3 ms·

I'm not suggesting taking legal rights away from the photographer. I already said I think the photographer is legally in the right. I don't want courts to switc

I'm not suggesting taking legal rights away from the photographer. I already said I think the photographer is legally in the right. I don't want courts to switch things up, or legislators to change the situation. What I am saying is that the economics of the situation exist. They can't be wished away. Outcomes tend to follow economics, even if they're illegal, as the existence of black markets, forced arbitration, legal battles based on spending and might rather than right, etc. show. And sometimes the economics are morally superior to the legality, even when the legality is nice and clear. Part ownership of content production would be morally superior to the bright line clarity of copyright ownership. Ideally, it would reflect how much of the global culture is a part of content, how much is ideas floating in the air, and the multitudes of people who contribute to the gestalt of a moment. But the accounting is impossible. So the legality is simple, and sometimes it creates conflict. The answer is usually more law - signed agreements up front, etc. A copyright that accounted for value added - if it were possible, calculable without continuous auctions and comparisons against alternatives, which is of course impossible generally - would accrue mostly to the band (and, recursively, to people who influenced the band), I reckon. But I think trying to implement something like that is impossible, and like I said, I don't think things should change. Instead, the band should make photographers sign something first.

whatshisface 8y ago
>Part ownership of content production would be morally superior Whether or not this is true, the band is transgressing a hidden rule that is actually more important than copyright. They are changing the deal after the fact. If they had required the photographer to sign away his rights, he would have had the option to find another band that didn't. By not requiring any signatures but then turning around and acting like they got them, they are essentially tricking everyone. The idea that you are not supposed to do this is both pretty intuitive to everyone, and also is more or less the fundamental axiom of contract law. I'd expect an anarchist metal band to be anti-civic, but not like that! ;)
- barrkel 8y ago
  > They are changing the deal after the fact What deal is that? The way I see it, the photographer and the band each had different ideas of "the deal". The degree to which the deal "changed" is the difference between prior conceptions of the deal and the reconciliation when the conceptions came into conflict and reached a synthesis. The band thought they were creating something and thought they could merchandise it. The photographer thought he was creating something and thought he could stop someone else merchandising it. The photographer was legally right. I suspect the band is more morally right than wrong in an ideal world of copyrights - and I think copyright is a very imperfect concept - and I think they have the economic power to ensure their merchandise is legally sound in future, having learned this lesson.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    >The band thought they were creating something and thought they could merchandise it. If a band member had gotten down off the stage to take a photo, there would be no problem. They could also have gotten the manager to do it. Instead, they found a photographer who was under the impression that he would be afforded the rights normally granted by society, and got him to do it - without even letting him know that they intended to behave as if he did not have those rights.
    - barrkel 8y ago
      What deal? You still haven't clarified your position. > the rights normally granted by society What kind of weasel words are these? What you mean to say is copyright as enshrined in law. He has not lost these rights, and I'm not advocating that he lose these rights.

whatshisface 8y ago

>Part ownership of content production would be morally superior Whether or not this is true, the band is transgressing a hidden rule that is actually more important than copyright. They are changing the deal after the fact. If they had required the photographer to sign away his rights, he would have had the option to find another band that didn't. By not requiring any signatures but then turning around and acting like they got them, they are essentially tricking everyone. The idea that you are not supposed to do this is both pretty intuitive to everyone, and also is more or less the fundamental axiom of contract law. I'd expect an anarchist metal band to be anti-civic, but not like that! ;)

barrkel 8y ago
> They are changing the deal after the fact What deal is that? The way I see it, the photographer and the band each had different ideas of "the deal". The degree to which the deal "changed" is the difference between prior conceptions of the deal and the reconciliation when the conceptions came into conflict and reached a synthesis. The band thought they were creating something and thought they could merchandise it. The photographer thought he was creating something and thought he could stop someone else merchandising it. The photographer was legally right. I suspect the band is more morally right than wrong in an ideal world of copyrights - and I think copyright is a very imperfect concept - and I think they have the economic power to ensure their merchandise is legally sound in future, having learned this lesson.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  >The band thought they were creating something and thought they could merchandise it. If a band member had gotten down off the stage to take a photo, there would be no problem. They could also have gotten the manager to do it. Instead, they found a photographer who was under the impression that he would be afforded the rights normally granted by society, and got him to do it - without even letting him know that they intended to behave as if he did not have those rights.
  - barrkel 8y ago
    What deal? You still haven't clarified your position. > the rights normally granted by society What kind of weasel words are these? What you mean to say is copyright as enshrined in law. He has not lost these rights, and I'm not advocating that he lose these rights.