of the reasons why copyright was extended past the artist’s life. I understand that it can be abused, and I understand how it doesn’t sound like it makes sense when the artist lives to be 90 and very wealthy, but in the scenario I described above, it doesn’t sound so bad. :shrug:
It’s just an arbitrary number. All I’m saying is that I want an active artist to be able to extend their copyright, without a huge expense to them and without having to jump through major hoops (and get mired up in major paperwork). I am sure that my sentiments differ from artemis on some points—all I’m saying is that I would not object to a system where active artists would have to show an intent to keep their copyrights alive. That would leave those works that people had forgotten about, or didn’t care about open to the public domain. And isn’t what this is about—letting the “abandoned” work go into the public domain?
Why not every year, or month, for that matter? It’s just an arbitrary number if all that happens is that we all keep renewing our copyright. If the process is easy to remember, easy to do, not expensive—hell, I don’t care. But if the hope is to wrest my rights to my own work away from me while I’m still alive, then that ain’t gonna work for me, and I daresay not for a lot of others as well.
One thing I will add in closing—if you think I’m some extremist on this issue, you will be shocked when you visit some of the art message boards on the Internet. While I would never say that my stance is universal, I have never encountered a fellow artist on one of these other boards who complains about how copyright shouldn’t last for the life of the artist, how terrible it is that things aren’t in the public domain in (20, 30, whatever) years. NEVER. I won’t say that such people don’t exist, because I’m sure they do. But from my personal experience, more active artists are going to say what I’m saying here (or are even going to be more hardline) than will share your viewpoint.
Part of that is invariably because we get taught about our rights in art school. I don’t know how it is in colleges today, but I’m guessing that it’s similar to how it was when I went to school (lo, so many years ago). I took a lot of illustration classes, and in some of them, our teachers brought in lawyers to explain to us our rights. I don’t recall one student in any of those classes objecting to the laws being discussed, or lamenting that the current copyright laws were too unreasonable, or anything. Never.
I think a lot of this was because none of us were doing bodies of works that were entirely dependent on the copying of others works. I apologize if I’ve completely misinterpreted your feelings here, but that seems to be an issue in your case. I am not crticising you for copying others’ paintings, because it’s well known to be a viable method for students, and I did it a lot in my day. But most artists (including you) won’t stay in “reproduction mode” forever. They won’t be lamenting that they can’t copy someone else’s paintings but are not able to sell them. It simply is not an issue for them because that’s not the kind of work they are doing. They are painting from life or from their own imagination or whatever. The lack of others’ paintings to copy (and then sell) is not a hardship for them.
But, (please forgive me if I misunderstand you), it seems like you do consider it a hardship. You keep on saying that “I don’t see the harm if I copy and sell this painting” or “I couldn’t copy these paintings if these laws were in affect back then.” As if this is something horrible—to not be able to legally sell your reproductions of other people’s paintings. Like something unfair that is being done to you. And I just don’t see the huge harm here.
So you can’t sell your reproductions of other artists’ works. So what? You’ll be soon doing your own original works. And after all, nobody is stopping you from copying any paintings that you admire, right now, for your own enjoyment and education. That sounds like fair use to me. There is nothing morally wrong with copying others’ works for your own enjoyment and education, and in fact I encourage you to do so. But I am sure that my brain farted (once again ) and I missed some pertinent explanation. So, I apologize for asking this. What other hardship are you personally suffering, other than not being able to sell these reproductions you’ve done?
Starving Artist I get the impression you’re confusing sale of the original work with copyright. The Master did a brief column on this. The best explanation of copyrights and trademarks I’ve seen was actually a comic book. It was written by a lawyer who specializes in intelectual property. Since I can’t find that comic at the moment, OTTOMH-
If I buy a painting or other original work (say, a fine illustration by Slug Signorino), I have the right to hang it on my wall. I cannot charge people to see it (See the amazing diagram of a pig’s corkscrew winkie! Only $5!), or hold public exhibitions(The extremely destroyed vampire, at the Musuem Of Art! This week only!). I have no right to reproduce it. Senor Signorino would retain all rights. The only right I would gain by purchasing the original is the right to brag about how I have a Slug on my wall and you don’t.
Thank you, DocCathode, but I understand this very well, and for the most part I agree with it. What I am saying is that I don’t see a compelling reason why the original painter should be able to have copyright protection on the work for more than 20 years. If you Mr. Signorino’s painting, he does nothing further with it (or even if he does) and 20 years go by, I feel that he has had adequate time to sell or capitalize on that particular work and that it should then pass into the public domain. I know of no other commercial enterprise (such as inventions, medicine, etc.) where the ability to clone or reproduce the product in question is protected for so long, much less for as long as works produced under current copyright law are protected (artist life plus 50 or 70 years). There is a reason why artistic works pass into the public domain and the concept of public domain has been recognized and honored in countries all over the globe.
**yosemitebabe ** and I are having a difference of opinion as to how much time should pass before a work enters into the public domain.
And thank you for the link. I haven’t had time to check it out yet as I’ve just hopped online for a brief time. But I will check it out before the night is out. Thanks again for your interest.
yosemitebabe, you bring up some points I need to address, but I don’t have time right now. I’ll return later to try to answer your questions. Regards.
My opinion is that, ethically, there is a certain indertirminate time where copyright switches from a passive to an active affair. That is, a copyright holder must be actively trying to prevent distribution of a work. Many abandonware sites and Google cache seem to be operating on this principle and I think it’s the most pragmatic one. Given that the owners of Amos and Andy ARE actively discouraging distribution of the work, I think it would be unethical to violate their wishes.
I can and indeed I do. However, if I can’t legally sell or give them away, I’d just wind up with closets (or rooms) full of paintings that I can do nothing with.
Essentialy abandoned, yes…but not legally! Therein lies the rub. Let’s say I’m copying and selling paintings of these works. Someone who knows the heirs or corporate entity that legally owns the rights to these paintings hears about them. "Hey, Monique! I was in Wichita, Kansas (not my actual location ) last week and guess what? There’s some guy their making oil painted reproductions of (pardon me, DocCathode ) of Slug Signorino’s paintings. Since he was your grandfather I thought you’d like to know.
Monique is the only surviving heir and is living a paycheck to paycheck lifestyle. She learns that since it hasn’t been 50 or 70 years (whichever the case may be) since he died that her grandfather’s work is still legally copyrighted and she owns the copyrights. Well, guess what? She decides to sue for copyright violation, figuring that however much she gets she’ll be that much ahead of where she is now. Maybe her friends are telling her that she probably wouldn’t even need to go to the expense of an attorney and trial, that I would probably settle for several thousand dollars just to avoid that expense myself. Well, she/they would be right. Even though you, I and everyone else would say these works had been abandoned, the law says otherwise. This is one of the reasons I think a shorter copyright life would be proper. Once a work is 20 years old (for the sake of this discussion let’s assume I’ve agreed 20 years is agreeable) there’s no question about such things as the artist’s death or whereabouts, heirs, estates, etc. If it’s 20 years old or older, it’s free and clear for use as is allowed for works in the public domain.
I’m sorry, but no. I see no difference, as I just described.
And I don’t understand why you seem to feel, especially in lieu of the fact this work is selling in only dribs and drabs, why you feel that an additional 5 or 10 years would make a significant difference in the income you’re likely to make from the works in question.
I also don’t understand why you continue to feel that once your copyright expires, your opportunity to make these dribs and drabs ceases. You would still be free to try to create or find your own market for your works and sell them as you please. Someone else, selling reproductions of the same thing in a market he has created in an entirely different part of the country such as I would be doing, would have no impact on you at all. If I were closer and by some unlikely chance we would up competing for sales among the same customer base, you would still be free to compete with me for sales, and in fact this may work to your advantage since you were the original artist. It may be that I would actually create customers for you by making them aware of you in the first place.
My feeling would be similar to the way I would feel about the heirs of someone who developed a medication to fight some illness. Once the patent has expired, his or her exclusive opportunity to make money from the product expires also. Other drug companies are free to manufacture and market identical medications without the original inventor’s heirs being entitled to profit from it, or to insist that the medications couldn’t be manufactured without their permission. However, these same heirs would still profit from whatever sales they or their agent companies still made.
Exactly! Why is your arbitrary number of 20 years the proper amount of time to allow for dribs and drabs sales, but my 10 or 15 year suggestion is highly offensive to you, particularly given the fact you could still make money from whatever sales you still made?
And I agree with you about this entire paragraph, including the extension of copyright beyond 20 years if the artist wishes, provided some way could be found to determine which works the artist had indicated he/she wanted to continue to protect versus which ones had truly become abandoned. This is the fly in the ointment. I know of no way to bring this about.
Not *away * from you, in *addition * to you (and only after 20 years!)
Thank you for explaning this. I can see more easily now why you find concepts such as I’m proposing to be so offensive.
Okay, lemme 'splain my situation to you.
First of all, there’s no need to aplogize. I understand your wanting to know why I’m of the opinions I am, particularly if they seem to be the result of “hardship.” It isn’t hardship so much as it is frustration. Anyway, here’s my story:
As I’ve said before, I first started to draw and paint about a year ago, after having felt for most of my life that I couldn’t draw a straight line. I had begun to develop an appreciation for beauty and works of art several years before that. I would often see a painting in a magazine or book that I wished I could have, or could paint. Once I found out that if I really took my time and thought about what I was doing, I could manage to do a fairly good job of reproducing some of the more simple works that I seen and liked. Other people liked them, too…a great deal. It was fun watching people’s eyes light up and big smiles cross their faces when they saw one of these paintings. Frequently, they would ask me to either give or sell them some of the paintings I’d done, or to paint additional ones for them. Their reactions were like a form of applause, and as you’ve said, I’m a good-natured person and I delighted in the fact that my efforts (limited as they were as the original concepts and colors were not mine) brought such joy to the people who saw them. (By the way, I always gave credit to the original artist, and resisted even signing the paintings as I felt I would be taking credit for someone else’s work.)
At about this time the idea occurred to me that perhaps I could combine my newfound love of painting with my long term desire to earn my own income doing work that I love. I had read at one time Picasso’s remark that one should look for a situation in which their work gave them as much pleasure as their free time, and this really resonated with me. It appeared to me then (and it still does) that I had found that happy way of life.
Due my previous interest in art, I had noticed from time to time on the Internet that oil painted reproductions of well-known artworks could be purchased online, and I thought that reproduction art, sold locally and first hand by me, would be an excellent way to go, and because I would be painting and selling works of art with a proven track record of popularity and public acceptance, I could avoid the “dribs and drabs” type of income I knew so many artists experience. In my mind, I’ve enjoyed the fantasy of a time coming when I was somewhat acclaimed locally for my talent as a reproduction artist, skilled in many different styles of painting.
It seems that I have a pretty good eye for works of art that people like. Many of the things I’ve painted apart from the vintage posters I spoke of are images I’ve seen either in magazines or online. Often I see something I’d love to paint, but I can’t because I either can’t determine when the work was painted, who painted it, whether or not it is under copyright, who holds it if they are, or who to contact to find out.
This means I’m constantly seeing things that I’m capable of painting and that I think people would love to have, but I can’t paint and sell them without exposing myself to litigation that I would have no defense for, even though the great likelihood is that no one would care. It would still be foolish and unethical for me to take that chance.
So, just like you being in favor of laws and limitations that work to your benefit, I would like to see laws and limitations that allow me to reproduce art without having every single thing painted or drawn in the last 70 to 125 years being off limits unless I could get written permission.
As I’ve said before, I think copyright law as it is written protects millions of pieces of artwork in order to give legitimate and needed protection to a very, very small minority, probably a good deal less than 1%.
I realize this post probably constitutes *waaaay * more information than you may have wanted, but perhaps you should regard this as a compliment. If I didn’t think as highly of you as I do, and appreciate the help you’ve given me in the past, I wouldn’t have tried so hard to make myself clear.