deird_lj: (Default)
[personal profile] deird_lj
Have I ever mentioned my opinions on copyright?

Well, I think it sucks.


Copyright in its original form was created about 300 years ago, as a way of promoting the progress of the arts by securing the exclusive rights of the creator for a limited time.*

(Note: a limited time. Not forever.)
(Also note: 300 years ago. This is not a law that's been around forever as an indisputable right.)

So basically, copyright was invented to give authors the ability to make money off creating something for a few years after they'd created it, so that more people would feel like creating even more stuff.

I don't actually have a problem with copyright in its original form. It's really quite a decent idea.
What I have a problem with, is Disney.

Disney got involved in US copyright laws just when the copyright on Mickey Mouse (and various other Disney creations) was about to expire. And they had the length of the copyright period extended.
And extended.
And extended.

...until now, when copyright basically seems to mean you'll have exclusive rights to everything that happens to your creations forever.

At least - that's what people seem to think. And a number of people in very powerful positions now seem to think that's exactly how things should be - and think that copyright is a natural moral right, rather than a law invented as a way to encourage writing books and creating things.

Which leads to ridiculous situations like the suspension of [livejournal.com profile] scans_daily.

[livejournal.com profile] scans_daily, for those who don't know, is was an LJ community where people would scan comic book panels into LJ entries, and discuss them.
(IT NEVER SCANNED FULL COMIC BOOKS, by the way.)
Some of the comics would be newish, some would be from decades ago, and some posts would be compilations of panels over several years so that the person posting could demonstrate changes in the comic over time.

A lot of the comics scanned were by Marvel or DC; a lot of them weren't. Obscure comic books that never would have found more than 10 readers were often discussed on [livejournal.com profile] scans_daily - and a lot of community members thereby discovered comic books they never would have thought of reading.

It increased comic book sales.
It kept people interested in comics that they were starting to lose enthusiasm for, it got people enthusiastic about comics they weren't planning on checking out before then, and it got people interested in comics when they'd always dismissed them as "kids stuff" before.

And then it got shut down.

Why is it that the world has forgotten the purpose of copyright laws - so much that someone can see a community discussing comics, completely miss the enthusiastic promotion of all things comic bookish, and shriek "COPYRIGHT VIOLATION! SUE! SUE! MY RIGHTS ARE IN DANGER!"?


It makes me want to scream and throw things.

It also makes me start to conclude that copyright law sucks, and should be destroyed as soon as possible.




*Yes, to create this sentence I did in fact copy a sentence from somewhere else, change a few words, and try to pretend I wrote it myself. Bonus points if you can tell me whose copyright I just violated.

Date: 2009-03-01 08:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] padawanspider.livejournal.com
I think that actors would get copyrights in the recording they acted in. Depending on their contract, they could receive a lump sum for their services (in which case the copyright is held solely by the recorder/publisher) or they could be paid royalties (in which case the copyright is retained by the actor and the recorder/publisher is licensed to reproduce the production). Similar to music recording artists and book authors.

Date: 2009-03-02 01:47 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/_sabik_/
Except that copyright arises when the work is "fixed" in a medium. With recording artists and book authors, that happens when the song hits the tape or the ink hits the page (or RAM in the computer).

With a theatre performance, the actor's work isn't fixed in a medium, so there's no copyright.

The audience member with the camcorder gets copyright, because they're fixing the work in a medium, and if they have a contract with the actor then that has to be obeyed; but that's more conditions than you'll find on the back of the usual theatre ticket — and it may well be breach of contract (of adhesion) rather than copyright infringement.


(Like I said, though, I don't know that much about copyright; enough to discuss it, not enough to give advice. For serious questions ask a serious professional...)

η

Profile

deird_lj: (Default)
deird_lj

October 2010

S M T W T F S
      12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 1st, 2025 06:58 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios