kendubrowski
January 29th, 2004, 06:59 PM
On Sunday, January 25, the New York Times Magazine published an article
entitled: The Tyranny of Copyright? by Robert S. Boynton: "A number of
influential lawyers, scholars and activists are increasingly concerned that
copyright law is curbing our freedoms and making it harder to create
anything new. This could be the first new social movement of the century."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/25COPYRIGHT.html
To summarize the issue, certain lawyers and legal scholars (The "Copy Left")
are trying to eliminate copyright as their gift (of our work) to the public.
We've addressed this issue before: See the IPA website: Topics/The Business
of Illusration: "Mothra Versus Rodan" http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00100
Thursday, the IPA and ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) sent the following letter to the
editor:
January 29, 2004
Editor
New York Times Magazine
229 West 43rd Street
New York, N.Y, 10036
To the Editor:
"The Tyranny of Copyright?" (Jan 25, 2004) suggests that "culture" is a
public "entitlement" endangered by copyright extensions, and it portrays
legal scholars and trial lawyers as visionaries who hope to restore the
"Jeffersonian" ideal of a "free society" by rolling back or ending the
protections now afforded creative work. But the case against copyrights is
academic. Creative work is produced by real people working in the real
world. Readers of this article should not confuse the length of copyright
enjoyed by corporations with the copyright protection granted to freelance
creators.
Corporations don't create. Individuals do. The longer a corporation can
extend copyrights produced by employees or obtained from freelancers, the
longer it will thrive and try to keep that work out of the public domain.
Here the lawyers may have a point. But freelance creators face a different
situation. We speak for many of them.
Most freelancers have no other source of income but their creative work.
The accumulated value of that work is no different than the value that
accrues to your home, and it no more robs the public of its "entitlement"
than does the ordinary ownership of private property. Indeed without the
incentives guaranteed to individual creators under copyright law, the
tradition of independence in the popular arts would be at risk - and with
it, the variety of independent viewpoints that freelancers bring to public
life. That would rob the public in a noticeable way.
For decades, freelance artists and photographers have given shape to the
content of popular culture. Within the last two decades their ability to
earn a living has come under assault: from publishers who demand they
surrender copyrights in return for assignments; from cutthroat competition
with discount "image providers," and now from legal "visionaries" who wish
to make copyright itself obsolete.
The case for abolishing copyright can be likened to a scheme for the
redistribution of income. In theory it sounds public-spirited. In reality
it deadens motivation. Protecting a creator's individual copyrights will
cost the public nothing, but it will insure the continued flow of creative
work from which the public will ultimately benefit.
Sincerely,
Brad Holland
Founding Board Member
The Illustrators' Partnership of America
Eugene H. Mopsik
Executive Director
American Society of Media Photographers
entitled: The Tyranny of Copyright? by Robert S. Boynton: "A number of
influential lawyers, scholars and activists are increasingly concerned that
copyright law is curbing our freedoms and making it harder to create
anything new. This could be the first new social movement of the century."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/25COPYRIGHT.html
To summarize the issue, certain lawyers and legal scholars (The "Copy Left")
are trying to eliminate copyright as their gift (of our work) to the public.
We've addressed this issue before: See the IPA website: Topics/The Business
of Illusration: "Mothra Versus Rodan" http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00100
Thursday, the IPA and ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) sent the following letter to the
editor:
January 29, 2004
Editor
New York Times Magazine
229 West 43rd Street
New York, N.Y, 10036
To the Editor:
"The Tyranny of Copyright?" (Jan 25, 2004) suggests that "culture" is a
public "entitlement" endangered by copyright extensions, and it portrays
legal scholars and trial lawyers as visionaries who hope to restore the
"Jeffersonian" ideal of a "free society" by rolling back or ending the
protections now afforded creative work. But the case against copyrights is
academic. Creative work is produced by real people working in the real
world. Readers of this article should not confuse the length of copyright
enjoyed by corporations with the copyright protection granted to freelance
creators.
Corporations don't create. Individuals do. The longer a corporation can
extend copyrights produced by employees or obtained from freelancers, the
longer it will thrive and try to keep that work out of the public domain.
Here the lawyers may have a point. But freelance creators face a different
situation. We speak for many of them.
Most freelancers have no other source of income but their creative work.
The accumulated value of that work is no different than the value that
accrues to your home, and it no more robs the public of its "entitlement"
than does the ordinary ownership of private property. Indeed without the
incentives guaranteed to individual creators under copyright law, the
tradition of independence in the popular arts would be at risk - and with
it, the variety of independent viewpoints that freelancers bring to public
life. That would rob the public in a noticeable way.
For decades, freelance artists and photographers have given shape to the
content of popular culture. Within the last two decades their ability to
earn a living has come under assault: from publishers who demand they
surrender copyrights in return for assignments; from cutthroat competition
with discount "image providers," and now from legal "visionaries" who wish
to make copyright itself obsolete.
The case for abolishing copyright can be likened to a scheme for the
redistribution of income. In theory it sounds public-spirited. In reality
it deadens motivation. Protecting a creator's individual copyrights will
cost the public nothing, but it will insure the continued flow of creative
work from which the public will ultimately benefit.
Sincerely,
Brad Holland
Founding Board Member
The Illustrators' Partnership of America
Eugene H. Mopsik
Executive Director
American Society of Media Photographers