Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: feppe on November 23, 2008, 07:43:18 pm
-
A recent thread (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29698) on intellectual property brought up an old pet subject of mine: intellectual property and copyright.
While there should be a balance between creating an incentive for original artistic creation for professionals through copyright, intellectual property laws are absolutely ridiculous: it is outrageous to extend copyright well beyond the lifetime of the artist.
If copyright was for, say, 10 years, how do you think it would change photography? I think it would encourage photographers and other artists to continue creating original art, rather than wasting their resources on litigation and defending their existing hey-day works. At the same time, photographers would have a (limited) time frame where they can capitalize on a certain photo.
And perhaps most importantly, after 10 years the work would be in the public domain, free for others to use for their own creations - thus encouraging more creativity.
-
Well, here's one possibility: http://creativecommons.org/ (http://creativecommons.org/)
Of course, I don't shoot professionally, so it's easy for me to say that.
Mike.
-
Well, here's one possibility: http://creativecommons.org/ (http://creativecommons.org/)
Of course, I don't shoot professionally, so it's easy for me to say that.
Mike.
That's what I use. Creative Commons have licenses which are suitable for business-use, as well.
-
Photography & art in general is already in the public eye. What Creative Value would come of allowing a corporation free advertising usage to a Picasso. How would Picasso of felt if the Nazi party used his images in their war propaganda?! We have already experience the composition, tasted the colors, and if art students wants to sit in the museum and practice that's completely acceptable. How does copywrite restrict creative freedom? The heart of the matter seems to restrict publisher's profits, we should demand them to commission more original work not copy ad nauseam.
Ansel Adams was a great photographer there is no question, but look at how much new and creative ideas have been stifled because calendars companies have mass produced his images in the market. To this day if I have a conversation about photography Ansel Adam's name comes up. What about Robert Adams? What about Lee Friedlander? No we have stifled our art conscience in this world to what is freely available at the grocery store check out and by free I mean what the publisher will make the most amount of profit on.
-
How does copying someone else's work make you more creative? It seems to me that is the antithesis of creativity. And BTW 10 years is sometimes not even enough time to recoup your expenses on big personal projects through book or print sales.
"And perhaps most importantly, after 10 years the work would be in the public domain, free for others to use for their own creations - thus encouraging more creativity."
-
Copyright. It simply doeasn´t extend far enough into the future as it is!
Why should any artist, in whatever medium, lose his devine right to ownership in perpetuity? Devine, yes, because the power to create it comes from a greater power. Were this not so, then anyone and everyone would be interchangeable, just like a cheap lens on a cheap camera. We are created as individuals and we do not share the same talents at all: even photographers at the top of their respective fields produce distinctive, individual work, that they are all photographers matters not a jot. However if you are willing to rob a god-given talent, then why stop there: there must be churches still open and without adequate security: go have fun, play with the collection.
So why should he care if he´s dead? Because, my man, he might well have a family and I see the fruit of his creative energy just as valid as the wealth from a surgeon´s energy and knowledge of his field. You wouldn´t expect to take over the surgeon´s bank account(s) just because he has died, would you, rob his family of their inheritance? (Or are you a communist/souialist government stooge?) They are both the same thing: the individual´s personal source of currency derived from his talent/work.
As for the stifling of creativity because you can´t rip off somebody else: if that´s what´s holding you back, then you just don´t have any talent of your own. Period.
I hate mothers of this bent; nothing but thieves.
Rob C
-
Copyright. It simply doeasn´t extend far enough into the future as it is!
Brilliant satire, Rob!
-
Ansel Adams was a great photographer there is no question, but look at how much new and creative ideas have been stifled because calendars companies have mass produced his images in the market.
Looking at it from the other perspective: how many photographers have been motivated by seeing those Ansel Adams postcards, posters and coasters? How much creativity has been born out of trying to imitate, emulate and surpass Adams's creations?
I'm surprise by some of the comments, implying public domain = theft and copying. If a work of art is Good, it will be remembered for more than 10 years no matter whether there is copyright or not. If it's not, it probably deserves to be forgotten.
As for the stifling of creativity because you can´t rip off somebody else: if that´s what´s holding you back, then you just don´t have any talent of your own. Period.
I hate mothers of this bent; nothing but thieves.
Rob C
You (and few others above) are missing the point. I'm not advocating "ripping off" other artists. I'm advocating bringing sanity back into copyright law. Practically perpetual copyright law has little or no basis in reality. Whether the "proper" copyright length is 10 or 20 or 30 years is debatable - but extending beyond the lifetime of the creator (and sometimes their children) is indefensible.
If you're talking about ripping off somebody else, you need only look at Disney: they are ripping off folk tales, while their derivative works are copyrighted into perpetuity. It is this kind of insanity I'm talking about.
The part where it stifles creativity is where photographers and other artists have to commit resources to litigation rather than creating new original art - as I said in the top post. Also, if you only have a limited time to profit from your creations, you'll have more incentive to continue to create more.
(And as for the off-handed ad hominems: you can see from my website that all photography is released under Creative Commons, so I walk the walk.)
-
Copyright. It simply doeasn´t extend far enough into the future as it is!
Why should any artist, in whatever medium, lose his devine right to ownership in perpetuity? Devine, yes, because the power to create it comes from a greater power.
Speaking as an agnostic I would be highly sceptical of laws based on human interpretation of divine provenance. I am not denying your right to believe this, but am doubting it as a basis of a law.
You wouldn´t expect to take over the surgeon´s bank account(s) just because he has died, would you, rob his family of their inheritance? (Or are you a communist/souialist government stooge?) They are both the same thing....
Not the same thing at all. And that is nothing at all to do with socialism.
Anyway, away from the religious and political arenas...
If, as you suggest, the artisit's rights lasted 'in perpetuity' that would stifle creativity. One reason that modern music is so diverse is that most of it can be traced back to the classics (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart) or early jazz/blues. This enables tunesmiths to bypass the copyright laws on the basis that the music was prior knowledge - so just think of where we would be if those great works were still copyrighted?
Or think of all the literatry devices borrowed from Shakespeare, Dante, Wordsworth. Where would many of the the great novels of last 100 years be (there would obviously be many but nowehere near as many as we have)?
The question is where is the balance? I think the current timeline is set for the reasons that Rob suggests - that the direct family of an artist can benefit from the artist's skills. I liken this to a guy who starts his own business and passes the business to his heirs who can then do with it what they want. With a copyright of 50-70 years this seems OK to me.
-
The question is where is the balance? I think the current timeline is set for the reasons that Rob suggests - that the direct family of an artist can benefit from the artist's skills. I liken this to a guy who starts his own business and passes the business to his heirs who can then do with it what they want. With a copyright of 50-70 years this seems OK to me.
Clarification: 50-70 years after the death of the artist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrights#Duration) in the US.
-
So why should he care if he´s dead? Because, my man, he might well have a family and I see the fruit of his creative energy just as valid as the wealth from a surgeon´s energy and knowledge of his field. You wouldn´t expect to take over the surgeon´s bank account(s) just because he has died, would you, rob his family of their inheritance? (Or are you a communist/souialist government stooge?)
The analogy is wholly false. A surgeon's income from his technical ability stops the moment he retires. His accumulated property remains his, just as does the artist's accumulated property when copyright expires. Snide comments about communism don't help your argument either.
Jeremy
-
The analogy is wholly false. A surgeon's income from his technical ability stops the moment he retires. His accumulated property remains his, just as does the artist's accumulated property when copyright expires. Snide comments about communism don't help your argument either.
Jeremy
Umm.. still looking for the part where I refer to the surgeon´s copyright; the point, as you missed it, was that the wealth created by the work of ANY man is his entiltement forever, whether via his accumulated bank account or any other means of storing up some credit in the form of cash. One man earns his via his salary whilst another depends on gradual sales for further exploitation of the work over time. Both have the right to pass it on to their families in whatever way it might accrue: in one fell swoop at death or via the continuation of the dribs and drabs of the additional (we hope) postmortem sales.
On the other hand, perhaps a plastic surgeon may have a claim on copyright: just thinking of Pammy there for a moment...
Snide comments about communism. You know any other kind worth using for a totally discedited system of forced poverty for the many? Maybe you do, maybe you do. Fellow travellers of now are even worse in a way: they proclaim their love for the `people´ yet end up owning many houses in London, making millions in after-dinner speeches yet base it all on a proclamation of socialism. Cynicism, one might be forgiven for suspecting?
But does it really matter a damn in the scheme of things? We are born, we try to make a life and then, before we know it, the thing´s over.
Rob C
-
If, as you suggest, the artisit's rights lasted 'in perpetuity' that would stifle creativity. One reason that modern music is so diverse is that most of it can be traced back to the classics (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart) or early jazz/blues. This enables tunesmiths to bypass the copyright laws on the basis that the music was prior knowledge - so just think of where we would be if those great works were still copyrighted?
Or think of all the literatry devices borrowed from Shakespeare, Dante, Wordsworth. Where would many of the the great novels of last 100 years be (there would obviously be many but nowehere near as many as we have)?
The question is where is the balance? I think the current timeline is set for the reasons that Rob suggests - that the direct family of an artist can benefit from the artist's skills. I liken this to a guy who starts his own business and passes the business to his heirs who can then do with it what they want. With a copyright of 50-70 years this seems OK to me.
Music is a difficult example for comment, because I think it is more a matter of genre than of individual works. Blues and jazz have developed (some would claim) beyond their starting points and travelled to a place where the old bluesmen of the 20s and 30s would feel themselves strangers. The origins of much jazz are basically suspect insofar as individual tunes are concerned; from military music via church, classical, folk and African bases we arrived at an amalgam that simply worked better than anything else that was going on at that time. Did W C Handy really write that many blues? Who knows? Perhaps as many as the white DJs did when early black R´n´R had to credit some of them (for doing zilch) on the labels just to get airtime? Exploitation ain´t nothin´new.
But that´s a problem associated with music. And even there, people do sue for blatant infringement of copyright and WIN. Even in literature the same goes on: the da Vinci Code was an example where someone saw an opportunity of using law to try to make money... the trouble with those sorts of fights is that they are clouded in doubt, the very doubt that makes them expensive to fight but victory possibly very rewarding. The same does not hold for photography: it takes little argument to show if a picture is a rip-off; it´s in your face, as it were.
The timeline, as you called it, is the problem here. Why should it have limit?
Neither do I buy that, because St Ansel made a particular shot of a particular lump of rock in specific circumstances, it has affected the rights of any other photographer to use his tripod holes to do the same - they never can shoot the same shot again because the conditions are unique every time. Copying one of his prints or negs, however, is a different business! But respecting forever the rights within the Saints original work cannot hinder others from exercising their own vision should they have one. That a photographer has made a specific photograph of a mountain that always existed is not the same as a photographer making a photograph of something that only comes alive via his intellect in imagining the composition/concept in the first place, in the juxtaposition of objects and/or ideas not otherwise so positioned. But as original work both types are deserving of protection.
But hey, we could throw this around all day and possibly agree on some points and never on others; in short, as long as you are able to use your own creativity - should you have any - another´s copyright isn´t going to hold you back from accomplishing something entirely your own. It is only the drudge, the no-hoper who will feel resticted because all his intellect allows him to see is that which another has already done; for, and by himself, he sees nothing.
Buenas noches
Rob C
-
This might be of interest here: Sam Abell and Richard Prince (http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/wordpress/?p=239)
-
This might be of interest here: Sam Abell and Richard Prince (http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/wordpress/?p=239)
Thank´s for the link - it makes for interesting, if dicouraging, viewing and listening. I am not familiar with the original work/concept so can´t comment on how close a rip-off has been achieved, but I think three things: it is dishonest to do that to anyone; I would like to believe that legal remedy exists and will be exercised; within the context of this thread, copyright in an original work has certainly seemed not to have hindered another artist!
Leaves a sense of nausea.
Rob C
-
Thank´s for the link - it makes for interesting, if dicouraging, viewing and listening. I am not familiar with the original work/concept so can´t comment on how close a rip-off has been achieved, but I think three things: it is dishonest to do that to anyone; I would like to believe that legal remedy exists and will be exercised; within the context of this thread, copyright in an original work has certainly seemed not to have hindered another artist!
Leaves a sense of nausea.
Rob C
This is quite an interesting thread about that very picture and what Richard Prince does.
http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2008/06/27/pho...richard-prince/ (http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2008/06/27/photographers-should-embrace-richard-prince/)
There is some discussion about whether Prince believes he is 'stealing'
But before this turns into a lament for Sam Abell and his 'missed millions', remember that he did not own the copyright - he signed that over to Marlboro as part of their advertising campaign.
Comment #15 says
We know Prince has had to pay some people to stop lawsuits. My assumption is, his lawyers tell him it is cheaper to settle because the money train comes to an end if a court decides his work doesn’t meet the fair use or, derivative exception to copyright laws.
So maybe appropriate restitution was made to the copyright holder (i.e. Marlboro). Sure, it is not original. And sure, it sticks in the craw. But if some idiot wants to pay 3 million only because the photograph was reproduced by a specific artist as set of 2, then they need a lobotomy.
-
This comment should not be read as an anti-copyright statement.
Since our species still uses pecuniary methodology for both status competition and reciprocal altruism, it does function reasonably well with in the boundaries of the currently emotionally acceptable solution space.
That said;
The question's answer is, generally & structurally speaking, yes. With the technological advances of the last few decades, information can move faster than it can be valued. So any restriction on its movement will tend to decrease its utility and "progress" generally.
Prior to these technological advances, information was often reliant on reciprocal altruism for movement. That is no longer the case, once infrastructure is paid for.
-
This comment should not be read as an anti-copyright statement.
Since our species still uses pecuniary methodology for both status competition and reciprocal altruism, it does function reasonably well with in the boundaries of the currently emotionally acceptable solution space.
That said;
The question's answer is, generally & structurally speaking, yes. With the technological advances of the last few decades, information can move faster than it can be valued. So any restriction on its movement will tend to decrease its utility and "progress" generally.
Prior to these technological advances, information was often reliant on reciprocal altruism for movement. That is no longer the case, once infrastructure is paid for.
What technological advances have been made in monetary support for artists? I'm sorry but your statement is so incredibly blind with the one little crumb of logic "once the infrastructure is paid for" ommmmm that's the whole kit & caboodle not a side note to be placed in the fine print. If artists can't afford to work then I guess new work isn't created, is it? By new work I'm talking about quality images from full time artists who have spend the time studying art to truly bring forth NEW work not regurgitated files to fill up Lightroom.
Take away copywrite protection and how many artists will follow Brett Weston?
-
What technological advances have been made in monetary support for artists?
None that i can think of right now.
The Technology refers to computers, Internet, high-speed data transfer, etc. Images are information.
Like I said in my orginal post, ("this post not being an anti-copyright...") or to put it more simply, since money is essential to survival, I am not arguing against copyright. I favor protection of an artist's rights, given those rights are what puts food in their mouths.
Nevertheless, due to technology changes, any monetary valuation process will now impact creativity, in a systemic sense.
-
Nevertheless, due to technology changes, any monetary valuation process will now impact creativity, in a systemic sense.
What does this mean?!
To abstract this question down to a mathematical equation. Fine then here is the point I'm making "no money = no new art" it's simple! In our world money allows creation, not creation allows creation. Money is just an abstract symbol for energy. An artist can't make a print with out the energy (substance) of the paint. How many painting did Van Gough not paint? How many buildings did Louis Kahn not build due to a lack of funding, how many new designs did he not draw? It's the lack of funding that stifles creativity. How many images are produced or regurgitated without creativity but with the funds to create them?
The concept that the internet provides a window to free art is forgetting that great art still doesn't translate to an sRGB 24" horizontal medium. Sure some video art but the cool stuff multi dimensional, extremely vivid prints, large scale, tactile doesn't and if artists can't afford to create it it doesn't exist for others to experience. If artists can't afford to upload then that work doesn't transmit in your proposed formula.
In the question "Does Copyright stifle Creativity?" No it helps creativity afford new creativity
And not to debate formalism vs social realism but a good amount of great art has been brought about on socialist issues. Art that we can experience and brings new creative ideas to our art. If artists saw that their work could be turned around and used to promote corporations & or organizations like Nazism, anti-Abortion, or Pepsi. Why would they not destroy it in their senior years? How do you think John Lennon must feel looking down to hear his music selling cars? Or Ansel Adams images promoting urban sprawl next to Yosemite? (Bad examples but I think you can see my point) What creative advantage will come when great artist don't leave their work to the next generation in fear of it being exploited by an idea they don't believe in?
-
Nevertheless, due to technology changes, any monetary valuation process will now impact creativity, in a systemic sense.
>What does this mean?!
Alot of creativity arises from interchange, and exposure, between people, artists, etc. The feeding the head part. Communication, and art "objects", and representations of art, if not the artifact itself, can be shared electronically. Technically, the monetary valuation step is "extra" to that aspect creativity process, apart from the necessity of valuation for supplying time/materials to the artist.
Monetary valuation is no longer (excluding the social/politcal/culture elements, which include law, ie copyright) a necessary element to the creative process, in and of itself. That can of course not be true for an individual, if the creative process is for them, only triggered pecuniary renumeration. The monetary process is important to allow time/materials for the artist. But that is due to the form of social organization, not the creative process, in and of itself.
>Fine then here is the point I'm making "no money = no new art" it's simple!
Yes, I agree, since we use pecuniary systems for status seeking and reciprocal alturism. You are right. I am actually agreeing with the vast majority of what you say.
>.... a good amount of great art has been brought about on socialist issues. Art that we can experience and brings new creative ideas to our art.
I agree.
>How do you think John Lennon must feel looking down to hear his music selling cars?
I do not know. I thought he was dead?
>What creative advantage will come when great artist don't leave their work to the next generation in fear of it being exploited by an idea they don't believe in?
I do not know....for some, maybe none? That is always a problem though eventually, is it not? Eventually, when a copyright type right lapses, or lapses for hiers, or the state that supports it collapses or what ever, they get used for all kinds of stuff probably never envisioned by a creator. I would assume the sculptor who made say, that famous bust of a Pharoah's wife, never imagined it would be used to sell beauty cream, 3200 years later.
-
"Monetary valuation is no longer a necessary element to the creative process, in and of itself." Cool I'll take the Phase back with all the Schneider lenses, pay my ISP, & snag me a new laptop (note: nothing even about a printer)
definition for Create: verb; bring (something) into existence (copied from a dictionary)
Maybe I should sell the Duchamp idea: it has no existence, just my conceptual thought, it'll go great with your couch!
"Alot of creativity arises from interchange, and exposure, between people, artists, etc." Bull$hit! creativity arises from being creative, getting off your A$$ and making something with actual tangible substance. In our world money is a much better motivator than chanting with crystals hoping to pay rent, why the heck do they sell their weed!
Let's look at this a different way. We would all like the human race to have better health, correct? Let's tell the pharmicudical companies they can only reap the rewards on their patents for two years and that the prices were fixed. How many new drugs would get developed? Let's tell engineering firms that all expenses for bridge building needs to come out of their pocket. Let's tell all colleges that tuition cost have been waived, how much more creativity would that bring into the world?
Money is a symbol of energy. It would not matter if we were in your Star Trek fantasy world. If there was no energy/value placed on a subject there would be no advancement of that subject. To take away the potential for value/energy in our world and that would reduce that subject's advancement. Plain & simple
Take away protection from socially minded artists and you will take away their art from future generations.
edit: You can throw value at a subject and it might not grow, take away value and you are guaranteed for it to be reduced
-
>Money is a symbol of energy.
Actually, it is literally a symbol of value. But granted, socio-economic structures do tend to resemble ecosystems in operation of energy/money flows.(well presented in "Nature: An Economic History" by Geerat J. Vermeij).
>It would not matter if we were in your Star Trek fantasy world.
Well, I do not think we need to go that far for a reasonable example.
Let use take the "amatuer" or avocational artist. Granted, they do need an "energy" input (money) to stay alive, but that input is not derived from the sale of their art.( I am here, defining a working, or vocational artist as one who gains income wholly or in part from sale of their art).
I think it would be safe to state that the amatuer or avocational artist can have a rich and vibrant "creative process", and never sell anything. As far as outside verification, there are in history, famous artists who never sold squat, and "discovered" after their death. Creativity, as commonly studied or discussed, is a mental process. In art, it can "create" non-material art (poetry, song, dance, etc) or material art (painting, scupture, photography, etc.)
>If there was no energy/value placed on a subject there would be no advancement of that subject.
Yes.
On the "value" part;
The artist can "value" it.
The artist can do art that is emotionally valued by others.
The artist can do art that is financially valued by others.
All work. It is not uncommon for the first to result in continued, or longer periods of that artist's creativity. The last, being a strong reward system, can train the artist to reduce exploration and concentrate on what is rewarded, thereby reducing "creativity".
-
A recent thread (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29698) on intellectual property brought up an old pet subject of mine: intellectual property and copyright.
While there should be a balance between creating an incentive for original artistic creation for professionals through copyright, intellectual property laws are absolutely ridiculous: it is outrageous to extend copyright well beyond the lifetime of the artist.
If copyright was for, say, 10 years, how do you think it would change photography? I think it would encourage photographers and other artists to continue creating original art, rather than wasting their resources on litigation and defending their existing hey-day works. At the same time, photographers would have a (limited) time frame where they can capitalize on a certain photo.
And perhaps most importantly, after 10 years the work would be in the public domain, free for others to use for their own creations - thus encouraging more creativity.
IS THIS A JOKE!
I rarely get angry about a stupid post but this makes my blood boil. 10 years you have got to be kidding!!! We have images in stock that were shot 20 years ago that are our copyright and will continue to do so. There is real value in owning your work with extra income & building a body of work through your career. We also have images purchased by the National Portrait Gallery of Australia that were taken more than 10 years ago. There is real value in owning your work & it not only money. Laws have been created to protect the artist, these laws were hard fought. Thank god the copyright laws changed in the photographers favor in Australia in August 1988.
Denis
-
While there should be a balance between creating an incentive for original artistic creation for professionals through copyright, intellectual property laws are absolutely ridiculous: it is outrageous to extend copyright well beyond the lifetime of the artist.
If copyright was for, say, 10 years, how do you think it would change photography? I think it would encourage photographers and other artists to continue creating original art, rather than wasting their resources on litigation and defending their existing hey-day works. At the same time, photographers would have a (limited) time frame where they can capitalize on a certain photo.
And perhaps most importantly, after 10 years the work would be in the public domain, free for others to use for their own creations - thus encouraging more creativity.
Copyrighted material is often already available for viewing, that is enough to trigger inspiration.
I am with Rob here, an artist should keep the legal rights on his/her work forever. This doesn' t mean that the re-use of work will always be forbidden.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
(And as for the off-handed ad hominems: you can see from my website that all photography is released under Creative Commons, so I walk the walk.)
Bollocks you do!
From your website.
"I currently reside and work in the Netherlands in corporate finance."
You appear to earn your money from outside of photography. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't have come out with the naiive nonsense you did regarding how copyright should only last ten years.
-
You appear to earn your money from outside of photography. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't have come out with the naiive nonsense you did regarding how copyright should only last ten years.
What you're saying is essentially that unless someone makes his/her money from photography, that photography clearly isn't art, or that that person's opinion is therefore naive.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I'd much rather not produce "art", and I prefer being "naive", to your world. But I don't think your newspeak is worth the money you spent on it.
-
I don´t presume to speak for jjj, but I think there is some severe misinterpretation of his post: I read it to mean that it is only because the poster works and earns his keep outwith photography that he has, can afford to have, as relaxed a view on copyright as he claims to have.
Rape is always rape, even though there are sometimes those raped who are considered to have been willing rapes!
If you rip me off, I shall attempt to chase you to the edges of hell, should I need to so do.
Rob C
-
I don´t presume to speak for jjj, but I think there is some severe misinterpretation of his post: I read it to mean that it is only because the poster works and earns his keep outwith photography that he has, can afford to have, as relaxed a view on copyright as he claims to have.
Perhaps that was his intention, but jjj seems a wee bit more aggressive than that, and indicates rather clearly that feppe isn't entitled to have an opinion, or that his opinion is naive because he's not a professional photographer.
There seems to be no mitigating factors.
Rape is always rape, even though there are sometimes those raped who are considered to have been willing rapes!
While I won't call it "rape" any more than I'll agree to the term "piracy" for illegal copying of software, I see your point.
Q.v. Eirik Solheim's blog entry about how he was ripped off (and got compensated (http://eirikso.com/2007/10/04/they-stole-an-image-of-my-son-and-just-had-to-pay-4000/)!).
-
Rob C is correct - Jani has misread my post, very badly. And very obviously, not in context of the the post I was replying to.
Feppe was trying to say he put his money where his mouth is by issuing his work under Creative Commons. Where in fact, he can only afford to do so as his income comes from outside of photography.
Feppe can have as many opinions as he wants, but unfortunately this one is certainly comes from a distinctly naiive/ignorant viewpoint. For those whose income is obtained via copyright, his 10yr suggestion is patent [ !] nonsense.
-
IS THIS A JOKE!
I rarely get angry about a stupid post but this makes my blood boil. 10 years you have got to be kidding!!! We have images in stock that were shot 20 years ago that are our copyright and will continue to do so. There is real value in owning your work with extra income & building a body of work through your career. We also have images purchased by the National Portrait Gallery of Australia that were taken more than 10 years ago. There is real value in owning your work & it not only money. Laws have been created to protect the artist, these laws were hard fought. Thank god the copyright laws changed in the photographers favor in Australia in August 1988.
Denis
It is not a joke.
I was not for the abolition of copyright but you must have missed that part. In any case, there is no coherent question or contribution in your post.
-
Rob C is correct - Jani has misread my post, very badly. And very obviously, not in context of the the post I was replying to.
Feppe was trying to say he put his money where his mouth is by issuing his work under Creative Commons. Where in fact, he can only afford to do so as his income comes from outside of photography.
Feppe can have as many opinions as he wants, but unfortunately this one is certainly comes from a distinctly naiive/ignorant viewpoint. For those whose income is obtained via copyright, his 10yr suggestion is patent [ !] nonsense.
So rather than attacking the arguments, you attack the poster? Seems to be the preferred method of "debate" on this forum these days.
And there are professionals putting their money where their mouth is as well, Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails and Cory Doctorow come to mind, each with varying degrees of "free" and copyright-light-ness. Curiously, there are no notable photographers I know of.
-
And there are professionals putting their money where their mouth is as well, Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails and Cory Doctorow come to mind, each with varying degrees of "free" and copyright-light-ness.
Not sure I would consider that an apples to apples comparison. In the Radiohead example that was only for a limited time(maybe 2 months) and their business plan was they would make the same amount of money if fans donated $1 verses paying the Record Companies $15 for their songs. I would also bet if I was Coke and wanted to use a Radiohead song in a TV commercial I would still need to pay for the licensing.
And the final point would be look at an Artist like Blondie from the 70's where the record company completely changed her sound from punk to a pop sound for the radio stations. I can only image the conversations with NIN & their record company "Trent can you change this lyric... so it can be played on the radio at little Suzie's birthday party"
When Lewis Baltz gives his copywrite up to Century 21 or Walmart then you'll have a relevant example.
-
Rob C is correct - Jani has misread my post, very badly. And very obviously, not in context of the the post I was replying to.
Feppe was trying to say he put his money where his mouth is by issuing his work under Creative Commons. Where in fact, he can only afford to do so as his income comes from outside of photography.
Feppe can have as many opinions as he wants, but unfortunately this one is certainly comes from a distinctly naiive/ignorant viewpoint. For those whose income is obtained via copyright, his 10yr suggestion is patent [ !] nonsense.
It seems I haven't misread your post at all.
For all we know, feppe might have earned good money from his photography, but he's chosen not to.
Choosing so is something you label as "naive/ignorant" solely because he's not a professional photographer, and that is the point I'm disagreeing with.
Feppe's opinion isn't naive or ignorant. It's informed, but it's not your viewpoint. Make rational arguments against it rather than dragging us further down in the muck, please.
-
For all we know, feppe might have earned good money from his photography, but he's chosen not to.
-
Feppe made an interesting point - OK, it riled a few people especially those who make a living out of photography but it is one that is quite valid.
Pesonally, I don't believe copyright does stifle creativity. To extend what others have alluded to it does the reverse. If you can't just go out and copy someone's work you have to be creative.
But how long should copyright last? To say 'forever' means that in a thousand years your distant relatives are still earning money from your photos. You really would have to justify that!! In the UK and USA it is 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies which means that not only the photographer but their grandchildren will benefit. And I suppose it means that photographs could be under copyright for anything up to 150 years. That seems enough to me.
-
It is not a joke.
I was not for the abolition of copyright but you must have missed that part. In any case, there is no coherent question or contribution in your post.
In your opening post you quote " If copyright was for, say, 10 years, how do you think it would change photography?"
Denis
-
In your opening post you quote " If copyright was for, say, 10 years, how do you think it would change photography?"
Indeed, and that is called a "question", which when posed to a group, would indicate that the original author might be interested in viewpoints about that question, and not in derogatory insults.
-
Indeed, and that is called a "question", which when posed to a group, would indicate that the original author might be interested in viewpoints about that question, and not in derogatory insults.
When it comes to copyright both Gay & I did talks ( Copyright ) for both the AIPP & ACMP in Australia in 1998-2000. This was just after the laws changed in Australia in the photographers favor. Both the AIPP & ACMP fought long & hard for this change. I know of a few photographers who invested a lot there time over the years for this to come about. So when someone comes suggests that copyright should only last 10 years, I personally find that an insult to our profession. What I was trying to explain to the topic starter was that we still get income from photographs from images taken over 10 years ago. Copyright has real value to the photographer ( artists ), that is why we have these laws in place.
Denis
-
So when someone comes suggests that copyright should only last 10 years, I personally find that an insult to our profession.
Yeah, I noticed, and I also noticed that was how others took it, too.
Apparently, having a civil discussion regarding the question and proposal itself is impossible.
What I was trying to explain to the topic starter was that we still get income from photographs from images taken over 10 years ago. Copyright has real value to the photographer ( artists ), that is why we have these laws in place.
Others have tried "explaining" it, too, also with insults added.
If you'd written the above, and stopped short of shouting "murder, bloody murder", I'd be willing to take your arguments at face value.
-
Indeed, and that is called a "question", which when posed to a group, would indicate that the original author might be interested in viewpoints about that question, and not in derogatory insults.
Please don't take offense, but do I count right, you have made five posts bickering about etiquette with no substance about the original question. Maybe the best internet etiquette is too simply ignore the derogatory?
-
So rather than attacking the arguments, you attack the poster? Seems to be the preferred method of "debate" on this forum these days.
No I am not attacking the poster, I am pointing out that as someone whose income comes from outside of photography, you can afford to give work away, so you are not putting your money where your mouth is, as you falsely claim. Whereas for professional photographers, that's not really an option. Your financial status is entirely relevant to the argument. And my calling you naiive not to appreciate this factor, is entirely fair I'd say.
Though what is common in the forums is people claiming spurious ad hominen attacks, instead of countering with a valid argument.
And there are professionals putting their money where their mouth is as well, Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails and Cory Doctorow come to mind, each with varying degrees of "free" and copyright-light-ness. Curiously, there are no notable photographers I know of.
Duh! of course not, their business is completely different. Musicians can happily give their music away if they can make money from touring, plus both NIN + Radiohead were very, very successful long before giving stuff away. I cannot comment on Corey Doctorow as I do not know what he has 'given' away.
-
It seems I haven't misread your post at all.
And there you go again.
For all we know, feppe might have earned good money from his photography, but he's chosen not to.
But he currently earns money from outside of photography according to his website and that is what is important. Why that is the case is not really relevant.
Choosing so is something you label as "naive/ignorant" solely because he's not a professional photographer, and that is the point I'm disagreeing with.
Feppe's opinion isn't naive or ignorant. It's informed, but it's not your viewpoint.
Ever heard of perspective? Feppe comes across as what would be described as an armchair critic. One, who like most theoretical debaters would probably change their tune if actually in shoes of the person they are critiquing. It's so very easy to suggest something that doesn't affect you or in this case your income. And no I do not think suggesting 10 yr limit on copyright is an informed suggestion, it's a stupid one if a [professional] artist, but simply a naiive one if you don't make money from creative works.
Make rational arguments against it rather than dragging us further down in the muck, please.
I've made rational points, though it seems as Lightstand said above, that you simply prefer to misread and nitpick about anything other than the actual topic. I'm guessing that a rational point would only be acknowledged if it was something that you already agreed with.
What's your photographic status? You don't even link to any of your work, so can't even tell if you are a photographer, let alone professional or amateur.
-
Please don't take offense, but do I count right, you have made five posts bickering about etiquette with no substance about the original question. Maybe the best internet etiquette is too simply ignore the derogatory?
Actually, I've made six posts, and if it's so important to you what the exact meaning of those posts were, perhaps you should re-read them.
What's your photographic status? You don't even link to any of your work, so can't even tell if you are a photographer, let alone professional or amateur.
Why is that important?
Am I not even allowed to discuss this without belonging to the "correct" group?
Perhaps we should get that cleared up before "lightstand" complains about my complaints, and before I try to venture any detailed opinion on the merits of copyright in photography.
I'll of course stand by your decision.