3 ms·
Would it make sense to have multiple entities being able to have copyright on a single piece of work? In the Warhol case, maybe x% of the copyright to Warhol an
by Jaygles 5y ago
Would it make sense to have multiple entities being able to have copyright on a single piece of work? In the Warhol case, maybe x% of the copyright to Warhol and y% to Prince?
It would make the legal aspect of profiting off such works 10x more complicated. And determining the appropriate percentages for each "contributor" would be a nightmare, if not impossible. But would it be more fair in the end?
- exporectomy 5y agoYou mean Goldsmith, not Prince? No because then anybody could siphon ownership of a work away from its owner just by copying it without permission and with these kinds of modifications. Do many different versions and gain many portions of ownership.
- Jaygles 5y agoI did mistakenly state Prince instead of Goldsmith. But silly enough that sort of plays into my hypothetical. Prince would own his likeness, which he would use to claim partial ownership of Goldsmith's photo. And Goldsmith and Prince would have a claim on Warhol's usage of the photo/likeness. I don't think the situation you describe applies however. Someone wouldn't be able to siphon away ownership by using someone else's work. The person whose work is being used in the new work would be able to gain partial ownership of the new work. The author of the new work would only have ownership of their unique contributions, not ownership of the original work's contributions.
- ipaddr 5y agoPrince's twin brother or someone who looks like prince either naturally or through surgery could make a likeness claim. There might be a few holes in this plan.
- Jaygles 5y agoSure, it's not perfect, I'm just going through a thought exercise to try and reason if the hypothetical I'm suggesting might be more fair than the current system. A lot of people say there are holes/deficiencies in the current copyright system. And a "perfect" system that everyone would be happy with is likely impossible.
- exporectomy 5y agoIsn't that kind of how it already works? A software vendor licenses libraries bundled with their software and different people end up owning different parts of the final product?
- Jaygles 5y agoIn that case it's pretty clear who owns what due to the licensing involved. I was more thinking of situations where a person, say, photographs a building they don't own or didn't design. They couldn't have taken that photo if no one built the building. But they alone own the copyright to the photo. Technically anyone who helped construct the building contributed to the creation of the photo, but have no right to prevent the photo from being circulated, sold, etc.. Let me be clear on saying that that's how I think it should be. I don't think we should stymie productivity for creating art/music, even when you are using other's creations as pieces of your own creation. But it gets murky like the case described in the article where Warhol created his own work depicting Goldsmith's work, and the courts ruled it wasn't a fair use.
- aidenn0 5y agoIt doesn't entirely make sense because monetary compensation is only one of the rights granted by copyright. Even music, which has compulsory licensing, grants the copyright owner the right to refuse to have their work used in certain contexts. You could run the work like a corporation with a majority being required for the decision I suppose. But this gets sticky really quickly.
- retrac 5y agoIt's probably possible in most jurisdictions to implement voluntarily by holding the copyright with an incorporated cooperative or partnership, of which the original authors are the owners. Corporate bylaws would determine licensing, allocation of the revenue, transfer and other such questions. Some jurisdictions do not allow either waivable or transferable moral rights, which could make this either complicated or infeasible. In some jurisdictions, the copyright law has a mechanism for professional associations to be responsible for collecting the copyright within a certain area. Now that I think about it, the model seems like it might be adaptable to software. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_collective https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_collective
- kbutler 5y agoIt is known as a "derived work", not a split copyright. The copyright owner of the original owns that copyright, including of the elements incorporated into the derived work. The copyright to the creative elements of the derived work are controlled by the copyright holder of the derived work, which may have a longer period of validity than the original work copyright. To distribute the derived work while the original copyright is in force requires permission (license) of the original copyright holder, or a determination that the derivation is a fair use, which the Warhol Foundation is seeking.
- slaymaker1907 5y agoI don't think the Google case is relevant here, but I definitely think how modern copyright works is really problematic for transformative works like this, fanfiction, (elaborate) reaction videos, etc. Reusing and rehashing creative works is nothing new, but the modern legal customs around copyright really hinders this kind of progress in the arts. The fundamental problem is likely because of issues with the arts under capitalism. Because authors need people to purchase their particular works to make money, royalties by necessity need to be paid and lines need to be drawn over what is "original" or not. This is not the only system that can fund the arts; there is state funding, patron style funding, etc. where authors are not paid on the basis of each individual work, but the collective impact of their works.
- dillondoyle 5y agoMusic industry seems to work like that, set in stone % shared royalties based on your role/ownership