Re: [videoblogging] copyright

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 05:22:31 -0000, contactmica <contactmica@…>
wrote:

> It
> makes sense that one should be able to determine the restrictions around
> the
> use of their material but ultimately becomes what all copyright law is –
> One Big
> Grey Area- especially were creativity and art are concerned.

You've got the idea of CC backwards. With a CC license you are not setting
up restrictions with a CC license, you are *removing* restrictions. You go
from "All Rights Reserved" to "Some Rights Reserved". What you want (as I
read it in this e-mail) is to remove copyright all together, and that's a
Bad Thing (it would spell an end for any book that requires a lot of
research, press photography and paid journalists). I like CC because I can
share my work with an independent community, but disallow commercial use.
I still retain my rights as a copyright holder, and I can sell my work if
I can find a buyer.

With no copyright (or with all my work in the public domain) I can never
make money of my works. That would make me sad (and broke). Just think
about how an author of a book would feel if he couldn't get paid for what
he works with full time. now, *that* would limit creativity.

As I mentioned somewhere else problems can arise when people sign over
copyrights. I sign over copyright for all my words at my work for example
(as do the real journalists who work there). But basically this comes down
to some people having a bad union. Musicians and journalists gets screwed
over as they pretty much sign over everything. Press photographs (at least
in Denmark) have a better union and a press photographer retains many of
his copyrights even if he is employed full time at a newspaper. That's not
a problem for you and I, it's a problem for musicians to deal with – it's
not my fault they sign stupid contracts.

> If creative people ( and i mean the fringe – not the producers of
> mass/pop
> culture aka the ones that make the $$$) concerned themselves with what
> they
> are legally allowed to incroporate into their ideas and who might steal
> it from
> them – we'd be really screwed- we'd be allowing ourselves to be a cog in
> the
> machinery that is so rapidly homogenizing culture.

I obviously don't agree with this. I think there is very little trouble
mixing a sound copyright protection with the creative production of new
works. I'll encourage everyone to sit down and read about copyright law
(in a college text book for example). I have a feeling that many don't
know what they can and can't do in regards to copyright, and are making
arguments based on their hearts. :o)

> Its great to establish laws meant to protect the little guy (us) but
> these laws
> unfortunately work best when they are working against us.

I can't help you with your hate for the legal system. Maybe mine work a
little bit better than yours. :o)

But seriously, most people here are willing to share their work with the
community. If I have soemthing worth protecting from commercial use, and I
one day find that a company has been infringing on my copyrights I will
send both cease and desist letters and lawyers after them. If they can
afford to make money off my work they can afford to pay me for it.
I won't be going after the little guy, because through a CC license I've
already waived *most* of my copyrights in regards to his use. The
difference is that the little guy doesn't have to e-mail me to ask every
time he wants to use my work. I have a CC license so he can see for
himself what he can and can't do.

> Ideally content makers should come to understand that this a
> part of the contemporary structure and to incorporate it into their
> practice.

That's not a good way of making law. :o)
It's like saying 'there is a lot of theft out there, we might as well
legalize it' and then you wouldn't be able to press charges when your car
stereo gets stolen. :o)

– Andreas


Personal: <http://www.solitude.dk>
File Thingie – PHP File Manager <http://www.solitude.dk/filethingie/>