[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

True. But the massive volume of content created in, say, the last 50 years is a pretty good indication that something is working.

Not really. Larger populations, higher standards of living, more free time in which to create, more mediums available to use are all arguments I could use for why there's more content now. Neither of us knows however what would have happened if copyright terms were shorter, the rules were more lax or there was no copyright at all. The correlation-causation thing, we can't really know so this paticular argument isn't going to get it anywhere.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I might add there are quite a few artists who thoroughly depend on copyright, as imperfect as it may be. Talk to some professional photographers and see how they like the idea of weakening copyright....

Again not really a justification. I could bring out the oft used buggy whip example. Just because some people are making money off of a system isn't justification for said system.

However, since we're talking about copyright as it is now I find it hard to imagine anyone depending on copyright that outlives them by 70 years. I'm willing to hear agreements about why a shorter term would be a problem for photographers. Why allowing it to be perfectly legal to strip drm would be a problem for them. Why having to register a copyright within a reasonable time rather than have it be automatic would be a burden. Or even why a license rate set by statute would be a problem for derivative works such as collage.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Again correct, but anything derived from historical or folk sources -- i.e. most of it -- would be fair game. Or he'd just license it or work around it.



The point is that even with contemporary copyright, artists are still able to do adaptations; adaptations are downright routine, especially books to movies (and vice versa). Meanwhile, Star Wars was clearly inspired by Hidden Fortress, but is nowhere near close enough to qualify as a copyright violation. Your interpretation of the powers of copyright are in excess of even the alleged "copyright tyrants."



Yep, and protected by copyright, and copyright hasn't stopped musicians from being inspired by other musicians -- in fact many openly acknowledge their inspirations. Sampling, on the other hand, is not a free-for-all; you need permission and you have to pay whatever the copyright holder demands. Again, it hasn't strangled hip-hop.



Right, which is why I pointed out that most of his sources were historical and folk tales, or (if done today) could involve licensing or modification.

Here I think we have our wires crossed. Music has some laws that other works don't. Yes sampling required permission but a cover just has a set fee based on the length of the song no permission required. Shakespeare couldn't just do his cover version of Romeo and Juliet because a license could be denied. Just license it isn't a valid argument when the right holder can say no. If there were set rates so that anyone could just pay it might lessen the tyranny of copyright.

Something most people who argue with me on the topic miss is when something isn't free (libre) it prevents progress. Mostly they just yell at me about wanting free beer. Reasonable fees aren't the problem, the right to censor derivatives one doesn't like or made by one who is not liked is a major problem.

Don't get me wrong I find the length of copyright absurd, retroactive extensions criminal. Anti-circumvention laws for drm as violating basic property rights (if I don't distribute I can backup a dvd or wear it for a hat and the movie studios can kiss my grits.) But when I say free I'm talking about liberty to create expand transform modify bend fold spindle or mutilate.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

But really, the societies in question are so different in so many ways that the inquiry is basically pointless.

A question was asked, I answered and provided what sources I could find. If you have an issue with the original question I'm not the one to take it up with.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Why do I need to restrict myself to the best-seller list? Every era produces junk, we are just not likely to read mediocre 16th century plays unless we're very curious or a scholar. Meanwhile, I could name thousands upon thousands of artworks and texts of outstanding quality whose creators deal with, rely on, or prefer to utilize, copyright protection.

No need to restrict yourself I just named it as a ready source for crap, by all means feel free to search elsewhere for garbage or gems. My only point was copyright does equal quality so the arugment that quality would go down without copyright doesn't have merit.

Unless... No I don't see how it could get worse... please don't let me see how it could get worse. Have mercy.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Uh huh. The fact that they don't rampantly violate copyright, and do occasionally get sued for infringement (sometimes with merit, sometimes without) pretty much invalidates this assertion.

They don't? Disney became famous by remaking a Buster Keaton movie without permission and replacing Keaton with an anthropomorphic mouse. Are you trying to tell me these corporations give a damn about any copyrights except the ones they own? When bootleggers sell a bunch of unauthorized cds or dvds its considered criminal, why should they be treated worse than the studios who's worst case outcome is a cash payout less than their profits after a long legal battle.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I assume you mean "the lawsuit against the HPL seems outrageous." Some claims were excessive, but the ruling actually made sense. She never went after the site or non-commercial uses; she only wanted to stop the commercial use of her work. The court ruling preserved fair use and recognized that authors cannot halt or control reference works relating to their work. The ruling went against the book because the HPL took too much verbatim from the original texts and was not sufficiently transformative. Thus Vander Ark can, and apparently is, rewriting the Lexicon for publication.

You asked about people who were busted for infringement for a derivative work. Does that case not qualify?

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

An "appropriation artist" refers to a fairly specific type of conceptual artist who use other artists' works to make their own. Sometimes this is done to comment on the art itself, other times not so much. In many cases the artist is simply ignorant of copyright law, and is cloning the original material in no small part for a commercial purpose.

A recent example was shown in the Whitney Biennial; the conceptual artist Lorraine O'Grady used a photograph of Michael Jackson that was taken by Harry Benson without permission or attribution (or even any manipulation). Benson said he felt horrible that someone had "stolen" his work.

Another example is Jeff Koons; he saw a photograph of puppies, removed the copyright notification, and instructed his staff to produce a sculpture that duplicated the image with a few minor notifications. He then sold 3 copies for over $300,000 each.

Colting's case is different, in that he used characters without permission and his work fairly clearly did not meet the tests for fair use; O'Grady and Koons is a much more explicit copy of actual material. However, I see no particular defense for Colting's approach. He did not seek permission; he was not doing a parody or a scholarly work; Salinger objected. If Salinger didn't care, I wouldn't either. He did, and as such I don't see how Colting has much of a defense, even if the work is not particularly recent.

Perhaps it sucks for some artists to face limitations Shakespeare did not have to deal with in the 1500's. However, artists appear to have done quite well regardless.

Again I wasn't arguing the merits of the case just providing an example of derivative work being stopped. If you want to argue the case I could try but I'm not a lawyer.

As for the rest of that okay I think I see your definition. Someone who plagiarizes or someone who creates a derivative without permission. This would I assume mean fanfic, anime music videos, fan art, fan sculpture (have you seen some of the near papercraft stuff out there?) but not mash ups or cover songs because the law sets a license rate for any song(s) so permission can't be denied.