Under UK law, copyright protection lasts for 70 years after the author dies. As JRR Tolkien died in 1973, his copyright is good until 2043. Which is why Amazon paid so much for the TV rights.
In my opinion, the harder lawyers try to protect something, the more interested thieves will be in obtaining that product. If it were possible to obtain graphic material legally at a reasonable price, many authors would use this system to illustrate their books, but the greed of publishers prevents any productive exchange. I was never able to publish my book on the Tintin rocket because of the irrational rejection of the Moulinsart publishing house, and my book contained only drawings made by me and not a single illustration by Hergé!!!
The problem has already been discussed here by authors who complained about the high price of the photographs with which they tried to illustrate their books. Books are copied less because there are fewer and fewer people who read only texts because they prefer books with illustrations, a vicious circle.
Sorry for the diversion, but how long do you think copyright should extend? Serious question.
The life of the artist plus 70 years. And speaking to no one in particular, I am tired of hearing about people who want something for nothing. Public Domain, they say. Create something yourself I say. Find out how hard it is.
So far as making money goes, the relevant parties are:
These are of course mutually incompatible. There's clearly some reasonable point at which works pass into the public domain, otherwise we'd be paying royalties to the heirs of Homer for the Iliad. At the same time, whilst some creators might create things without any certainty of receiving income, no sensible publisher house is going to print something that'll be copied hither and yon with no hope of recourse.
- The original creator, and their agents, who would like to retain intellectual property rights for as long as possible in order to profit from the work, and
- Creators of derivative works, who would like to gain access to the intellectual property rights as soon as possible in order to profit from the work.
From a policymaker's perspective, the relevant question is - at what point does the social value from permitting the creation of derivative works exceed the social value from incentivising the creation of novel works? And how do you perceive 'social value' anyway? One way - probably not good, but at least measurable - would be tax income. Another would be the net rate of creation of works. There are probably others, and I doubt even most policymakers are really thinking in those terms.
From my perspective, as a mere consumer (though with aspirations!), I don't believe that corporate authors holding indefinite copyright is desirable. But it probably is reasonable for authors to expect to benefit from their work, if not for their entire lifetime, then for a substantial portion thereof. That leads me to the conclusion that copyright ought to be valid for a reasonably long period after creation or publication, in the vein of current US copyright law. Precise durations are, of course, wholly arguable.
Sorry for the diversion, but how long do you think copyright should extend? Serious question.
The life of the artist plus 70 years. And speaking to no one in particular, I am tired of hearing about people who want something for nothing. Public Domain, they say. Create something yourself I say. Find out how hard it is.
Copyright law in its current form is out of control, and regularly used to stifle innovation and creativity.
1. the copyright term is far too long. Extending copyright beyond the life of the author is absurd. It does not benefit society to lock up works under the control of a single entity for that long. The result is that many works become unavailable when the distribution cost exceeds the profit the owner thinks he can make. This impoverishes our culture.
2. the scope of copyright is too extensive. As an example: when sampling became possible, artists abused the copyright of their songs to extract money from people for reusing a single note from that song as a sample. Copyright currently makes derivative works prohibitively expensive.
Copyright is an indispensable tool in the artistic world, but it is also susceptible to abuse and in extreme cases a parasite factory. When the number of parasites exceeds the donor's capacity to regenerate, the donor dies and soon after the parasites do too.
Anyone care to explain why copyright can last far in excess of a century, while patents are for 17 years? Explain why art is more important to "protect" than science.
I did read somewhere that companies are bound to the same laws, and copyright will expire, even for them....and for corporations, which can be effectively immortal?
That's right. Legally, they can renew a copyright indefinitely.
Anyone care to explain why copyright can last far in excess of a century, while patents are for 17 years? Explain why art is more important to "protect" than science.
Not a good comparison.
I did read somewhere that companies are bound to the same laws, and copyright will expire, even for them....and for corporations, which can be effectively immortal?
That's right. Legally, they can renew a copyright indefinitely.
Unless Disney finds another way to get an extension..
Why patents are shorter protected then art?
Good question, Scott
I think it has to do with the fact that a patent protect an idea that is ready to go to market.
Art-copyright is essentially free, if you create a artwork and register that event (Putting it on Twitter or some fancy lawyer, doesn't matter, if you can prove you are first, you are the copyrightholder (Speaking of Europe.)( But if you want to do it professionally: You should send a copy of your work to your local copyright agency and the date that they receive it is the official registrationdate).
But for a patent you have to pay some serious money, not only in the country you want to register it in ( Can be different then the country it was developed in) but also for worldwide protection. Because otherwise a competitor just moves the stolen idea to a factory in another country. Worldwide protection is ofcourse even more expensive. So it would be logically to assume that a company would be ready to start selling the product or license the idea onto the market. Long gone are the days that people would patent toiletpaper or another idea for a plane with 8 wings. The little guys can't afford it anymore. Inventors work for companies or universities that can brag about how many patents they have, and are happy to license out their creative-intellectual work.
I have done some research in the past for an employer who's idea was stolen by a competitor ( After he stole his business idea from another competitor...Karma? )
Copyright can last for 100 or 110 years currently.
Anyone care to explain why copyright can last far in excess of a century, while patents are for 17 years? Explain why art is more important to "protect" than science.
Actually, the whole copyright thing depends on one factor nobody has mentioned here: the volume of sales. The copyright of Mickey Mouse, Cruella de Ville or Indiana Jones that we have been talking about cannot be compared to the aviation books that some of us publish (or try to publish). I do not believe that claiming compensation for the copy of an aviation book that has been self-published in small quantities may be profitable; I am not saying that it is not possible, but it surely is not so profitable as to be worth to initiate a very expensive judicial process from which only lawyers can derive some benefit. A publisher of a certain size could afford to have its own legal department but might not be interested in marketing a book about unknown prototypes. That means that an important part of aviation history will never be published. The system favors the rich and the thieves and is against the small, as always has been.
A true story: a few years ago, somebody copy-and-pasted a large chunk of the code for, iirc, handling windows in the X-window system. The code was covered by something like copyleft (google it), but the thief then filed for rights on the software and got them, proceeding to sue the creator.Who is ripping off who anyway?
Image libraries like alamy and shutterstock hoovering up any public domain image they want to and slapping their own copyright on it in a blatant attempt to commoditise imagery in their own stock image cartels. Along comes the AI providers and hoover these images up to hone their AI library. Along comes the DA AI artist who then tries to entice other DA AI artists to subscribe to their feed of churned out AI art which they have "produced" on the AI programme that's "stolen" copy-written material from an image library that "stole" the public domain images in the first place.
For textual sources things seem a little more straightforward, books tend to be protected better than images it seems.
A true story: a few years ago, somebody copy-and-pasted a large chunk of the code for, iirc, handling windows in the X-window system. The code was covered by something like copyleft (google it), but the thief then filed for rights on the software and got them, proceeding to sue the creator.
Correction to your correction: no, you can't. You may not be caught, but it's still a violation. I'm an educator; many publishers argue that the exemption for fair use doesn't exist, which means that, for example, an English teacher (I teach physics; nobody's tried to copyright Maxwell's equations or the laws of thermodynamics. Yet) couldn't use passages from recent works in class.Correction: You can't market my work, but you can make versions for non-profit friends.Frank Herbert was a bitter guy who was only able to see the bad side of life, but... What about the bright side? I could rewatch CSI: Vegas without Jorja Fox, The Hunt for Red October with Alec Baldwin replaced by Harrison Ford and Deep Impact without Morgan Freeman. With the help of AI you could make the movie Red Storm Rising, a decent version of Them! 1954 or an understandable end of 2001.Let face it, this AI tech is a double-edged sword,
you can use for good of mankind or worst of Mankind.
We live in interesting Times, like the Chinese curse say.
A time of transition, were old social system is replace by a New System.
like transition of Gothic to Renaissance/Reformation with all conflicts and Wars.
Here is it Cold War Era that replace by something new...
AI Tech will play important role in this transition during 21 century,
Allot Job normal during colt War will become obsolete with AI Tech.
Like assistants in Administration, Law firm and others will be replace by AI Tech.
Something similar will happen with Artist, illustrators and writers.
Imagine the next strike of Writers Guild of America and Hollywood switch to AI script...
although Ai Tech will bring improvement in Technology, like Aerospace or constructions.
But you could use this Technology for malicious means...
Perfect face recognition on Security Camera, precise profile of wanted persons.
Deep Fake of Person to black mail them or falsification of history for those who want total control !
But this not AI fault but fault the people using this technology for good or malicious means,
I think that was Frank Herbert warn us in DUNE about this AI Tech misuse, not about thinking machines...
The outcry from the original directors, or their heirs, would be enormous. 'You CAN'T change my work.'
I have a friend who alters short sequences of unforgettable movies as a hobby, whenever I go to his house for dinner he has something really cool to show me. The latest was an altered version of the Millennium Falcon's combat in the asteroid field:
- Are you going into an asteroid field?
- "They'll be crazy if they follow us.
In this particular version of only three minutes Carrie Fisher has been replaced by Greta Garbo with material extracted from Ninotchka and in my qopinion the improvement is great.
Maybe he read the article. It happened during, iirc, G W Bush's administrationA true story: a few years ago, somebody copy-and-pasted a large chunk of the code for, iirc, handling windows in the X-window system. The code was covered by something like copyleft (google it), but the thief then filed for rights on the software and got them, proceeding to sue the creator.
Douglas Adams already covered this concept...
There was a time when eating certain foods, not kneeling at the passage of a king or claiming that the earth orbited around the sun or that blood circulated through the arteries instead of the air could be punished with a horrible death, there was a time when drinking alcohol in New York was a crime but not in Paris and that people were imprisoned for stealing a piece of bread. There was a time when homosexuality and adultery were punishable by lapidation. But over time all those stupid laws disappeared. The same will happen with much of the current legislation and may be the same with Maxwell's laws in the future. Everything changes over time... except the avant-garde theater.Correction to your correction: no, you can't. You may not be caught, but it's still a violation. I'm an educator; many publishers argue that the exemption for fair use doesn't exist, which means that, for example, an English teacher (I teach physics; nobody's tried to copyright Maxwell's equations or the laws of thermodynamics. Yet) couldn't use passages from recent works in class.Correction: You can't market my work, but you can make versions for non-profit friends.Frank Herbert was a bitter guy who was only able to see the bad side of life, but... What about the bright side? I could rewatch CSI: Vegas without Jorja Fox, The Hunt for Red October with Alec Baldwin replaced by Harrison Ford and Deep Impact without Morgan Freeman. With the help of AI you could make the movie Red Storm Rising, a decent version of Them! 1954 or an understandable end of 2001.Let face it, this AI tech is a double-edged sword,
you can use for good of mankind or worst of Mankind.
We live in interesting Times, like the Chinese curse say.
A time of transition, were old social system is replace by a New System.
like transition of Gothic to Renaissance/Reformation with all conflicts and Wars.
Here is it Cold War Era that replace by something new...
AI Tech will play important role in this transition during 21 century,
Allot Job normal during colt War will become obsolete with AI Tech.
Like assistants in Administration, Law firm and others will be replace by AI Tech.
Something similar will happen with Artist, illustrators and writers.
Imagine the next strike of Writers Guild of America and Hollywood switch to AI script...
although Ai Tech will bring improvement in Technology, like Aerospace or constructions.
But you could use this Technology for malicious means...
Perfect face recognition on Security Camera, precise profile of wanted persons.
Deep Fake of Person to black mail them or falsification of history for those who want total control !
But this not AI fault but fault the people using this technology for good or malicious means,
I think that was Frank Herbert warn us in DUNE about this AI Tech misuse, not about thinking machines...
The outcry from the original directors, or their heirs, would be enormous. 'You CAN'T change my work.'
I have a friend who alters short sequences of unforgettable movies as a hobby, whenever I go to his house for dinner he has something really cool to show me. The latest was an altered version of the Millennium Falcon's combat in the asteroid field:
- Are you going into an asteroid field?
- "They'll be crazy if they follow us.
In this particular version of only three minutes Carrie Fisher has been replaced by Greta Garbo with material extracted from Ninotchka and in my qopinion the improvement is great.
Maybe he read the article. It happened during, iirc, G W Bush's administrationA true story: a few years ago, somebody copy-and-pasted a large chunk of the code for, iirc, handling windows in the X-window system. The code was covered by something like copyleft (google it), but the thief then filed for rights on the software and got them, proceeding to sue the creator.
Douglas Adams already covered this concept...
On the third of March, during my friend Michelle's birthday party, a dozen people who had drunk a lot sang the 1965 song without suspecting that we were committing an illegal act. I hope Lennon's ectoplasm forgives our ignorance.Maxwell's equations and the laws of thermodynamics seem to be built into the structure of the Universe, so they're quite a bit less changeable than things like copyright laws
So, the criminal was inspired by DA or, equally likely, I got the year wrong. It happened when the US Patent Office was regularly issuing patents for prior art, sort of like the idea of Disney getting the copyright for characters from the Hundred Acre Wood or Apple suing everyone selling a WIMP interface, which wasn't conceived by Apple.Maybe he read the article. It happened during, iirc, G W Bush's administrationA true story: a few years ago, somebody copy-and-pasted a large chunk of the code for, iirc, handling windows in the X-window system. The code was covered by something like copyleft (google it), but the thief then filed for rights on the software and got them, proceeding to sue the creator.
Douglas Adams already covered this concept...
Naah. HGTTG was written in the late 70's.