This reminds me of a ruling, case in Europe regarding the auctioning off of master artists the likes of Picasso, Van Gogh, etc and the millions of dollars that pass hands every time one of these works is auctioned off, and what percentage actually goes to the heirs of the artist and how long after the death of the artist are the heirs entitle to royalties. I do not know exactly what the laws or rulings are, but just think of the potential amounts of money involved and who stands to gain and loose. Essentially, people buy art primarily for an investment, to make money. Why then should not the heirs of the artist profit?
This case is also similar in intent and the attitude of greed, oppression and corruption that the eminent domain ruling has on private property. Essentially, a work produced is essentially the private property of the artist and the heirs of the artist. So then anyone can claim squatters rights on any piece of art, intellectual property?
What does that say then about the pirating of intellectual property over in the Middle East and Asia? Would this ruling then allow them to claim rights to what they just happen to find where ever they can find it?
What then happens to those who make their living from creating and selling works? What is to keep potential buyers from scouring sources for unclaimed works instead of paying fees and royalties to those puting food on the tables for their families?
If you happen to come across the book "Atlas Shrugged" by Ann Rand, read it. Maybe all the artists of the world should go on strike!
__________________
Time & tides wait for no one, especially photographers.
I liken the expiration of copyright at "death of artist" or after a "period of time" to theft of an asset.
If a person who is NOT an artist works and saves and passes along wealth in the more traditional forms of property and cash to their heirs, nobody comes along and says after "X" years that that they have to share that inheritance with the public, even if that wealth has been shares in a publicly traded company.
So, why should a photographer or artist not be able to leave their assets, this time in the form of "ownership of images created by the artist" to their families?
Assets are assets are assets and they should be owned and protected for their owners equally, regardless of the type of asset.
I think an interesting way to view the public domain issue is through the eyes of the disney corporation. Old Walt created his first cartoon called steamboat Willie which was a rip off of Buster Keaton's Steamboat Bill. There next theft of copyright was from a group of stories by the Brothers Grimm. Disney made his company by taking things which where public domain and creating something more from them. Now in 2006 decades after Walts death his creations are unavailable to today's youth who are trying to do exactly what he did almost a century ago. That is the problem with "eternal copyrights" they remove a source of inspiration and material from aspiring young artist who may have been the next Walt Disney if the Disney corporation had not sued them into oblivion. I have issues with the current life +(what 50 or 75) but I am willing to accept artist want there family to benefit from their work. I think 75 years is long enough though. At some point the copyright stops encouraging creativity and starts inhibiting it. Another good example of this is the current musical art of "Mixing" that is gaining ground. People take pieces of two, three, or more songs and create something uniuque and interesting by mixing them together. Why should thier art be inhibited by a dead man's copyright.
I think an interesting way to view the public domain issue is through the eyes of the disney corporation. Old Walt created his first cartoon called steamboat Willie which was a rip off of Buster Keaton's Steamboat Bill. There next theft of copyright was from a group of stories by the Brothers Grimm. Disney made his company by taking things which where public domain and creating something more from them. Now in 2006 decades after Walts death his creations are unavailable to today's youth who are trying to do exactly what he did almost a century ago. That is the problem with "eternal copyrights" they remove a source of inspiration and material from aspiring young artist who may have been the next Walt Disney if the Disney corporation had not sued them into oblivion. I have issues with the current life +(what 50 or 75) but I am willing to accept artist want there family to benefit from their work. I think 75 years is long enough though. At some point the copyright stops encouraging creativity and starts inhibiting it. Another good example of this is the current musical art of "Mixing" that is gaining ground. People take pieces of two, three, or more songs and create something uniuque and interesting by mixing them together. Why should thier art be inhibited by a dead man's copyright.
If Walt Disney hadn't stolen the idea from Buster Keaton, or hadn't been allowed to steal an already existing idea, he would have been forced to create a new and more innovative character. In that case we'd have both Keaton's "Steamboat Bill" and something completely new from Disney. Instead Keaton's original idea was buried by Disney's superior marketing skills and all we got was a rehash of someone else's work and Keaton got screwed. So if anything the ability to steal someone else's intellectual property does not necessarily advance society.
If artists, musicians, film makers, writers, software developers, etc. are not guaranteed that they will be able to profit, or have a chance to profit from their creations you are going to put a real damper on those who have chosen to devote themselves full time to those pursuits. People who create inteelctual property full time need to be able to pay their bills just like anyone else.
I derive my income from the sales of my original prints, and from the licensing of reproductions of my work. If my copyrights expire when I do, how does my wife continue to have an income from the licensing of my images? If I owned a convenience store that I worked with my wife, upon my death she'd still have a functional business ( although all the joy from her life would go with me ) to be able to support herself with. Whereas if they were to change the copyright laws to expire upon my death, even if my wife were as much a contributor and partner in my business she'd be left with nothing.
I think that the people who comment about changing the copyright laws so that copyright dies with the artist have never made their living as an artist. They seem to have no idea that someone's art can actually have significant financial value.
..... Why should thier art be inhibited by a dead man's copyright.
True enough, and something which has been "abandoned" should be put into the public domain, but protecting the work of individuals where they have elected to leave their works as part of their estate (the same as if I left you shares of Google in my will) is also important. As I said before, the art that was created was one persons asset.
If a person wants to use someone elses work, and that work has not been given up or abandoned by the creator of said work or their heirs, then why should it be considered to be public property and why should the desirous user not be required to pay for the use?
I can see where using something which is essentially "abandoned" should be ok, but instead of putting the onus on the previous owner to prove it's theirs, why can't the onus be put on the "acquirer" or "new user" to follow a legal process which indicates that a copyright has been abandoned - similar to declaring a person dead when they cannot otherwise be proven to be dead?
This is a slippery slope to be on the edge of ..... maybe things like oil wells, where someone got there first and claimed them should also have a definite copyright life and after "suitable profit" has been taken or made by the original finder, then they should be nationalised for public benefit ????
Oil - paintings - photographs ..... any difference ????
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
Oil - paintings - photographs ..... any difference ????
There's quite a substantial difference. Check out the distinction between rivalrous and nonrivalrous property. The second is a legal fiction to induce publication by granting to the creator or his assigns a temporary monopoly over use (patent) or duplication (copyright). If you mean a photograph as a tangible object, I'd agree that just because I die shouldn't mean that the physical contents of my portfolio should be given away, but for nonrivalrous property, our framers struck a balance between the individual creator and the public interest. You might want to look at some of Lawrence Lessig's writing on this matter. Unless we truly want the instruments of public discourse to be owned by Time-Warner, Disney, and Microsoft, a little more nuanced notion of intellectual property might be in order. The alternative tends towards fascism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Constitution Article I, Section 8
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
If I owned a convenience store that I worked with my wife, upon my death she'd still have a functional business ( although all the joy from her life would go with me ) to be able to support herself with. Whereas if they were to change the copyright laws to expire upon my death, even if my wife were as much a contributor and partner in my business she'd be left with nothing.
I think that the people who comment about changing the copyright laws so that copyright dies with the artist have never made their living as an artist. They seem to have no idea that someone's art can actually have significant financial value.
Under current copyright law your wife would have the right to your work for atleast 50 years after your death. I said nothing about changing the current laws. My only comment was that over the last hundred years we have continualy upped the number of years a copyright is held and eventualy we will cross the threashold between artist right and public interest. As the poster after you said there is a balance. The sole purpose of copyright is to encurage creativity by protecting your invested time and money. The constitution also takes into account though, that at some point you must balance public domain with copyright. The problem with your view on the disney question is not the material disney used but his ability to launch an new genera of media. If not for Disney and his infrengment we may not have seen the rise of popular cartoons in the maner we did, in turn we may not have seen CGI in movies in the way we have. Hell we may not have even seen a continuation of the movie industrie(I know just obsurde speculation to prove a point). There is no way to know, but his contribution to media and culture far surpase where his material was obtained from or weather it was a rehash of eairlier ideas.
Bumping this very old thread, as there seems to have been some news on this bill. I'm not clear on all the legalese, and maybe some of the legal types here can comment, but it seems that at this time PPA and ASMP are supporting this bill. APA is not.
I would appreciate any further thoughts or comments on this bill... it just seems the baby is being thrown out with the bath water, but I could be wrong.
I just thinking what would be with photography at all if copyright laws as we have them were on photographic processes and techniques. Thank to Whomever/Whatever for French government for buying rights from Niepce and Daguerre and to give them to public. Imagine if heirs of Niepce and Daguerre still have copyright on photographic processes like developing light sensitive materials and fixing image which was created with that development...
While copyright is great when you earn money, it is danger to, let say "public interest"
But, hey, everything is about money and when big image agencies or music/movies companies want to earn even more, well...
__________________
Bosnia... You don't have to be crazy to live here, but it helps...
) to be able to support herself with. Whereas if they were to change the copyright laws to expire upon my death, even if my wife were as much a contributor and partner in my business she'd be left with nothing.
Linear Mode
