Reading mode: Light Dark

copyright broken?

Go to last post
Craig Gillette said:
The problem with the "rightness" of living off the fruits of others'
labor is that fewer and fewer will find producing anything worthwhile.
Click to expand...
You're going to have explain this one.
Craig Gillette said:
The idea that copyright or other intellectual property protection is
unfair
Click to expand...
It's not about fairness, it's about the intent of the copyright - which is to encourage innovation by granting a government sanctioned monopoly for a limited period. Right now copyright does more to discourage innovation than promote it.
Craig Gillette said:
comes from the same bankrupt notions that owning your own
property of any sort is unfair or ...
Click to expand...
Straw man argument.
Craig Gillette said:
That Walt Disney or his heirs or his companies still owns and
benefits from Steamboat Willy doesn't preclude anyone else out there
from creating and benefiting from their own characters.
Click to expand...
Ah, and here's where things get complicated. Do you know where Steamboat Willie comes from? No, I didn't think so. Let's just say that ol' Walt would not have been able to create his little mouse character if today's interpretation of intellectual property were applied. What about those other Disney hits? Snow White, Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, Pinocchio, etc., all taken from the creative minds of others.
 
Do yourself a favor and read my post again. I know what copyright is I'm asking the question if its current implementation is broken.
 
PalmsWestPhoto said:
PalmsWestPhoto said:
Well the copyright would not go to the faceless corporation but the
work would become public domain, thus to society.
Click to expand...
So your life savings should also go to society and not to your family
? Or if you buy real estate property as investment all that property
should, after your death be given to society?

For someone in any business that produces IP this is the asset they
have. Just like a house for a real estate investor.

It doesnt matter whether you can copy something. It is an asset and
it belongs to someone.
Click to expand...
OK lets take that to the extreme. What about cooks should their recipes by copyrightable? They are arguably works of art. OK where would we be now if all recipes were copyrighted? We would not be able to go to restaurants. Because all good recipes would be copyrighted and the families of the cooks would charge for their usage. Other cooks who would make variations of the recipes would get sued. Would that advance society? That is the indent of copyright to benefit society.
PalmsWestPhoto said:
--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.Salzlechner.com
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com
Click to expand...
 
It's interesting that the defenders of "IP-rights" always attack everyone else as communists/socialists ... Copyright, patents etc. are a government granted monopoly they are everything but free market. It is government intervention into the market. So if you argue IP-rights should be there because everything else is communism... you should really argue the other way around.
 
jezsik said:
Craig Gillette said:
The problem with the "rightness" of living off the fruits of others'
labor is that fewer and fewer will find producing anything worthwhile.
Click to expand...
You're going to have explain this one.
Click to expand...
No, the OP understood it.
jezsik said:
jezsik said:
The idea that copyright or other intellectual property protection is
unfair
Click to expand...
It's not about fairness, it's about the intent of the copyright -
which is to encourage innovation by granting a government sanctioned
monopoly for a limited period. Right now copyright does more to
discourage innovation than promote it.
Click to expand...
How does WD having rights to his characters stifl you from anything but selling them yourself?
jezsik said:
jezsik said:
comes from the same bankrupt notions that owning your own
property of any sort is unfair or ...
Click to expand...
Straw man argument.
Click to expand...
Again, the OP knew what I meant.
jezsik said:
jezsik said:
That Walt Disney or his heirs or his companies still owns and
benefits from Steamboat Willy doesn't preclude anyone else out there
from creating and benefiting from their own characters.
Click to expand...
Ah, and here's where things get complicated. Do you know where
Steamboat Willie comes from? No, I didn't think so. Let's just say
that ol' Walt would not have been able to create his little mouse
character if today's interpretation of intellectual property were
applied. What about those other Disney hits? Snow White, Cinderella,
Beauty and the Beast, Pinocchio, etc., all taken from the creative
minds of others.
Click to expand...
Made him rich too. There's nothing stopping you or anyone else from taking any fairy tale, mythology, historic figure, or wide variety of other topics and getting rich either. How many "Frankenstein" movies have been made? Dracula? Religious epics?

The copyright and patent and other intellectual property laws aren't keeping anyone from succeeding, unless of course, the plan is to copy somebody else's work product.
 
My apologies...

I will say that alot of the copyright problems can be traced to photographers signing over their rights in contracts. Work For Hire and all that. Corporations have been on a "Rights Grab" binge for a few years now. It's all disguised as "contests", FACEBOOK type sites. Corporations see value in our creativity but don't want to pay for it so they try to take our rights.

It could be sort of broken.
 
Windy too, by the shape of the trees.

"Strange noises were heard
By others who followed, bits of a tune
Coming in on loud weather

Though nothing like melody.
He blamed their fingers and ear
As unpractised, their fiddling easy

For he had gone alone into the island
And brought back the whole thing."

Thank you for the image - I have never seen a photograph of the island.
--

'Some of the money I spent on booze, women and fast cars, but the rest I squandered' - George Best
 
I think you are [as the 'intellectual property' industry intends] confusing Trademark with Copyright.

A Character, like a logo or brand name is protected by Trademark. There is no time limit as to how long a trademark is valid, provided that the holder 'defends' it's exclusive use. [Trademarks [maker's marks] have their origin in consumer protection, not in creative works]

Copyright protection extends to a particular expression of a creative work, including a specific arrangement of articles that otherwise would be in the public domain. A notorious example of this are the 'Westlaw' reference books seen in law libraries. The majority of the [extremely expensive] books contain public domain material [case law] - their arrangement and index is the basis for West's copyright]
[snippage]
Craig Gillette said:
How does WD having rights to his characters stifl you from anything
but selling them yourself?
Click to expand...
[/ snippage]

And remember, Disney Corp owns the trademarks and copyrights. Walt Disney owns nothing [he's been dead for quite some time].

[and two disclaimers:
1) I'm wearing a Mickey Mouse watch today :-)

2) I'm not a lawyer, but I've been following the discussion over on Groklaw for years.]
--
Save the Earth! Collect the entire set!
 
cycoj said:
PalmsWestPhoto wrote:
OK lets take that to the extreme. What about cooks should their
recipes by copyrightable? They are arguably works of art. OK where
would we be now if all recipes were copyrighted? We would not be able
to go to restaurants. Because all good recipes would be copyrighted
and the families of the cooks would charge for their usage. Other
cooks who would make variations of the recipes would get sued. Would
that advance society? That is the indent of copyright to benefit
society.
Click to expand...
It doesn't stop at restaurants, you won't be able to cook much at home, either, because that would infringe on the cookbook author's property rights. We'll end up sharing recipes among ourselves and being branded pirates. Of course, following Microsoft's lead, Westinghouse, LG and Kenmore will come up with stoves and refrigerators that will monitor the ingredients and decide if the combination of materials you just used MIGHT infringe and shut off.
 
Ken Phillips said:
Copyrights and patents cover only the IMPLEMENTATION of ideas, not
the ideas themselves! You cannot patent, for example, "a chip that
divides by zero", but you CAN patent "a chip that divides by zero
using the method of such and such".
Click to expand...
Not quite. In most jurisdictions and under the WTO rules patents do cover things, although an application must be demonstrated. There is also a distinction between absolute patents (the patent covers the thing, and not only the use disclosed in the patent but any other use, including uses not at present discovered) and purpose-bound patents (the patent covers the thing but only in the use disclosed in the patent application).

This is important in relation to gene patents, and there has been a lot of debate as to whether patents should cover the gene itself or only the application, and, if genes are the subject to patent, whether patents should be absolute or purpose-bound.

Most jursidictions have elected to allow patents on genes, not just on applications using them, and have made those patents absolute. If anyone wanted an example of anti-social IP law, this would be a good one.
--

'Some of the money I spent on booze, women and fast cars, but the rest I squandered' - George Best
 
cycoj said:
It's interesting that the defenders of "IP-rights" always attack
everyone else as communists/socialists ... Copyright, patents etc.
are a government granted monopoly they are everything but free
market. It is government intervention into the market. So if you
argue IP-rights should be there because everything else is
communism... you should really argue the other way around.
Click to expand...
Put yourself in the position that you invested 101 years of labor and your life savings on an I dea you have and somebody else copies and leaves you with nothing because there were no patents rights. This has nothing to do with cobsevatism or it is common sense. Well under communism it was alright to copy other countries patents, but they kept their patents very secretive.
 
Ben-Ami said:
cycoj said:
It's interesting that the defenders of "IP-rights" always attack
everyone else as communists/socialists ... Copyright, patents etc.
are a government granted monopoly they are everything but free
market. It is government intervention into the market. So if you
argue IP-rights should be there because everything else is
communism... you should really argue the other way around.
Click to expand...
Put yourself in the position that you invested 101 years of labor and
your life savings on an I dea you have and somebody else copies
Click to expand...
Well, too bad for me. Seriously. I've come up with plenty of good ideas. Unfortunately the market does not reward good ideas, it rewards results. If you have a good idea AND you can do something with it, you're rewarded. If you have a good idea and fail in the implementation of that good idea, too bad for you. If someone else comes along and figures out how to make that idea work, they reap the rewards. That's how a free market economy works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top