I'm curious, exactly what sorts of things, and what specific things, do you wish were in the public domain during your lifetime that arent going to be?
Right off the top of my head: recordings by Elvis Presley, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Charlie Parker, Louis Armstrong, Ray Charles, and Miles Davis, just to name a few. Amazing innovators (dare I say geniuses?) in music, and they're all locked up until almost assuredly after I'll be worm food.
Imagine if Bach and Mozart and Beethoven and Wagner and Tchaikovsky were still under copyright. Would we even know about them?
To bring it a little closer home here on APUG, no reason Ansel Adams's work should be locked up, or Diane Arbus, or Robert Mapplethorpe, or Herb Ritts, or Harry Callahan, or Ezra Stoller, or ___________.
Right off the top of my head: recordings by Elvis Presley, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Charlie Parker, Louis Armstrong, Ray Charles, and Miles Davis, just to name a few. Amazing innovators (dare I say geniuses?) in music, and they're all locked up until almost assuredly after I'll be worm food.
Imagine if Bach and Mozart and Beethoven and Wagner and Tchaikovsky were still under copyright. Would we even know about them?
To bring it a little closer home here on APUG, no reason Ansel Adams's work should be locked up, or Diane Arbus, or Robert Mapplethorpe, or Herb Ritts, or Harry Callahan, or Ezra Stoller, or ___________.
Will
So what your saying, is you want to be able to claim these greats life works for free and use them in the manner you deem fit?!!!
The intent of copyright is to give the author exclusive rights to exploit authored materials for a LIMITED time frame and then pass these works into the public domain for universal enrichment of the public. Don't care if anyone likes that concept or not, that's the law...
Well, I'm not sure that is the intent of copyright. Why should some things I make with my hands stop being mine faster than some others only becuase I used a pen and not a chisel on the second? The whole "materials for a limited time" thing just applies to the US, a tiny corner of the planet. The Constitution gives me the right to authorship and copyright protection before it gives me religious freedom and other such minor things. Just because yours is written from a different POV doesn't make it any more universal.
Really, the Berne convention leaves way too much playing space for members that have much different ideas about copyrihght like the US.
I don't remember when I went to school anything that I signed that said, I wished my work to slide into the public domain whether I am dead or alive, unless I have contracted with a company to do works for them, anything else I produce remains property of either myself or my estate, I could care less about the "public domain" if the public creates, then they own it, if I create it, I own it, if I create something tommorow that has broad appeal in 50 years, just as with any family, I fully expect my decendants to benefit from it, without having to worry if someone steals it from some website or other such digital capture means..if you disagree with the fact that the person creating the product has and continues to own the rights to it even after death, then by all means release your works to the public domain, but don't expect me to do the same, my photography is my work, just as Henry Fords cars were his work!
Dave
Ok this burns my butt..
If you want to live in a World where every possible image can be copyrighted forever, then deny anyone the right to photograph a mountain or bridge or river from the same vantage, or near same vantage point, forever, then you are welcome to it, but I certainly will fight you with arms if need be before I allow it to happen.
If the law were as draconian as you would have them be, then I could very easily make a case that almost all photographs you have ever taken in your entire life do infringe upon someone else's work and your works should be destroyed.
Who the heck ever asked you to sign an agreement that you liked any law? Somehow I don't think Copyright law was part of any school curriculum outside of law school and what the heck does that have to do with anything? You signed on the dotted line when you were born in to this country because it is a law and you are a citizen.
If that makes you mad, then you need to talk to your legislators, because they sold you out on the Sony Bony Copyright Extension Act; they gave corporations special privileges, but shortened personal rights when they had the ability and power to extend both; that should tell you what they think about your rights...
As it stands now, when your rights lapse, you don't have a legal leg to stand on, regardless of your opinion. People will be legally able to take your images, reproduce them and sell them. Your argument will get you about 2 inches inside a courtroom before the judge throws you out on your ear.
Sorry, its just the facts...
Now, if you want to incorporate, you COULD take advantage of the extensions afforded corporations, but that might be expensive in the long run.
Yeah, there are many laws I don't like, but willing them out of existence doesn't work. Also, you need to think through the implications of what you want; you might not like the results of what you wish.
Well, I'm not sure that is the intent of copyright. Why should some things I make with my hands stop being mine faster than some others only becuase I used a pen and not a chisel on the second? The whole "materials for a limited time" thing just applies to the US, a tiny corner of the planet. The Constitution gives me the right to authorship and copyright protection before it gives me religious freedom and other such minor things. Just because yours is written from a different POV doesn't make it any more universal.
Really, the Berne convention leaves way too much playing space for members that have much different ideas about copyrihght like the US.
True, when you discuss copyright on an open board like this, it invariably degenerates into chaos because the copyright laws are not uniform around the World.
I was speaking strictly of US Copyright laws and how they apply to US citizens; as such I cannot comment on other countries or how your rights vary in the US and really don't care to, because ours are so complex as to be insane anyway.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
I was speaking strictly of US Copyright laws and how they apply to US citizens; as such I cannot comment on other countries or how your rights vary in the US and really don't care to, because ours are so complex as to be insane anyway.
Essentialy, as far as US is party to Berne, it has to offer the same protections to work produced in / by persons from other Berne signatories as it offers to works by its own citizens. Unfortunately it is not banned from extending total rip-off clauses it applies on the works of its own citizens to those of others. At least as long as the results stay within the US.
Wow, how unnecessarily alarmist! While I support a creator's right to control his or her work, at least to a degree, the copyright laws in the US have gone so far away from their original intent, it's ridiculous. Works basically never go into public domain anymore - OK, it's lifetime of the creator plus 75 years, which might as well be infinite for purposes of something created today. I see this as a possibility for some of that ridiculousness to be reversed. Once copyright gets back to lifetime of the creator, we'll be getting somewhere.
Will
Will
Pretend for a moment you made your living with your camera. Your copyright is your ONLY lever. You, with respect, have no clue.
Right off the top of my head: recordings by Elvis Presley, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Charlie Parker, Louis Armstrong, Ray Charles, and Miles Davis, just to name a few. Amazing innovators (dare I say geniuses?) in music, and they're all locked up until almost assuredly after I'll be worm food.
Imagine if Bach and Mozart and Beethoven and Wagner and Tchaikovsky were still under copyright. Would we even know about them?
To bring it a little closer home here on APUG, no reason Ansel Adams's work should be locked up, or Diane Arbus, or Robert Mapplethorpe, or Herb Ritts, or Harry Callahan, or Ezra Stoller, or ___________.
Will
You seem to know about them, so I suppose copyrighting doesn't result in a lack of awareness, perhaps only rip off.
I think there's some major confusion of what copyright means going on here. If the works of Mozart or Beethoven were still under copyright to their heirs, those works would not have disappeared - just that 25 cents of every Beethoven CD sold would be going to the Beethoven family, and that if you wanted to re-record Beethoven's 9th, you'd have to pay the Beethoven family a licensing fee. So CDs would cost $15.25 instead of $15. Whoop-de-doo. And if you pissed off the Beethoven family, you wouldn't be able to re-record the 9th, no matter how much cash you tossed their direction.
Within Copyright law there exist several reasonable use clauses that allow for "infringements" otherwise excluded. You can, for editorial purposes, depict copyrighted material (such as the Coca Cola logo) even if it leads to an unflattering association. You can incorporate existing works into new works so long as you can demonstrate that the incorporation was a subordinate part of the new work, and not the substance of the new work, and that the purpose of the incorporation was to comment on or otherwise respond or react to the original work (Satire being a prime example).
If you want to live in a World where every possible image can be copyrighted forever, then deny anyone the right to photograph a mountain or bridge or river from the same vantage, or near same vantage point, forever, then you are welcome to it, but I certainly will fight you with arms if need be before I allow it to happen.
If the law were as draconian as you would have them be, then I could very easily make a case that almost all photographs you have ever taken in your entire life do infringe upon someone else's work and your works should be destroyed.
Who the heck ever asked you to sign an agreement that you liked any law? Somehow I don't think Copyright law was part of any school curriculum outside of law school and what the heck does that have to do with anything? You signed on the dotted line when you were born in to this country because it is a law and you are a citizen.
If that makes you mad, then you need to talk to your legislators, because they sold you out on the Sony Bony Copyright Extension Act; they gave corporations special privileges, but shortened personal rights when they had the ability and power to extend both; that should tell you what they think about your rights...
As it stands now, when your rights lapse, you don't have a legal leg to stand on, regardless of your opinion. People will be legally able to take your images, reproduce them and sell them. Your argument will get you about 2 inches inside a courtroom before the judge throws you out on your ear.
Sorry, its just the facts...
Now, if you want to incorporate, you COULD take advantage of the extensions afforded corporations, but that might be expensive in the long run.
Yeah, there are many laws I don't like, but willing them out of existence doesn't work. Also, you need to think through the implications of what you want; you might not like the results of what you wish.
OK, flame suit on...
Sorry your butt is burned Kino..
I was making a broad reaching statment as was another in this thread...
By the way, I do happen to be incorporated and have been for many years now, in fact in the photography business, I have three corporations.
We are not talking about locations being copyrighted, we are talking about the image I take being copyrighted, pretty easy, just cause Ansel took a picture of half dome, don't mean I can't take a picture at the same location...but it is still not the picture Ansel took, now is it...
If you don't like my expansive comment, then don't read it, now if it makes you feel better to direct your flames at me, then so be it
Have fun, get out and take pictures, and put your butt in a cooler place..
Linear Mode
