The Suits are coming, Film Maker Sues Google!

[Kelly Goden]

No you didnt address it.

I am sure you feel we would be better off if Murnau's illegal film was destroyed-since Stoker's widow wanted it destroyed. Some criminal preserved it. But you havent come out and said it yet.

The Bono Extension act was just a giveaway to big corporations like Disney which lobbied for it, profiting off the works of artists (like Hans Christian Anderson among others).

If we followed your way of thinking(or rather the Disney company's way of thinking) there would be no creative work--because everything you come up with, and every work before yours, was in some way inspired by some work that was created before copyright law. Shakespeare would never have been able to write because some lawyer would have slapped him with a cease and desist. Homer--good grief--he shamelessly violated the rights of artists before him in composing the Illiad. Michaelangelo couldnt have painted the Sistine Chapel. Having copyrights extend way beyond the life of the artist, is just selfish and hypocritical in my opinion. On one hand you want the public to appreciate and think about the work--and yet you want to control their thinking of the subject long after you are dead.

In other words you see it strictly as a money issue--I see it as a cultural one. Whether someone sees the work as quality or trash has nothing to do with it.

But you know, good luck making millions for your heirs' heirs! Just dont do anything that might have been inspired by a Disney work!
:)

[Paul Jefferies]

As an aside to this thread, how many of you put copyright notices on your films and videos? And what wording do you use?

[Richard Alvarez]

Yes, Kelley I did address it, and you are avoiding my point.

Copyrights DO expire... just not as quickly as YOU wold personally like. Feel free to immediately place all your creative work into the public domain. What's stopping you? I am sure it has IMMENSE cultural value. (Worth at least the many millions you assume I will be making from mine.)

Whether or not I think something SHOULD be in the public domain, because it has some inherent 'cultural value' is irrelevant to the person who OWNS the copyright. I am sure there are people who think Nosferatu has NO cultural value... they are entitled to their opinion.

The law provides for derivitive works, sampling, educational and journalistic 'fair use'... though that CAN and HAS been abused.

You keep avoiding my point.

WHEN do you think copyright should expire? What in YOUR estimation as to the 'correct' and 'moral' length of term for the intellectual property known as copyright?


And why shouldnt' I be able to GIVE that property to my heirs, for as long as the law allows?

[Mike Teutsch]

Richard-Kelly and all,

Ok, maybe I should not have started this one. Let's keep it civil.

We have different opinions on this and mostly it depends on what you do or how you are personally affected by these laws.

The copyrights laws are extreemly generous to the holders, while patents are not nearly so. Personally I feel there needs to be some softening of the copyright laws, but it will not happen soon and it will not set well with the owners.


Just keep it nice guys!

Mike

[Steven Davis]

Did you know that Pat O'Reilly of the Miami Heat owns the rights to the words 'Three peat'. And when USC won their third national title, O'reilly threatened to sue USC if they put 'Three peat' on thier shirts/hats/etc.

Kinda crazy.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Kelly Goden

works of artists (like Hans Christian Anderson among others).
Shakespeare would never have been able to write because some lawyer would have slapped him with a cease and desist. Homer--good grief--he shamelessly violated the rights of artists before him in composing the Illiad. Michaelangelo couldnt have painted the Sistine Chapel.
:)

Odd you'd comment on those two persons. Shakespeare is a well-documented supporter of protecting works, and did everything he could to protect and keep his works to himself. Same with Michelangelo. Shakespeare lobbied to have the quarto become part of the printers manifest.

As far as the term "ThreePeat" being copyrighted, that is incorrect. It is trademarked, but not copyrighted. Slogans, cheers, common phrases, titles, mantras cannot be copyrighted, but rather trademarked.

Just for another point of view (from someone that has well over 800 copyrighted works) that might at least put it in a different light, as I don't expect to change opinions...
Uncle George is from a very small farming town.
Uncle George wanted one thing in his life; a bright red Ferrari...
Uncle George worked very hard to earn enough money to buy his dream car. He spent his entire life supporting that car, building a nice garage for it, washing it regularly, looking after it with all the love, care, and passion one can give to a red Ferrari.
Uncle George got to enjoy his car for most of his adult life; he became known for it, a symbol in the community. People loved seeing uncle George driving that car around town and it somewhat became a symbol in their own lives.
About the time he turned 60, Uncle George died.
He wanted his car to go to his children and grandchildren, but the town came and took it away from them, saying "This red Ferrari is a symbol of our town, our lives, and we don't believe anyone can own it any longer, because it has become so much more to the world than just being your Uncle George's car.
The family was obviously devastated. They loved Uncle George and knew Uncle George wanted them to have the car because not only would they lovingly take care of it, but they'd also been part of his ownership of that car.

Is this a fair scenario? Of course not, but claiming that heirs don't have rights to copyright for at least one generation is silly, IMO. I want my daughter to enjoy my hard works, and to be able to know that my work is being compensated regardless of my life or death. Just because I've died doesn't mean it's still not mine.

All that said, I surely hope this thread calms down very quickly, or it's destined to be banished to cyberspace.
Chill out guys, you're arguing about whether someone should be allowed to possess a physical idea. Nothing more.

[Heath McKnight]

Spot,

Thanks for the great example; and I agree, let's calm down. This thread is getting a bit heated.

heath

[Kelly Goden]

Hey I am being nice--I just gave my opinion to the comments about colours being owned and lazy heirs of heirs charging ridiculous amounts of money for a 4 line song with a simplistic tune and I was accused of being against artist rights(which I most definitely support).
Did Shakespeare believe that his descendents living today should have control of his works?


I just dont view cultural works as being the same as a farm or commercial product, or that creator rights and heir rights are the same. An heir isnt the creator of the work and can never be. No matter what "the law" says.


I think the US law was fine up to the Bono Extension act.
Leaving money to immediate heirs is fine--but the extension was designed to keep pushing off expiration dates so that corporations(a non person no matter what the supreme court decided) and lazy heirs of heirs can keep milking money out of something they didnt create.
I dont care that Happy Birthday costs $14000 a shot, I am happy that a Bach work doesnt cost that--because you might see them as subjectively identical, I dont.

The extensions are selfish because unlike a farm, which doesnt change much-only so many things you can grow--a creative work can and does change all the time, and was created from pre existing work that was public domain. If we tried to use your farm example, it is sort of like someone creating a farm--losing it because there is no protection, then you coming along and taking the farm after proections are in place and very aggressively claiming that you created it from the ground up--while ignoring the contribution of the pre existing owner.

As you state there is room for parody in the law so its not about the integrity of the work--its really just about money.
Not money for the creator--but some remote descendent or corporation that never dies.


I see excessive copyright law as stifling to creative expression.
Imagine if the body of classical music was under copyright protection and you would lose a lot of cultural creation.There are many other examples.


Maybe in a sense its irrelevant because the works that were the foundation of all modern ones are in the public domain--but with Disney and other corporations they may well come along and claim they own public domain works next.

In fact--there are examples of them doing that. And not just heirs and corporations--you could level the same charge against indigenous groups complaining about the use of artistic imagery from their culture made hundreds or thousands of years before--but I digress.

[Heath McKnight]

I think you completely missed the point Spot was making. It was something the farmer owned and everyone in the community enjoyed seeing him in, much like Spot's music and the fact that hundreds of thousands have enjoyed it (as have his peers--he has a Grammy for his contributions to Native American music). But if he passed away down the road, he hopes his daughter and eventual grandkids will be able to enjoy the fruits of his labor.

heath

[Mike Teutsch]

Originally Posted by Heath McKnight

But if he passed away down the road, he hopes his daughter and eventual grandkids will be able to enjoy the fruits of his labor.

heath

Yes! But, perhaps not in virtual perpetuity!

Second, what rights do you think patent holders should have---------? The fruits of their labors are discontinued quickly. Screw the heirs there.

Mike

[Kelly Goden]

If you truly believe that a family farm and a cultural work are the same-and that it should pass to the heirs as a matter of moral integrity and not just what is currently in the law books(which benefits you and not them), -then you should support some sort of retro copyright law that would now give control of the works created by Shakespeare, Poe, Back, Beethoven back to their descendents as the "rightful owners."
Or refuse to use any of their public domain works in the creation of your own.
Unless you can prove that they wanted it to pass into the public domain.

Fact is that we can have these discussions because in this age a few artists can in theory make lots of money off a work. Prior to copyright laws they couldnt and didnt. If someone can show me where Shakespeare was thinking about giving his remote ancestor control of his work in all mediums I will eat the entire collected works of Shakespeare..and post it on you tube.

[Heath McKnight]

Kelly,

Change out farmer for creator; Ferrari for book, film, song, etc.; and town for public and you'll see the example. I think you're taking Spot's example literally.

heath

[Richard Alvarez]

I'm a little hazy on the undefined term... "Cultural Work". What exactly is that? Who gets to determine what it is? Please explain this term, in a clear definition.

[Steven Davis]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

As far as the term "ThreePeat" being copyrighted, that is incorrect. It is trademarked, but not copyrighted. Slogans, cheers, common phrases, titles, mantras cannot be copyrighted, but rather trademarked.
.

I apologize for my miswording. Thanks Douglas.

Btw, Douglas, did you get a chance to read my recent Vegas question in the other section?

[Dan Robinson]

Originally Posted by Kelly Goden

Then you should support some sort of retro copyright law that would now give control of the works created by Shakespeare, Poe, Back, Beethoven back to their descendents as the "rightful owners."
Or refuse to use any of their public domain works in the creation of your own.
Unless you can prove that they wanted it to pass into the public domain.

I think this is exactly the way it should be. Unless Shakespeare, Poe, Back, Beethoven or their heirs explicity granted their work to the public domain (which it appears has happened more or less over the years), they and their heirs have the right to profit from that work for as long as they have the desire to. Many hobbyists and non-professionals allow their work to pass into the public domain because of a lack of business sense and not knowing what it is worth, rather than having a full understanding of what is happening. This is more the fault of them and the people and/or corporation that took advantage of that lack of knowledge and business wisdom. Giving a work for the 'greater good' is admirable but should not be involuntary.

The production of creative works that generates income isn't any different from the construction of a factory that generates revenue from its products. Once the original owner/builder of the factory dies, it is passed on to whomever he/she appointed, and the process continues. The factory could in theory run for a thousand years and only profit the heirs, which would be acceptable. I guess I don't understand how a creative work isn't worthy of the same distinction.