Information identifiée comme étant archivée dans le Web à des fins de consultation, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’a pas été modifiée ni mise à jour depuis la date de son archivage. Les pages Web qui sont archivées dans le Web ne sont pas assujetties aux normes applicables au Web du gouvernement du Canada. Conformément à la Politique de communication du gouvernement du Canada, vous pouvez la demander sous d’autres formes. Ses coordonnées figurent à la page « Contactez-nous »
Another slanted question that tries to imply that copyright laws somehow drive innovation and creativity when this is not true at all. So I guess in that context no changes are best.
TPB - Not The Pirate Bay but Trailer Park Boys…that show was a complete sucess because of P2P and word of mouth. I am Canadian and a friend from Texas actually told me about the show after season 2 started. Showtime was a no-name cable channel that was more then likely not that watched…but I don't know because before TPB I never heard of it even though I paid for it on my TV.
My friend told me how to download season one of the show and after that I told at least 20 people about the show…
Now they sell our every venu they have…it is a great win for small budget productions with non-MPAA type content that strikes a cord with audiences…
If we have draconian controls on creation and distribusion then you won't see another show like this…good shows are spread mouth to mouth…network shows are advertised.
rakey2_anotherlawyer [2009-07-21 03:41] Nº du commentaire : 142 Reply to: 81
The internet and free sharing of art is EXACTLY what drives innovation and trailer park boys is a perfect example.
Great art gets out there, circumventing the massive publishing houses that commoditize art and remove it's soul.
Copyright should only last maybe 5 years, then let the people share the art, remix it, and generally innovate some more, inspired by the art they've seen.
What artist can afford to pursue illegal downloaders anyways? none.
Only massive corporations sue people who share files, not artists. There's no innovation by these corporations, except in how they extort money from people.
Artist will be driven to create more art if the levies already in place were more equitably divided to the low income artist, rather then to the massive companies that lobby the government.
Favorisé les auteurs que on continué a publié ses ouvres a travers le temps.
When you speak of fostering innovation and creativity in Canada, I can't help but think of current patent laws. If you invent something, you have the right to make use of it to the best of your ability, and to be given credit and compensation when others use your invention. After all, inventors put a lot of time and energy into making useful discoveries.
However, as I understand it, patents in Canada last somewhere along the lines of 20 years (maybe less). I take it that this is to foster innovation, to ensure that inventors don't rest on their laurels and strive to come up with something bigger and better.
So, why do copyright laws allow for the ownership of works for a persons lifetime, plus another 50 years? Working in the science, I can't help but think I'm getting the short end of the stick. Someone writes a piece of music, and can make money off of it for their entire life, and then pass it on to their children. But someone who discovers a cancer treatment has only twenty years to go through the hoops of human trials, mass production, and marketing to get their druthers?
I'm not arguing for an extension to patent lives. After all, I do believe they foster innovation, and inventions that withstand the test of time also become available for public use within an acceptable timeframe, to foster further innovation without paying fees.
What I'm arguing for is a reduction in the life of copyrights. Let books, repositories of information and ideas, become free to the public at an earlier date. Music and movies too. In many cases these items are sold only for a few years anyway. At least let them out into the public sooner so that these creative works can inspire a wider audience, inspire them to innovate and create in science, technology, and art.
P_M [2009-07-21 12:58] Nº du commentaire : 196 Reply to: 68
Mr. Neopolitan wrote: "What I'm arguing for is a reduction in the life of copyrights."
Authors and other creators can already put things in the public domain - if they choose. What you're arguing for is taking away the already pitiful royalties that people like authors get (typically 8% or less of the cover price of a book), so that only those who are wealthy enough to be able to afford to be amateur authors in their spare time will be able to have the luxury of writing books. And only those with pensions from other jobs will be able to eat in their old age when the copyright runs out and they lose control of their own works.
cndcitizen [2009-07-21 13:15] Nº du commentaire : 204 Reply to: 196
"typically 8% or less of the cover price of a book"
Who's fault is that…you can publish your work yourself and market yourself if you like, the reason you only get 8% is the media conglomorates get the other 92%. This is the same thing that happened to the music industry, artist got 5-10% of the CD price and the industry got the rest on the presumption that they spent the 90-95% on marketing, distribution and publishing. Since you can do that all yourself and sell your book for 2$ and you would still be ahead. Many authors write and publish their own books through publishing co-ops or collectives, there is upfront costs, but then you get the lion share of the revenew…sorry, not sympathetic to you only making 8% on your book sales…you should have done better.
rinzertanz [2009-07-30 23:12] Nº du commentaire : 1173 Reply to: 204
FYI, not everyone is a 'born' sales person.
An author should primarily be devoting their time to their craft - their area of expertise - not hustling.
Unless, of course, they are 'sales people' FIRST, and are only using 'authoring' as a tool to futher their OTHER sales agenda … (meaning, 'books' are just another aspect of their self promotion…). Within the trade, this is known as 'vanity press'.
I do agree that in this day and age 'the traditonal publishers percentage' is completely out of whack. It should really be more of a 50-50 split.
cndcitizen [2009-08-03 22:12] Nº du commentaire : 1287 Reply to: 1173
50/50 split…don't think that is fair at all…If I spend 2000 hours writing a book then a marketing company should get 5% for selling it…maybe 10%…leeches of the creative persons getting 40 and 50% are not benificial to society…
rinzertanz [2009-08-04 12:16] Nº du commentaire : 1299 Reply to: 1287
I actually do agree.
The trouble is that 'writers/artists' are oft not the best 'salesperson' for their efforts, plus they may not have the full understanding of the potential marketplace. 50/50 may be too much, perhaps more of a 75/25 would be apt, (if you can somehow MONITOR 'reporting' activities …)
As an example, I was recently approached by a Canadian type house. They offered me a respectable 'signing fee' with a percentage of royalties, 15% over term. On the surface, it looked sweet. BUT, after reviewing the contract, and making provisions in the contract to better reflect MY long term interests, the type house 'stepped away' from the deal.
What I came to realize from that little interlude were two things 1)they didn't actually expect me to READ the contract, just SIGN IT. In it, they wanted me to hand over my Rights to my creation AD INFINITUM with the included 'clause' to make additional weights & alterations without my consent as needed, plus disburse it through multiple platforms as yet undefined … well, how could I sign THAT? … and 2)they DO have a better understanding of the current marketplace then I do in that they 'socialize' with industry players and actively market their ever-growing library of fonts. Activities that, frankly, I have no interest in.
So, what to do? The TIME & expense of generating ONE typeface for DIGITAL distribution doesn't make sense, so I DO need somekind of 'digital' manufacturer & distributor. I'd be willing to 'talk' a 75/25 split, BUT, the industry is currently set up to heavily favour them, at 15/85, or less, meaning, the BULK of the revenue goes to them, not me, the Original Artist.
Well, why should I bother?
crade [2009-08-04 14:23] Nº du commentaire : 1300 Reply to: 1299
Corporations can overpower any individual easily. Creators just need a little protection from corporate abuse. Wouldn't it go a long way if we had some limitations on how much of their rights creators can give up to these sort of contracts in Canada? Sort of like a minimum wage if you like.
rinzertanz [2009-08-04 18:01] Nº du commentaire : 1303 Reply to: 1300
The way the current system works is that I, as artist/author, have copyright the moment I 'make/write' something, I then 'license' it or 'hand over the Rights' to a manufacturer/distributor to enter further into the market. That's just the way it is.
Negotiating the 'terms' is what 'contract talks' are all about. Some take more, some less: depends on many factors.
I would say though that as a general rule you are correct, corporations do overpower individuals. That won't happen of course if you have a phalanx of lawyers, p.r. people and you're ALREADY a 'branded celebrity'. Unless you do or have attained that kind of 'profile', you ARE kind of at their mercy …
I don't want a 'minimum wage' or a 'hand-out from anyone. I'm self-employed and like it that way. What I'm protesting is what seems to be the continuous unfair advantage taken by the MIDDLEMEN.
It could just be that I need a better lawyer … sigh … I do so TIRE of this 'crappola'…
There seems no easy answer. I don't really want to have to do the sellling - it's just not my thing. I invent/make/dream up stuff - I'm not really a 'look at me' type. OTHERS can do the marketing. I really would just like to get on with my work …
Ideally, I would prefer an on-going relationship with a FAIR 'intermediary', or agent, who is prepared to rep the totality of what I do, not just a segment, as per contract, as happens now. Is there such a beastie out there -????
Haven't found one yet.
Meanwhile, I am INCREASINGLY, out of necessity, firing up the cylinders to do a BETTER internet 'launch'… It's not my FIRST choice, but it's increasingly looking like the ONLY choice ahead.
As example, (and I recommend this to other self-employed professional artists out there) I'm currently reading, 'WWGD?- What would Google Do?' by Jeff Jarvis. It's provocative & helping me 'ADAPT', whether I really like it or not …
Mr. Neopolitan [2009-07-21 13:44] Nº du commentaire : 213 Reply to: 196
The problem with that argument is music, film, and literature have a short shelf-life. Except for a few classics, after a period of time, stores won't carry them. The majority of old novels I come across are in the library, not in bookstores. So, if they're not being sold, why not put them out on the internet for the public. At least that way there would not be a waiting list in libraries, and everything would be more accessible. Same goes with music and film.
I'm arguing for a set period of time for works to be marketed. Similar to the patent system. If you can't make a profit in 15-20 years, then you probably won't ever. Someone mentioned renewing copyrights somewhere. So, fair enough, if someone does come up with a moneymaker, and can show that sales are not dropping (as opposed to holding onto a copyright just for the sake of ownership, in case of renewed interest 70 years down the road), then fine, get an extension.
Mr. Neopolitan [2009-07-21 13:56] Nº du commentaire : 214 Reply to: 213
Although, even this scenario of renewing copyrights seems subject to abuse. What would constitute a moneymaker? Who is eligible for renewals? I would still ensure a limit to the length of extensions. Also, once you're dead, you shouldn't be collecting anymore, nor should others be collecting on your behalf beyond the initial term. I don't see any excuse for copyright renewal if you'd sold you're rights away in the first place (ie. record companies, studios, and publishing firms shouldn't be eligible for renewing copyrights under the scheme I'm outlining). Only the creator of a work should be eligible.
phillipsjk [2009-07-24 01:59] Nº du commentaire : 743 Reply to: 214
I think copyrights should last for a set term regardless of the health of the author. You don't want to encourage organizations to kill authors just to nudge their work into the "public domain"
Mr. Neopolitan [2009-07-24 11:00] Nº du commentaire : 777 Reply to: 743
Ah, sorry. I was talking more about renewal policies, not initial set terms.
Although I can't help but think that any organization that would countenance murder would be listed as terrorist immediately, arrested, and brought to justice.
rinzertanz [2009-07-24 22:07] Nº du commentaire : 859 Reply to: 743
Do you mean like Micheal Jackson - ?
Scott Watkins [2009-07-24 12:47] Nº du commentaire : 790 Reply to: 214
Mr. N, I was one of the ones arguing for a set term plus extensions, and I understand what you're saying about abuse, but I'd like to argue that in most cases that would be self-correcting.
If it takes time and effort to renew a copyright, many works will not be worth the effort. In many cases the creator may have even forgotten about them.
I am warming to the idea of not allowing assignees to renew copyright. it would encourage more licensing of work rather than outright sales, and provide creators with bargaining power around renewal times.
The one other area here I'd object to is the case of inheritors. The family of an artist should have a reasonable expectation to live off the proceeds of his or her work. If the heir to a department store can inherit the business, an artist's family should too. The right to a legacy shouldn't be restricted based on occupation.
Mr. Neopolitan [2009-07-27 21:20] Nº du commentaire : 1011 Reply to: 790
I don't mean to belittle the work involved in creating art and entertainment, but I think there is a distinction between inheriting copyright and the family business.
In your average mom & pop store, the owners are working in it. They purchase inventory, market their wares, pay wages for the help, and work sales. That's a lot of work, and it's ongoing. The son/daughter who inherits this business either sells it for a one shot payout, or starts working the same shifts their parents did and putting in significant effort of their own (finding partners to manage certain aspects of the business not included). If they don't put in the effort, the business flounders and goes belly up.
Copyright on the other hand… The original creator did the work, and that's it, move on. In many cases they license out their work and start on a new project. The finished works just sell themselves, or don't.
The distinction I'm trying to raise is the amount of continuous effort involved. Businesses sink if no one keeps tries to make it work, copyrights just are.
I think a better comparison would be between copyrights and… All right, I can't think of one. Apartment complex? Although in that case the new owner still has to pay for upkeep of the building, be responsible for property taxes… Shares in a company? Whatever.
I don't have an answer to this concern. I suppose we'll just have to disagree.
Scott Watkins [2009-07-27 21:49] Nº du commentaire : 1014 Reply to: 1011
The distinction I'm trying to make here is that if copyright ends when the artist dies, it disadvantages people who don't live as long. My classic example is a young author who dies shortly after publishing a bestseller. His young family could have reasonably expected to live comfortably long enough to raise his children, but would be left suddenly struggling after he passed away.
A better example though, is an established author with one good book in her, even though her health is failing. Why would a publisher risk publishing it if there was a very real chance she would die and copyright would lapse before the ink was dry?
Investments are a better metaphor, I think, but if you think that someone who inherits a copyright contributes nothing then what of the heir to a billionaire? Should we strip them of their shares because they did nothing to develop the value? There may be some rough justice there, but assuming you somehow managed to get that passed in Parliament Bay Street would be out for your blood.
In my opinion, anything based on the life of an author (be it life and that's it as you are suggesting, or life plus X as current law states) is unfair and unnecesarily arbitrary. Fixed terms are better, and fixed terms and extensions are best because they allow for orphaned works to enter the public domain.
I understand your sentiment. But you're right, we're not likely to agree.
Mr. Neopolitan [2009-07-28 00:49] Nº du commentaire : 1028 Reply to: 1014
Ah, regarding the dying author or the unfortunate death, you are right that there needs to be a minimum set copyright term to ensure some remuneration.
Sorry, I wasn't arguing against set terms. I'm all for them (15-20 years like patents is my favorite). I was only arguing for limits on possible extensions to said time limit.
My argument against extensions after the death of an author is based primarily on recent news such as the family of JRR Tolkien suing New Line cinemas about the Lord of the Rings films. The whole story is a mess, and the studios seem to be mostly at fault, but I thought it ridiculous that the 80 year old children of the dead author would still have a say in whether new films are produced and still deserve to be awarded money for what their father did. When does it end?
As you say, fixed terms are probably the best way to go, although I'll still argue for shorter terms.
Scott Watkins [2009-07-28 01:34] Nº du commentaire : 1031 Reply to: 1028
To answer the Lord of the Rings question specifically, it ends in 2023 under current rules in Canada and 2043 in the US and the EU (Tolkien died in 1973 - those terms are life plus 50 and life plus 70 respectively). at the end of the US and EU term, The Hobbit will have been under copyright for 105 years.
My terms plus extensions model is about trying to find a fair balance between the public need for access, and the creator's need for compensation. Extensions allow less commercially valuable works to enter the public domain faster, while affording protection to more popular works. It's not a perfect solution, but it might be doable.
Don't forget that copyright isn't the only way to exercise control. The estate of Edgar Rice Burroughs holds the trademarks on Tarzan, John Carter of Mars and several other Burroughs characters. Copyright has lapsed on his work but trademarks are perpetual.
rinzertanz [2009-07-30 22:57] Nº du commentaire : 1172 Reply to: 1031
That's a very good point. Trademarks are perpetual.
They also have more 'cred' internationally then 'copyright', in my experience.
rinzertanz [2009-07-21 22:24] Nº du commentaire : 323 Reply to: 68
You say: "Let books, repositories of information and ideas, become free to the public at an earlier date." I ask, WHY?
Most information is 'free' for your consideration thru public libraries. Libraries buy books from publsihers who, in turn, pay authors a miniscule percentage.
What MORE do you want?
If it is your insinuation that Joe Public be able to COPY that material, that's a whole different story. WHY should 'The Public' get created works for FREE??? And, WHY shouldn't an author hold copyright to their own work - especially during their lifetime ?????
Perhaps I have misunderstood you.
Mr. Neopolitan [2009-07-21 22:46] Nº du commentaire : 327 Reply to: 323
Are we talking owning a copy of a work, or being able to read it at least once? I don't tend to read much more than once, and when I do, I usually buy the book. However, for those novels that when finished, I don't touch again… well, what's the point?
Anyway, regarding your comment that 'most information is free', that's not true.
I work at a university and one of the problems I come across a lot is the inaccessibility of research articles. Every publication requires a licensing fee to access the articles they've published. The university can only afford so many licences, so there are many instances where I cannot access some old research material (from 10 years to 100years). I'm not interested in an entire publication (lot's of articles that I couldn't care less for), nor do I really want to read it more than once or twice. I just want to find out how they did something, and see if it applies to my topic of interest.
Even worse is when new research that the university has a license to is embargoed. Or government funded research for that matter. Their findings can be very hard to get access to.
phillipsjk [2009-07-24 02:12] Nº du commentaire : 747 Reply to: 323
When the copyright lasts for 150-200 years, it is likely that the work will disintegrate before the term expires.
I did not look up these numbers; they are my own estimates.
Paper: 20-200 years, depending on storage
Optical disks (aluminum): 10-100 years, depending on quality and storage
Floppy (magnetic) disks: 2-20 years, depending on storage and working hardware.
Tape: 10-70 years, depending on cartridge design and storage
Vinyl: 10-70 years, depending on storage and use.
Nickel microprinted disk: Stone replacement; 1000+ years
Stone: 1000+ years, depending on storage.
rinzertanz [2009-07-24 09:26] Nº du commentaire : 762 Reply to: 747
I am not aware of any copyright that lasts for 150-200 years, unless the work has been tied up within the framework of a legal estate and/or trust, and even then the copyright on the 'Original Work' will have long expired and been reassigned to the estate. If the works aren't 'held in trust' or dispersed as assets, the copyright expires in Canada 25 years after death. ( I THINK I've got that right, it's been a long time since I've reviewed this … Any lawyers out there-?)
Also, as Mr.Neopolitan pointed out, the time frame between disciplines, and between patents & copyrights, varies.
The means by which an 'Original Work' is subsequently copied is somewhat immaterial. Once the work 'exists' the CopyRight to the original author is in effect - during their lifetime and a bit after they're dead …
rinzertanz [2009-07-24 09:56] Nº du commentaire : 767 Reply to: 747
I am not aware of any copyright that lasts for 150-200 years, unless the work has been tied up within the framework of a legal estate and/or trust, and even then the copyright on the 'Original Work' will have long expired and been reassigned to the estate.
If they aren't 'held in trust' or claimed assets, the copyright expires in Canada 25 years after death. ( I THINK I've got that right, it's been a long time since I've reviewed this …it might be 50…)
Also, as Mr.Neopolitan pointed out, the time frame between disciplines, and between patents & copyrights, varies.
The means by which an 'Original Work' is subsequently copied is somewhat immaterial. Once the work 'exists' the CopyRight to the original author is in effect - during their lifetime and a bit after they're dead …
Scott Watkins [2009-07-24 12:28] Nº du commentaire : 787 Reply to: 767
As of current writing, copyright subsists in Canada for the creator's life plus 50 years. Interestingly, for work created by a group, it subsists for the life of the last surviving member plus 50. This is in contrast with the proviso for corporately created works in the US and elsewhere, which typically subsists for a defined set term (95 years currently in the US).
rinzertanz [2009-07-24 16:28] Nº du commentaire : 820 Reply to: 787
Thanks. In Germany that's not the case, there is a limitation on copyright during the life of the creator. I believe it's 25 years from the creation date. REgardless.
phillipsjk [2009-07-24 20:50] Nº du commentaire : 852 Reply to: 767
Not everyone dies at exactly 72 years of age.
I think I got my 200 year figure by assuming an infant actor living to be 100.
For a large movie, I think you are more likely to get long-lived "outliers". As Scott mentions, the clock doesn't start until just about everybody involved dies.
rinzertanz [2009-07-24 21:10] Nº du commentaire : 854 Reply to: 852
So, is your beef that you want the Rights to a re-make a Feature Film production/script and you can't get it?
Or, you want to copy and distribute 'vintage films' and again can't your hands on the Rights because the last living sods aren't dead yet and may still be getting miniscule residuals?
phillipsjk [2009-07-25 05:49] Nº du commentaire : 870 Reply to: 854
No, I do not have a specific instance in mind.
It is my understanding that Copyright is supposed to be a time-limited monopoly on reproducing/distributing a creative work.
The thing that concerns me is that the copyright terms have been getting longer while at the same time the expected shelf-life of the media (or service in the case of DRM) has been getting shorter.
The consequence is that a large body of work may never enter the public domain; because it quickly went out of print. Making (legal) copies after the copyright expires is not possible if the media does not survive the copyright term.
The reason some people are calling for terms as short as 5 years is: that is how fast some books go out of print. In the case of University text books, publishers game the system by pushing new editions every 3-5 years. The content doesn't change much; just the order of the homework problems. Books see much higher sales the first year because students are under so much pressure to buy new rather than used. (Professors get complementary evaluation copies.)
rinzertanz [2009-07-25 08:02] Nº du commentaire : 871 Reply to: 870
Your primary beef is with the DISTRIBUTORS, not the actual authors/creators. You object to what you perceive as the business practice of deliberate obsolescence within the academic community. Fair enough.
However, when a textbook goes out-of-print, it means the distributor aka 'the publsher' has no more copies to sell. If the title has to be republished (to meet market demands) it receives a new ISBN designation to deferrentiate it from the first edition. The actual Copyright remains the same, it is the ISBN designation that changes. This is done so that purchasers know the difference between editions.
Decreasing the Copyright 'time term', as you and others suggest, has nothing to do with the distributing media. Rather, what needs to be addressed are the 'clauses' within the Contract that an Author signs with a Distributor/Publsiher that accounts for 'alternative' media ediitions.
Case in point, the recent 'claim' by Heather Robertson & The Writers Union of Canada versus The Globe & Mail. The Globe was digitally transmitting authors/artist work thru their on-line edition thru various venues, getting advertising revenue for doing so, but not compensating the 'content creators' ie. authors, properly. The turn-key was Copyright. The Authors retain the Copyright to their own works. The lengthy lawsuit was actually a result of a 'faulty' Contract between the authors and their distributor, The Globe. Provisions had not been made to protect the Author's Copyright vis a vis the 'new media' - precisely at a time when the 'new media' was taking over the marketplace.
Google 'The Writer's Union of Canada' to learn more …
NB: Copyright PROTECTS Author's Rights. Your concern is about the 'business' of distribution.
Mr. Neopolitan [2009-07-28 19:45] Nº du commentaire : 1079 Reply to: 871
But whats the point of a copyright if a work is no longer being distributed? If the work now sits in the attic and isn't being used to make money, why shouldn't others start using it on their own terms?
While copyright protects author's rights to profit from their work, it shouldn't protect a product that is no longer being used to make profit.
Use it or lose it I say.
Mind you, with electronic publishing, it's probably possible for a work to remain on the sales shelf indefinitely now. So that argument is starting to lose is relevance.
rinzertanz [2009-07-30 09:04] Nº du commentaire : 1142 Reply to: 1079
Sorry, I can not agree with this. It seldom is as cut and dried as you suggest.
I've mentioned elsewhere on this forum about a book I did in 1984. The 'royalites' I received for this work were miniscule relative to my time & expense in developing it. Even though the work sold out at the time, (print run 3000), it did not go into second edition. In fact, the publisher went backrupt in the early 90'. However, that title is now used in community & university programs as a course requirement. Yet, rather then enter into the time, expense and agra of a 2nd edition with some other publisher, the book 'survives' in the library system, and is often 'copied' in whole & part, and yes, I continue to get small residuals from same. Personally, I think this is fair, to both the author and the 'users'. I retain copyright.
Secondly, I have created 2 hand-drawn typefaces from the early 90's, but have not, as of yet, brought either to market - by CHOICE - (because of previous experience with the duplicity of type distributors.) Copyright resides with me. I am so 'nervous' now of how the market does react and rips-off 'originals' (I've experienced this first hand) that I am increasingly of the opinion that it may be best to keep the drawings as drawings and NOT venture into the digital marketplace with them.
As long as my rights as an artist are NOT protected to MY satisfaction, then I won't play ball in the digital court. Many artist think this way - and that, unfortunately, is to the detriment of society as a whole.
Mr. Neopolitan [2009-07-30 14:59] Nº du commentaire : 1157 Reply to: 1142
I suppose the question the government and society will have to ask itself is, is it worth it?
You claim you're still receiving residuals from your book in the library, even though its not being published or sold anymore. From your previous posts, I would assume you would be against have book posted on the internet, even if its no longer in print. Society will have to ask itself, what's more important? Residuals to an author for a discontinued product, or ease of access through the internet.
Regarding your two unpublished type-faces, if you don't bring them to market, then for all intents and purposes, they're worthless (except in your eyes).
Tell me this, what happens when someone else draws up a type-face almost identical to your own, and markets it. Where does that leave you?
People who want to make a living off of creative works will. They'll adapt to the rules society lays out and invent ways to make a profit. Those that don't like the rules or the direction society is moving, those who stop creating works and sit on their products instead of market them, well they're just less competition for those who are willing to take the risks.
rinzertanz [2009-07-30 22:04] Nº du commentaire : 1169 Reply to: 1157
… well, I don't know that I would call it 'progress' as such …
To my mind it is unfortunate that many artists are increasingly 'out of the loop' because the skills they developed to a standard of excellence within their chosen discipline(s) have been side-swiped by the digitial age.
As an example, it is now the NORM to use a 'font development' program to 'invent' typefaces. That's all fine & dandy, BUT, to my mind, more often then not, the results are jejune without any understanding of type, it's glorious history or the OTHER variables that go into good type design, like 'space' and the look of print on a page etc.
(This appalling 'forum' set-up is a GOOD EXAMPLE of a complete lack of understanding how TYPE DESIGN works BEST … but I drift … )
So much of the 'thinking' is now done by the 'computer/software' program that the actual craft of this art is gone. The likelihood of a 'William Morris' evolving from this environment would be, again to my mind, rare.
Type design, as a continued example, has been, and is, a very specialized discipline, yet today the ease/proliferation of 'knock-off's abound. Is this a 'good' thing? ie. 'Progress'? Well, depends on how much you REALLY know, and how much of a connoisseur you REALLY are. Most have no clue, so it all just gets 'put out there'.
There is nothing intrinsically WRONG with this, but again, to me, it is rather sad that the actual SKILL to generate a typeface using the dexterity of hand, mind, and eye is being lost. So few actually DRAW anymore or understand what this DISCIPLINE can TEACH …
As for the hypothetical query about what I would think if someone developed a face akin to what I've done, well, that's fine, no problem. It would never be my face. In the development of digital fonts today there are near to 300 characters required. The likelihood of someone serendipitously 'creating' an identical design is nil. Besides, mine have been DRAWN BY HAND, (and that's a BIG DIFFERENCE to both the COGNESCENTI and the CONNOISSEUR…)
I don't know that I am any less 'competative' just because, at present, I do not believe the digital market is 'right' for my art 'product(s)'. Surely it would be foolhardy to put an item out there without proper 'protection' - to THEN have others DIGITALLY 'share'/steal/modify' it and/or even market it better.
I personally do not like the 'look' of the digital market at the moment. I do not find it 'respectful' of original artists' work. You could say my 'strategy' is to wait it out for a bit to see how 'the dust settles'. It may not be the right or best strategy AT THE MOMENT but, strange as it may seem, I AM in it for the LONG LONG haul …
Finally, just because someone can push buttons does not make them an artist. Rather, people who generate art in this way are, to my mind, consumers of software systems. They rely very heavily on the programs to do the work for them. They aren't actually THINKING about 'creation'. Someone else has designed/written the software that DOES it for them.
Is this 'progress'?
I do not think so, I think it creates pompous fly-by-night drones. There are, naturally, a FEW exceptions to the rule, (like a FEW of the software designers themselves…), but by and large, the 'quality' and 'standards' are pretty low. (Did I mention how appalling this site desgin is????) It is so very easy to SEE and understand it for what it is, imho.
Sorry, not convinced.
p.s. I have no problem with books on the internet if the living author is compensated. I am also of the 'school' that believes authors, like anyone else, are entitled to an 'estate'. Their written work is their legacy. Their children, and grandchildren should benefit from their labours, if they so choose to allocate their work in this way. The point is, it is THEIR WORK and they should have EVERY right to dispense and disburse it as they see fit.
… sorry, long winded I know … these are such HUGE topics to fit into this itty bitty POORLY DESIGNED space … !!!
Chris Brand [2009-07-24 16:10] Nº du commentaire : 815 Reply to: 323
Because freedom of expression is vital to any democracy, and a copyright is a monopoly on expression. Monopolies, in general, are a bad thing, only justified in special circumstances. Same for restrictions on expression. Hence it's vital that copyrights last for as little as time as possible to achieve their purpose - to encourage the creation of cultural works.
rinzertanz [2009-07-24 16:26] Nº du commentaire : 819 Reply to: 815
Have you ever made/written/produced FROM SCRATCH something of your OWN? Or do you just 'borrow' material FOR FREE from other creators?
Chris Brand [2009-07-27 16:20] Nº du commentaire : 980 Reply to: 819
Actually, I make my living creating copyrighted works (but not charging for copies of them). I do download creative works, but only when I'm confident that they're there with the permission of the person who created them.
Perhaps you could say why you disagree with what I wrote, rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks ?
rinzertanz [2009-07-27 21:23] Nº du commentaire : 1012 Reply to: 980
You wrote: " it's vital that copyrights last for as little as time as possible to achieve their purpose - to encourage the creation of cultural works." - - How exactly does a restricted copyright ENCOURAGE creation -??
Please provide a concrete example, from your experience, to illustrate your point. Thank you.