Copyright Once Again Being Used To Hinder Culture, Not Enable It
from the so-many-sad-stories dept
I'm still working my way through James Boyle's excellent The Public Domain, but it's chock full of examples of ways that copyright holds back cultural expression -- and that comes to mind in reading the saga of a movie called Sita Sings the Blues. It was brought to my attention by Rich W, who saw the film at a film festival a while back and loved it. After that, the film disappeared off the radar, but was brought back to some attention right before Christmas, when Roger Ebert wrote a glowing review of it. He, like Rich, didn't expect to like it, and didn't even plan to watch it -- but after being convinced to check it out, he loved it. But, what he discovered is that the film was unlikely to get any distribution because, despite being an animated reimagining of a classic Indian love story, it uses the songs of popular jazz singer Annette Hanshaw, recorded in the 1920s.To clear the rights for the music, apparently more money than the entire movie cost was required. As Ebert noted:
"Don't the copyright owners realize they are contributing to the destruction of their property by removing it from knowledge?"Exactly. Meanwhile, the creator of the film, Nina Paley, has been actively blogging about the ordeal. The attention brought about by Ebert's endorsement has resulted in the copyright holders lowering their demands, but including some pretty onerous strings that will make it nearly impossible for her to ever profit from the movie (from which she's already in debt). Basically, if she actually sells copies of the movie, she'll owe a lot more -- but that doesn't apply to promotional copies of the movie. In response, she's worked out a convoluted plan, whereby she'll pay the awful initial fees, but, knowing she'll never get direct profits from it, she's working hard to free the film up as much as possible -- by putting the entire movie up as a "promotion" on the Internet Archive, while putting it under some sort of open and free license.
From there, she goes on to list out a whole bunch of ways that she hopes to still make money, indirectly, from the success of the movie -- even as she's going into further debt to pay off the music copyright holders. Many of her suggestions for business models will sound quite familiar to folks around here (ancillary products, special limited edition signed products, sponsorships, etc.). It's a shame she needs to go to these levels just to pay off the copyright holders on these compositions from nearly a century ago -- who would only be helped by the success of this movie. Hopefully the other business models she's testing out will be able to cover those costs, but she's already in a deep hole, which is a huge shame. Of course, at the same time, this experience appears to have turned her into something of a convert when it comes to understanding the damages brought about by copyright. Separate from the movie, she's decided to copyleft an old comic she created years ago (though, she's asking for help to get them online).
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: annette hanshaw, copyright, movies, music, nina paley, roger ebert
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Infinite copyright
At least Nina understands. On the subject of putting all her comics up online for free, she says:
“But Nina, how will you make money?” Hopefully by selling originals. The more freely the images circulate, the more valuable the originals will become.
Bingo, use the INFINITE resource to sell the SCARCE and valuable one. That last sentence is key, and should be pasted on the forehead of every music, movie and media exec in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Infinite copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Infinite copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Handjob: quit crying. Litigation won't go away, even if you close your eyes.
You?
As if you fucking matter. You and you're ill-informed libertarian nitwit friends should go back to editing comic books, and leave the litigation to those who went beyond community college.
A bunch of self-righteous hand jobs, you are!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But...
Honestly, in this day and age are people really naive enough to think that any music used anywhere without permission is concidered ok in the eyes of the MPAA?
Has this lady been living under a rock?
Sincerely,
The Devils Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But...
In fact, given the rather shady nature of copyright, orphaned works and the like, it may not even have been clear that this music was not public domain before she started and expected the filing to be a mere formality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Donate!
I'll download it if/when it's on archive.org but I'll do one better. I just donated $20 through the Paypal link on her blog site - roughly what a new DVD would cost me. Hopefully, others will do so as well, and this will at least ease her debt burden.
Now, to bookmark the links when the usual idiots try arguing that a life+whatever copyright extension is necessary to "protect" artists...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're joking! The creator of the music is long dead. The "copyright holders" are making money hand over fist for doing *nothing*!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Donate...
I agree with Jess about using the songs. How integral are they to film? Could the creator of the movie just as easily have hired some up-and-coming jazz musicians that might like to see their music included for free? This would have been beneficial to both the film and the musicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Donate...
However, that's hardly the point. the issue is that all the claims we hear about copyright and how it always needs to be extended to protect artists. If this music we in the public domain, or were to be licensed for $20,000 instead of $200,000, we wouldn't be reading this story. Instead, a few corporations (3 of the major RIAA labels, what a surprise) are profiteering from music that gets no exposure while another work of art rots outside of the public view while potentially preventing a living artist from continuing her work.
The these labels were smart, they'd reduce the upfront licensing fees and take a cut of the DVD sales, maybe release a soundtrack album as well (digitally this costs them almost nothing). There's no reason why these songs should cost so much money. Besides, if a collection of 80 year old jazz recording cost this much can you image someone making, say, a 60s period piece and what songs would cost them? Greed, pure and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes - true - but...
When I first heard about the story I had a pretty similar reaction to the earlier posts - wouldn't you want to work out the licensing issues first and make the film second? I think that's a fair point. In a purely pragmatic world that likely would have been the path followed - but then we probably wouldn't have this movie around. It's not the approach I'd suggest if I met someone working on a film. But once you have a great piece of very enjoyable art completed it's a shame that more people can't see it.
To me the part that sucks most is that everyone seems likely to lose out given the upfront cost structure to license the music in this case. Nina Paley, potential fans of the film, potential new fans of the music and the "rights" owners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2009 is certainly starting off great! /sarcasm.
This isn't a story about copyright as much as it is about greed. Copyright's just being used as a shield to extort money.
Let's hope the Obama administration fixes crap like this. I have a ton of stolen downloaded art I'd like to throw into a book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To forbid copying reminds me to the prohibition of the 1920s, alcohol was forbidden but nobody had cared abouth it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not as Simple as Using Different Songs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's actually Ironic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's actually Ironic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do you think private property owners shouldn't have the right to decide what to do with their own private property?
You got it backwards. It's not the copyright laws that are stoopid here, it's the copyright property owners who seem averse to their own informed financial interests. And since it's their property, it's their right to be stoopid with it.
Same with someone holding an valuable car in a garage against all bidders, letting it rust. It's their's. Should we have a law that says, "If someone values your property but is not willing to pay for it, you must turn it over anyway."?
You're suggesting that "public good" and "right of conversion to public domain" are superior to personal property ownership rights, as if their songs were some land and we NEEDED to make a public highway out of it.
Capitalism depends on ownership. Sometimes owners act against the interest of others. Fine. The alternative ... socialism? Cool. Show me a socialist society where contemporaneous authored intellectual property is forcibly made freely available with no control by the author. Really. I wanna see some of THAT culture.
... waiting ...
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why do you think private property owners shouldn't have the right to decide what to do with their own private property?
You are the one who has it backwards. Copyright is a privilege, not property. To call it property is to show your own ignorance.
Same with someone holding an valuable car in a garage against all bidders, letting it rust. It's their's. Should we have a law that says, "If someone values your property but is not willing to pay for it, you must turn it over anyway."?
Must we *really* explain the difference between scarce goods and infinite goods *again*?
You're suggesting that "public good" and "right of conversion to public domain" are superior to personal property ownership rights, as if their songs were some land and we NEEDED to make a public highway out of it.
No, we're saying that copyright is not property.
I'm a huge supporter of property rights. This has nothing to do with property rights.
Capitalism depends on ownership. Sometimes owners act against the interest of others. Fine. The alternative ... socialism? Cool. Show me a socialist society where contemporaneous authored intellectual property is forcibly made freely available with no control by the author. Really. I wanna see some of THAT culture.
No. Wrong again. Capitalism depends on ownership of *scarce resources*.
We're all for that.
But, tell me, how is it possible that you consider a gov't granted monopoly more capitalist than a totally free market capitalist solution (no copyright) that we're talking about?
Seriously.
... waiting ...
Stop waiting. Start learning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about annual value assesment and tax bill on intellectual property, just like on our houses?
Earlier: "... The copyright holders should feel ashamed of themselves -- using a welfare system to bankrupt an innocent person ..."
Hahahahah. Very funny ... if you meant it to be funny. Very scary if you did not mean it to be funny!
Earlier: "... Let's hope the Obama administration fixes crap like this. I have a ton of stolen downloaded art I'd like to throw into a book ..."
Hahahah ... wait a minute. I'm sensing a theme here. Are we being serious, or have we taken a turn towards parody ... very scary otherwise!
Earlier: "... To forbid copying reminds me of the prohibition of the 1920s when alcohol was forbidden ..."
Um ... brewing your own alcohol isn't stealing someone else's recognized property. Copying is.
Earlier: "... If this music were in the public domain, or were to be licensed for $20,000 instead of $200,000, we wouldn't be reading this story ..."
Perhaps there's a middle ground.
Once something is released into the public, even if under copyright, what if there were an independent review board assessing value, like a tax value assessment on our homes, for instance?
Then you'd pay property taxes at that rate, and it's up to you to market your property to stay profitable, or release it to the public domain where you'd no longer own it and no longer be liable for taxes.
Any thoughts on this type of an idea?
- Something to recognize the "property" status of intellectual property as having value, and once public, taxable value.
And something to incentivize keeping it in the commercial marketplace, in publication, in the public, in the "culture", either by owners and profitable for them, or public and benefiting all?
Your thoughts?
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about annual value assesment and tax bill on intellectual property, just like on our houses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about annual value assesment and tax bill on intellectual property, just like on our houses?
Uh, no. Copying is copying. It's not stealing anything, let alone property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copy RIGHT is just that
It seems that many of the people who complain about copyright restrictions are not the creators of original art themselves--they want to use others' creations either as-is or in some mash-up they put together. Art has value, which is always subjective. But if someone values another person's creation (in this case, the music) then they should not be surprised to hear that the original creator would like to be paid for use of their creation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re:copy RIGHT is just that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Once Again Being Used To Hinder Culture, Not Enable It
However, the copyright laws have gotten out of control. They no longer just protect the creator but have been morphed into laws for corporations.
From the US Constitution:
"the Congress shall have power … to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
It wasn't until 1976 that the terms were increased beyond the life of the author. Laws have got to be brought back to the benefit of the country, which is what copyright law was intended, and not just corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sita Sang The Blues -- Then Got Laryngitis
Oddly enough, Spider Robinson presciently wrote about never-ending copyright in the 80s in his Hugo Award-winning short story about the death of creation, "Melancholy Elephants." Funny how life parrots fiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]