Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Stealing is stealing, copyright infringement is copyright infringement.
At least in Sweden
Stateside they can be exactly the same...
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Yet sometimes "stealing" really isn't stealing, at least not to my mind. I was thinking of this when somebody e-mailed me a link to a reprise of Alan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind and thought about how I acquired my copy of it.
When that book was first published in the late eighties, the way things worked here in Oz was that when a British publishing house acquired the UK rights to a (non-Australian) work, they automatically acquired the Australian rights. The UK publishing house could then decide whether the ideas in the book were suitable for "colonial" types to read, and if considered too dangerous they simply would not allow publication in Australia or shipping of the work to Australia. (Oh, they might also not allow it if they figured it was "too intellectual" for low-brow colonial types, and so might not have a market, or any other reason they might decide to not allow it here.)
I had read reviews of the book but felt myself unable to comment on a book I hadn't actually read. So I asked a friend of mine to buy a copy while she was in the US and bring it back for me. This was illegal, because a bunch of pommy publishers had deemed the book unsuitable for the (former) colonies. My friend was at some (albeit small) risk of arrest when clearing customs here in Oz. (In practice, nobody in Customs would have noticed - and on those rare occasions when they did they merely confiscated the book rather than bringing charges. But still...)
OK: so the author made a sale he otherwise would not have made. How did I steal from him? Please let me know.
The law changed, a little bit, after that. Yet I can recall a conversation I had with an American author who had been invited to Oz to give a series of lectures on his most recent book. He was bemused to discover that the book he would be talking about could not be legally sold in the country he would be speaking in. He had wondered why his sales figures were non-existent here - and why, under those circumstances, he was being invited to speak. He would have liked the revenue from the sales. He would have liked it even more if his ideas had been allowed to circulate freely. He asked me why Australia allowed this crazy control over our intellectual life to be granted to British publishers. I had to point out to him that all attempts to change this or any other arrangement were strongly opposed by the music industry who felt that any alteration of Australian copyright law risked them losing their ability to charge $35 in Australia for a CD which sold for $12 in the US or ten quid in the UK.
The laws around this have changed further still in the intervening decades but the interests of record and movie companies (which must always be pandered to) have still prevented our spinless politicians from properly fixing this circumstance.
And I still don't think I stole that book. I think I bought it. Tell me why I'm wrong.
...Mike
When that book was first published in the late eighties, the way things worked here in Oz was that when a British publishing house acquired the UK rights to a (non-Australian) work, they automatically acquired the Australian rights. The UK publishing house could then decide whether the ideas in the book were suitable for "colonial" types to read, and if considered too dangerous they simply would not allow publication in Australia or shipping of the work to Australia. (Oh, they might also not allow it if they figured it was "too intellectual" for low-brow colonial types, and so might not have a market, or any other reason they might decide to not allow it here.)
I had read reviews of the book but felt myself unable to comment on a book I hadn't actually read. So I asked a friend of mine to buy a copy while she was in the US and bring it back for me. This was illegal, because a bunch of pommy publishers had deemed the book unsuitable for the (former) colonies. My friend was at some (albeit small) risk of arrest when clearing customs here in Oz. (In practice, nobody in Customs would have noticed - and on those rare occasions when they did they merely confiscated the book rather than bringing charges. But still...)
OK: so the author made a sale he otherwise would not have made. How did I steal from him? Please let me know.
The law changed, a little bit, after that. Yet I can recall a conversation I had with an American author who had been invited to Oz to give a series of lectures on his most recent book. He was bemused to discover that the book he would be talking about could not be legally sold in the country he would be speaking in. He had wondered why his sales figures were non-existent here - and why, under those circumstances, he was being invited to speak. He would have liked the revenue from the sales. He would have liked it even more if his ideas had been allowed to circulate freely. He asked me why Australia allowed this crazy control over our intellectual life to be granted to British publishers. I had to point out to him that all attempts to change this or any other arrangement were strongly opposed by the music industry who felt that any alteration of Australian copyright law risked them losing their ability to charge $35 in Australia for a CD which sold for $12 in the US or ten quid in the UK.
The laws around this have changed further still in the intervening decades but the interests of record and movie companies (which must always be pandered to) have still prevented our spinless politicians from properly fixing this circumstance.
And I still don't think I stole that book. I think I bought it. Tell me why I'm wrong.
...Mike
Aristophanes
Well-known
Copyright is not criminal theft except in cases of mass infringements for commercial intent, which is more akin to fraud.
Copyright violation is primarily a civil matter between private parties.
Calling the police to report a copyright infringement will get you no response. Calling a lawyer will cost you $300/hour.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Paul, it is quite exasperating that you seem to keep addressing your responses to me, while actually responding to a lot of phantom arguments that I haven't made. Nowhere have I argued that copying an eBook is morally right. Nowhere have I used a "car analogy" without making clear that it is an analogy (e.g. by using terms such as A, B, X and so on) and/or without making clear where I myself think it is flawed. Elsewhere you started bringing up "physical" property and pretending that this was something that had come from me. Elsewhere you identify me with the call for abandoning copyright altogether. And so on.
I think it would be helpful if we could all afford ourselves the little intellectual integrity to make it clear whether we are responding to arguments someone has actually made, particularly the person we're responding to, or to arguments that seem to be somehow floating in the air, or merely to your own fears and projections with which I have nothing to do. In the interest of intellectual integrity I myself in turn will refrain from lining you up with evil corporations, because my dislike for their behaviour is probably besides the point here and has in turn little to do with you.
Again, Paul, the notion of abandoning copyright altogether is something which I haven't said, not anywhere. Either you are projecting that onto me, or you are responding to it in general in a post that just happens to address me. I don't appreciate either.
Your question was literally that you wanted me to justify "what is the public interest in taking people's creations". As your question neither mentions time periods nor methods of "taking", it appears to be a general question. Therefore, it is best answered with a general answer. The general answer to that is the public domain. Project Gutenberg is just a particularly good example for the public domain, one that illustrates particularly well why and how it is beneficial. So, the public obviously does have a general interest in taking people's creations, and has in fact a right to do so, even though "taking" does not imply (as you seem to have meant) sanctioning the downloading of your copyrighted image.
The objective of copyright is to afford just a little protection and incentive to creative people such as you and me, by affording us a way to make a living off it. This is a protection granted to us by the public, for free, and consequently one which, in my view, entails a moral obligation for us to give back to the public in the form of giving them access to our works and creations. Rather than quabbling about lengths and periods and so on, however, I would very much prefer to arrive at some kind of reasonable extended, durable definition of "fair use". But that is only my own opinion.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I rather think that this is the problem. It can be very difficult for some people to be as honest as yourself about the difference between their opinions and their desire for the world to correspond to their desires. I certainly have made that mistake in the past and, no doubt, will do so again. It is this that is the cause of so much conflict and there would be far less if people followed your example, rxmd.
Aristophanes's...
...also illuminates the discussion well, I believe. It seems to me to be all about perceived value. If you think that an image I offer is worth one cent, then that is what it is worth, to you. The same applies if you think it is worth one million dollars. The conflict arises from the technology of reproduction and has been a problem since Gutenberg and that damned moveable type.
I rather think that we're only looking at the beginning of the conflict. The technology of 3D printing is evolving rapidly. How will intellectual property be enforced, when you can pour a few powders into the appropriate hoppers, press a button and a few days later, drive your new car off the print area?
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Having consulted the auto companies - purely about saftey
- the state will refuse registration to any such vehicle, regardless of it's design....Mike
Paul T.
Veteran
Well, I was responding to your specific arguments, which is why I quoted you.
And while you might find it irritating that I associate some of the other arguments with you, I find it unhelpful that you attempt to associate me with companies like Disney, it's cheap propaganda.
Seems entirely reasonable.
I entirely disagree with what I see as an implication that copyright is a privilege, not a right. Admittedly rights are always available for negotiation. This debate started because someone had his photo taken from him. It's an interesting debate, because he left his photo easily accessible, and asked too much money ([irony] rather like a car owner who left his keys in the ignition [/irony]) but yes, the act of taking his photo was morally wrong.
If it were me, and let's face it the photo is nice but hardly great, I'd settle for a formal apology, an explanation and a credit somewehre. I've done exactly this in the past, to a retailer who used my stuff - because they were nice. But I detest the notion that people think they can use other's work with impunity.
My work is still my work, whatever the domain. Of course, some uses vary - musicians have generally always accepted that live shows will be bootlegged, but to assume one has the RIGHT to bootleg their music is wrong, parasitical and doesn't benefit society.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
OK, I guess creative quoting is also a form of creativity.
You arguably quote me, but then you start talking about all sorts of things that follow neither from the text you quoted, nor from any other statement of mine in the earlier discussion. Examples: "creation as a physical artefact", "the notion of abandoning copyright altogether", "physical possession", "you are saying that it isn't stealing, because someone is taking something you didn't really use". Those are not "my specific arguments that you're responding to". These are things you've read or heard from some people, but not from me, yet you make them sound as if you were responding to me there.
These things are in your own head, from wherever, but not me. Please be so kind as to distinguish between things that I've actually stated and those that you merely associate with me somehow when responding to me.
Don't you think it's a bit of a cheap shot to repeat that after I already pointed it out myself?
Paul T.
Veteran
Your quote is immediately above, I shortened for brevity alone... don't take this so personally. remember, you're trying to diminish my livelihood, and I don't take it personally!
Actually, no, because while I find many of your arguments well-founded - from your perspective, with which I happen to disagree - I found your first mention of Disney a cheap attempt to tarnish my viewpoint by association.
It's also a repetition of a cheap shot used in this debate at large, part of the fallacy that watering down copyright will damage only evil megacorporations, not individual producers.
This is merely a forum, I have no disagreement with you personally, only your arguments and some of the others on this thread.
Alack, as someone who is supposed to produce IP, I see I've spent an hour or more getting diverted. An occupational hazard. But today is a vacation day and I take off for the coast. Enjoy yourselves...
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Complaining about cheap shots won't do if immediately followed by no less cheap polemic. I've come across next to no statement demanding a watering down of copyright - the whole subject of the debate is how and by whom royalties should be collected.
And there also is no doubt that most of the current proposals at national or international lawmaking level are by lobbyists of either the old or the new media corporations, and disregard the interests of the authors and end users alike.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Look, if you support the copyright status quo (as your comments seem to indicate), then it is disingenuous to not acknowledge that the status quo is a direct product of immense lobbying efforts by Disney and other MPAA and RIAA signatories.
The current law is their law. Bought and paid for. For example.
If you wish to separate the law-as-written from a more abstract and general view of copyright, you might want to make that distinction explicit.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Right. To pretend otherwise is absurd.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Thou shalt not steal, but that was many years ago. As someone said here, she doesn't even realize that this is stealing. Photos done by someone else are the new Napster.
By the way Bill, very good subject thanks for opening it up.
By the way Bill, very good subject thanks for opening it up.
Paul T.
Veteran
yes, you're right. Arguing that a photographer shouldn't have his photo used by someone else is EXACTLY like siding with Disney.
Yes, you're right. Of course someone outside of the USA is referring to a specific US copyright law that you personally are exercised about. (What, there are other countries outside the USA? Incroyable! )
Yes, you're right. This is a photography site. Of course we should argue against maintenance of copyright for photographers, musicians, writers and other content creators.
(You couldn't make it up. This is like watching turkeys vote for Christmas).
Aristophanes
Well-known
Copyright can be both a privilege (legal monopoly) and a right (assigned to you).
His photo was produced in an infinitely copied format. He asked too much. His work was appropriated and infringed, and the cost to remedy is not worth it.
I question the photographer's morality in how easily accessible and vulnerable a format he left his own private property. Do we often leave $250 items lying around? Do you leave your iPhone on the table at dinner in the restaurant and then rail at all the other customers after it goes missing?
The impunity exists solely because of the cost to remedy. If you cannot afford a lawyer and legal costs, don't post $250 photos. Forget the other guy's morality. Be paranoid and assume everyone will steal. Worry about protecting what is yours. Drive defensively.
If you want the right, then accept the responsibility that comes with it. How often people forget that simple truism.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Since neither I nor any other serious person here is making any such argument (i.e., that photos should be used without permission), let me help you.
See above. The content of WIPO's rules and other trade agreements are driven by exactly the same multinationals that drive the content of US copyright legislation. You may have noted that I used the phrase "for example."
You understand what the word "example" means, yes?
For someone who claims to work in the field of IP, you don't seem terribly interested in how IP laws, rules, and treaties actually come into existence, or what their underlying intent is. It is a strange form of incuriosity.
---
In any event, perhaps you have opinions about some of the serious questions that are are actually under consideration by legislators, treaty negotiators, and courts:
Exactly how long should copyright persist before a work passes into the public domain?
Should there be criminal penalties for simple cases of copyright infringement? (As there are for actual theft.)
Should the police be spending resources on simple cases of copyright infringement? (As they do for actual theft.)
What should copyright holders be allowed to do -- with or without due legal process -- to suspected infringers?
What should copyright holders be allowed to do -- with or without due legal process -- to the common carriers that may be used to transmit data by suspected infringers?
What should copyright holders be allowed to do -- with or without due legal process -- to third parties (e.g., Google, Bing) who happen to index data transmitted by suspected infringers?
Should these common carriers and indexers be obligated to monitor, crawl, and/or log traffic by everyone in order to ensnare suspected infringers?
If so, how should the privacy of the majority who are not infringers be protected? And can it be protected at all?
If so, who should pay for all of this stuff?
And finally: should I be in prison because I am the proud owner* of a Taiwanese bootleg** of Jefferson Airplane's Surrealistic Pillow, on transparent orange vinyl?
*It was a gift.
**Pressed back in the days when Taiwan was even more of a no-copyright haven than it is today.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
There's no intent to throw this thread into another direction but this is so close in my mind that I'm thinking everyone here will be interested to see how this one plays out between Sobel and Eggleston.
Sobel has sued Eggleston for printing new "larger" limited editions of original (smaller in dimensions) limited editions. He is claiming dimunition in value as damages. Should be interesting. A search for "Eggleston - Sobel lawsuit" should provide lots more reading and discussion
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/05/45348.htm
Sobel has sued Eggleston for printing new "larger" limited editions of original (smaller in dimensions) limited editions. He is claiming dimunition in value as damages. Should be interesting. A search for "Eggleston - Sobel lawsuit" should provide lots more reading and discussion
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/05/45348.htm
Last edited:
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Bill Pierce (or anyone with a truly informed opinion): We are having a discussion on another thread, Robert Capa - Video, if it is OK to use a Magnum photo or video without permission so long as it is attributed and is for non-commercial use. The attribution is because the images are watermarked "Magnum Photo".
I have my ideas but I am the odd man out.
Please, tell us what you think.
I have my ideas but I am the odd man out.
Please, tell us what you think.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
As mentioned in that thread, it would be important to mention that these photos are only available in a video, i.e. not as individual pictures, and are downscaled and compressed to extremely low quality, unsuitable for reproduction. This unsuitability is pretty important under fair use considerations.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Interesting article.
The major point I take on this is that the author did not control nor contract for their work up front, and instead had to chase down compensation. They were lucky to be negotiating with an institution with deep pockets for a commercial outlay and were not feisty, lawerying up to challenge copyright due to the involvement of the ex-student who had a copy of the photo.
Chasing down infringement is simply poor business as it adds legal costs, outcome uncertainty, and lost productivity to the mix. Arguing copyright without contract is very difficult if multiple parties are involved. If the photog publicly contested the matter, they could be viewed as a "difficult" professional for agencies, clients etc. to deal with.
If you share your work it may likely be infringed at your cost to remedy. The right of copyright comes with responsibilities.