The Tyranny of Copyright
Join Free Art WorkShopJoin Premium Art Workshop

Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: The Tyranny of Copyright

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    14
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    The Tyranny of Copyright

    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/ma...COPYRIGHT.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.o...archterm=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

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    398
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 14 Times in 7 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Copyrights? Good.

    Copyrights lasting well up to a century past the death of the author? Bad.

    Copyrights right now are horribly convulted, to the point where a lot of property is held well past when it's supposed to be a part of the public domain.

    We wouldn't read Shakespeare in school if it was owned by somebody.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    UWS NYC
    Posts
    1,250
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    """"Unlike mortals, corporate media giants can "live" as long as they remain solvent and have assets to manage. The longer they can extend the copyrights they hold, the longer they can guarantee the company will thrive. Companies like Disney know they can exploit stories from the public domain indefinitely, as long as they can hire wage slaves (including artists) under work-for-hire contracts to convert those free properties to long-term Disney copyrights""""

    i remember hearing recently about the copyright battle to prolong the life of mickey from public domain--but i didnt know it had anything to do with possibly coming onto teh same time line as INternational copyright timelines. hmmmmm

    i thought the 70 years plus a persons lifetime made a good amount of sense though

    hard to see..the dark side is...

    MY SITE
    available for freelance
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    UWS NYC
    Posts
    1,250
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    nice informative post BTW kendubrowski

    MY SITE
    available for freelance
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #5
    Elwell's Avatar
    Elwell is offline Sticks Like Grim Death Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Hudson River valley, NY
    Posts
    16,212
    Thanks
    4,879
    Thanked 16,666 Times in 5,020 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Originally posted by lavhoes

    We wouldn't read Shakespeare in school if it was owned by somebody.
    Yeah, damn that copyright! It's really kept schools from using To Kill a Mockingbird, Catcher in the Rye, Death of a Salesman, Lord of the Flies, 1984, the Glass Menagerie, Fahrenheit 451...

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    the deep, dark, menacing jungles of Australia.
    Posts
    277
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    well it must be different over here - we've used all sorts of modernish novels in school - the grapes of wrath, holes, one flew over the cucoo's nest etc etc

    art is fun and addictive. like coffee. I like coffee too.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    14
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Yes that was a bad analogy but not unexpected.
    Not everyone sees this for what it is.
    The value that accrues to my work is no different than the
    value that accrues to my house. Or yours. When you die, would you like
    your house to be claimed by the state as a gift to the public?
    Meanwhile I hope my kids can someday read Harry Potter when it is out in the public
    past all these sticky copyright restrictions that prevent it from being read.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    the deep, dark, menacing jungles of Australia.
    Posts
    277
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    yeah they should certainly not abolish copyright completely, but they should definately not let those corporate scum keep it for a thousand years... :evilbat:

    art is fun and addictive. like coffee. I like coffee too.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    398
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 14 Times in 7 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Originally posted by Elwell


    Yeah, damn that copyright! It's really kept schools from using To Kill a Mockingbird, Catcher in the Rye, Death of a Salesman, Lord of the Flies, 1984, the Glass Menagerie, Fahrenheit 451...
    We all went over those novels, what, maybe once, twice through our school careers?

    I can't recall a year I haven't had to read a Shakespeare play.

    My point is that the ideas present in his works, either in the works themselves or in other areas, such as history, wouldn't be so widely available if a company still held the copyright. Copyright is a wonderful concept, but they're really pushing it with how long it lasts.

    I'm going to echo cattepillar here and say that abolishing copyrights is just about the worst thing you can do, only second to extending copyrights indefinitely.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    where d
    Posts
    433
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I just learned recently that the band DEVO got swindled back in 1978 via some draconian copyright shit, which fucked them over completely financially so that they effectively never saw a dime for their work. (Which went a long way to undermine their creative efforts, more or less.) Even to this day they only own half the rights to their songs, and have to record "new" versions of their old songs if they want to use them in television commercials.
    Worse yet, countless hours of their live shows that would have otherwise been released on tape were destroyed in similar copyright snafus, which is a shame since DEVO were huge pioneers in stage show performance art...essentially a massive chunk of highly influential music history was forever lost thanks to pinheaded suits and copyright bullshit.

    There's also some other stuff I became aware of just a few years ago regarding Sunny Bono's political career when he in a joint effort between Disney and the "church" of $cientology went about putting in place motherfucking draconian copyright laws to keep their shit from passing into public domain. The "church" of $cientology benefits from this because they can charge ridiculous fees for their phony "treatment" methods since no one else can legally disclose them and exclusively sell L. Ron Hubbard's dreck (and of course, being able to better sue the pants off people who spread information and criticism about the actual workings of the business cult of $cientology) while Disney gets to extend their ownership of all the movies (animated or otherwise) that should by all means have passed into public domain.

    Last edited by DanSTC; January 31st, 2004 at 08:43 PM.
    Art student
    ~Livin' large at Watts Atelier.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •