3 ms·
I do feel like there are situations where you're creating artwork as a public good, and the artist should lose copyrights in exchange for the notoriety/impact/v
by mywittyname 6y ago
I do feel like there are situations where you're creating artwork as a public good, and the artist should lose copyrights in exchange for the notoriety/impact/visibility associated with the project. Things like massive buildings, lighting the Eiffle tower, or creating Happy Birthday should fall under that.
It might sound unfair, but as an artist, creating a iconic piece of art that will be around for generations should really be worth more than money. Perhaps governments around the world could set up a fund to compensate/honor artists who achieve this.
- kjakm 6y agoThis sounds like you’re saying if you’re an artist, and you do a really good job, you shouldn’t get paid and should lose the rights to your work. That’s quite a strange concept.
- mywittyname 6y agoA) I literally mentioned compensation in my post. B) Lots of people find the current rules to be unfair. An enterprising fellow could build a massive structure in NYC and claim royalty rights over any photograph which may contain it. You might be a-okay with that, but I take it to the extreme and think about what would happen if every building owner in NYC asserted copyrights over images of their building. Then every photo taken in the city would be subject to royalty/licensing requirements. YouTube's content scanners would automatically flag any video with shots of the city, etc.
- filleduchaos 6y agoExactly. The government should forcibly open source software projects and set up a fund to honour their creators if it decides those projects are a public good.