Copyheart: Encouraging People To Copy
from the copying-is-an-act-of-love dept
Occasional Techdirt contributor Nina Paley, who has pointed out some problems with Creative Commons in the past, is pushing an interesting solution: the Copyheart. It's not a huge license or anything like Creative Commons, but just a basic suggestion: where you might normally put a © symbol, instead put a ♥ -- and perhaps an explanation. As she notes:Instead ofWho knows if it catches on, but it's a cool idea. Though... my only complaint is that she's using a non-HTML standard heart character -- so I've created a derivative version. While she uses a heart character, in this post I'm just using the HTML version, which is typed out as "♥" and will thus be more compatible with HTML documents and various browsers.© Copyright 2010 by Author/Artist. All Rights Reserved.you could write♥ 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.
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: copyheart, copyright, nina paley
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Funny...
I also like the UPS advertisement that came with the article. It has plenty of hearts too. :-) Don't have much use for UPS, though, but the ad arrived with the proper article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Funny...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do you type it out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do you type it out?
Here's a list of all the character Codes. Just hit Alt+ the corresponding numbers on the number pad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do you type it out?
♥♥♥
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do you type it out?
♥
That's ampersand-"hearts"-semicolon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do you type it out?
& h e a r t s ; (but without spaces)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oops
Hmmmmm. Weird. We'll check it out. That is odd. It worked fine in preview for the post...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next from the **AA Copyclub
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, thank you.
Nice idea but worthless. Fix the law.
Even a change in the registration process to allow for distribution into the Public Domain is better than nothing.
Here's what the notice should really look like:
© 2010 Author/Artist. No Rights Reserved. Copyrights Will Not Be Legally Enforced Under Any Circumstance. Please Copy.
It may help, but it still doesn't remove the legal recourse option.
That's the problem. Isn't about time it gets fixed rather than another circumvention attempt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, thank you.
The law doesn't belong involved with freely distributed works... but it has its hands in there already, so pretending it doesn't is useless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No, thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, thank you.
It's either a license or, possibly, abandonment of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, thank you.
Firstly: this is NOT true! Copyright is applied by law and works no longer require registration to be covered (unless to sue for infringement damages).
Secondly: note the last two words of your own statement. That's where the problem lies. Unless you have a written contract, in hand, web text doesn't give a free and clear use of copyright works.
This is why I have a problem with Nina's approach to the issue. I'm not sure where this "love" campaign comes from, but it's completely ridiculous and, quite frankly, insulting to those of us who have spent countless hours and dollars trying to fight the issue on the government front.
I wish life was as cheery as "love... free... no STDs!", but that's not the world we live in.
Love is now a copyright protected IP because people have great ideas on who they love.
Just wait until some corporation patents the chemical configuration which creates those loving feelings.
Then we'll all really pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, thank you.
Relying on the "copyheart" could be problematic since it's not entirely clear what it means, but it would likely be legally enforceable to the same extent just about any license would be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, thank you.
You are definitely overstating the matter. Copyright law is so ridiculously intricate that there is ALWAYS something to squabble over, even in extremely thorough contracts. One of the first things that becomes apparent about U.S. copyright law is that nothing is "absolutely true"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, thank you.
But my point is that something saying "please copy me" is no less legally significant than a 40 page contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, thank you.
The "40 page contract" (or a single page) notarized or otherwise appropriately witnessed as per the law would certainly have way more sway than a heart on a bottom of an electronic document.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, thank you.
You know host services have logs, even self hosting must have logs and if they don't show invasion he probably be in a world of trouble.
Those words are only meaningless if they didn't come from the copyright holder because if it did and somebody can prove it, any legal action from the copyright party owner will end bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, thank you.
I'm not sure what you mean by "appropriately witnesses as per the law."
My point is that if the copyright owner puts that language out there, it is likely going to be just as binding as something more "formal."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, thank you.
So while a brief line saying "please copy" might *technically* be as binding as a more detailed contract, it is effectively meaningless, because nobody who actually cares about the copyright status of a work for financial/business reasons will consider that permission adequate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, thank you.
And because of copyright everyone needs permission from the holder of the copyright, since it is saying right there
That would probably be accepted in any court of law as written permission from the copyright holder.
Courts have accepted oral and written permissions, you just need to prove it that he said or wrote that, that is the hard part, the permission part is straight forward, if you got anything resembling a grant of permission it will be very difficult to claim otherwise later on, judges don't look kindly to that kind of thing.
But don't trust me go read common law cases to see the history of "permissions" not only in copyright, but patents, real state and any other thing that needs permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, thank you.
"If you put that on anything you produced and own the copyright you are giving permission to others to copy and share, that is written permission, it may not look serious but that can be argued in court."
Sorry my bad LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, thank you.
And permission is different from license, if you write down in a piece of paper by hand "I grant you permission to copy and share this work of mine" it is valid in court and enforceable.
There is nothing "implied" it is written right there "Please copy".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, thank you.
Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, thank you.
Yes, when it makes financial sense to do so, such as with something that is already hugely popular like "Happy Birthday".
But try approaching a publisher with your manuscript, or a record label with your demo, when the copyright status is unclear. They aren't about to invest in a new product when there is a fear that someone will show up claiming copyright if it succeeds. This is exactly the situation with orphaned works, which are a well-documented problem in copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, thank you.
She's assuming that it's *not* a legally binding license. I think it probably is, though it's scope might be up for debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, thank you.
that's not necessarily true.
If you make a clear, public statement that you abandon your copyright, then it is abandoned.
It seems like that *might* be what the copyheart is intended to so, but since it's not very clear, it might not count.
I mean, does the copyheart mean you can make a derivative work and use it in a commercial for something the artists hates? Not sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ALERT!
LAWSUIT! She said COPYING is an act of love. Creating derivatives is an act of WAR!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ALERT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ALERT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gag me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CC licenses are complicated for a reason
Using
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyheart.org
♡ Copying art is an act of love.
People copy stuff they like. They don’t copy stuff they don’t like. The more a work is copied, the more valuable it becomes. Value isn’t taken away by fans, it is added by them, every time they copy.
♡ Love is not subject to law.
Although we appreciate and use Free Licenses when appropriate, these aren’t solving the problems of copyright restrictions. Instead of trying to educate everyone on the complexities of copyright law, we’d rather make our intentions clear with this simple statement:
♡ Please copy and share.
The ♡Copyheart means we WANT you to copy and share. No restrictions. Just like it says: please copy and share.
Q. Is the ♡Copyheart trademarked?
A. No. It’s just a statement of intention. It’s effectiveness depends only on how people use it, not on state enforcement. Here are are some other symbols that aren’t trademarked, but whose meanings and intentions are widely (if imperfectly) understood:
Q.Is the ♡Copyheart legally binding?
A. Probably not, although you could test it:
1. Mark your work with the ♡Copyheart message.
2. Sue someone for copying it.
3. See what the judge says.
We really don’t think laws and “imaginary property” have any place in peoples’ love or cultural relations. Creating more legally binding licenses and contracts just perpetuates the problem of law – a.k.a. state force – intruding where it doesn’t belong. That ♡copyheart isn’t a legally binding license is not a bug – it’s a feature!
Q. How do I use the ♡?
A. Use it wherever you would use the ©copyright symbol. Instead of
you could write
or any of these variations:
You get the idea. Of course you can do anything you want with the ♡Copyheart symbol, and any other symbol. We don’t own it. No one does.
copyheart.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyheart.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Subversive!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Miles
It doesn't confuse me. Speak for yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CTRL + SHIFT + u + 2764
❤
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CTRL + SHIFT + u + 2661 = ♡
CTRL + SHIFT + u + 2665 = ♥
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
KDE is having a stupid turf war as to whose responsibility it is to provide this feature :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://home.telepath.com/~hrothgar/alle_psallite.html
with a "please copy me" notice has been up for years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is much easier to convince other that you are evil and find alternatives that not involve paying you and your pals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compose Key
I think it needs a circle around it to look more like the © symbol. Just the heart on its own doesn’t remind anyone of the association with copyright, or the absence thereof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you want an alternate to copyright, fight to it in law in a manner that authors and creators can select an internationally recognized way to push something in the public domain. You don't have to have a &heart; to figure that out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is what it is, and I love it!
Any time you copy, you accept some level of risk (even with a signed 40-page legal document). How much risk you can tolerate dictates the kind of license you need. Copyheart lowers the risk sufficiently for most people who would like to copy for personal use and sharing with friends.
It is not, as some critics have declared, useless (unless you don't use it), confusing (unless you are an IP lawyer), or insulting (unless you woke up feeling intellectually snobby this morning).
I♥Copyheart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyheart
[ link to this | view in chronology ]