3 ms·

Which government? Who controls the account? How do I claim it? How does this work across national boundaries? (e.g. how does someone in Wakanda license a wo

by shagie 11mo ago

Which government? Who controls the account? How do I claim it? How does this work across national boundaries? (e.g. how does someone in Wakanda license a work created by someone in the US? How does someone in the US license a work created by someone in Wakanda?) What happens if the government refuses to pay me (or return the money to me after the period of time has elapsed)? What happens if the government refuses to acknowledge the escrow and uses the money themselves? --- I would contend that this suggestion puts too much faith in governments and their handling of money, record keeping, and not using financial tools to penalize individuals and countries.

gwbas1c 11mo ago
> I would contend that this suggestion puts too much faith in governments Copyright only works if you have faith in your government to create and enforce laws. Otherwise, if you don't have faith in your government, you have bigger problems than a poor system of copyright. --- Anyway, all of your points are wonderful things to argue about while we get the kind of copyright reform we need. When we argue about details like this, we can assume that compulsory licensing is a good concept overall.
- shagie 11mo ago
  Which government do I need to have faith in for enforcing the copyright for a citizen of Wakanda who is infringing upon my work? The floor of copyright reform is set by TRIPS and the WTO. That's 50 years. If one wants to try to set another floor, it involves every country in the WTO to agree on that. Setting an floor that expires sooner is likely a non-starter given concerns about things getting slurped up into AI models. Mandatory licensing is a "no". I should not be required to license my material to anyone. I do not want my works of photography, fiction, or software development to be mandatorily licensed to someone who could then take it and make derivative works that I don't want them to. Consider how many people object to their CC work being included in AI models. Much of the suggestions of copyright reform would involve the relevant country to leave the WTO and withdraw from the TRIPS agreement. That is unlikely to happen. Resetting copyright to the floor dictated by TRIPS would be a possibility that a country could entertain.
  - gwbas1c 11mo ago
    > Mandatory licensing is a "no". I should not be required to license my material to anyone. I do not want my works of photography, fiction, or software development to be mandatorily licensed to someone who could then take it and make derivative works that I don't want them to. Consider how many people object to their CC work being included in AI models. You just made the argument for mandatory licensing. Why? Piracy is about to become a lot harder to prosecute. (See the news coverage of the Cox case in the Supreme Court.) All those usages of your work that you object to (which many people consider fair use), are about to become much harder to prosecute. Thus, shortening the period of exclusive control and introducing a period of mandatory licensing allows you to get paid in situations where it is extremely hard to prosecute for copyright infringement.
    - shagie 11mo ago
      Why should I be required to license my (non-stock) photographs hanging in a gallery to someone who wants to make placemats of those images? Why should a photograph of a model (I have a model release) that I took be something I am required to license to someone who wants to use it in a way that is defamatory to the model? Why should I be required to accept the finances in licensing terms as someone who is posting neat photographs and looking to make some beer money? vs someone who is a well known photographer and selling prints for a couple hundred dollars at art fairs? vs someone who is world famous and sells prints for tens of thousands of dollars? Can I even make/guarntee limited edition photographs anymore? Why do I have to sell a license to you? Why do I not have the same rights as a company making a product and being able to refuse to accept a client?
      - gwbas1c 11mo ago
        Because once you make information available to the general public, you have no way to control what the general public does with that information. (This is the reason why DRM failed.) (In general, my proposal is more in context with things like movies, TV shows, music; situations where in the past anyone could make a DVD/CD player that could play any DVD/CD, anyone could sell any DVD/CD by buying into the patent pool. No one could sell a DVD/CD that could only play in a specific model, and a CD/DVD player maker didn't have to negotiate with every studio. So my licensing model isn't quite the same situation that you're talking about.) --- In this case, the problem is that fair use is eroded. The questions are: > Why should I be required to license my (non-stock) photographs hanging in a gallery to someone who wants to make placemats of those images? 1: Once you make information available to the general public, how long do you retain exclusive control of that information? At what point is the general public's fair use eroded? > Why should I be required to accept the finances in licensing terms as someone who is posting neat photographs and looking to make some beer money? vs someone who is a well known photographer and selling prints for a couple hundred dollars at art fairs? vs someone who is world famous and sells prints for tens of thousands of dollars? 2: That's really the formula. It's a wonderful thing to argue about. Again, though, it's about making sure that fair use is preserved. > Can I even make/guarntee limited edition photographs anymore? 3: (Please also see answer 1) Why do people still flock to the Lourve (sp?) to see the Mona Lisa? That being said, copyright isn't intended to support artificial scarcity, and I think breaking down artificial scarcity makes popular items more valuable. (IE, the knockoff prints, that you collect royalties from, make the limited "artist made prints" more valuable.) > Why do I have to sell a license to you? Why do I not have the same rights as a company making a product and being able to refuse to accept a client? Fair use. (Sorry, running out of time, see my example about the DC/DVD market. Also, radio stations used to be able to play any song and follow a formula to pay the right holder. The artists couldn't refuse a station from playing their song.) --- > Why should a photograph of a model (I have a model release) that I took be something I am required to license to someone who wants to use it in a way that is defamatory to the model? This isn't a copyright / fair use issue

by shagie 11mo ago

gwbas1c 11mo ago

> I would contend that this suggestion puts too much faith in governments Copyright only works if you have faith in your government to create and enforce laws. Otherwise, if you don't have faith in your government, you have bigger problems than a poor system of copyright. --- Anyway, all of your points are wonderful things to argue about while we get the kind of copyright reform we need. When we argue about details like this, we can assume that compulsory licensing is a good concept overall.

shagie 11mo ago
Which government do I need to have faith in for enforcing the copyright for a citizen of Wakanda who is infringing upon my work? The floor of copyright reform is set by TRIPS and the WTO. That's 50 years. If one wants to try to set another floor, it involves every country in the WTO to agree on that. Setting an floor that expires sooner is likely a non-starter given concerns about things getting slurped up into AI models. Mandatory licensing is a "no". I should not be required to license my material to anyone. I do not want my works of photography, fiction, or software development to be mandatorily licensed to someone who could then take it and make derivative works that I don't want them to. Consider how many people object to their CC work being included in AI models. Much of the suggestions of copyright reform would involve the relevant country to leave the WTO and withdraw from the TRIPS agreement. That is unlikely to happen. Resetting copyright to the floor dictated by TRIPS would be a possibility that a country could entertain.
- gwbas1c 11mo ago
  > Mandatory licensing is a "no". I should not be required to license my material to anyone. I do not want my works of photography, fiction, or software development to be mandatorily licensed to someone who could then take it and make derivative works that I don't want them to. Consider how many people object to their CC work being included in AI models. You just made the argument for mandatory licensing. Why? Piracy is about to become a lot harder to prosecute. (See the news coverage of the Cox case in the Supreme Court.) All those usages of your work that you object to (which many people consider fair use), are about to become much harder to prosecute. Thus, shortening the period of exclusive control and introducing a period of mandatory licensing allows you to get paid in situations where it is extremely hard to prosecute for copyright infringement.
  - shagie 11mo ago
    Why should I be required to license my (non-stock) photographs hanging in a gallery to someone who wants to make placemats of those images? Why should a photograph of a model (I have a model release) that I took be something I am required to license to someone who wants to use it in a way that is defamatory to the model? Why should I be required to accept the finances in licensing terms as someone who is posting neat photographs and looking to make some beer money? vs someone who is a well known photographer and selling prints for a couple hundred dollars at art fairs? vs someone who is world famous and sells prints for tens of thousands of dollars? Can I even make/guarntee limited edition photographs anymore? Why do I have to sell a license to you? Why do I not have the same rights as a company making a product and being able to refuse to accept a client?
    - gwbas1c 11mo ago
      Because once you make information available to the general public, you have no way to control what the general public does with that information. (This is the reason why DRM failed.) (In general, my proposal is more in context with things like movies, TV shows, music; situations where in the past anyone could make a DVD/CD player that could play any DVD/CD, anyone could sell any DVD/CD by buying into the patent pool. No one could sell a DVD/CD that could only play in a specific model, and a CD/DVD player maker didn't have to negotiate with every studio. So my licensing model isn't quite the same situation that you're talking about.) --- In this case, the problem is that fair use is eroded. The questions are: > Why should I be required to license my (non-stock) photographs hanging in a gallery to someone who wants to make placemats of those images? 1: Once you make information available to the general public, how long do you retain exclusive control of that information? At what point is the general public's fair use eroded? > Why should I be required to accept the finances in licensing terms as someone who is posting neat photographs and looking to make some beer money? vs someone who is a well known photographer and selling prints for a couple hundred dollars at art fairs? vs someone who is world famous and sells prints for tens of thousands of dollars? 2: That's really the formula. It's a wonderful thing to argue about. Again, though, it's about making sure that fair use is preserved. > Can I even make/guarntee limited edition photographs anymore? 3: (Please also see answer 1) Why do people still flock to the Lourve (sp?) to see the Mona Lisa? That being said, copyright isn't intended to support artificial scarcity, and I think breaking down artificial scarcity makes popular items more valuable. (IE, the knockoff prints, that you collect royalties from, make the limited "artist made prints" more valuable.) > Why do I have to sell a license to you? Why do I not have the same rights as a company making a product and being able to refuse to accept a client? Fair use. (Sorry, running out of time, see my example about the DC/DVD market. Also, radio stations used to be able to play any song and follow a formula to pay the right holder. The artists couldn't refuse a station from playing their song.) --- > Why should a photograph of a model (I have a model release) that I took be something I am required to license to someone who wants to use it in a way that is defamatory to the model? This isn't a copyright / fair use issue