Copyright laws - DPChallenge Forums

03/29/2005 06:42:37 PM · #51

Originally posted by mrmojo:

what makes older works more special than ours that they can be renewed? Is our work not as important. Maybe it all should be free to everyone..... Or maybe I just want the US to be the eutopia it tried to be when it was first created

We don't need ours renewed. Read the text.

03/29/2005 06:45:44 PM · #52

yes there is a need to. What if im more greedy than you and want my great great grandchildren to reep my benefits rather than just my great grandchildren

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

03/29/2005 07:08:04 PM · #53

Originally posted by mrmojo:

yes there is a need to. What if im more greedy than you and want my great great grandchildren to reep my benefits rather than just my great grandchildren

Wanting to leave something for my heirs makes me greedy? I suppose you would rid this country of all the nasty inheritance laws next. When someone dies, just give their stuff to the public. Or why wait till they die? Take it from them now.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

03/29/2005 07:08:14 PM · #54

I'll be honest...

I've lost ALL respect for copyright laws. Between RIAA (music industry) and wedding photographers.

I was the best man for a friend's wedding. They used one of the photographs taken by the wedding photographer for the invitations and printed it on home made CD's with music my friend wrote for his fiance.

The wedding photographer actually had the gumption to whisper to me, "technically that's illegal...as I own the rights to the photos..."

Excuse me?

Then at another friend's wedding the pictures were posted online. You had to download a program, without it the image had a big logo across it. The program prevented you from right-clicking and downloading the photo.

If you wanted to buy a print it was like $20-$40. WTF? I can make a print at Walmart for $2. In fact, being a web-developer I viewed the page source and found where the web images were and created a site that allowed everyone to view the images. I'm sorry, but to protect "web-quality" images is very cheap and in my opinion - just wrong.

To me, all of this is abuse of copyright....

The photographer's already got $2,000. The photos should be the property of the bride and groom. The photographer should receive an indefinite license for use to promote their business, etc.

I'm sorry... when you make $2,000 grand for an easy day's work and then you try to scalp a newlywed couple and their friends and family. No, I don't respect your copyrights. Why should I?

Same with music. Why should I respect the music industries copyrights? When a CD costs less than a $1 to manufacturer and distribute but you're forced to pay $10-$20. (And on top of that, the artists who actually MADE the album only got a quarter.) Please tell me why I should respect your copyrights?

Sorry...

03/29/2005 07:15:38 PM · #55

Originally posted by theSaj:

If you wanted to buy a print it was like $20-$40. WTF? I can make a print at Walmart for $2.

You do have the right to print the wedding pictures at Wal Mart for $2 if you please. Take them yourself next time. The fact is the bride and the groom knew or should have known the details of the contract they signed before they hired the photographer. Bitching about it after the fact is _____ (insert you own word or phrase here) They did not have to hire him after all.

gwphoto

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

03/29/2005 07:19:04 PM · #56

Originally posted by mrmojo:

yes there is a need to. What if im more greedy than you and want my great great grandchildren to reep my benefits rather than just my great grandchildren

Now you are for increasing the lenght of time for copyright laws. good for you. I think they sould go on for ever. I don't like eminit domain.

03/29/2005 07:40:28 PM · #57

im being sarcastic with that comment. and theSai is making alot of the same points I am trying to make. We need checks and balances in order for all of this to work and the only way we as a consumer can fight a corporation is with guerilla tactics. You dont fight the bull head on you poke him in the side repeatedly till he backs down.

Im not saying that future generations should not have the right to inheritance. I am making reference to mostly corporations that are holding these copyrights. I am asking why is it 70 years why is that the magical number.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

03/29/2005 08:01:42 PM · #58

Originally posted by mrmojo:

What number would you suggest? 20? 50? 100? I think the 70 year number was put in place so that if an author died the rights to the fruits of his labor would provide for his children for the remainder of their lives. I see nothing wrong with wanting to take care of your family. It is a natural inclination.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/29/2005 08:03:46 PM · #59

Originally posted by mrmojo:

I am asking why is it 70 years why is that the magical number.

Copyright is implemented for practical reasons (to encourage the creation of intellectual wealth) - the figure is plucked from the air (and is the subject of a lot of lobbying). There is no "magic" to it. The figure is different in different jurisdictions. The period is determined by the government as being a period that will create a fair balance between the artist's right to exploit the work and society's interest in using it for free. All subject to public interest and certain other exceptions, for fair use, news reporting, study, time shifting rights etc.

The only inherent rights are moral rights (under English law), which prevent a third party from wrongly attributing work, failing to attribute, altering then attributing as unaltered etc.

There are also a lot of different types of copyright - it is easy to get confused between them. They are all created for practical reasons (no magic to the distinctions), so that the rules relating to copyright in text, movies, a painting, a photograph, in architecture, in 3d objects, the layout of a page, patents, design rights, etc etc etc are different. These are all manipulated by the ruling bodies, by caselaw, by consumers and many more and are being twisted to fit a thousand competing interests.

Whether copyright ought to be reformed, to permit easier sharing of intellectual property and so on (eg music, films) will depend on how those competing interests interrelate. The consumers' views, and the creators' views, are one part of that matrix. However, the ability to move intellectual property to powerful corporations and individuals will be a very strong influence (in particular when compared to the poorly represented consumer or small time photographer. The legal issues are rarely sufficiently simple and contentious that the populace at large can be whipped into any kind of interested state about them, so it is unlikely to be the consumer whose interests determine the next round of changes.

I also note that the US is far more influenced by the mega corporations than European politicians - the extension of copyright law time limits was a pretty obvious protectionist move for a relatively small number of mega-corps. Those same mega-corps have similar interests in Europe, but have not managed a similar extension here.

The release of valuable intellectual property into the public domain was always intended to happen, and for the first time, some valuable IP is about to get a lot cheaper! We already have the Gutenburg project providing a valuable service for text based ex-copyright material. Expect secondary copies of the Beatles back catalogue and the oldest Disney movies to be legally reproduced in the near future... popular modern culture is going to see a flood in certain media channels of ex-copyrighted audio visual material.

03/29/2005 08:07:17 PM · #60

Your not seeing my point just as ill never see yours because I believe in freedom of information like alot of digital babies do, and you believe in property rights, strangely enough like alot of baby boomers. I guess free love isnt the same as free art..... Or maybe Churchill was right, born liberal die conservative. Explains the power of the AARP.

03/29/2005 08:09:30 PM · #61

thats funny, who can afford lobbyists to push laws, not us common folk, but the conservative fatcats sitting in corporate chairs.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/29/2005 08:16:56 PM · #62

the problem is that due to the capability of re-copyrighting companies that have the financial backing (Disney) are fighting to keep their creations, but due to the fact it is a corporation their is no inheritance, only new stock holders.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/29/2005 09:37:15 PM · #63

Originally posted by mrmojo:

If your job is to sell hamburgers, do you think people should just walk in and eat one, and leave without paying? If your job is driving a cab, do you think it right that people stiff you for the fare? If your job is taking photos or composing/playing music, why should people be able to take it and distribute it for free?

You actually have a significant advantage with intellectual property -- after some number of years, you ARE in fact allowed to use it freely. No matter how long that hamburger sits on the counter, it will never be your right to eat it without paying, although the "fair use" doctrine would probably allow you to take a picture of it : )

03/29/2005 09:46:41 PM · #64

Originally posted by mrmojo:

Your not seeing my point just as ill never see yours

You will see things the same way most artists and authors do if you ever find yourself in the not so unique position of having created something of great worth.

Most people who claim adherence to the "freedom of information" movement own nothing of value that would be protected by copyright and thus have nothing to lose.

jeweliek

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

03/29/2005 09:47:09 PM · #65

mrmojo,
do you make money off of your images? Do you sell the images that you produce. I am relatively young, in the digital baby group, but I still see the logic in this.
If I print a set of proofs to show my client in order to make money off of the sitting, and they scan and make prints of their own and do not buy any from me I only made the small sitting fee that I charge and nothing else. The print is of a low quality and when asked the customer gladly says that I was the photographer (happy with the less than good quality print that they made). I now not only have made no money (or very little off of the sitting) but have more customers that I have lost due to the fact of the low quality prints that were shown as an example of my work!
How is that fair?
Jewelie

03/29/2005 09:50:51 PM · #66

Originally posted by mrmojo:

conservative fatcats sitting in corporate chairs.

And who would benifit more if copyright were abolished? What chance would the individual have of making a living from his or her creativity if any corporation could take the fruits of that creative process and market them freely and without compensation?

Message edited by author 2005-03-29 21:52:33.

Prof_Fate

03/30/2005 12:16:49 AM · #67

Originally posted by theSaj:

I'll be honest...

I've lost ALL respect for copyright laws. Between RIAA (music industry) and wedding photographers. Please tell me why I should respect your copyrights?

Sorry...

Copyright laws protect the creator's creations. Be it for making you money (as you accuse the wedding photog for trying to do) or for protecting the use of that image - or the quality of the reproduction.

How is this?

They are both yours - but without copyright laws i can make money from the first and tell everyone you are soooo good, look at this second shot - saj took it. Now who will hire you to shoot their wedding if this is your work??

Do you get it yet? Or is it only a 'problem' when you are the victim?

gwphoto

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

03/30/2005 12:35:20 AM · #68

Originally posted by jeweliek:

You are wise beyond your years. Maybe there is hope for your generation.. Keep on track, you are donig jsut fine..

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

03/30/2005 02:26:49 AM · #69

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

If you represent either as the original work of the photographer then we're back to a slander/libel case long before we start considering copyright.

As for giving everything away. I have yet to see anybody on this site who is selling on Shutterstock and the like claim to have made as much from stock as my "free" work. And I'm not even trying to sell it!

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/30/2005 05:58:37 AM · #70

Originally posted by bod:

Not sure that it would be libel or slander. Depending on the facts (eg the motivation of the person distributing the poor copies), I think that (certainly under English law) you would first rely on copyright law to find a suitable remedy.

Just because some people do not make a lot of money from their creations does not mean that third parties should be allowed free reign over those same creations. I would not expect an advertising agency to start using my pictures (full stop?), without my consent, without paying me a fee of some kind. I would not expect the local poster shop to sell copies of my pictures without me receiving something for my efforts! I would like a degree of control over how my pictures are used to ensure a level of integrity.

At the same time, I recognise that it will not hurt me if my picture features in a "fair use" category, such as someone's academic project. I also recognise that if I release a picture into the public domain, after a time it will be effectively bequeathed to society. However, I should be allowed some time to make my money before that happens.

I admit that this can be confused in the digital age and the ease with which media can be copied. Maybe the time limits need to be revised downwards.

Nothing stops a photographer from releasing a picture unconditionally - giving a licence for others to use it freely (as bod appears to claim to do with financial success), if they choose to do so. I believe that, as is the case, it is right that a creator of intellectual wealth ought to have a mechanism to protect that wealth if he or she chooses to rely upon it.

03/30/2005 06:34:40 AM · #71

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Okay. I was just thinking that if somebody did that to me my first reaction would be to call them a lying b****** rather than a thieving b****** : )

Of course the irony in Prof_Fate's post is that he has taken theSaj's work and done to it exactly what he is so strongly arguing against and is saying is illegal. Oops.

03/30/2005 06:44:52 AM · #72

Originally posted by bod:

Of course the irony in Prof_Fate's post is that he has taken theSaj's work and done to it exactly what he is so strongly arguing against and is saying is illegal. Oops.

Originally posted by theSaj:

I'll be honest...

Please tell me why I should respect your copyrights?

It must be a double irony, because that is exactly the kind behavior theSaj was advocating.

03/30/2005 06:55:16 AM · #73

Originally posted by nsbca7:

It must be a double irony, because that is exactly the kind behavior theSaj was advocating.

Does that make it right? Or does copyright only apply to those who agree with it now?

03/30/2005 07:05:34 AM · #74

Originally posted by bod:

Originally posted by nsbca7:
It must be a double irony, because that is exactly the kind behavior theSaj was advocating.

Does that make it right? Or does copyright only apply to those who agree with it now?

In this case? Yes. It wasn't being used for any other purpose then to give an example of what none of us would want done to our work. When someone tells me he has no respect for my work, he is in essence telling me he has no respect for me, and with that any obligation I might have felt to defend his rights have quickly dissipated.