Copyright laws - DPChallenge Forums

03/30/2005 05:44:53 PM · #101

One side would say you're free to quote them. The other side might give you permission, but technically...you might need to get a disclosure agreement and have it signed by a lawyer just to be safe.

;)

(I mean, their views ARE their intellectual property...God forbid anyone else might actually have the same opinion. Well, guess we should all license our opinions from the first person who had such an opinion. But really, all humor aside....just WHERE do we draw the line? and why? This is the answer so few on the other side of me seem to be able to give me. If you're going to make an act criminal make it for all and make it black and white.)

03/30/2005 06:57:52 PM · #102

Originally posted by theSaj:

Or keep silent...

So you don't believe in copyright protection but you are in favor of censorship.

03/30/2005 07:00:17 PM · #103

Originally posted by theSaj:

If your job is to sell hamburgers, do you think people should just walk in and eat one, and leave without paying?
[[[No, but I don't believe every frickin hamburger joint should have to pay a fee to McDonald's for the hamburger's they are making.

Hamburgers can't be copyrighted.

03/30/2005 07:01:58 PM · #104

Originally posted by theSaj:

That's like having to pay the "Oil Changing Association of America" everytime you get your oil change, even if you do it yourself.

You can't copyright an oil change.

03/30/2005 07:07:20 PM · #105

Originally posted by theSaj:

"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?"
[[[Simple, they have a limited period (example a decade) to profit.]]]

What if I don't feel like giving you or some corporation the profits from my labors after a decade? What if I don't use them myself until 20 years after I have created them? What if I go blind when I'm 60 and cannot create any more but I live to be 90? Are you going to feed me and pay my bills? Pay for my grandchildren's education? I didn't think so.

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

03/30/2005 07:12:24 PM · #106

Originally posted by theSaj:

Realize, under current copyright/patent law and the trends that follow of making them indefinite. We'd not have Shakespeare, The Bible, the Wheel, etc.
]]]

You can't copyright a wheel. Current copyright laws are not indefinite.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/30/2005 07:13:09 PM · #107

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by theSaj:
That's like having to pay the "Oil Changing Association of America" everytime you get your oil change, even if you do it yourself.

You can't copyright an oil change.

Right, procedures like that come under the purview of Patent and Trademark law, which is even more complex and arcane (and expensive) than copyright law.

03/30/2005 07:34:11 PM · #108

Originally posted by theSaj:

"
2) But for a photographer being paid direct, he receives too much because his job is easy and he shouldn't be entitled to charge so much AND retain his rights to his product.
[[[Actually, I believe that the photographer is acting as a work-for-hire and thus those photos should belong to the hirer. Otherwise, they took their photos for themself and deserve no pay. Either a) charge for the photos as your own property or b) charge a fee for work-for-hire. Not both...]]]

You have the right to believe anything you please, but unless the photographer and the client agree that a job is work for hire or it comes under the legal guidelines as such your belief will be quite erroneous. The photographer has the right to charge what ever he or she feels is satisfactory and by the same token the client has the right to hire someone else or not hire anyone at all. It is called free market.

How is the work of a good photographer worth less then that of a doctor? These are both skilled professions. You talk like all a wedding photographer has to do is show up, take a few pictures and bingo! $4,000.

What about the years of learning and education that had to precede the shooting of this wedding? What about the $40,000 worth of equipment this photographer has to bring around flying cake, popping champagne bottles and stumbling drunks? What about the overhead of the studio the photographer has to maintain to stay in business? What about the time spent in the darkroom for the next couple of days after the wedding? What about the cost of film, albums, chemicals, computers, photo paper, ectâ�¦. ?

I donâ��t think this was well thought out on your part.

03/30/2005 07:38:36 PM · #109

Originally posted by theSaj:

Another argument, you say that your works should be protected. An author says the words he rights should be protected. How come anyone can quote what I say? If I say "Oh, I wish it were a wednesday and then I could have apples." So if the newspaper quoted me...shouldn't I be able license that quote. I mean why not? Why should words be protected if printed but not spoken? Why differentiate? I mean celebrities would love such an interpretation. If they said something stupid the newspaper couldn't print it without licensing it. And all they'd have to do is refuse to license it.

Quoting a sentence or paragraph as long as it is credited to the author is not covered by copyright law. There is no such interpretaion because it is clearly written out. Try reading US copyright law. Perhaps you would understand it better.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/30/2005 07:47:00 PM · #110

Originally posted by theSaj:

See you assume I am hyprocritical.... I'm not. I have probably thought more and written more on this than most people. I know where I stand, why I stand.

because some guy own a copyright to online auctions. Not a design, patent, etc...but all online auctions. That should not be patentable.

I have no idea how much you have thought or written on this subject, but as it is clear you are confusing the lines between patents and copyrights which are two entirely different things, perhaps you should devote a little more of your time to reading a bit about the subject first.

Natator

Canon EOS-5D

03/30/2005 07:54:56 PM · #111

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Next question is - how much has to be changed for it to be a 'new work'? Technically speaking, i could transform and hue shift a pic and EVERY pixel will be different - so then it is a different work, or is it?

I went to an evening seminar 2 weeks ago on copyright for photographers. Informal, but covered some good ground.

Apparently, although it is seldom used, ANY alteration to the image infringes on copyright. Change colour hues, even change the crop, and you have altered the "artists" version, and potentially changed it in a way he/she would not want. Ok, can see that there ... but .....

If you are given permission by a photographer to use their photos on your website you are not even meant to RESIZE them without permission ... as again, it alters the image. Obviously people are very seldom going to make an issue over that one but apparently an awful lot of commercial web sites run a risk there if someone had a major issue. For instance, if DPC resizes any photos they infringe copyright, although it can be got round if they state they might do so in their terms and conditions that the photographer agrees to.

Some of the copyright law is great, some is just plain ridiculous.

The Australian laws are different to the US, and unfortunately, and very unusually, in some casses stricter. In the US, if you take and publish a photo, for profit, of someone and there happens to be a building in the background then nobody cares, as there is something called "fair use" (I believe it was). In Australia there is no such fair use clause .... technically you need the written permission of the architect ... huh!!!! Yup, apparently so, although luckly nobody actually gives a damn .... but in theory, a photo of a model with a city scape in the background, you need permission for EVERY building that can be recognised ... and that is just BS.

Same idea ... photo of a model and you have a concrete garden ornament she is standing by. Someone has designed that, even though it is now created by the 1000 from a mould. You technically need permission to use it in a commercial photo. Who designed it????? Would you realistically ever be able to find out? No, not a hope.

Luckily, most of this gets simply ignored. We were basically told to just be aware of it .... but if you ever get that cover shot for Time watch out ;)

Message edited by author 2005-03-30 19:57:24.

03/30/2005 08:12:57 PM · #112

Thanks for your comments Saj - interesting points you make. Don't agree with them all however... good fun chewing the cud, as they say.

My main issue is that a "free for all" where intellectual property is not properly regulated would be severely detrimental to a lot of people - the owners and investors in that copyright. Hey, you might not agree with it, but all kinds of intellectual property is hugley expensive and/or time consuming to create. For an extreme example (with apologies for bringing a new example to the mix), think of some of the latest drugs. Billions to develop. Years of investment. Whole market sectors supporting the economy. Unless the drug comanies can exploit their IP, no more advanced drugs (though I don't want to get into the side issue of ethics and whether drugs should be made available to all in this example (that is an issue predominantly of state funding, not IP protection)). When the IP rights expire (eg on paracetemol in the UK), everyone will make it, and it is dirt cheap. Everyone can then benefit from the costly development of the new product. It is merely a policy decision on how soon or late that expiry should be.

Same with some types of music - a whole industry devoted to bringing it into existence. The music companies are currently very concerned about their ability to make a profit due to piracy concerns. So - if the trend cannot be reversed, fewer or no more big labels. "Great" you might say, let's rely on people continuing to record music and we can get it free, and the best will float to the top of the pile. Yes -some people will make music, but I bet the top of the pile in current free music slush pile are hopefuls looking for one of the big labels to sign them up so that they can become professionals, or amateurs like the members of this forum. Would work - but would it be better to have very few professional bands? (Looking at the charts - maybe!) But I think not. While there will always be talented amateurs, there is a whole industry that needs a lot of money for the latest recording studios etc etc. Same for photography: the money must be invested by the consumers in order to pay for the equipment to be constantly renewed and improved. Just think - no copyright on photos, photography would always have been an amateur sport, no "high" art (because everyone can have a copy of whatever) no riches, no big camera companies (because too few people with money buy cameras) - no digital photography devlopment and no DPC. Hasn't happened because it is inconceivable that this important media should not be protected, permitting the growth of a professional class and supporting market. Looking forwards, by taking away the grass roots investment, you would prejudice the future growth of the business and the market (no holographic Point and Shoot cameras after all ).

Cannot argue costs with you - too many variables to make a sensible guess as to where costs lie. However, I don't see the record companies making as much as, say, the banks - can't be that exploitative. Definitely don't see the middleman record stores competing with the Blue Chip stocks. If it was a 90% pure profit mark up, there would be some impressive annual acounts being filed and some big questions on why no-one was selling at 10% profit and making a killing on volume. Same with photographers - don't see wedding photography in there as one of the highest paid professions.

If you want the McD logo, recipe (which can be a valuable bit of intellectual property - one recipe has made Coke billions) and benefit from its advertising - then yes you do have to pay McDs. They create it, you choose to buy into their business model. If you don't want to pay, open an independent restaurant (and maybe you'll be the next big thing - can't be that hard to make food taste of something!).

You seem to agree that it should be possible for a photographer to hold onto copyright even when hired, but you disagree with him doing so. It is a policy decision that the photographer retaining copyright is the default position - but anyone can negotiate to buy the copyright when they hire the photographer if they want to. There will be a difference in price relfecting the change in revenue structure. Are you advocating that we should be obliged to take the copyright in the images of a photographer we hire? Maybe that would mean we would have to pay more unless we can bargain with the photographer that we will not take that right. This would be a change - not hugely dramatic, maybe, but I can't see much improvement in the position. Would make the photographer's life difficult if he cannot delete a single image taken when hired (it would not be his to delete), and if he cannot control use of the picture. Attribution rights and rights to maintain the integrity of your work (ie no insertions omissions, wrongful attribution) are a corollary to copyright rights. Slander would rarely provide a remedy in the same way that copyright regularly does (unless it is totally different in the US from the UK position). Prof Fate's examples are examples where you have some rights to insist on proper attribution and to the integrity of your images. But where does he slander you? Nowhere! And you suffer no financial loss. So your only real remedy is in copyright.

Can't agree more that DRM and proprietary formats are a nightmare. For that reason I boycott Sony and the dreaded one-make Mem Sticks (I understand that their position has lost them a lot of custom in the last few years). Needs to be sorted out. But it is a commercial matter: you cannot say to people "you are not allowed to use a proprietary format, but must use one of these three state-approved formats". That would really stifle innovation (and be unworkable)!! You may have noticed that we increasingly see products with multi-format capability (eg recordable cd and dvd drives, mp3 players that play mp3, ogg and wmf). That is the technology being moulded by market forces. No need to change the law there.

Lots of rules on fair use - as I said before, that means it is not easy to debate. But your example of a comment being reported in the press: there are laws on freedom of speech and reporting. There are fair use principles that allow for press reporting. But these are all balanced (as they must be) against the right to protect IP: you can report a "reasonable" amount, but could not (for example) have someone read out a book and then quote the whole book in a newspaper. The flexibility of terms such as "reasonableness" should not be overlooked: means that the legal system can look at each case in turn and determine them appropriately in accordance with the individual facts.

The extent to which IP can be patented is a hotly debated topic - not one that I intend to consider here for reasons of tiredness...!

I agree that we should fix the system - but by the system, I mean the delivery methods, DRM, making it easier to prevent or take action to stop piracy. I don't think that we need to change the law just because some people are breaking it. I think that we have gotten used to getting something for free that we have traditionally paid for. We might have to break that habit (or at least face the consequences).

Also remember the practice - in practice, many rights are not enforced unless there is a need for them to be enforced. The non-commercial internet works pretty much on that basis.

Neither the internet nor the legal system have collapsed so far. Some creators of IP (eg games companies) have collapsed, and there is a risk that more will collapse in various sectors. There is a strong argument, therefore, that we should change the law only to improve the protection for the content creators and help them make more profit. The argument that society should suddenly be entitled to free IP, just because there is a new easy delivery method, is fundamentally flawed. That the free delivery method can work profitably should be a commercial factor. People and companies that choose to adopt that model have the ability to make that commercial judgment call. It is not for the legislature to make that commercial judgment for all people and companies operating within their jurisdiction.

Finally, if you still think that the law needs to be changed, I would love to see a full description of that alternative system!

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

03/30/2005 08:19:48 PM · #113

Originally posted by Natator:

In the US, if you take and publish a photo, for profit, of someone and there happens to be a building in the background then nobody cares, as there is something called "fair use" (I believe it was). In Australia there is no such fair use clause .... technically you need the written permission of the architect ... huh!!!! Yup, apparently so, although luckly nobody actually gives a damn .... but in theory, a photo of a model with a city scape in the background, you need permission for EVERY building that can be recognised ... and that is just BS.

Same idea ... photo of a model and you have a concrete garden ornament she is standing by. Someone has designed that, even though it is now created by the 1000 from a mould. You technically need permission to use it in a commercial photo. Who designed it????? Would you realistically ever be able to find out? No, not a hope.

Luckily, most of this gets simply ignored. We were basically told to just be aware of it .... but if you ever get that cover shot for Time watch out ;)

Interesting - architecture is deliberately and specifically carved out of UK copyright protection for these reasons. Not sure about photographs of objects subject to design rights. But in most cases - is there any financial "loss" to the architect or designer? Almost certainly no. Is there a profit made out of that protected work without permission? Becomes less certain, I suppose.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/30/2005 08:51:44 PM · #114

I believe in the US buildings came under copyright protection in 1986 or so. However, there is a difference whether the building is an incidental background element or the subject of the photo. For example, I think the new Disney Performing Arts Center reserves the right to sell their own souvenir photos of the building, but you can shoot a model posing with the skyline off in the distance.

Natator

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/30/2005 08:54:54 PM · #115

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I agree with you entirely there.

Apparently it is there mostly as nobody has got around to changing the laws to make them more realistic.

Although the architecture thing does exist legally, I have never heard it ever being used, and certainly would not prevent me using a photo as I think the chance of it ever being used against you is so ridiculously small it can be ignored. Even if someone did notice their building in some award winning photo, they are not going to be able to do much other than grab a piece of the money you make, and to be honest, if I ever made enough money to be noticed like that then I'd not care *laugh*

It really is a very stupid law though, as no way can anyone realistically get permission to use every building that can be recognised in a city scape ... in most cases even if you asked, nobody would know what to do, and thus many would decline as it is safer for them to do so if unsure.

joebok

Fujifilm X100F

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED

03/30/2005 08:57:17 PM · #116

Originally posted by nsbca7:

...Current copyright laws are not indefinite.

This is my main beef with copyright. Technically, yes, they will expire - allowing material to go back to the public domain. In practice, nothing has fallen back into the public domain since 1929. Lawrence Lessig made this arguement before the Supreme Court in recent years, saying that in practice there were no limits and that therefore congress's power to extend copyrights should be limited. Court sided with nsbca7 on that one.

No debate about copyright is complete, however, without the quote from Thomas Jefferson:

Originally posted by Thomas Jefferson:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.

(Full context here.

I think this applies to patents as well as copyright.

These mechanisms of intellectual property are designed to grant a limited monopoly (limited by "fair use" and expiration) to encourage invention and enterprise, but one of the limits must be temporal so that the monopoly ends and the ideas fall back into the public domain - which is essentially responsible for the inspiration of the idea/property in the first place. That is the spirit of copyright, and it is broken.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED

03/30/2005 09:21:40 PM · #117

Originally posted by joebok:

These mechanisms of intellectual property are designed to grant a limited monopoly (limited by "fair use" and expiration) to encourage invention and enterprise, but one of the limits must be temporal so that the monopoly ends and the ideas fall back into the public domain - which is essentially responsible for the inspiration of the idea/property in the first place. That is the spirit of copyright, and it is broken.

I think you are fundamentally mistaken. US copyright law specifically states that ideas cannot be copyrighted.

Message edited by author 2005-03-30 21:22:11.

joebok

Fujifilm X100F

03/30/2005 11:55:42 PM · #118

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by joebok:
These mechanisms of intellectual property are designed to grant a limited monopoly (limited by "fair use" and expiration) to encourage invention and enterprise, but one of the limits must be temporal so that the monopoly ends and the ideas fall back into the public domain - which is essentially responsible for the inspiration of the idea/property in the first place. That is the spirit of copyright, and it is broken.

I think you are fundamentally mistaken. US copyright law specifically states that ideas cannot be copyrighted.

Bad word choice is not fundamentally mistaken. In the full context of my post I am clearly referring to intellectual property.

My point is that none of us creates content in isolation - what we produce is derived and inspired by things we have seen and experienced before. Copyright law grants incentives in the form of limited monopolies to reward the creation of new work. Not allowing such new work to fall into the public domain and become the fuel for more content diminishes the potential.

03/31/2005 01:11:51 AM · #119

"So you don't believe in copyright protection but you are in favor of censorship."
[[[Nope, your free to post.....just expect a long drawn out thread. ;) ]]]

Hamburgers can't be copyrighted.
[[[Besides, there is prior art....but we are fast approaching a level in which it could be patentable.]]]

"You can't copyright an oil change."
[[[Why not, it's a performance.... *lol* In fact, if you use Mobil-1 it's high performance.]]]

"What if I don't feel like giving you or some corporation the profits from my labors after a decade?"
[[[I don't like paying taxes either. Please realize, thoughts, idas, etc are not owned. ]]]

You can't copyright a wheel. Current copyright laws are not indefinite.
[[[Please note, some examples refer to copyrights and others to patents. Both are "intellectual property" rights. And thus, I am arguing against both.

You say you can't copyright a wheel...but if not invented it could be patended. There is no difference between copyright and patents, excepting the medium.

As for the other comment about copyrights not being indefinite. No, at this time they are technically not. But everytime Mickey mouse gets close to public domain the copyrights are extended. Furthermore, there is current discussion of an international treaty that would make copyrights indefinite. And it is pretty much accepted by most that within 70 yrs barring a major change, copyrights will be for an indefinite period.
]]]

"You have the right to believe anything you please, but unless the photographer and the client agree that a job is work for hire or it comes under the legal guidelines as such"

"How is the work of a good photographer worth less then that of a doctor?"
[[[Never seen a photograph perform heart surgery on a child to save it's life.]]]

"What about the years of learning and education that had to precede the shooting of this wedding? What about the $40,000 worth of equipment this photographer has to bring around flying cake, popping champagne bottles and stumbling drunks? What about the overhead of the studio the photographer has to maintain to stay in business? What about the time spent in the darkroom for the next couple of days after the wedding? What about the cost of film, albums, chemicals, computers, photo paper, ectâ�¦. ?"
[[[Less than most professions. Both in equipment, overhead, and time. Flat out truth. Now, on the other hand I do agree that a workman be paid his wages. And I won't even say that $4,000 is a fair price. But that should include a mutual license on the photos and the bride and groom's right to free use in any non-profit personal use and unlimited reproduction.

And although I agree most should look for another photographer. Many don't realize or understand the terms of the agreement. And many photographer's i've seen have gone digital so ixnay most of the paper, darkroom, etc comments.
]]]

"Try reading US copyright law. Perhaps you would understand it better."
[[[I have actually read much of the copyright laws. Good chunks of them at least. And I think you missed my entire point on that comment. As to why recordings, and text are copyrighted but not speech, etc.]]]

" as it is clear you are confusing the lines between patents and copyrights which are two entirely different things"
[[[I am fully aware they are different. But they are both founded on the same concept and for the same purpose. And run into similar problems....thus i address both. Both are "intellectual property rights".]]]

"technically you need the written permission of the architect"
[[[See these are the problems with copyrights. The architect did not ask me if i wanted his building in the way of my photo. So why should I ask his permission?]]]

-----------------
legalbeagle
-----------------

"My main issue is that a "free for all" where intellectual property is not properly regulated would be severely detrimental to a lot of people - the owners and investors in that copyright. Hey, you might not agree with it, but all kinds of intellectual property is hugley expensive and/or time consuming to create."
[[[Believe it or not. I actually agree. However, I believe those rights need to be easily accessible, reasonable, for only a short period of time, and not infringe on my rights. Making it so that I can't use technology that I have purchased (making on non-compatible CDs that fry Macintosh computers for example).]]]

I actually am a computer programmer. No, it'd not be a great thing if my hard work was simply taken. However, after 10 yrs I would not have an issue with the software going into public domain. In fact, I believe such work encouraged innovation. Either I should have kept up with the times and written newer versions else let it go public and have others enhance improve and innovate it.]]]

"So - if the trend cannot be reversed, fewer or no more big labels."
[[[Sounds good to me, no one has stolen more $$$ from artist than those mega-labels.]]]

" Would work - but would it be better to have very few professional bands? (Looking at the charts - maybe!)"
[[[Looking at the charts....well....um...i won't answer this one... *lol*]]]

"If it was a 90% pure profit mark up, there would be some impressive annual acounts being filed and some big questions on why"
[[[Most of that cost in CD is marketing cost. For example. Michael Jackson's last CD took in over $100 million. But they spent almost a $100 million on advertising. Let the music sell itself. And we could have CDs with equal profit for $5. At that cost you'll see sale sky rocket. ]]]

"You seem to agree that it should be possible for a photographer to hold onto copyright even when hired, but you disagree with him doing so."
[[[ I think if a photographer is free lance, then he should be able to sell his works for a 10 yr period. If he is hired by someone for a specific photo project. He should retain rights to freely use photos and so should the hirer. The question then would be who has re-sell rights. And that's what would be negotiated. Does that make sense?

I am just sick and tired of a growing feeling and trend of paying a purchase fee but not owning or having right to said property. Like ring tones. I bought a bunch only to find out I really was not granted a license and have no proof of ownership or license. My phones dies then nothing protects me.]]]

"There are fair use principles that allow for press reporting."
[[[Then provide such laws for all parties. Any creative not-for-profit use should be made fair use.]]]

The flexibility of terms such as "reasonableness" should not be overlooked: means that the legal system can look at each case in turn and determine them appropriately in accordance with the individual facts.
[[[However, the flexibility seems to have become rigidity. What was originally a 14 yr copyright is now 70 going on oO...
]]]

"I mean the delivery methods, DRM, making it easier to prevent or take action to stop piracy."
[[[Why, so people can be price guaged? Why should i be forced to pay a license for a ring tone of a song I've already bought? Why should i have to pay license to have that same song on vinyl, 8-track, cassette, cd, mp3, and ringtone?]]]

"The argument that society should suddenly be entitled to free IP, just because there is a new easy delivery method, is fundamentally flawed."
[[[The idea that one person should be given exclusive right is also kinda screwed up. Yeah perhaps Joe Caveman made the first wheel. But Hung Caveman in China also came up with the wheel. And in fact, many others would as well. Auctions have been around for year. The progression of "online auctions" should not be ownable...but it is.]]]

"It is not for the legislature to make that commercial judgment for all people and companies operating within their jurisdiction."
[[[Actually, according to our Constitution it is the legislature's right. In fact, it could pass a law abolishing all copyright and patent laws. Making all use free. I disagree with such but it is theoretically possible.]]]

"Finally, if you still think that the law needs to be changed, I would love to see a full description of that alternative system!"
[[[You know that's good idea. I should codify all of this. But i will put forth the following argument. The argument goes, without copyright innovation and motivation to create would cease. However, this has been disproven by the "open source" software movement. Partly popularized by the codification of the GPL license. And although the movement is in it's adolescence it has shown amazing potential. Linux, Firefox, numerous other software products have shown themselves comparable and adaptive.
]]]

"My point is that none of us creates content in isolation - what we produce is derived and inspired by things we have seen and experienced before. Copyright law grants incentives in the form of limited monopolies to reward the creation of new work. Not allowing such new work to fall into the public domain and become the fuel for more content diminishes the potential."
[[[Agreed, why should someone have a patent on the wheel? When someone else could get the same idea independently derived perhaps from watching a stone roll down a hill.
]]

Originally posted by Thomas Jefferson:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.

03/31/2005 01:21:36 AM · #120

Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until wecopied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

Another great quote....

03/31/2005 01:24:19 AM · #121

Here's a question....

Clothes and fashions...should they be copyrightable?

03/31/2005 01:52:09 AM · #122

Originally posted by theSaj:

Here's a question....

Clothes and fashions...should they be copyrightable?

Again, read the copyright laws. You say you have, but I find that very hard to believe based on your past statements.

Copyright applies literary works; musical works, including any accompanying words; dramatic works, including any accompanying music; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; sound recordings; architectural works.

03/31/2005 02:07:45 AM · #123

Originally posted by joebok:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by joebok:
These mechanisms of intellectual property are designed to grant a limited monopoly (limited by "fair use" and expiration) to encourage invention and enterprise, but one of the limits must be temporal so that the monopoly ends and the ideas fall back into the public domain - which is essentially responsible for the inspiration of the idea/property in the first place. That is the spirit of copyright, and it is broken.

I think you are fundamentally mistaken. US copyright law specifically states that ideas cannot be copyrighted.

Bad word choice is not fundamentally mistaken. In the full context of my post I am clearly referring to intellectual property.

My point is that none of us creates content in isolation - what we produce is derived and inspired by things we have seen and experienced before. Copyright law grants incentives in the form of limited monopolies to reward the creation of new work. Not allowing such new work to fall into the public domain and become the fuel for more content diminishes the potential.

You say your post refers only to intelectual property, yet you quote a piece from Thomas Jefferson that is refering to ideas. There is a great deal of difference between an idea and a printed book. If I have an idea for a story about an albino Eskimo who becomes president and I keep that idea in my head it is protected. If I tell 20 people about my idea and someone uses it to write a best selling novel the idea is no longer protected. That is what Jefferson was talking about. If I write the book, the instant the words hit the page the works are protected in the US by copyright law. The idea is not.

The idea is as free to use now as it was when Jefferson had so long ago envisioned it. It is the material products of imagination - the books, the paintings, the musical compositions, the products that come from those ideas - that is what is protected.

Message edited by author 2005-03-31 02:09:50.

03/31/2005 05:57:46 AM · #124

Originally posted by theSaj:

Here's a question....

Clothes and fashions...should they be copyrightable?

The designs are protected - the chain stores do, however, try and imitate similar styles when they can do so (the law is against copying, not coming up with something similar). There are also several other forms of intellectual property protection that have not been discussed (and I do not intend to open them for discussion) such as trademarks and design rights, and other forms of redress, such as that prohibiting one person passing something off as the work of another (eg selling fake fashion clothing). All have different regimes depending on the country and policy decisions.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Hamburgers can't be copyrighted

You have copyright to the burger recipe, can make it a trade secret, and stop anyone passing off another burger as one that is made by you...

Originally posted by theSaj:

I believe those rights need to be easily accessible, reasonable, for only a short period of time, and not infringe on my rights.

I agree that the period for exploitation is an issue - a policy decision, but one that (esp. in US) is problematic if the period keeps in being extended. Period of expansion appears to have slowed in the rest of the world. And copyright is a peculiar beast in that it relates to a period following the death of the creator. Agree that this is ripe for reform to make the end of the exploitation period clearer and earlier. However, the concept of an exploitation period is a good one - the only issue is the length of time. As I said before, a policy issue, not requiring any fundamental rethink of the legal system.

Originally posted by theSaj:

The idea that one person should be given exclusive right is also kinda screwed up. Yeah perhaps Joe Caveman made the first wheel. But Hung Caveman in China also came up with the wheel. And in fact, many others would as well. Auctions have been around for year. The progression of "online auctions" should not be ownable...but it is

This is an area of patent law - very debateable issue (one I sought to avoid). Agree that it is problematic as to the extent to which processes can be patented. Has been and will be the subject of much legal challenge. May require some intervention to clarify what can be patented. But patents themselves work very well - again, the issue is drawing the boundaries. I also note here that patents are protected for a relatively short time frm the time of invention, and the 70+years arguments do not apply here. As for the wheel - see Australian Man Patents Wheel!!

Originally posted by theSaj:

Most of that cost in CD is marketing cost. For example. Michael Jackson's last CD took in over $100 million. But they spent almost a $100 million on advertising. Let the music sell itself. And we could have CDs with equal profit for $5. At that cost you'll see sale sky rocket

This demonstrates that, as a general rule, artists make more money if they receive a small proportion of the revenue from a product that is well marketed compared to a large proportion of a product that is poorly marketed. You can bet your bottom dollar that M Jackson generally makes more from each album after deducting marketing costs than he would had they not been marketed (though we might have been spared some abominations had the marketing not worked so well!). People spend a proportionate amount on marketing in order to maximise profit. I do not think that you are going to change that. In particular, by withdrawing protection, the artist would potentially be unable to sell his works at all and get nothing (I am not sure that the margins on t-shirt sales are going to make up for this - especially if you cannot stop people copying and reproducing your t-shirts and mnaking a quick buck themselves at the artist's "expense"). Actually, M Jackson is an interesting example - some of his major assets are the back catalogues of the Beatles and Elvis Presley (among many others). He has a very strong lobbying interest in extending copyright protection to preserve his asset. If extinguished, the assets would be worthless, MJ would go bust a bit faster, the assets could not be sold, and MJ's creditors would suffer.

Originally posted by theSaj:

However, after 10 yrs I would not have an issue with the software going into public domain.

Great! You have the choice. You can formally waive your rights, or simply choose not to enforce them. But should a struggling photographer, selling a few pictures a week, be forced to release his grip on his back catalogue after a similar time? What about an author? What about someone who has bought in old computer games that can be converted for mobile phone use - should he have to release the valuable software without protection? Should someone else be allowed to resell, or make available for free, something he has paid for and adapted?

Originally posted by theSaj:

Actually, according to our Constitution it is the legislature's right. In fact, it could pass a law abolishing all copyright and patent laws. Making all use free. I disagree with such but it is theoretically possible.

I am not sure how the US constitution works (the UK is famously the only country in the world without one written down). However, don't you have a right to enjoy your property too? Certainly the Human Rights Act, effective throughout Europe, provides that we should have that right. That means that the state should be prevented from legislating away someone's property, including their intellectual property rights.

Enough for now!