WIPO Is Quietly Signing An Agreement To Give Hollywood Stars Their Own Special Version Of Copyright
from the why? dept
We've mentioned that the copyright maximalists of the world never stop in their ongoing efforts around the globe to expand government granted monopoly privileges. Back in April we warned about an upcoming negotiation on an "audiovisual right" that would create an entirely new -- and entirely unnecessary -- form of "copyright" for performers themselves. Copyright, of course, goes to whoever "fixes" the work. So, for movies, the studio producing it gets the copyright. But this treaty goes above and beyond that and would grant the actors in video works entirely separate rights, allowing them to control how their images are used around the globe.And, of course, while everyone's been paying attention to things like the ACTA vote in the EU, this treaty has moved forward and may be signed as soon as today from the sound of things. I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for this, other than "gee, actors would really like it if we gave them monopoly rights." Reuters quotes WIPO's maximalist-in-chief, Francis Gurry insisting that "it's a real problem" but never actually defining how it's a problem:
They also have no rights in many countries if their work is manipulated in any way that may harm their reputation.Wait. So this is all about some actors being upset that someone "manipulated" their work? We're creating an entirely new monopoly right for actors because they're all upset about someone creating a little mashup or parody? And this is "a real problem"? Are they insane? This isn't a problem at all. This is catering to a population of people (Hollywood actors) who already have skins too thin, who will now be able to try to stifle all sorts of protected speech, parodies, mashups, commentary and the like, just because they might not like it.
"It's a real problem - it's not an artificial problem," Francis Gurry, the World Intellectual Property Organization's director general, told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday.
"The actors are the ones, in the international framework, who have not been catered for."
That's no reason to create new monopoly rights.
The negotiations for this agreement have been taking place in Beijing, leading Gurry to talk about why that's the perfect place for such negotiations due to China's cultural history:
The Director General said it is particularly appropriate that the event is taking place in Beijing because of the depth of China’s historical association with the performing arts, as well as the vitality and dynamism of its contemporary theatre, cinema and television. “Theatre, acting and performance in China date back to the Shang Dynasty and enjoy an unbroken historical continuity of development and adaptation, leading to the blossoming contemporary culture that saw China produce over 500 feature films in 2010 and the largest number of television series of any country in the world,” he said.Er... isn't it worth pointing out that this "vitality and dynamism" of culture in China was built up almost entirely without intellectual property laws, since the country only introduced copyright in 1991? Why is Gurry pretending that China needs these new monopoly rights when we've already seen that culture their flourished without it? Amusingly, a Chinese official at the meetings announced that: "Respecting IP is ... a mark of our civilization," which appears to be an out and out fabrication.
The full proposal (also embedded below) is really broad, and appears to mimic many of the rights established by copyright law. Performers -- mainly actors, but also musicians -- even if they're not the copyright holders will get an exclusive right to prevent others from reproducing, distributing or performing the works. In some cases, the rights appear to be even broader than current copyright law, such as an explicit "making available right." Under copyright law there's been some dispute if merely "making available" violates the "distribution" right, or if someone actually has to download it to violate that right. However, this treaty explicitly defines a "making available" right -- showing, once again, how IP laws only seem to expand outwards. Furthermore, it establishes "moral rights" for performers -- an idea that the US has repeatedly rejected for everyone outside of a very small group of artists (such as painters). It seems troubling that we'd suddenly agree to a massive moral rights regime without any public discussion in the US.
On top of that, Article 15 of the agreement appears to include an exceptionally broad anti-circumvention provision -- something we've already found to be disastrous under the DMCA. Why would we possibly want to expand that such that performers can go after anyone for breaking DRM even if for perfectly legal purposes. This makes no sense.
And while it might sound nice that performers would get their own rights outside of the copyright, that's not how it's going to play out. One of the "differences" this time around from the last time it was discussed a dozen years ago, is that this version will allow for the transfer of such rights to producers... meaning that actors in Hollywood movies will be forced to hand these rights over to the studios anyway -- meaning more excessive monopoly rights that the MPAA and RIAA will be able to assert to shut down legitimate content.
This thing has disaster written all over it... and it appears to be passing without most people noticing.
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: acta, china, dmca, drm, hollywood, performance rights, wipo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wow, it's an double new. Much worse than the regular new ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"it's a real problem"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "it's a real problem"
"No dudes, its a 'real' problem, totally NOT an artificial one. Nope, totally real, and realistic."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "it's a real problem"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "it's a real problem"
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "it's a real problem"
No... IT is a real problem...for the children of actors (or even the children of child actors)
FTFY. Considering how long copyright lasts, and the fact that it is inheritable, I think that is more accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "it's a real problem"
Not an imagined problem like, say, whining about lost sales from markets who you refuse to sell to in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "it's a real problem"
What he is saying is that this is not BS or fear mongering tactics. This is real shit that is about to piss into the mouths of the general populace.
Personally i think it will be hilarious when overindulgent celebrities like kanye begin to sue labels and studios for "making them look bad" when their shit doesn't sell as well as theyd like.
Pissing in their mouths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can actors stop a movie from being shown?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can actors stop a movie from being shown?
However the producers can then use it to slam fans remixing the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can actors stop a movie from being shown?
However the producers can then use it to slam fans remixing the content.
Even worse - they will probably find a way to license it such that they basically both have full enforcement rights, so the performers and studios can use it to slam fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can actors stop a movie from being shown?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can actors stop a movie from being shown?
first of al, it's not true that" Copyright, of course, goes to whoever "fixes" the work." Studios get copyright in motion pictures because everyone who contributes signs a work made for hire agreement, not because they pressed the figurative "record" button on the camera.
Actors, at least in theory, could already claim copyright in their performances, as fixed in a film, or more accurately in the film itself as a joint author, except for the fact that it's all done under a written work-made-for-hire agreement.
So, something definitely does not seem right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In all honesty
But what happens when someone is way way better than the original artist. Lets say a song by an artist never gets to become popular, but when someone else changes it and gets a singer who can take that song up to number one , does the original artist deserve a cut of the income they make, surely not, they created the lyrics but were unable to use them in a way that people were prepared to pay for it,
Someone else with real talent made it popular and valuable. I am tired of hearing about people using there talent to create something and just expecting people to pay them even if it is not that good. Maybe this law will bring out this point and get people talking about it more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In all honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In all honesty
*Their and their. Jesus Christ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In all honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In all honesty
So shouldn't we grant the "intellectual property" to that favelado? Shouldn't we grant most of the credit to whoever invents an idea more ex nihilo than any other inventor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In all honesty
Musicians knew them and their songs which led to covers such as The Byrds version of "Turn, Turn, Turn" that made many kids aware of Dylan.
There is more than one kind of talent out there, remember and in many cases what record companies are promoting at any given time and radio stations are willing to add to their playlists. The original songwriter does get a cut of the sales and performances of cover versions so I wouldn't worry about them getting completely left out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thin skins
I guess the thing I do like about it, though, is where they say that videos can be considered in violation if they're modified in such a way that is prejudicial to an artist's reputation.
But I also do agree with your comment about "thin skins."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: thin skins
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: thin skins
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: thin skins
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: thin skins
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: thin skins
Uh-oh, Charlie Sheen's in trouble...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: thin skins
There are already laws to deal with it if you libel or defame someone by actually telling lies with the intent to cause harm — and with celebrities, the legal bar for that is very high, for a good reason. Celebrities are always concerned that things are detrimental to their reputation. Some celebs seem to accuse every single interview, every single news piece, every single photo to all be misrepresenting them somehow. Giving them more tools to try to control that is a scary concept...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Until more of the public wakes up that this is not a one off thing (like a lot of them think SOPA was) things won't change.
At least in the US this means that we need to get rid of all Republicans and Democrats and go to more than two independent parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think I recall an actress saying something relevant in a film I saw...
More pessimistically, anyone want to place bets on how long it will be until Carrie Fisher has the legal right to get Mike to delete this comment? :P
[ 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 ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 26th, 2012 @ 6:29am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neighbouring rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neighbouring rights
From what I can tell, these things were included in the original Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, so nothing particularly new here, although there are issues of WIPO once again hard-coding this sort of thing in international treaties - making it that much harder to remove them later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no such thing as copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He musta forgot to finish the sentence. Let me finish it for him.
"it's a real problem", I don't have enough campaign contributions, revolving door favors, or maybe bribes. I want more stuff. I want more property, money, houses, cars, etc... and that I don't have that is a real problem. So I am going to sign this treaty so that big corporate interests will provide me with more stuff and solve this problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the defensive
Why can't we start going on the offensive and put our own proposals? Be able to choose the terrain, and force them to be on the defensive for once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What can we do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
solution is simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WIPO Agreement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looks line were too late
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looks line were too late - same as ACTA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looks line were too late
Still needs to be ratified...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looks line were too late
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It doesn't affect me.
-C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If your “representatives” aren't really representing you, then you need to get rid of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deja vu?
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there was an issue recently about surreptitious IP treaty negotiations. Didn't those end in protests? the acronym escapes me. was it ACRA? no, that can't be right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So why didn't you do something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rental Rights
"(1) Performers shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the commercial rental to the public of the original and copies of their performances fixed in audiovisual fixations as determined in the national law of Contracting Parties, even after distribution of them by, or pursuant to, authorization by the performer."
If I'm not mistaken, the above paragraph grants performers (or, by assignment, producers) the right to prevent the rental of audiovisuall performances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rental Rights
Direct assault on First Sale.
Compare with this passage from House Report No. 94–1476
So the Congress would need to amend 17 USC 109 in order to bring the Copyright Act into conformity with this WIPO agreement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Concerning the comments about Lindsay Lohan, I believe she has inflicted enough damage through her own actions that she has no reputation left to tarnish.
As the Yeats poem states, "Things fall apart. The center cannot hold." This will prove true of the legacy industries of all kinds and their government supporters. Evil is inherently self-destructive, and their end can only result in one outcome, as history has shown numerous times. Those who fear, fade away. And those who adapt, as the Borg do, thrive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Basically a global and disproportionate response to the Streisand Effect
We've already seen massive distribution of communication, publishing, monitoring and even enforcement via the Internet. Property is the last bastion of traditional power.
3D printing could, in not too much time and especially with advances in nanotech, solve massive issues around hunger, poverty, etc, but is already being seen as something that needs to be locked down to protect Hollywood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you mean "there". /grammarnazi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA: so how do we react to all these 'parody' exceptions to our Holy Copyright?
WIPO: aha! remember how we helped out your RIAA brothers and use the *copyright to the lyrics* to keep sound recordings with expired copyright still under copyright? Now we're going to use the *actors* to circumvent the parody-exception. If it's parody, chances are that they are being made fun of, no? Whammo! Off-line those vids! Screw those idiots thinking they can mess with Big Copyright!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Refuse IP
article suffers from using "intellectual property" and "copyright"
interchangeably.
It is nearly impossible to use the term "intellectual property"
without falling into error, and it is misguided to try, since it's use
plays into the hands of those who would impose treaties like this.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html, and please join me in firmly refusing to use that term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did I miss something?
I thought they could already do that with their performance right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]