Having seen Superman images used in pornography give to kids, I shudder at the thought of such icons as Bats and Supes becoming public property in thrity years time.
Why should anything created become Public Domain? Because you create something , the 'public' automatically has a right to it, to use it? What a load of arse.
If anything, the re-use of already established iconography only stifles creativity - which is surely far worse.
I think you're viewing this from the POV of big corporations hogging things. Bull. Firstly, the creators sell out to big corporations - look to Bill Watterson as an example of an artist, with integrity, who DIDN'T want his creation in the Public Domain. Think about copyright laws the next time you see an innocent icon, such as Superman, starring in a porn comic being read by the kid in your street....
So as soon as I make something, fo me, you have rights to it? No, I don't agree with that. I can't. You're expressing your rights to claim anything as something you can use. What about an individual's rights to create something without it being stolen?
I believe, if you were to remove the rights of writers, musicians and artists, we'd see a lot less creativity in each of those areas than we currently do. Is that what you want to encourage?
If I write a book, I don't want to see paragraphs/chapters from it cropping up in someone elses work, and that person profiting fo it. I don't want my hard work and creativity stolen. And I don't think that's unreasonable.
How would you feel if people started butchering "Sandman" for their own personal use?
Have you never seen the thousands of versions of the Mona Lisa with spaceman, Mona Lisa with spliff, Mona Lisa as tentacled beastie?
Forbidden Planet - the Tempest set in space. 10 things I hate about you - The Taming of the Shrew set in high school. One of my favourite films of all time - Rosencrantz and Guilderstern are Dead is set in the middle of Hamlet and more of less passes through it at right angles.
As it happens, Sandman is copyright DC Comics, who can sell it on to be pilfered and have themselves allowed some really terrible writers to write stories set in that world.
But people writing bad fiction doesn't bother me - I have the good fiction and will continue to buy stuff written by writers I like.
That strikes me as a little selfish - what about Neil Gaiman? Yeah, you can avoid the bad and stick to the good, but he has to put up with seeing all sorts of cack writers dilute and pollute his work. Do you think he wants that, or enjoys it? Does his reputation become tarnished by association with it? Does his enthusiasm for his own work diminish, as he loses faith in how it will be adapted (wasted) by others?
Is this not, in fact, one of the main reasons Alan Moore had for falling out with Marvel?
I don't see it as anything to do with him. If he doesn't want to read what other people did with his characters then he doesn't need to show them to anyone else. His reputation isn't tarnished by what other writers do with his characters - they're reputation is. Do you like Gaiman less because of the abortion that was the Destiny miniseries?
I believe in the right to free speech - of pretty much all kinds. I'm willing to limit that temporarily to help writers make a living, but it's very much a temporary abeyance, not a limitless gift.
I'd still argue (taking Watterson as an example), that if creators work under the impression that their IP will eventually be subverted, that you will in essence stifle creativity. Would Watterson have been as willing to create Calvin & Hobbes if he knew the trouble that was in store for him?
By your argument, you're effectively telling any creator that they either keep their creation to themselves, or deal with it being used by anyone for anything. I can't see that encouraging creativity, I just can't. To me, the real greed is with people that can't accept IPs as they are given to them, and must duplicate them or otherwise use them for their own purposes. To me, that is greed. If someone writes a good book, or paints a picture, or records a song, or whatever, let THEM decide how they want their creation to be used. Why should they have to put up with something they created being used for something it wasn't intended?
Let's continue with C&H. A hugely popular IP. Heron raises the spectre of Disney below. Say Disney had been able to use C&H however they wanted.... what would have happened then? Yeah, they want to hold onto Mickey, but Copyright laws work both ways, and stop huge corporations from using any IP they want.
Let's take a more personal POV. My dad loves music. It's his life. So, say he dies, and I write him a song. I record it, it's published, charts and all proceeds go to research into whatever killed him. The song then turns up as a soundtrack to a porn movie. Is that right? Forget your ultra-liberal leanings, and think about that question - Is That Right? Or do morals not come into anything any more?
If I had the choice between a world where things never came out of copyright and a world where there was no copyright, I'd take the one without copyright every time.
My ideal compromise is 20 years.
I'm willing to compromise further and say "The lifetime of the original creator" which would mean that (a) they got everything out of it they possibly could and never saw it changed.
But I really think that it is wrong of other people to prevent me from producing anything I like. It's an abridgement of free speech.
Do you know why you almost never hear people sing Happy Birthday in films? It's because it's in copyright, and doing so means paying massive fees to the copyright holders. Technically, me singing Happy Birthday in a public place counts as a performance and is illegal without permission (and those fees again).
I think there is virtue in the old 28 years, renewable for 28 more, but I'd prefer 20 years, renewable for 20 more. I'd also say that only the original copyright owner could renew it. Selling an IP should definitely mean that it was unrenewable - I have nothing but contempt for the laws that allow large corporations to control most IPs in the First World. I better reason/excuse for IP piracy I cannot imagine.
I think you make a fair point that only the original copyright owner (I would extend that to their family though) should be able to renew it. If they sell out, then yeah, maybe it shoul become public domain. That seems more reasonable. I would allow the original copyright owner to renew it indefinitely though.
I would allow the original copyright owner to renew it indefinitely though.
Why?
Also, how about their family. If Shakespeare's family was still around, could they still keep people from quoting Hamlet w/o paying them?
The whole point of copyright is to allow someone to make money off of something, but I see no reason to make this indefinite. Copyrights like patents expire so that ideas can go from being individual property to being the common property of everyone. I'm a big believer in common property and I have no patience with selfishness or greed - which is what I see as the ultimate basis for indefinite copyrights.
Given the ease of duplicating information, I'm actually all for the idea of completely eliminating all copyrights. Creators could get paid through schemes like The Street Performer Protocol, which allow creators to make a living while acknowledging that in the modern era attempting to keep people from duplicating information is both futile and ultimately destructive.
Though, why shouldn't a family continue to profit?
Say I'm an artist. I work my butt off, establishing a reputation. I paint, as best as I can. I struggle, I sell my wares and just make ends meet. I die, and suddenly my work has greater value. Why shouldn't my family benefit from that? It was my vocation, my job. I didn't have a company pension scheme that they can live off. If I work hard to produce something, and want my family to benefit from that, what's wrong with that?
Yeah, a line would have to be drawn. You'd figure the intelectual property would have either allowed the immediate family to make enough money to pass on to future generations already, or it was never that profitable anyway. Either way, the earnings from copyright should probably only extend to spouse and children.
I feel the same way about creative control. Once a person is dead (or at most once their immediate family is dead), then no one should have the right to control the IP and it would be freely available to everyone.
Of course, the only reason copyrights are getting longer now is the Disney (an evil corporation if there ever was one) is willing to utterly destroy the entire justification for copyright before they will risk letting go of Mickey Mouse. I'll celebrate the day Mickey goes out of copyright simply to celebrate Disney losing.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Having seen Superman images used in pornography give to kids, I shudder at the thought of such icons as Bats and Supes becoming public property in thrity years time.
Why should anything created become Public Domain? Because you create something , the 'public' automatically has a right to it, to use it? What a load of arse.
If anything, the re-use of already established iconography only stifles creativity - which is surely far worse.
I think you're viewing this from the POV of big corporations hogging things. Bull. Firstly, the creators sell out to big corporations - look to Bill Watterson as an example of an artist, with integrity, who DIDN'T want his creation in the Public Domain. Think about copyright laws the next time you see an innocent icon, such as Superman, starring in a porn comic being read by the kid in your street....
no subject
Should Shakespeare still belong to someone?
And "porn in the hands of kids" is no excuse for anything except laws concerning the providing of porn to kids.
no subject
no subject
I believe, if you were to remove the rights of writers, musicians and artists, we'd see a lot less creativity in each of those areas than we currently do. Is that what you want to encourage?
If I write a book, I don't want to see paragraphs/chapters from it cropping up in someone elses work, and that person profiting fo it. I don't want my hard work and creativity stolen. And I don't think that's unreasonable.
How would you feel if people started butchering "Sandman" for their own personal use?
no subject
What about an individual's rights to create something without it being stolen?
It's not stolen. You still have it.
no subject
Doesn't make it right. Didn't your mother ever say to you "So if your friends all jump off the Forth Road Bridge...."?
It's the equivalent of saying that people should be able to butcher a Monet, Picasso or Rembrandt for their own use. I can't agree with that.
no subject
Have you never seen the thousands of versions of the Mona Lisa with spaceman, Mona Lisa with spliff, Mona Lisa as tentacled beastie?
Forbidden Planet - the Tempest set in space.
10 things I hate about you - The Taming of the Shrew set in high school.
One of my favourite films of all time - Rosencrantz and Guilderstern are Dead is set in the middle of Hamlet and more of less passes through it at right angles.
no subject
The examples you use are all Shakespeare. And, perhaps, were all reasonably successful. I can give you plenty of examples that weren't.
Again, I ask - what if it was "Sandman". Would you agree to anyone being able to pilfer, change, and generally abuse that material?
no subject
As it happens, Sandman is copyright DC Comics, who can sell it on to be pilfered and have themselves allowed some really terrible writers to write stories set in that world.
But people writing bad fiction doesn't bother me - I have the good fiction and will continue to buy stuff written by writers I like.
no subject
Is this not, in fact, one of the main reasons Alan Moore had for falling out with Marvel?
no subject
I believe in the right to free speech - of pretty much all kinds. I'm willing to limit that temporarily to help writers make a living, but it's very much a temporary abeyance, not a limitless gift.
no subject
By your argument, you're effectively telling any creator that they either keep their creation to themselves, or deal with it being used by anyone for anything. I can't see that encouraging creativity, I just can't. To me, the real greed is with people that can't accept IPs as they are given to them, and must duplicate them or otherwise use them for their own purposes. To me, that is greed. If someone writes a good book, or paints a picture, or records a song, or whatever, let THEM decide how they want their creation to be used. Why should they have to put up with something they created being used for something it wasn't intended?
Let's continue with C&H. A hugely popular IP. Heron raises the spectre of Disney below. Say Disney had been able to use C&H however they wanted.... what would have happened then? Yeah, they want to hold onto Mickey, but Copyright laws work both ways, and stop huge corporations from using any IP they want.
Let's take a more personal POV. My dad loves music. It's his life. So, say he dies, and I write him a song. I record it, it's published, charts and all proceeds go to research into whatever killed him. The song then turns up as a soundtrack to a porn movie. Is that right? Forget your ultra-liberal leanings, and think about that question - Is That Right? Or do morals not come into anything any more?
no subject
If I had the choice between a world where things never came out of copyright and a world where there was no copyright, I'd take the one without copyright every time.
My ideal compromise is 20 years.
I'm willing to compromise further and say "The lifetime of the original creator" which would mean that (a) they got everything out of it they possibly could and never saw it changed.
But I really think that it is wrong of other people to prevent me from producing anything I like. It's an abridgement of free speech.
Do you know why you almost never hear people sing Happy Birthday in films? It's because it's in copyright, and doing so means paying massive fees to the copyright holders. Technically, me singing Happy Birthday in a public place counts as a performance and is illegal without permission (and those fees again).
Now, tell me _that_ is moral.
Exposing the Happy Birthday story:
(Anonymous) 2003-07-15 02:33 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
no subject
no subject
Why?
Also, how about their family. If Shakespeare's family was still around, could they still keep people from quoting Hamlet w/o paying them?
The whole point of copyright is to allow someone to make money off of something, but I see no reason to make this indefinite. Copyrights like patents expire so that ideas can go from being individual property to being the common property of everyone. I'm a big believer in common property and I have no patience with selfishness or greed - which is what I see as the ultimate basis for indefinite copyrights.
Given the ease of duplicating information, I'm actually all for the idea of completely eliminating all copyrights. Creators could get paid through schemes like The Street Performer Protocol, which allow creators to make a living while acknowledging that in the modern era attempting to keep people from duplicating information is both futile and ultimately destructive.
no subject
no subject
Say I'm an artist. I work my butt off, establishing a reputation. I paint, as best as I can. I struggle, I sell my wares and just make ends meet. I die, and suddenly my work has greater value. Why shouldn't my family benefit from that? It was my vocation, my job. I didn't have a company pension scheme that they can live off. If I work hard to produce something, and want my family to benefit from that, what's wrong with that?
no subject
no subject
no subject
Of course, the only reason copyrights are getting longer now is the Disney (an evil corporation if there ever was one) is willing to utterly destroy the entire justification for copyright before they will risk letting go of Mickey Mouse. I'll celebrate the day Mickey goes out of copyright simply to celebrate Disney losing.