-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Interllectual Propery issues
From: David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, February 28, 2009 1:27 pm
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sat, February 28, 2009 11:55, Emily L. Ferguson wrote:
> Unfortunately,
> here in the US, we have a term in our Constitution which specifies
> that copyright must eventually devolve into public domain, thus
> robbing heirs of the right to control usage of creations of their
> elders.
This is not "unfortunate"; this is the bedrock basis of copyright in the
first place. Extending our system to life+50 and then life+70 was a
terrible decision, I think (though harmonizing with the rest of the world
is valuable); it's far too long.
If everything gets wrapped up in permanent copyright, then it becomes
impossible to do anything with it. Art has always been an ongoing
conversation, and this would bring it to an end. Imagine if a
photographer had to reach a contract with the architect of every building,
the breeder and current owner of every plant, the designer of every piece
of clothing, and so forth, that appeared in their pictures.
"Intellectual property" is a high-level abstraction, and all the simple
analogies to other kinds of property are deeply flawed. It's its own
thing and needs its own rules, which we haven't gotten right yet.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx;
http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots:
http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos:
http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera:
http://dragaera.info
Property 1. a possession 2. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has a legal title Intellectual Of or pertaining to intellect The ability to think abstractly or profoundly. Actually intellectual property is a bit like any other property, but the only real difference is how it comes into existence. If a man goes out and builds a canoe with his own two hands, its his. It is his to control. There are no situations where someone can steal it and claim ownership or whoops. He can pass it down to his son, and his son to his son and no one ever questions it. At no point in that canoe's life can anyone come and say, ok the guy that built it is dead and its been over 75 years so anyone that wants to use that canoe can do so for free without permission from anyone, including the builders family. In fact that family would likely be left standing on the bank watching. You don't take the ownership of a home away from a family because the man that built it has been dead for over 75 years. It is all a possesion to which one has a legal title.
The only real difference between that canoe and a book, is one was created with the man's hands. The other was created with his mind and soul. Which has more value??? How its treated legally is a joke. Its not an abstract. The thought process itself might be abstract, but once its becomes a product such as an image or book, it is not an abstract at all. It can be touched, handled and sold or given away just like any other property.
Being in copyright doesn't mean you can't do anything with it. Quite the opposite, and the big companies know it. It does mean you can not do anything with it FOR FREE!!!! You might buy a copyrighted product just as easily as you buy a canoe. That's what this current orphan works is about. It really isn't about old photos. It is much more about the attitude of let see let's find an image we like, don't pay the photographer, strip the metadata, and then if caught say whoops it was an orphan work. How are you going to prove who stripped the meta data anyway unless you are awfully lucky?
Art will not end. As a matter of fact you can not copyright an idea. It is the mind that finds art and if there were more protection for ones work once done, the economic prospects of those creating new art just might be enhanced to the point that more people can see enough of a return on the investment of time and money that it could start a new age of creation.
How any photographer or the creator of any type of IP could support any form of orphan works legislation is beyond me, but Id be happy to hear your point of view and debate it in a civil and adult manner.
