Reevaluating Copyright

[Tor]

I first was going to post this in the thread that has been going, but this seemed to be such that it needs a new thread, as seems to be on a rather different topic from the original thread. The comment that sparked me to verbalize this is, if you haven't read it, a mention of simply shortening copyright term to 28 years or the life of the author.

This is a rough draft, and I expect to be polishing and improving it over time. It seems that right now I ought to get it out even if it is still incomplete.

Tor


Some ideas on how to redesign copyright, v .1

Commercial verbatim (includes minor changes meant to evade this) copying can have a long term without major issue. Perhaps 42 years or the life of the author, whichever is longer would be good. The one thing which probably ought to be prevented is squashing a work by making it unavailable in popular formats which by their nature require a commercial venture to produce. I am not sure how best to go about this.

Non-commercial verbatim copying is another matter altogether, and as evidenced by napster and other such services, people seem to demand this right, even if it means less works created. Since the majority of people are honest and want to thank the author of works they enjoy, usually most easily and effectively expressed in the form of money. Many of those who don't pay either cannot or wouldn't do so anyways.
It would help this if there were in place a system effective at handling small transactions (i.e. cost effective even for transactions < $1). Works could then include an easy, obvious, and minimally annoying (if it annoys then people are less likely to pay anything, or it will feel somewhat extortionist) way to send money to the author.

For those who wonder at the possibility of allowing this, at least in the u.S., consider this from the u.S. Constitution:

Article I, Section 8

[Congress shall have the power] to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

To me, this clearly implies that people have a right to use thoughts, ideas, the like in any way they like. This gives congress the power to create unnatural monopolies to help authors keep their larder stocked.

Back to copyright term for non-commercial verbatim copying. None. In these days a copy has zero (well, maybe a few thousandths of a cent for exceptionally large items. I think I once read figures, but I don't remember them, and I doubt it matters here.)

Derivative works: Here a shorter copyright is in order. Quite possibly somewhat dependant on type of work and type of derivative. Factual works would be on the short end of the spectrum, while entirely fictional works should be somewhat longer. Translations would probably be treated much as the original, except there are now two copyright holders - first the original author, and second the translator. Creating and distributing the translation is acceptable, until it turns commercial. I don't yet know how best to limit an author unreasonably restricting publication by demanding exorbitant fees. As for term, I would think generally about five years.

[CanadianScroller]

As technology changes the need to protect intellectual property also needs to change.

In the beginning, when copyright laws were first established, scribes spent countless hours copying documents. Now we can do it at the push of a button.

If all concepts and knowledge are locked away and people are not allowed to expand upon them then civilization would not advance at the rate it does.

I can see Tors point on re evaluating copyright laws. I do not have a legal mind so it is beyond my scope.
However I have always been the kind of person who tries to credit where it is due. In the legal system we have now it is not always an easy task. I think we have to let our conscience be the guide.
I have the copyright to my designs. I have never found a need to enforce the copyright, I gladly share my designs with others.
If I were to be making a living from it I believe I would have stronger and different views.
Since there are two sides to the copyright issue, that of the copyright holder and that of a person wanting to develop intellectual property there will always be conflict.

Have any of us ever photocopied things we shouldn't have?
Why do they have photocopiers in libraries?
Have we ever gone to a library and used a pattern from a book we didn't own?

Lots of ethical questions.
I don't think we will ever have all the answers.

I will say again though I think it is time to re evaluate the laws... I just wish it wasn't left up to people who make so much money by establishing them.

[Neal Moore]

After I had written my book and proofed the publishers final draft of the manuscript I learned that two of my patterns were derived from a VERY well known artist's paintings. I contacted the artist, explained what I had done, and asked permission to use the derivitave patterns. I was told, in no uncertain terms, ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! I had to contact Fox Chapel, have those two projects removed from the book, create two more patterns and build and photograph two more replacement projects. I was sort of angry with the artist in that I was taking no money from his pocket and he was losing nothing. Months later I was watching the Discovery Channel and there was a one hour National Geographic documentary featuring that artist's travels in Africa and the work he had to do to locate, photograph ,sketch and paint his subject animals. That's when it started to make sense. He had spent thousands of dollars on that photographic safari and hundreds of hours to find suitable subjects in just the right pose and setting for his paintings. The more I watched the program the more I liked the guy and understood why he was so protective of his work. His originals have been in galleries all over the United States and Europe and I can't even afford a print of his work much less an original. I learned there were several copyright holders for just one of his works. Some of the users were granted specific copyrights for the images to be used on decorative collector plates, coffee mugs, calanders and even blankets. They paid big bucks for the privilege and made big bucks from their products. I know this hasn't answered any copyright questions but maybe it will shed a better light on those that are so protective of their work.

[Jediscroller]

As far as re-evaluating copyrights, you can count on the US Congress to do just that in a couple of years. As soon as Mickey is set to enter the public domain you'll see another extension of copyright law. Sony Bono's widow proposed that copyrights protect works forever minus 1 day so that it would still be deemed constitutional.
As far as them creating a law that makes sense.....have you ever seen politicians do something that made sense?

[Rolf]

Thanks Neal,
That really does put things into perspective.

[ragiarn]

I have been following this discussion with great interest and certainly have learned quite a bit.

I recently came across of a photo of Davinci's horse. This is a magnficant replica of a horse designed by Leonardo Davinci in the 1400s. He made a model of the horse which was eventually distroyed after Milan was captured by the French and the final bronze statue was never made.

The original plans were found, money was raised to duplicate this horse and a famous sculptre was hired to make the a model of the horse from which 2 24' bronze statues were made a well a many smaller copies. One 24' statues is in Milan italy and the other is in Michigan.

I believe that there is a patent on the image of the horse (Davinci is not the patent holder).

I found many photos on the internet including some by amateur photographers who put them on a public photo website.

Using the amateur photos I made a pattern and in the process of working on what I call my Davinci project (see photos below).
I have no intention of either selling my work or the pattern.

Question:
1- Am in violation of any copyright laws?
2-If I were to give away or sell either the pattern or the finished project would I be in violation? I suspect from what I read above that the answer to #2 is yes.

Thanks

Doc

[PeteB]

Doc,

You would be home free if (A) the amateur photos were of the original drawings (which are old enough to be in the public domain by any country's standard) rather than the copyrighted sculpture, and (B) the photos were actually placed in the public domain. Sometimes, even the licenses on public sites are quite restrictive.

There is a great deal of leeway allowed in photographing things and displaying the photos with journalistic intent or for your own pleasure, but if you go to make a book or a placemat out of those photos, that's a no-no.

[ragiarn]

I revisited the website. It s one of the websites where an individual can post their photos for friends and family to see. To best of my knowledge there is no evidence that the actual photos post by the individuals are copyrighted.
Below is the website.

100_4535 pictures from friends & fun photos on webshots

Intarsia is a personal hobby and all of my work is either displayed in my office or home or given to friends and family as gifts.

Doc

[Tor]

Yes, some works do require more exceptional expenditures, as mentioned by Neal. Another example is many movies. Is there any reason that copyright must be the same for all works? The early copyrights were enforced as an industrial regulation, and no one went after the people who chose to copy a book by hand.

Another point I would bring up is this: The founder of the Free Software Movement(1), Richard Stallman proposed a ten year copyright at a panel on copyright at a literary convention. A noted fantasy author vehemently objected on the grounds that anything beyond five years was intolerable. Source: Misinterpreting Copyright - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF) .

Another point that is often glossed over is that very few really make a living through copyright royalties. I believe this is more true in music than books, but that doesn't change the basic idea here. We are even more based on physical goods in what we do here (as a whole. I am well aware that there are also pattern designers here), which changes the formula. Those who sell patterns and finished works, how much do you make from patterns versus complete works? Only reply if you wish to.

I'm sure there is something I am forgetting to reply to here, but things are rather busy here at the moment.

Tor

1. Please note that here free here is free as in freedom of speech. When you have free software you are free to do pretty much anything you like, although many use copyright to forbid using the code in proprietary programs.

[Tor]

Ah, the patent issue. Patents are much more broad than copyrights, and if they successfully obtained a patent on the shape and form of the horse, you could be in violation if you produce a near duplicate even from the origanal Da Vinci drawings. In theory I would guess that a patent should be impossible, but given the state of software patents, I wouldn't be startled if they do have a patent.

If this really is a patent, you might find the patent stuff on this site Philosophy of the GNU Project - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF) worth reading. It has a software bent, but much is still applicable to any patent.

Tor