The Suits are coming, Film Maker Sues Google!

[Heath McKnight]

If it's my property, I hope my heirs (or company) retain that for a long time. Record-keeping is better now than ever before, so it's harder to be kept in the dark about ownership.

heath

[Kelly Goden]

I took Spot and Richard's example of a farm or object and took it to its logical conclusion--which is that the modern day descendents of Shakespeare etc should have the same rights if you wanted to be fair. If you think that heirs and heirs of heirs should keep on getting money and control of a work they didnt create, then it should also apply to famous creators whose work we all profit from in creating our own.

If one did want that--it would effectively stop you from creating new works.

Too many law suits. And it would probably force alot of existing works into the trashbin.

If I made works and want to give the residuals to some trust fund to keep funding some charity cause--or what happened with Peter Pan--where it was turned over to an orphanage/school or something. That is all good. But I think its wrong to have that relationship forever because of how much influence previous, public domain works have on new works. An art work just isnt like a farm or some other commodity(although I havent given much thought to what that implies for say, a new type of hammer or whatever--liquid paper, in terms of perpetual residuals etc. You couldnt have liquid paper without the invention of the pen, or paper, or paint, but it would be much harder to trace the creator sources for them-due to their common usage-compared with an art work where someone can say "I was inspired by this story to write this new one.")


Just as I was responding a friend of mine wrote me to say that someone had posted his work on youtube and took credit for it. I would be outraged too.
But that is separate from the issue of an heir's heir's rights.

Anyway that's just my opinion.

[Mike Teutsch]

Originally Posted by Dan Robinson

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.

Very wrong! When that business is passed on, it is taxed almost to death. Look at the plite of the family farms.

Second, the business that is incorporated is in fact treated like any individual by our laws. Therefore, the products they turn out are like an artist creating a song. Should the business have the right in perpetuity to come out and demand that you give them their product back, or demand that you pay for it again?

They don't equate.

Also, I see no one is touching my question on patent rights. Why, as if I didn't know?? :)

Mike

[Richard Alvarez]

Currently IP (Intellectual Property) is similar to tangible property in that it can be bought, sold, licensed, traded, and given away... it IS different from tangible property in some very subtle but distinctive ways.

The main point being, that the law RECOGNIZES the value to society from ideas, and DOES provide for their eventual accessability to the culture for the greater good.

Patents DO expire.
Copyrights DO expire.

I'm trying to understand Kelly's point of view, which seems to be that Intellectual Property is a 'cultural work' in nature, and therefore the right of the creator should be diminished by this. Kelly has yet to outline exactly what that diminshment should entail, beyond the fact that the right currently exists for 95/120 years (depending on issue date) is too long?

EDIT some posts came up while I was posting this.

Trademarks and Patents are different 'animals' than copyrights. Patents have a shorter intial term, while trademarks don't 'expire' in the same sense, though they may "Fall out of USE" which is a different legal state.


So to sum up at this point. Kelly seems to think that the current law is too favorable for the creators? That the current term is too long? Is that correct? What do you think it should be?

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Kelly Goden

I took Spot and Richard's example of a farm or object and took it to its logical conclusion--which is that the modern day descendents of Shakespeare etc should have the same rights if you wanted to be fair. If you think that heirs and heirs of heirs should keep on getting money and control of a work they didnt create, then it should also apply to famous creators whose work we all profit from in creating our own.

Ummm.....I never mentioned a farm. I mentioned a man working hard to earn a Ferrari.

Since you apparently don't understand the metaphor;

I've worked very, very hard to be successful in the music business and somewhat successful in the video production industry.

I don't do this so much as for my own benefit, but as many adults do, I do it because I love it and it puts food on my table for the benefit of my family and my children. It's part of my responsibility to society and my family to provide for them. There is no where that says I should stop providing for them after I'm gone, and it doesn't make them lazy to enjoy the fruits of my labors after I'm gone. Only they have the ability to determine just how much they'll pass on my labors after I'm gone, but it's their decision.

I look at a guy like Peter Buffett, son of the second most rich man in America. He is a hard-ass worker, who isn't in the least bit lazy. He is an incredible musician and performer, super humble personality, and doesn't enjoy being in the lime-light as his father's son. I also know that when Warren Buffett leaves this earth, Peter will benefit as a result of his father's labors. I firmly believe that Peter will do good with those labors. Now, his daddy didn't write a story, compose a song, nor create a film, but he made his own way to the top of his financial empire. What should happen to that empire when Warren Buffett dies? Should it be distributed among society? Or should it, as a financially viable concern, be placed in the care of someone that has a reason and personal stake in continuing that value?

My music is my music. Whether you're hearing it in an Amazon advertisement on television, seeing it carry part of a Tom Cruise movie, or enjoying the free downloads from my website, it's still mine. Me. I live on in perpetuity as a result of my music, and my children or whomever I designate, should enjoy the benefits of my labors for as long as I, the owner/creator/master of the works deem fit.

No different than if I choose to pass my vehicle, home, or other physical assets to my children. Which was the point of my little homily that never mentioned a farmer. ;-)

Isn't it amazing how your mind can play tricks on you, ie; seeing a story about a farmer, when the story is about Uncle George?

BTW, the story about Uncle George is literally true, except it's paraphrased from a true story about Elvis.

Bottom line: Those that don't see the value of defending intellectual property rights, have none.

[Peter Wiley]

This is an interesting thread.

For what it's worth, in the U.S. copyright law begins with the Constitution that gives Congress the power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing, for a limited time, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

So in the U.S. copyrights MUST be limited. The question boils down to what's a reasonably "limited time"? In the Constitution there is no mention of the author's estate or heirs, so one might argue the limit should be no longer than the life of the author. Of course it has not worked out that way because Disney and others have good lawyers and clever lobbyists see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_B..._Extension_Act

The idea, BTW, that family farms are going under because of estate taxes is, at best, an exaggeration. See: http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html

[Mike Teutsch]

Originally Posted by Peter Wiley

The idea, BTW, that family farms are going under because of estate taxes is, at best, an exaggeration. See: http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html

That is not a factual way to look at it, because it fails to look at the past and what decimated the family farm in the first place. They practically do not exist now, compared to what they used to be. It's like saying that buggy whip abuse of horses can't be found these days, and is thought now to mythical!

Mike

[Mike Teutsch]

By the way guys, how long should a patent be good for? You are not addressing that question.

Mike

[Dan Robinson]

Originally Posted by Mike Teutsch

When that business is passed on, it is taxed almost to death. Look at the plite of the family farms.

True - but my point is that total ownership/control of the business and its products/profits doesn't get taken away after the owner passes on or after a certain time period has elapsed, as copyrighed material eventually does. The family/heirs/trustees still control the business and are the sole beneficiaries (aside from Uncle Sam's share) of its profits. Not to mention, Uncle Sam still gets a healthy chunk of the money I make with my intellectual property too.

Should the business have the right in perpetuity to come out and demand that you give them their product back, or demand that you pay for it again?

Assuming the purchaser originally paid the business (artist) for the use/ownership of the product (song/video/film), there would be no reason for the business to demand returns and/or further payment.

Admittedly there is a problem IMO with most 'legit' IP licensing being unaffordable to the masses. Of course, this doesn't justify the theft of it, but does outline a need for a solution. Maybe royalty-free content would be a good business to get into these days :)

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Scary, that once again we're calling upon the fact-frugal-font of Wiki's.

Better, read the US Copyright law.

As far as terms, the original term was the life of the author plus argued years. This is fallout from the Statute of Anne (worth reading when youv'e got a couple free hours). One of the reasons that copyrights don't expire at the death of a copyright holder is that the expiration of copyright was deemed in the 1700's as a potential incentive for early demise (read; murder) of the copyright holder.

As far as heirs....should society have the right to enjoy the works of anyone after they're gone, without paying a price for it? I don't believe so. Someone created that work; just because they died doesn't mean that society should benefit from their works if the creator doesn't want them to.

Why do people want to use copyrighted works in their own work anyway? Put the shoe on the other foot. Are people too lazy to create their own works? I submit they are.

Having experienced violations of my own copyrights and trademarked name, the *only* reason I can see for copyrighted works being used in a creative sense is for parodies, educational uses, and commentary. Outside of that, it's laziness, IMO.

I'm doing a video for a year-end project, it's pro-bono. Only one copy of the work will ever been seen at a one-time event. No doubt, I can easily get away with using U2, Stones, etc in this vid. But I won't. It's extra work, but I have integrity and want to be able to say that I created every aspect of this work myself, or used material for which the authors were compensated. That's what art is about.

Otherwise, we might as well be buying up paint-by-numbers paintings, selling them in stores as "by Chagall."

Kelly, I would submit you don't have a clear understanding of copyright, because you keep citing unrelated examples. Pencils, pens, paper don't fall under copyright, they fall under patents. Patents that benefit the greatest part of society in a tangible format expire. The inventor is allowed to own the right to his invention for a lengthy period of time so that he can recoup his initial investment in the project. Copyrights protect (predominantly) art and speech. Creative works.

I find it exceptionally frightening that people in a creative community inspired to bring forth creative works don't understand, or even refute the value of protecting intellectual properties.

The ENTIRE purpose of protecting intellectual properties, is to allow for a creative environment to take place. Spend a day reading the purpose and intent of the framers of the Copyright Laws in the early days. Without copyrights, there would be zero incentive to create, and all the incentive of the world to do as the Romans and Greeks did; hire brilliant people to write/create brilliant works, and stick the names of famous people on them. Nothing else matters. Not the amount of money generated, not the people who get rich or not, nothing else matters, except that we've preserved the natural right of protecting ownership of a piece of property. That was, and is the intent of the laws.

[Mike Teutsch]

Originally Posted by Dan Robinson

Not to mention, Uncle Sam still gets a healthy chunk of the money I make with my intellectual property too.

Not the same!! The tax on the farm is not on earnings, it is on the value. To be the same, when you die the government should tax you heirs at 20% of what ever the future earnings of your property could be. So if you pass on something that has the potential to earn $3,000.000, then your heirs would be required to pay $300,000 up front before any income is collected. Do you see what happened to the family farm now? They could not pay and the land was sold in whole or part to pay the taxes! The land had to leave the family because it was worth more than any potential earning. It is the same way with some songs, as their ability to earn all of a sudden goes through the roof because of some event, but they are only taxed on real income, not potential.

Originally Posted by Dan Robinson

Assuming the purchaser originally paid the business (artist) for the use/ownership of the product (song/video/film), there would be no reason for the business to demand returns and/or further payment.

Not true. I could hire you to write a song for me, but the payment would only cover one use, or I could pay an extremely high price for the right to use it in any way I choose in perpetuity, but then it costs too much for me to even use.

If it were that way for a car manufacturer, you could buy your Chevy (which is made under thousands of patents, which EXPIRE soon!) and maybe only have the right to drive it to work, not for play.

Originally Posted by Dan Robinson

Maybe royalty-free content would be a good business to get into these days :)

Royalty-free IS good business. That I what I buy for my music. Just bought another library. I could not afford to hire an artist to write it for me and the lawyers it would require for me to continue to use the material. Actually, the system may be puting song writers at a big disadvantage, and hurting their income, as people just don't consider it practical to deal with using them.


Still, no one has answered my question? How long should a patent run?

:) :)

Mike

[Boyd Ostroff]

I think this would be a good time for everyone to enjoy some of the other topics under discussion here at DVinfo. There are plenty of existing threads about copyrights (just do a search) and we're just covering old ground, so this thread is now closed.