Cultural Insanity: You Can't Show A Painting In A Movie Without Paying The Copyright Holder
from the this-makes-no-sense dept
The NY Times has an article about yet another ridiculous bit of copyright law, the fact that moviemakers have to license artwork, even if they own the physical piece to show it in a movie. And it gets even worse, when you find out that the ridiculous position of the Artists Rights Society (think the RIAA/MPAA for artists) is that the newly released 3D version of Titanic needs a new license, because its use of artwork is somehow not covered by the original license:It is there in the new 3-D version of “Titanic,” as it was in James Cameron’s original film: a modified version of Picasso’s painting “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon” aboard the ship as it sinks.Of course, I recognize that ownership of the image is different than holding the copyright in the image -- though I'm a bit surprised that most art purchases don't include a copyright assignment or at least a permissive license as well. But it strikes me as ridiculous that the use of such images in a movie -- especially in passing -- isn't a clear case of fair use. This highlights the ridiculousness of the "permission-based society" we live in, where even if you own something, you don't really own it.
Of course that 1907 masterpiece was never lost to the North Atlantic. It has been at the Museum of Modern Art for decades — which is precisely the reason the Picasso estate, which owns the copyright to the image, refused Mr. Cameron’s original request to include it in his 1997 movie.
But Mr. Cameron used it anyway.
After Artists Rights Society, a company that guards intellectual property rights for more than 50,000 visual artists or their estates, including Picasso’s, complained, however, Mr. Cameron agreed to pay a fee for the right to use the image.
With the rerelease of “Titanic,” the society wants Mr. Cameron to pay again, asserting that the 3-D version is a new work, not covered under the previous agreement.
Why do we let this kind of craziness happen? Why don't we, as a society, stand up and point out that it makes no sense. If you have possession of the painting, why shouldn't you be allowed to use it in a movie? Even if you don't have the painting. How is having that painting in the movie, in any way, harming the economic value of the painting? The answer is that it is not. If anything, it's increasing the prestige and value of the painting... and it's doing all of that for free.
Think of it in a slightly different context. These days, when other products are seen in movies -- like a can of Coke, for example -- it's often there because of product placement. That is, the provider paid for it to be in the movie. Couldn't you make an argument that artwork that shows up in movies gets the same sort of benefit of the attention of the moviegoers? Why is it, then, that filmmakers are expected to pay a license to have the artwork, but get paid to have the Coke can?
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: 3d, artwork, fair use, licensing, moma, picasso, titanic
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even more bizarrely, given the wording of the US copyright act, it would seem that if one buys a painting in Europe, one still needs the permission of the rightsholder to bring it back home (import it) to the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is something absolutely and horribly ridiculous in the idea that in 2012 you have to pay to show a 1907 painting in a film by an artist that died in 1973.
Any law that allows such a situation to arise needs to be fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As ridiculous as it sounds, movie studios actually have lawyers watch the footage frame-by-frame to spot these.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Cameron totally benefited from putting this painting in Titanic! Way back in '97 when I heard the exited chatter that Picasso’s “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon” would be featured in the film I rushed out to see it. Twice! I would never have bothered otherwise, it was the film's only redeeming feature (other than Kate's boobs of course). Then just a few months ago when I heard a 3D version was being released I was overjoyed, and not just because of the 3D boobs! Finally I'd be able to see “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon” again! Because there's no other way to see this painting, right?
Yeah, sarc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just read the articles, and...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha ha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Normally, published works before 1923 are in the public domain. BUT, in this particular case, Picasso held on to the painting until 1924 before selling it.
Therefore, assuming he registered it within 5 years of selling it, it would have a copyright term of 95 years from publication - meaning that it will not expire until 2019.
tl;dr: copyright will not expire until 2019.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is my answer to all of those questions...
What!
The!
Hell!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here is my answer to all of those questions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here is my answer to all of those questions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1907....uh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1907....uh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1907....uh?
He died in 1973, meaning it's in copyright to at least 2043.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 1907....uh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 1907....uh?
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1907....uh?
You're crazy.
How will my far reaching descendants be able to make any money off of MY hard work, once the sun, and Alpha Centauri go nova, and we escape to Epsilon Eridani.
Copyright should be for the life of the entire Universe.
Plus one day.
Won't someone think of the long dead artists far flung starving descendants.
/obviously sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 1907....uh?
You're crazy.
How will my far reaching descendants be able to make any money off of MY hard work, once the sun, and Alpha Centauri go nova, and we escape to Epsilon Eridani.
Copyright should be for the life of the entire Universe. Plus one day.
Won't someone think of the long dead artists far flung starving descendants.
/obviously sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 1907....uh?
You're crazy.
How will my far reaching descendants be able to make any money off of MY hard work, once the sun, and Alpha Centauri go nova, and we escape to Epsilon Eridani.
Copyright should be for the life of the entire Universe. Plus one day.
Won't someone think of the long dead artists far flung starving descendants.
/obviously sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 1907....uh?
You're crazy.
How will my far reaching descendants be able to make any money off of MY hard work, once the sun, and Alpha Centauri go nova, and we escape to Epsilon Eridani.
Copyright should be for the life of the entire Universe.
Plus one day.
Won't someone think of the long dead artists far flung starving descendants.
/obviously sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 1907....uh?
In Europe.
In America, anything pre-1923 is PD.
In addition, pre-1976, if no American copyright was filed within a couple of years of creation, it would've been PD from about 1910 onward!
There was no "automatic copyright" back then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 1907....uh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 1907....uh?
I also found a filing for the painting in the US Copyright Office's database from 1994, on the basis for photolithographic reproduction, and claiming it was a pre-existing work. The link is Here
It all seems utterly rediculous that something made in 1907, and published almost certainly before 1923 is being claimed under copyright.
I couldn't find any original registration for Les demoiselles d'Avignon itself before 1994, just objects that incorporated it.
Copyright is so broken. How can you promote creativity if it's illegal to copy other's work (with attribution). And I find it obscene to deny the public all artwork created by people who are long dead.
What a corporate load of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1907....uh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Showing how little you seem to understand. If you can see an actually product name, and it's a real product name, it is almost certainly a paid product placement, or a tradeoff between the movie makers and the rights holder. That is why you rarely see Dunkin Donuts, but often similar two colored boxes with "DONUTS DONUTS" on them. That is why you often see the back side of cans, or see generically red cans to imply a cola type drink.
With HD and such, it becomes an even bigger issue. TV use to be able to get away with blurry things, now they are often more than detailed enough for people to make out.
Generating knock off / generic cans, bottles, milk cartons and the like is an ongoing expense of making a movie or a tv show. One of the many expenses that nobody here wants to acknowledge, it seems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And why oh why can't I go eat at Krusty Burger?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's two sided two, to be fair: Some companies don't want to be involved in movies that they don't like or that have content they don't agree with, and movie makers also see a chance to be able to sell screen space to make a little extra money. It's to both side's benefit in the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Before the use of 555 phones numbers, some unlucky person who who had the phone number in a movie would be subjected to all kinds of calls and possibly even pranks or harassment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually not, although if people here had their way, there would be a lot less expense as you'd just use whatever you needed to use.
That is after all one of the big issues here, that copyright and other so called IP laws as currently written and enforced are a major drag on creativity as opposed to the encouragement to creativity that it is supposed to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Idiot AC: If you can see an actually product name ... it is almost certainly a paid product placement
How can you say the exact same thing as Mike and then preface it with "how little you seem to understand"? Do you even read the f*cking posts before this sh!t comes out of your mouth? Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike said that it is "often" that way. I said it is almost certainly. That is to say that unless someone is a real amateur and doesn't realize what they are doing (and the liability that comes with it), that almost any real label is almost certainly product placement. There isn't "often" about, it is almost a given.
Further, I went to on the mention the "look alike" labels often used to make it appear that something is real but it really isn't.
So, Did you even read my f*cking comment before this sh!t comes out of your mouth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
if you see the back side of what you THINK is a coke can, it MAY be a product placement
If you can CLEARLY read or see the actor holding it, or drinking it, it IS a paid placement
a company doesnt pay to be in a movie, for you to see the back of the can/box etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about...
What if the movie includes a scene of someone painting, where the painting is created as a consequence of making the movie? In other words, who paid whom for the picture Jack draws of Rose in the movie? As a key plot point, it obviously has value to the movie; but because it was drawn in the movie, the picture owes its existence to the movie....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about...
Then it becomes a work for hire for the studio - and they will own it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't being a whiny ass bitch ever get old, Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nice red herring there.
The real discussion should be about whether intellectual property actually is property, and whether those rights should exist or be much more limited.
It's also reasonable to discuss and be surprised by art purchases not including copyright assignments, or at least blanket licenses.
Here's an alternative version:
OMG, a slave holder wants to exercise
his rights with his own slave girls/boys.
Doesn't being a whiny ass bitch ever get old, Mr. Lincoln?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your right to copy and distribute isn't granted to you when you get a copyright since you and everybody else already has that right; instead, it's taken away from everyone else.
Your right to use an invention isn't given to you when you get a patent since you and everybody else already has that right; instead, it's taken away from everyone else.
Your right to use a mark in commerce isn't given to you when you get a trademark since you and everybody else already has that right; instead, it's taken away from everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Granted, Disney fucked the system up when they got in bed with the gov't to make copyright life+70 instead of 56 years. But that's not the fault of any creator today trying to make a living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you still seem to misunderstand the purpose of copyright. It is not so someone can recoup their investment. The purpose of copyright is to promote the useful arts and sciences. Copyright is no longer doing that. Even if it were just life of the author.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is “Intellectual Property” Property, Or Isn’t It?
On the other hand, when I buy a piece of “intellectual property”, it turns out it’s not my “property” at all, to do with as I would any other piece of my property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm having difficulty imagining the people at the estate reaching the conclusion that seeing the painting in a film is harmful in any way and should be disallowed. What could possibly have been going through their heads?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On TechDirt the copy trolls lies they do spreads,
While visions of settlements danced in their heads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: refusal
Apparently, Cameron is of the opinion that (a little bit paraphrased), "it's cheaper to pay for forgiveness than buy permission."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I used to think.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This time it makes sense, sometimes
Now, some artists, especially ones not well established, might well offer their work for free or even pay to have it included in a movie for exposure, but that is the artist's right and not something to be assumed. And this is very different from a can of coke because with coke the value is in drinking it, not in seeing it.
There are other reasons that this particular case might not make sense, but not the reasons you list. For one, I believe our copyright term is too long and something from 1907 should be in the public domain now, but until that law is properly changed it is still in copyright. I also note that a license fee was already paid, but whether or not that covers this version is precisely the heart of this case so the court will decide it. Also, there might be a fair use claim especially for art that is not significant to the movie and shown only in passing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This time it makes sense, sometimes
Except there is no loss. Picasso is dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This time it makes sense, sometimes
As with so much else in the hypothetical world of copyright-compensation it is completely impossible to prove and it could just as well have the opposite effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This time it makes sense, sometimes
MOMA is not even the ones demanding go-away money, it is the estate/heirs.. who don't own the painting and have not for many years.
That is right, a group of lawyers and relatives who do not own the piece are demanding to be paid (multiple times) for its (probably fair use) passing inclusion in a movie, despite the questions on whether or not they hold any rights over the piece at all any more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This time it makes sense, sometimes
You're joking, right? Not every piece of art is as ubiquitous as the Mona Lisa or Venus de Milo. MOMA's complaint has only raised awareness that the art exists, though in this bad faith people might not want to give a shit anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This time it makes sense, sometimes
With that said, I do beleive that a painter with a valid copyright should, in general, be able to demand payment for any major use of their painting in a film.
That of course is qualified with in general because it should not apply when there is fair use, but that is a case by case decision. It also should not qualify after the copyright term expires. I believe our current copyright term is too long, but that is somewhat tangential to the current discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This time it makes sense, sometimes
You realise 'the artist' is dead right? Why should anybody have to be compensated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This time it makes sense, sometimes
The value IS in seeing it. If I didn't want to see it again, and again, and again, then it has no value. The value it has is that I want to keep on seeing it, and therefore might even pay to go to a museum or private art gallery, or buy a reproduction, or other ways it can be monitized.
If nobody wants to see it, it has no value. Having no value, money cannot be made from it. But neither does having value mean that the owner must charge money to see it either. The owner might put it on public display for free. It still has value if people are lined up to see it, even for free. If it has no value, and I display it for free, then nobody will come to see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real problem is art not being shown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solar Flares?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solar Flares?
Or said differently, why are the general population immune?
How does money and/or power make one more susceptible to the solar flares?
I look forward to results published in a scientific journal that nobody can afford.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Solar Flares?
That sounds like a good plot for a bad sci fi movie. Solar flares only affect people with a specific brain chemistry, causing their views on intellectual property law to twist and warp into dangerous ideas that threaten freedom worldwide!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We must advocate voluntary relationships & exchange through the non-aggression principle / self-ownership / and the utmost respect for property rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and something from 1907 should be in the public domain now, but until that law is properly changed it is still in copyright."
This doesn't make sense. substitute copyright with slavery and read again. Accepting the legality of oppression but arguing over whether the oppression should be mild or harsh is still accepting oppression.
Copyright benefitting the creator might be justified, but any copyright or IP rights benefitting any descendants of dead creators is no more justified than slavery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The rich greedsters have screwed our Economy up but good and many of us are not able to find work or have gone homeless and non-medical insurance.The Copyright people remind me of the same scum who screwed over our World and continue to use the screwdriver.
Hey, I said I am getting negative.You guys would to if you were in your late 50's and probably ending up in a box in bum park.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You obviously still have access to a computer, which means you still have time to go entrepreneurial or investigate new skills. Drag yourself as deep into debt as they'll let you whilst concentrating on finding something you can do that will get you hired or allow you to monetize on your own.
If you can, pull yourself out with the new funds. If they are too small, go for bankruptcy but just make sure you keep the hook into the new source of funds.
Starting over is harder than getting started the first time, but that's the route that will have maximal chance of success.
Once you're back on your feet, then look back to politics and fix the problem. You won't get far from an unstable foundation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liability insurance
that nobody here wants to acknowledge, it seems."
Really, so you are admitting that compliance with IP law imposes a substantial cost on movie production?
If so, you shouldn't mind a reduction in the artificially inflated cost imposed by IP law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What would be the requirement for licensing? Does the "compensation" go to the Picasso's estate or to the author of the copy (that would be logical)? And if latter, does the Picasso's estate then has a claim against Cameron or the artist who made a copy? What if it is an unknown artist? Or a con who intentionally made a fake to sell as an original and who died many years ago?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is because a large percentage of people dream of painting a picture or writing a book which magically makes them millionaires overnight. I just talked to a friend this weekend, and explained how the Patent Shakedown works, where someone threatens a lawsuit without even giving up what patent was violated.
"Hey, we need to do that. I'd like to have an extra couple hundred G's lying around."
People know it's not fair. They just hope it can work in their favor some day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Indeed. I think it cuts even deeper, too. Thsi type of response comes from people who feel powerless and hopeless to improve their situation. They're saying that they don't think the injustice can ever be resolved. If you have to live in a world where an injustice is inevitable, then your friend's perspective is about the only (albeit weak) method of defense from it.
We frequently see it here from the maximalists who don't care if they're shafting innocent people because they think the someone will inevitably get shafted and they're just trying to make sure it's not them.
We also see it from the handful of people here who say that because the big copyright holders behave so terribly they will just pirate their copyrighted materials. It's the exact same line of reasoning.
The plain truth is that nothing is inevitable. Injustice can be, and historically is, resolved. It takes a lot of time and effort -- typically spanning generations -- but that time and effort can bring us to a place where the injustice is reduced for everybody instead of just pawned off on our neighbor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have seen low-budget productions that have clearly struggled with this and resolved it by minimizing anything but tight close-ups in public and where wider shots were essential, digitally blurring most of the background street scene.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Something which, in my opinion, justifies the use of the phrase to the left of the colon in the article title.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because the 4th Estate is corrupt... broadcast media, which is where the biggest, most easily organised (or duped) biomass of voters/spenders gets their information, ARE the same corporations that are participating in this insanity.
To change anything, we need to displace broadcast media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We are. One website at a time.
Ask any twenty-something which is more relevant, the internet or broadcast TV. It's just a matter of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes
that nobody here wants to acknowledge, it seems."
Really, so you are admitting that compliance with IP law imposes a substantial cost on movie production?"
Yes, really. Avoiding copyrighted/trademarked works in the frame is a significant parameter of our job. We spend a lot of time avoiding this, and manufacturing generic equivalents to replace things like bottles, signs etc.. The set dresser runs around with boxes of fake labels to place over the real logos on things like cel phones, pop machines, whatever. We avoid shooting signs and billboards, although sometimes that is unavoidable. In some cases then the item would be cleared, and there are full time workers on larger productions doing this, or they will digitally paint it out in post production. In some cases I think it's considered fair use if a logo is on say a billboard in the background of a street scene but the producers tend to err on the side of safety.
You can view all this as creating more jobs for film workers, although often the work just gets added on to someone's job rather than hiring another person. Whichever way you look at it it definitely adds work and hence expense to the production of a movie or TV show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speaking of using an image....
Actually, it's a picture taken of the movie playing on a television.
I'm irritated that the New York Times would show this image, because it's obvious that the aspect ratio is all screwed up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This hurts smaller film makers disproportionately
The problem is worse for lower budget productions. Larger budget productions can afford to either license works, or pay workers to manufacture imitations. Smaller productions cannot afford this. Larger productions also attract product placement deals, much less likely for smaller budget projects.
These issues are a daily fact of life in my job, but I agree that the situation is well past out of hand and a net detriment to society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just curious...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just curious...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just curious...
And that is exactly what's wrong with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taking from this what I understand to be the general case, whether the copyright has expired on the work or not is irrellevant. The owner of the original physical work evidently has all legal rights to control unauthorized reproductions of the work, just as a copyright holder would. The difference is that the rights a physical owner has are perpetual. Cameron would have been far better off simply not using an image that the owners did not permit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
uh...yeah....no thats completely wrong, sorry. The copyright is effective from the time the work is CREATED, out to whatever overall length it is. Just because you buy the original doesnt confer to you ETERNAL AND PERPETUAL COPYRIGHTS. Sorry, it just doesnt. Now, the author can TRANSFER those rights to you permanently, but they STILL HAVE THE SAME CRITERIA. The clock doesnt reset just because the copyright is transferred (or, as in your insane example, last FOREVER.) It just means that, for as long as the copyright is active, you get to have those rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Egad!
This is indeed insane. It is THEFT by the "rights organizations" from all of us. It destroys culture and only benefits a few lazy, greedy, rent-seeking thugs. No one should have a right to expect society to pay them money for something done by a DEAD ANCESTOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO!
The Picasso estate members need to get up off their lazy asses and get jobs instead of stealing from the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Film a city street? Get clearances from the architects of each building on that street. And each manufacturer of each car on that road. And any manhole covers with the manufacturers logo? that too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then they'll owe him!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weep for the future, weep for us all
A revolution is way overdue, the government must be reminded that THEY ARE THERE TO SERVE OUR INTERESTS, not the interests of a chosen few. As for the content industries...they need to be reminded that We.Don't.Need.Them, if anything, they need us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and they're just trying to make sure it's not them.
We also see it from the handful of people here who say that because the big copyright holders behave so terribly they will just pirate their copyrighted
materials. It's the exact same line of reasoning."
No not aat all, copyright is a restriction on freedom of information, and equating copyright maximalists who seek to impose an artificial monopoly with those opposing copyright is wrong for a lot of reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your article misses the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You dont know what you are talking about
Its really sad that people will read your article & think you know what you are talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You dont know what you are talking about
Its really sad that people will read your article & think you know what you are talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It Comes Down To Reproduction Rights
Of course there is an easy way around this problem. Don't sell the masterpiece until you're done with it. Reproductions only have any significant value if they are relatively rare limited editions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The last picture I tried to buy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The last picture I tried to buy
Well, he did get to retain the copyright on his own work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
loved this....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
o_O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright
We need a serious revamp of the copyright law, especially in this digital age where everyone posts their photos and artwork all over the internet. It's waaaay too complicated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
painting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]