The Suits are coming, Film Maker Sues Google!

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Heath McKnight

I disagree with your argument, Kevin. If someone was making money off of something I poured my own money into, someone who did so illegally, I'd sue, as well.

I didn't say you shouldn't. I'm just saying the copyright laws themselves can be abused, and we need to be mindful of that.

And I hope to extend my copyrights for as long as I, or my estate, is around.

That was not the original intent of the copyright laws, and eternal copyrights can be said to stifle innovation.

[Richard Alvarez]

Copyrights and Patents are completely different animals, have different terms and are meant to protect different things. I don't see how my copyright on my novel or my documentary is 'stifling innovation'. Stealing it is not 'innovation'.

[Heath McKnight]

Patents protect practical ideas (inventions), copyrights do not. Trademarks protect names and specific images. Check out Spot's articles on Copyrights:

http://dvinfo.net/articles/business/copyrightfaq1.php

It's about music, but covers a lot of stuff. Also, check this out:

http://www.copyright.gov/

heath

[Leo Pepingco]

I'd add that yes copyrights only protect work that are mostly incoporeal, such as speeches, movies, scripts, writing etc.

However, I think I can understand Kevin's point of view. The problem with copyright is that, an estate can carry on the copyright (and companies who buy it) and make lots of money for things that are incoporeal, possibly outdated, and because of its worth and universality *should* be out in the public domain.

Did you know:

Shakespeare is one of the few pieces of literature openly used as a theatre text for schools to read, write, perform and modify without fear of lawyers kicking them in the head.

The Song "Happy Birthday" would cost $14grand US to be placed in a film. (Achbar, M; Abbott, J; Bakan, J. (2003.) "The Corporation" Big Picture Media Corporation.)

Someone owns the colour blue

[Heath McKnight]

Shakespeare and many other others and musicians are in the free public domain, unless you try using a specific recording, etc. For instance, my composer can perform something by Bach for my film, but I can't use a recorded performance by the London Symphony Orchestra for the same film I produced and directed, without permission.

I can put on a play of Othello, but I can't use clips of the movie by Welles if I plan on selling tickets to the play, without permission.

These laws are here to protect us, the creators and artists, and I can say that many of us hope to make a good living by making movies, etc. We need to respect trademarks and copyrights, just as I hope others respect ours.

heath

[Steven Davis]

Originally Posted by Mike Teutsch

This is going to get really interesting.

http://my.netscape.com/corewidgets/n...12030002030927

This link is empty, anyone have the updated link?

[Mike Teutsch]

Here's a new one.

MIke

http://news.yahoo.com/s/macworld/200...lmsuit20061127

[Steven Davis]

Umm, ok. So where's my million for google leading people to my website? :}

[Kelly Goden]

I believe in creator rights but it is ridiculous(the happy birthday example) that the families of creators have rights to the cultural product beyond the creator's death. How can we be sure that a family member is doing what the creator would want with the property and not just doing something to make money off it?

Some cultural works actually benefit from being in the public domain--Shakespeare, Frankenstein, Dracula etc.
In fact, if the law had been followed with Bram Stoker's estate, Murnau's Nosferatu wouldnt exist anymore.

Those recent copyright extensions (Bono act )are just corporate abuse of the system.
Especially hypocritical when Disney and others are fighting for copyright protection and yet made money off public domain works themselves.

Is the colour blue really owned by someone? I know colour combinations can be.

[Richard Alvarez]

"How can we be sure that a family member is doing what the creator would want with the property and not just doing something to make money off it?"

Not our concern is it? How do we know that ANY family is fullfilling the wishes of a dead relative? Running the business THEY created? Maintaining the farm the way THEY wanted, growing the plants THEY wanted planted? Who are YOU to tell them they can't have what grandpa worked so hard to create and left to them in his will???

Copyrights DO expire. People are bound to fight to hold onto what they or their parents created. Such is the nature of the 'free market'... that you get to pass on what you own - YOUR PROPERTY- to your decendents. (for a while)

Technology (and lifetimes) are changing rapidly, and the law evolves to suit that. Not just in Copyright, but Trademark, and Patent as well. Can it be abused? Sure. Are copyrights stolen everyday? You betcha. It's a constant strugle. Are YOU willing to give up the struggle to protect YOUR property that YOU work hard to create, because a big corporation sues to protect IT'S property? Heck, they're paying to have YOUR work protected in the courts too you know? When a judge makes a ruling, it applies to the copyright OWNER... big or small. Why not send them a donation?

[Kelly Goden]

Thanks for not addressing my point. I wasnt speaking about the internet-technology-copyright issue. Never said artists and creators shouldnt have rights--just reacting to the examples of abuse given by others. You may regard a cultural work as being like a farm or some merchandising commodity but I dont.

Rather have it pass into the public domain than be stuck in the hands of a greedy descendent.
At least with the former there is more chance for it to endure. More room for it to grow.

Now excuse me while I go watch Nosferatu(I know you must hate me for not destroying it like the Stoker estate ordered). :)

[Garrison Hayes]

The Link Is Dead...But Whatever it is, unless GOOGLE themselves did it...he has no case. Not to mention ANY and ALL Video has to be uploaded Manually By a User...even the Video coming Straight or of MTV Comedy Central ect...

[Richard Alvarez]

I did address your point. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing to prevent someone from giving their property away... 'for the cultural good'. People are free to do it now, and do so often. That is their RIGHT.

It is entirely within the bounds of a copyright holder to give their property to the public domain. Indeed, after a time, it WILL fall there. It is also within the legal right of their decendents to do so, OR to seek to have their rights exteneded, by any legal means at their disposal.

I think your point seems to be, that all rights to intellectual property should ONLY belong to the 'creator'... and should not be divisable, nor assignable, and should expire immediately upon their death? Or do I misunderstand where you think copyright law should end? (I assume you feel the same about ALL Intellectual property as well? Should the inventor die immediately after it is created, the patent expires?)

What I regard as a 'cultural work' an what YOU regard as a 'cultural work' is irrelevant. One man's art is another man's trash. What the law regards as an individuals property is what is at stake. One might argue that the market and the 'culture' will set it's value. I hardly think much of the music being downloaded or films being stolen have any value to me, and much less to the 'culture'... but stolen they are, and pockets picked nevertheless.

My point is that copyright to intellectual property IS property. You seem to disagree with this?

[Dan Robinson]

Like many of us here, I am getting close to the point of having poured six figures into the media products I create, counting equipment, travel and other expenses. I've done it all out of my own pocket with nothing handed to me. Working long days and many nights, maxing out credit cards, eating ramen noodles for weeks at a time, making sacrifice after sacrifice to make this business dream a reality. I've taken great risks and worked hard with my gear to get a return on this investment, and my hope for the future is that my work will retain its equity for my children and grandchildren. My intellectual property, that is, my work, is what pays the bills - pays off those maxed out cards - gets me from Ramen to steak dinners.

The notion that someday down the road, either me or my family will automatically have this property and its attendant equity literally snatched from our hands and thrust into the public domain in the name of 'innovation' is incredibly uncivilized, even savage to me. The work I create today, if by some stroke of blessing it continues to hold value 100 years or more from now, should financially benefit my family and no one else. Just like my house and the land I own, its age will never negate my rightful ownership of it nor the ownership of those I entrust it to in the future.

As for the "Happy Birthdays" of the world, the creators, their families and their descendants should enjoy the benefits of introducing something so popular and enduring for as long as it remains popular and enduring. I say more power to them.

Intellectual property is no different from physical property. If an IP is in demand, it still has value and that value should benefit whoever worked for it or had the brains to create it - for as long as the owner decides to keep it. If I build a successful business, my descendants should never be under any obligation to give up its fruits.

As for Google Video and YouTube, they have some serious work to do to get their ducks in a row. If they are forced to remove ALL of the copyrighted content right now, there won't be much left of either site.

[Heath McKnight]

Dan,

Amen to that. I didn't spend as much as you are, but I put a lot of money and also nearly 10 years of hard work, sacrifice and more. I hope that it all works out for all of us.

heath