Copyright Reform

from the artists'-point-of-view dept

Fri, Jun 3rd 2011 1:18pm — Nina Paley

This week at Mimi & Eunice I'm writing a Haiku for every comic, starting with this one:

Real artists don’t wait
For lawyers and officials
To give permission.

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: copyright, copyright reform

56 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:02pm

Amen. Best Mimi & Eunice yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
D. Hope-Ross (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:33pm

Real artists don�t wait
For lawyers and officials
To give permission.

See also, the street art movement (formerly graffiti).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Publius (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:34pm

Artists are obviously rebels and pirates of the worst sort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:39pm
  
  Re: Scum!
  "Artists are obviously rebels and pirates of the worst sort."
  Yes. I'm impressed, most people are completely unaware of the part graffiti played in the Rebels being able to defeat the Empire.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 5:34am
  
  Re:
  No, artists are obviously rebels and pirates of the best sort.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:43pm

It's a good thing someone is out there to tell us who the "real artists" are.

Otherwise, how would we know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:33pm
  
  Re:
  Same way we know who the real trolls are. Instinct.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Your instincts are usually better
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 3:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Heh. Actually I was thinking after I posted... "And it's not always easy."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 3:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I just get annoyed when people use their own personal tastes or beliefs as the definition of what's "authentic" or "real" or "good," especially when it comes to art.
        
        If someone is creating something worthwhile, I don't think the fact they are doing it for profit, or doing it on commission or as part of employment, or doing it (gasp!) with the advice of an attorney, makes it any more or less worthwhile, or more or less artistic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 4:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But this doesn't say anything about making money or doing commissions... and I don't think it's saying there are no circumstances in which permission is necessary either. The point is just that when you simply want to create art, because you have the urge, then you go ahead and create it, piddling legalities be damned. If it means you have to lock it up in a box and never let anyone see it, fine - better that than being pre-censored by ridiculous laws.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Greevar (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What good is art that doesn't touch another mind?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 9:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Perhaps I am being a bit over-lyrical when I say "lock it in a box" - I just mean that if you are inspired to create art, you should create it, and find out afterwards if copyright bullshit is going to make it hard/illegal to share (obviously before locking it in a box you would "leak" some copies to the web!)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nicedoggy, 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What can you create that is worthwhile if you cannot use anything created before you?
        
        I doubt anything worthwhile will appear from the ether often.
        
        We are the collection of our experiences that ends up as something, if we are left alone in the middle of nowhere we die, we can't think of everything and have only original ideas, that is not how humans function and the law today doesn't reflect that simple fact. Instead creates a mythical world romanticized that could never work and it doesn't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nicedoggy, 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:00pm
  
  Re:
  Hmmm...maybe there should be a guide to artists types:
  
  - Sold out type: The one that cares more about money, than art, it may or may not be talented, but mostly produces things people want to buy and not for love, it would never work for love of art but for love of money and status, generally devoid of empathy which may be the cause of most of crappy work being done today.
  
  - True artist: The one emotional, irrational, that loves what he/she/it(think of the aliens) does and continuously produce, ignoring what others think or pay for it. Will produce even if it goes deaf, blind, starve or is threatened.
  
  - Bully: Is the one that expends more time fighting with others then producing something.
  
  There are other types I'm sure, people could start thinking about those things.
  
  Can you imagine Da Vinci not producing anything if he was not paid, how would he learn anything, how he would discover all those things he discovered if his drive was only financial? How would he learn if others where trying to stop him from producing something? According to some historians more than once he got in trouble because of his curiosity as did most of the others great names in history.
  
  Ridiculous laws like copyright that can't possibly produce sane results are not to be taken seriously and will go away with time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesse Jenkins, 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:01pm

Old School
I forget the details on the syllable count, but when I was first taught Haiku, there was a requirement to include a reference somewhere within to "nature" and also to the "seaon".

I grant it's cute, insightful, and fun.

Haiku, it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:21pm
  
  Re: Old School
  "Lawyers" is obviously a metonym for winter / death.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:22pm
  
  Re: Old School
  Poetic fail:
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiku
  
  Back to school for you!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ANON, 3 Jun 2011 @ 3:30pm
  
  Re: Old School
  Some things taught in school are not correct. Syllable is all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:17pm
    
    Re: Re: Old School
    Syllable is not all. See above link. Syllable, in fact, was never really real (they counted something slightly different from syllables) - and in modern haiku, counting at all is increasingly rare
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:27pm

Who pays Nina Paley's rent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:33pm
  
  Re:
  Who pays yours?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 4:26pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I do.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 4:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Question answered
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Gah, you are such a child...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 6:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No Marcus, it's making a very valid point.
        
        That is, that it is really easy for someone that doesn't need to make a living via art to criticize others that do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, I mean you are a child because you play silly games like saying "Who pays Nina Paley's rent?" then responding to the same question with "I do." If that's your answer, then the answer to your question is "Nina Paley", isn't it?
        
        You haven't told us what you do for a living.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rose M. Welch (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 5:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That is, that it is really easy for someone that doesn't need to make a living via art to criticize others that do.
        
        No one needs to make a living from their art. The people who claim to have that need are essentially throwing tantrums because they think that they're entitled to make a living doing what they love.
        
        News Flash: You do what you love because you love to do it. End of story. Most people work a day job, and then do what they love in their spare time and I've got zero sympathy for snivelers who cry about not making a mint from their art, or actually having to work to make money from their talent, just like everyone else does.
        
        I'll tell you what, it takes talent and work to earn money in sales. It takes talent and work to earn money in customer service. It takes talent and work to earn money as a mechanic. It takes talent and work to earn money as a blogger. It takes talent and work to earn money in every single industry, including music and art.
        
        You can make all the art you want without getting paid for it. A monetary exchange that benefits the artist isn't necessary for the artist to create art. Look at the countless number of artists who didn't make money from their art in their lifetimes, and only gained recognition after their deaths.
        
        Let me be clear: The unwillingness of the public to support artists has never stopped the creation of art, and never will.
        
        If you want to create art, create it. If you want to share your art, share it. If you want to make money, make it. You don't automatically deserve money from me just because you created art and shared it. The end. Deal with it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:36pm
  
  Re:
  I'm sure she must still live with her parents.. She couldn't possibly get her own money if she doesn't rely on government legislation to make up access restrictions on the things she makes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 4:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, she doesn't live with her parents.
    
    But she doesn't pay her rent via her "art".
    
    So how does she pay it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      But she doesn't pay her rent via her "art".
      
      Er... did she say that?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I bet her rent is paid for by some corporation and their bean counters and lawyers. Typical artists, too stupid to pay their own way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Maybe that's because she does work for that corporation. Typical corporations, too stupid to do their own work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 8:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not sure where everyone is getting all these weird ideas... Nina is a professional artist who sells her work under the least-restrictive licenses possible. She's not moonlighting at Burger King. As far as I can see she's fairly successful...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 12:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In your universe, I bat all artists are secretly shop-monkeys who live with their parents and play WoW or RIFT or LoL.
        
        Reality is different.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 5:39am

Sort of the usual crap.

If the art you want to make is illegal, perhaps it really isn't art, just replication and duplication of other's work.

I would think that artists would be more respective of other artists. But then again, first you would have to be an artist, not a hack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 9:37am
  
  Re:
  Whenever someone says crap like this, you can tell that their idea of art is their TimeLife Classis Beethoven Boxed Set and the landscape painting they bought from an auction at their country club - and nothing else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 10:03am
  
  Re:
  Why is the art illegal in the first place? Oh right, the bean counters and the lawyers. Can't have art without the bean counters and the lawyers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Art isn't illegal, that is sort of the point here. What the cartoon does is create a massive strawman, because art isn't illegal. However, replicating or duplicating someone else's art without permission does leave someone open for a lawsuit and perhaps more. The difference is a real artist wouldn't feel the need to just duplicate someone else's work.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 4:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      There are a lot of things that many, many people consider to be extremely high quality art, not mere "replication", and yet which is illegal because it borrows elements from other works and does entirely new things with them. There are even more great works from history (even recent history) that, if they were done in today's IP climate, would be illegal.
      
      So are you prepared to assert everything from Dangermouse's Grey Album to the Beggar's Opera to the works of Andy Warhol are simply "replications" and have no artistic value? Are you willing to claim that The Verve is owed absolutely none of the credit for the massive success of "Bitter Sweet Symphony", and it was right for 100% of copyrights and songwriting credits to be transferred to Mick Jagger because they used "too much of a sample"? Is it right that nobody can buy DVDs of a classic piece of pop culture like WKRP In Cincinnati, because lingering copyright disputes and complicated contract clauses on the music used in the show prevent it?
      
      I'm not saying you can't claim these things. If you truly believe that ALL art which steps on the toes of copyright is not actually art, then so be it - but I think you have to make a stronger case for it. There is a lot of art in this world that is illegal or legally questionable thanks to copyright - and it has a lot of fans, a lot of critical support and a lot of expert opinion to back it up as very real and genuine art. You can't just brush it all off as "replicating or duplicating" and provide nothing to back that up. I mean, have you ever listened to the Grey Album? Or the Magical Mystery Chambers? Because claiming that they that they are mere replication is clearly a simplification - so I'd really like to hear your explanation of why they don't count as art.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 9:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When you borrow too much, the art itself is diminished.
        
        Dangermaus is very talented, but it is easy to confuse a skill with being an artist. Some pipe layers are very accurate and do a really great job. Are they just skilled, or are they artists?
        
        You sort of run down a list of absolutely statements, none of which are true. The Verve did a good job as musical performers, but as artists, they lacked a little creativity there.
        
        The WKRP case is because the original producers failed to get appropriate licenses at the time (they cheaped out) and it is no longer financially viable at the sales levels of the DVDs to pay for licensing. That isn't a failing of the system, that is the failing of producers who cheaped out up front to make a little more profit. It will all fall into the public domain one day, and then you can enjoy it all you like.
        
        Let me put the question back to you in reverse: Would the world be a worse place without the Grey Album? Would the artistic community be hampered by this? Would his time as an artist have been better spent coming up with someone new rather than just merging the old? Can you really justify it as a needed part of culture?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 9:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's the funny thing about culture that seems to elude you; it's not up to you, it's up to the artists, all of them and the public, or their audience, all of them too.
        
        No bean counters or lawyers needed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 1:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Would the world be a worse place without the Grey Album?
        
        Yes. The world is a worse place every time art is censored. And if you really think you can compare the grey album to laying pipe, then I'm really glad you aren't in charge of deciding what art is.
        
        Would the artistic community be hampered by this?
        
        Yes. The popularity of the Grey Album spawned a huge trend of mashups, some of which have been crappy, some of which have been very very good, and MANY of which have been a young producer's first foray into creating and sharing music. Of course, you don't consider any of that art, because you are a very simple person, apparently.
        
        Would his time as an artist have been better spent coming up with someone new rather than just merging the old?
        
        By merging the old, he came up with something that sounds nothing like either. Ever heard the expression "whole greater than the sum of its parts"? Yeah, that's what it is. It is something new. Even what you call "new" compositions are in fact compiled out of all the music the artist has heard before - how this note goes with that note, how this chord follows that chord, how this type of bass compliments this type of guitar. It's all a compilation of past experience.
        
        Can you really justify it as a needed part of culture?
        
        Can you say in all assuredness that you are qualified to be the arbiter of what is "justified" in terms of culture? Because if so, you must be pretty full of yourself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 4:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They should just come out and say that collage, which has been around for centuries, should be illegal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rose M. Welch (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 5:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The WKRP case is because the original producers failed to get appropriate licenses at the time (they cheaped out) and it is no longer financially viable at the sales levels of the DVDs to pay for licensing.
        
        You can't say the same of Daria, yet there it is. It's not 'cheap' producers, but insane copyright laws that only really benefit a few corporations that are the problem here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2011 @ 1:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Would his time as an artist have been better spent coming up with someone new rather than just merging the old?"
        
        ?? all you did was merge an OLD old old argument that's been around forever ago instead of making a "new" one, apparently you thought it was worth spending time on, i think that answers the question
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2011 @ 1:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "The difference is a real artist wouldn't feel the need to just duplicate someone else's work."
      
      what tha ****?
      
      there are really people who'd SAY that? no the intrawebs must be lying to me, NOBODY can say something this out of touch with reality
      
      unless... somebody payed them to it
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:17pm
  
  Re:
  An Unmade Bed begs to differ.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dwg, 8 Jun 2011 @ 2:23pm
  
  Re:
  That is some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard. First of all, it's "respectful." Second (it would be first, but I had to correct your grammar to make this point), when has being "respectful" been a touchstone for artists? Artists push the discourse forward by NOT being respectful, by exploding shit, by using what they want. You're a fuckwit.
  
  No offense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 7:29pm

Deal, Heal, Meal, Peal, Real, Seal, Teal, Veal.

That's sixteen syllables to my ear. Haiku is 5, 7, and 5.

True artists don't wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
darryl, 4 Jun 2011 @ 10:46pm

Oh dear, its "art' again
if you can call it that..

sorry the best I could possibly give you is 2 out of 10, for 'trying'.

its not artistic, it's not funny, it is not informative, it is not incitefull.

I would have thought that at least if you were going to go to the effort of drawing some "pictures" you would have put a little thought about the subject matter.

or at least be relevant.. but not..

thats why 2/10...

some people are capable of educating and amusing us at the same time, you do neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 12:06am
  
  Re: Oh dear, its "art' again
  Did you lose your Aussie humour in the sea? OR was it when you left?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cartoonist, 5 Jun 2011 @ 6:15am
  
  Another great typo!
  I think you've proven it's inciteful.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 5:43am
  
  Re: Oh dear, its "art' again
  its not artistic, it's not funny, it is not informative, it is not incitefull.
  
  Have you ever heard the word 'subjective'?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dwg, 8 Jun 2011 @ 2:27pm
  
  Re: Oh dear, its "art' again
  ...and some people have an amazing knack for pissing me off by saying stupid shit that adds nothing to anything. Congratulations. Did you draw a cartoon this morning? I didn't think so.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2011 @ 1:53pm
  
  Re: Oh dear, its "art' again
  "some people are capable of educating and amusing us at the same time, you do neither."
  No U
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]