Indonesian Artists Refuse Copyright As Being Against Their Religious Beliefs
from the protecting-designs-makes-no-sense dept
Boing Boing points us to a story about how some batik-makers in Java, Indonesia are resisting attempts by the gov't to have them copyright their designs. The local government is warning the designers that without copyrighting, the designs others could copy them and claim them as their own, but the designers have a religious objection to the idea:"They believe that each time they create something, it is not they who worked, but it is God who worked through their human body and soul," Gunawan said. "Being grateful [to God] is sufficient for them."What's funny, then, is to see the politicians fret about this, worrying how people in Malaysia might copyright the design first and "there is little that we can do." Except... if the designers don't care, what needs to be done? If someone else profits from it, so what? How does that harm the original designer?
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is copyright there a matter of “first to file” rather than the exclusive right of the creator? It sounds as if the fear is that batik-makers will be blocked from using their own designs if someone else usurps their copyright interest by filing first (the equivalent of which I gather can easily happen with patents here).
If this is the problem, why not simply register a copyright under the name of the city or region — or an appropriate religious organization — with a Creative Commons license attached?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Regional protection, i.e. without using the name of the artist, should be possible where such creations are common, but it has to be in the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They still have to deal with the cost and time associated with frivolous lawsuits. Such can be a huge determent for anyone that wants to defend such matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If an original maker of something wants to release it to the public domain and someone else in another country later starts claiming copyright on it (even if the original maker doesn't himself get sued but he doesn't want the other person in the other country to start suing others over his work) how is the original maker (from another country) going to keep track of this or enforce his copyright without spending lots of time and money? I think a copyleft might be in order, it makes it much easier (and cheaper) for the specific people being sued by some impostor to defend themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First to file
So why don't they just get rid of the whole patent and copyright thing and replace it with the "first to produce or create is protected" for XX years for artistic creations and XX years for scientific or commercial inventions. With prescribed descriptions of what exactly that protection is, and what it is not. Example: "Only protected against others producing or copying what they are already producing". (no room for exploiters or trolls) No filing necessary unless they choose to give up or modify those protections. (notice the word protections, not rights) There would not be any more squabbling with this system than with the present system because with the present system because granted patents are currently challenged on a "prior art" basis.
And the PTO have to confirm what they should have done in the first place, confirm there was or was not "prior art". Which is something that should be determined by the marketplace anyway and not some bureaucrat. So any litigation about such things would then be around proving "I had it first" which is mostly what the present system is about anyway.
What would be the results (1) companies would only do R&D on things that they intend to produce, and not to prevent others from producing it. So when they invent something there would be a rush to get it into the market in some sort of product. (2) The consumer would benefit from better more advanced products at a lower price because there would not be the "non value added" patent troll tax to pay, nor the cost of useless lead to nowhere R&D in the products. In other words the government do their job get rid of all the avenues of corruption that are presently associated with this archaic system. The voice of the people and not the voice of the corporations, because what is best for the corporations is not necessarily even good for the people. The only reason the corporations complain now is about where this present system does not ADVANTAGE them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can God create a lawyer so slimy that even He can't win against?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(There's nothing in copyright law concerning resurrections...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zero sum mentality, again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a very small minority that acts as you say. Unfortunately, they're all on TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They should release it under copyleft. Don't want someone else to copyright it because that would defeat the purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They should do something to prevent others from claiming ownership of it (if someone else did that would defeat the purpose of their intent). I'm pretty sure if they thought that someone else could copyright it they would try to prevent such a thing. They should understand this possibility and consider copyleft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No one said that, so why make up that straw man?
If someone else claims to be the creator, then that's fraud and illegal. If someone is willing to commit fraud, then they're already willing to break the law and fear of copyright infringement probably isn't going to stop them.
I'm pretty sure if they thought that someone else could copyright it they would try to prevent such a thing.
Except, no one else can do that legally.
They should understand this possibility and consider copyleft.
Again, copyleft is unlikely to stop criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
One can argue that claiming copyleft is claiming ownership over the IP but that also depends on what it means to claim ownership. If claiming preventing others from claiming ownership over it means you're claiming ownership then in that very broad sense of the definition it is. However, only in that very broad sense of the definition should these people then claim ownership. but I would argue that once it's released under copyleft they no longer "own" it because they no longer can alter the license on it so they no longer have control over it. Claiming otherwise is similar saying because you sold intellectual property to another party you still own it because it is you that decided who gets it and what happens to it. No, once you gave up your exclusive rights to it you no longer own it. Likewise releasing it under copyleft eliminates your exclusive rights to it and to control the licensing and hence you no longer "own" it anymore than the public owns it. Sure you "own" it but so does the rest of the public because they have just as much control over it as you do once released (you gave up your exclusive rights over it so what more do you have that the public doesn't)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
All well and good that you can argue these petty semantics to us, but it doesn't mean much when the people who are actually relevant to the case don't agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about we use the common definition and not one you make up? Anyone can make any argument by making up their own definitions and if that's what you're going to do, then I'm not going to even bother with the rest of your drivel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I would argue that in as much as granting a license takes away exclusive control from you and allows uniform control by everyone you are generally releasing it to the public domain. Once you grant the GPL license you no longer own it because you no longer have exclusive rights over it just as if you sold it to a third party who bought it. The results are the same so the effect is that it's in the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh? Licensing under the GPL most certainly does *not* mean giving up ownership. That would make the GPL totally unenforceable and if you think that's the case, then I suggest you go visit the FSF and ask *them* about that. You are 100% wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, but they could simply claim agency on behalf of The Creator, which is basically what they're already doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Berne in Hell - whether they want to or not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Berne in Hell - whether they want to or not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Berne in Hell - whether they want to or not
No, it is absolutely true. Under the Convention, copyrights for creative works are automatically in force upon their creation without being asserted or declared. An author need not "register" or "apply for" a copyright in countries adhering to the Convention. As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work and to any derivative works, unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them or until the copyright expires. Simply refusing to register, as is the case in the story here, does not abolish the copyright. And in order to explicitly disclaim copyright protection, the author must make claim to actually being the rightful creator in the first place (you can't just place somebody else's work into the public domain). Again, something they are refusing to do.
You might want to do a little reading before popping off and embarrassing yourself like that again.
Here's a link to get you started.
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/index.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just think along the lines of patent trolls...
As stated before, it will harm the original designer if someone else copyrights it and then prevents the original designer from using their own design. Unfortunately in our current world one no longer has to be labeled cynical to envision that scenario.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So true
Creation of art always encompasses much more than the individual artist, and seems to come from nowhere or everywhere at once.
Limiting the results of these experiences to the individual as in copyright law does not fit the psychological and sociological facts.
Art is part of culture and culture is a shared product, owned and created by all of us, in one way or the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now do you see the issue? -_-.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gravity Is Evil
What's that you say? People shouldn't be jumping off cliffs? But that's their business model! Their entire livelihoods depend on jumping off cliffs! Don't you think it's unfair to let them suffer such consequences? You heartless Gravitationalist, you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is this so hard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is this so hard?
I can just imagine all the lawsuits over which church is "God's chosen representative".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]