9 ms·

The following comment isn't strictly on subject, but it speaks to the cultural mindset toward all of this that seems pervasive even among the fastidiously anti-

The following comment isn't strictly on subject, but it speaks to the cultural mindset toward all of this that seems pervasive even among the fastidiously anti-corporate. The attitude of content creators today scares me a bit. I was in a conversation with two artists the other day, one professional and one amateur. They both firmly agreed, that drawing someone else's characters as a commission was morally wrong and legally grey, and when I asked why, they say, "Because they're taking my money." "But you wouldn't have gotten money there anyway, if they had never produced the art." I argued. They countered by saying, it was stealing. "But what would it cost you?" Nothing, they said, but it wrested control from them, and potentially could lose them the rights to the work. "Wait- howso? You retain ownership, you're simply letting others use your work as inspiration and get paid for their efforts. It in turn, draws more to your story, your world- who loses?" They argued that was the 'exposure' angle, and I didn't really know what to say- I mean, I wouldn't have watched Sherlock if not for the legions of fanart of it on Tumblr, or listened to Jay-Z if not for the works of Girl Talk. They argued, all content should be original- but I can't fathom that. Is art, similarly to science, not an iterative process based on the input of dozens, hundreds, thousands of people that came before us? Are we all not standing on the shoulders of giants, pushing just a few steps forward more, both because we like what came before us but want to see it go someplace new? I wish we'd all stop feeling so threatened, I suppose. EDIT: I should emphasize, I admitted they had the right to request no one use their characters, and if anyone did they clearly were an asshole. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't think doing so was a mistake.

mehwoot 12y ago
Would they be content with people using their characters in ads to sell things without receiving anything? I think it's more about the content creator losing control over what the thing they made is being used for, than them explicitly losing money.
- orbitingpluto 12y ago
  My litmus test is, "What Would Bill Watterson do?" If an artist takes a one-time commission to paint a Calvin & Hobbes frame on a nursery wall, great. If it's on a million t-shirts or Hobbes is selling medical insurance, then that is something different. The former comes out of appreciation, the latter, pure exploitation.
sliverstorm 12y ago
Losing control of your characters could be damaging to you. For example, you create a popular, compelling character & world. E.g., Harry Potter. Now suppose that due to its popularity, other artists jump on the bandwagon left and right. Too many bandwagon-jumpers, and your creation is diluted. It is a commodity. People see it every day. With nobody else producing works with your characters & world, you are the sole source. If we think about supply & demand, we know what that means.
- skybrian 12y ago
  If people actually obeyed this rule then I would never have been able to read "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality" and the world would be a poorer place.
- msutherl 12y ago
  Indeed, Sherlock, Jay-Z, and Harry Potter are diluted brands.
- deciplex 12y ago
  >Now suppose that due to its popularity, other artists jump on the bandwagon left and right. At some point, though, that's supposed to happen. That's how culture works. Of course most of the stuff so created is going to be crap - most art created is crap, after all. Think what we'd have though, if the Star Wars copyright were over and done with by now, or if the LotR copyright had already expired. Mostly, we'd have a bunch of rubbish barely rising above the level of second-rate fan-fic, but we'd also have some real gems. 20 years is plenty of time.
- shadowmint 12y ago
  The sole source. It really comes down to that doesn't it? You're the sole source of art you produce, but what you're saying is that you suddenly, by creating a character, gain the exclusive unlimited right to be the only person ever to create any possible creative work with that character. You're basically patenting the 'idea' of a character, such that no one else can use any variation on that idea. That's the problem, and it's the problem with patents too; they 'lock up' ideas so they can't be used without licensing / permission; but no just the original idea; all the closely related derivative ideas too. In practice it's pretty easy (and common) for large holders of these creative patents (for lack of a better word) to do what the Doyle Estate was doing (read here if you're not familiar http://free-sherlock.com/ http://free-sherlock.com/) to troll and shake-down people using the IP; even for relatively unrelated creative works. Personally, I feel it should be managed more like brands; if I sell shoes with a Nike logo, it's obviously infringement. ...but if I start telling shoes with a logo from some company that hasn't traded shoes in 15 years and their trademark has expired, tough luck to them. You're not a practicing entity anymore; let someone else use that IP instead of leaving it locked up forever.
slashdotaccount 12y ago
http://mimiandeunice.com/2010/11/17/obscurity/ http://mimiandeunice.com/2010/11/17/obscurity/
anigbrowl 12y ago
"But you wouldn't have gotten money there anyway, if they had never produced the art." I argued. I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but I think you're overlooking the possibility that they might have been commissioned to produce an original rather than a derivative work. Is art, similarly to science, not an iterative process based on the input of dozens, hundreds, thousands of people that came before us? No. It's certainly influenced by prior art, and techniques like sampling, collage, and cut-ups certainly allow for art that is comprised of prior art but rearrange in a novel way. But a lot of art is original, and speaking of someone's originality is usually one of the highest artistic compliments one can pay. I think this discounting of original work is one of the flaws of postmodernist culture, in which the referential frame is accorded equal or greater semantic weight than the content within. I may be projecting here, though.
- nmrm 12y ago
  > But a lot of art is original, and speaking of someone's originality is usually one of the highest artistic compliments one can pay. Um, this is exactly true in science. But scientists are generally required to make clear and explicit the influences for their work.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > Um, this is exactly true in science. But scientists are generally required to make clear and explicit the influences for their work. I think a lot of artists miss the trade-off. If others feel invited to improve on your work then they'll be more likely to credit you, because in the alternative where derivatives are not allowed, anyone inspired by your work will be afraid to credit you for fear of it being seen as an admission of wrongdoing.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    I didn't express that very well. To me the difference is that in science you need to make good on your claim - it's no good announcing my intuition that the universe is has the interior of a foofaraw without defining exactly what I mean by that and how it might be tested, in terms that make sense to other people. In art it only matters that you engage the viewer (or listener or...) who need not necessarily have any critical understanding of a work in order to derive an aesthetic experience from it. That's not much more helpful, sorry. It might give more context if I mention that I have an extreme antipathy towards postmodernism and critical theory in general, which colors my opinions on related topics.
mnutt 12y ago
You may like the documentary Rip: A Remix Manifesto. They have a particularly relevant part where they step through songs from artists like Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones and compare them to the songs they were (heavily) inspired by.
coldtea 12y ago
>It in turn, draws more to your story, your world- who loses? The one who created the original material. The oldest line of record/ad/publishing industry crooks trying to rip you off it's "it will bring you publicity/exposure" (ie. "draws more to your story").
Houshalter 12y ago
I support copyright to some extent for economic reasons. It costs millions of dollars to produce a major game or movie, and writing a book takes weeks or months of an individuals time. Someone shouldn't be able to copy your book and take the market by selling it at a lower price or distributing it for free. At least for like 10 years while it's economically relevant. But that you can't make derivative work is insane. You would see fan art and fan fiction disappear completely if it was better enforced. The best book I've ever read was fan fiction. Before copyright it was common for characters to be reused between different stories. And it's still true that most works are not original. They are just different in ways that aren't copyrightable. Who cares if you reuse character names if your story is just a clone of another anyways?
- nnnnni 12y ago
  What's the name of the best book that you've ever read?
  - morsch 12y ago
    5 bucks says he's referring to Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. http://hpmor.com/ http://hpmor.com/
- coldtea 12y ago
  >"But that you can't make derivative work is insane." Well, if you "support copyright to some extent for economic reasons" it's not really insane. In fact it makes perfect sense. The work, eg. a book, you've spend tons of money, thought time and effort to make, can be copied in a couple of days or weeks. What's to say what's just derivative or is a rip off? Is changing a few plot points or wording enough? >You would see fan art and fan fiction disappear completely if it was better enforced It's not like fan art and fan fiction ever produced anything that worthwhile though. Has there ever been any major fan fiction work hailed as literary worthy? Maybe you'll find one or two examples. I doubt you'll find ten.
  - Houshalter 12y ago
coldtea 12y ago
>Is art, similarly to science, not an iterative process based on the input of dozens, hundreds, thousands of people that came before us? Are we all not standing on the shoulders of giants, pushing just a few steps forward more, both because we like what came before us but want to see it go someplace new? Yes, and a lot of us want to be paid for our contributions to this mass endeavour. Case in point, lots of those giants on whose shoulders we stand got ripped off and died peniless. Obligatory link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE&feature=kp https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE&feature=kp (Harlan Elisson, "Pay the writer").
- quaunaut 12y ago
  Of course, I'm not opposed to people being paid- I commission art regularly, I've got too many friends as artists to count, and the startup idea I've spent ages working on is based on the idea that artists currently don't charge enough for their work, and deserve more. But you don't avoid that by retaining tight control over your IP. You do that by providing a product people genuinely want, and giving them a way to pay for it conveniently. No one thing is an instant solution, and the possibility of your original artistic work being outright stolen for someone else is incredibly rare, as people naturally want to see more from the original author.
rayiner 12y ago
You're mixing up two different things. One is where you draw the line for derivative work. The other is copyright duration. I think the former should be drawn to allow inspiration. I see no reason to ever allow direct copying by allowing copyright to expire.
- quaunaut 12y ago
  No, I'm not mixing them up, I'm just commenting on something similar that informs our overall mindset as to creative work. Hence why I opened with "This isn't quite on subject" and even added a couple minutes after posting the addendum.
- JackC 12y ago
  > I see no reason to ever allow direct copying by allowing copyright to expire. The chart of books in print on Amazon, by decade, offers a compelling reason to allow copyright to expire.[1] There are more books available from 1830 than 1930; more books from 1900 than 2000. The cliff in that chart comes when the indefinite extension of copyright began in the early 20th century. It blew a massive hole in our cultural record. You'll see the same story in film, and in software, though we have no pre-indefinite-copyright data to compare to. There's an era between roughly 1930 and 1980 where works that would have gone into the public domain, no longer are -- and because they are locked away, they are being forgotten or entirely lost. We enjoy the Eternal Sunshine of the Copyrighted Mind. Though it's not a reason to allow copyright to expire, it's also worth noting that copyright expiration is required by the US Constitution. A copyright law that didn't include an expiration date would be unconstitutional. In practice, of course, a continually-increasing-yet-finite time is hard to distinguish from forever. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/the-hole-in-our-collective-memory-how-copyright-made-mid-century-books-vanish/278209/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/the-ho...
- snsr 12y ago
  > I see no reason to ever allow direct copying by allowing copyright to expire. You have no doubt benefitted from the richness of our culture, yet are seemingly willing to prevent those who come after you from doing the same?
snsr 12y ago
> They argued, all content should be original- but I can't fathom that. Is art, similarly to science, not an iterative process based on the input of dozens, hundreds, thousands of people that came before us? All art, indeed all creative endeavors, are derivative works.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

mehwoot 12y ago

Would they be content with people using their characters in ads to sell things without receiving anything? I think it's more about the content creator losing control over what the thing they made is being used for, than them explicitly losing money.

orbitingpluto 12y ago
My litmus test is, "What Would Bill Watterson do?" If an artist takes a one-time commission to paint a Calvin & Hobbes frame on a nursery wall, great. If it's on a million t-shirts or Hobbes is selling medical insurance, then that is something different. The former comes out of appreciation, the latter, pure exploitation.

sliverstorm 12y ago

Losing control of your characters could be damaging to you. For example, you create a popular, compelling character & world. E.g., Harry Potter. Now suppose that due to its popularity, other artists jump on the bandwagon left and right. Too many bandwagon-jumpers, and your creation is diluted. It is a commodity. People see it every day. With nobody else producing works with your characters & world, you are the sole source. If we think about supply & demand, we know what that means.

skybrian 12y ago
If people actually obeyed this rule then I would never have been able to read "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality" and the world would be a poorer place.
msutherl 12y ago
Indeed, Sherlock, Jay-Z, and Harry Potter are diluted brands.
deciplex 12y ago
>Now suppose that due to its popularity, other artists jump on the bandwagon left and right. At some point, though, that's supposed to happen. That's how culture works. Of course most of the stuff so created is going to be crap - most art created is crap, after all. Think what we'd have though, if the Star Wars copyright were over and done with by now, or if the LotR copyright had already expired. Mostly, we'd have a bunch of rubbish barely rising above the level of second-rate fan-fic, but we'd also have some real gems. 20 years is plenty of time.
shadowmint 12y ago
The sole source. It really comes down to that doesn't it? You're the sole source of art you produce, but what you're saying is that you suddenly, by creating a character, gain the exclusive unlimited right to be the only person ever to create any possible creative work with that character. You're basically patenting the 'idea' of a character, such that no one else can use any variation on that idea. That's the problem, and it's the problem with patents too; they 'lock up' ideas so they can't be used without licensing / permission; but no just the original idea; all the closely related derivative ideas too. In practice it's pretty easy (and common) for large holders of these creative patents (for lack of a better word) to do what the Doyle Estate was doing (read here if you're not familiar http://free-sherlock.com/ http://free-sherlock.com/) to troll and shake-down people using the IP; even for relatively unrelated creative works. Personally, I feel it should be managed more like brands; if I sell shoes with a Nike logo, it's obviously infringement. ...but if I start telling shoes with a logo from some company that hasn't traded shoes in 15 years and their trademark has expired, tough luck to them. You're not a practicing entity anymore; let someone else use that IP instead of leaving it locked up forever.

slashdotaccount 12y ago

http://mimiandeunice.com/2010/11/17/obscurity/ http://mimiandeunice.com/2010/11/17/obscurity/

anigbrowl 12y ago

"But you wouldn't have gotten money there anyway, if they had never produced the art." I argued. I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but I think you're overlooking the possibility that they might have been commissioned to produce an original rather than a derivative work. Is art, similarly to science, not an iterative process based on the input of dozens, hundreds, thousands of people that came before us? No. It's certainly influenced by prior art, and techniques like sampling, collage, and cut-ups certainly allow for art that is comprised of prior art but rearrange in a novel way. But a lot of art is original, and speaking of someone's originality is usually one of the highest artistic compliments one can pay. I think this discounting of original work is one of the flaws of postmodernist culture, in which the referential frame is accorded equal or greater semantic weight than the content within. I may be projecting here, though.

nmrm 12y ago
> But a lot of art is original, and speaking of someone's originality is usually one of the highest artistic compliments one can pay. Um, this is exactly true in science. But scientists are generally required to make clear and explicit the influences for their work.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > Um, this is exactly true in science. But scientists are generally required to make clear and explicit the influences for their work. I think a lot of artists miss the trade-off. If others feel invited to improve on your work then they'll be more likely to credit you, because in the alternative where derivatives are not allowed, anyone inspired by your work will be afraid to credit you for fear of it being seen as an admission of wrongdoing.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  I didn't express that very well. To me the difference is that in science you need to make good on your claim - it's no good announcing my intuition that the universe is has the interior of a foofaraw without defining exactly what I mean by that and how it might be tested, in terms that make sense to other people. In art it only matters that you engage the viewer (or listener or...) who need not necessarily have any critical understanding of a work in order to derive an aesthetic experience from it. That's not much more helpful, sorry. It might give more context if I mention that I have an extreme antipathy towards postmodernism and critical theory in general, which colors my opinions on related topics.

mnutt 12y ago

You may like the documentary Rip: A Remix Manifesto. They have a particularly relevant part where they step through songs from artists like Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones and compare them to the songs they were (heavily) inspired by.

coldtea 12y ago

>It in turn, draws more to your story, your world- who loses? The one who created the original material. The oldest line of record/ad/publishing industry crooks trying to rip you off it's "it will bring you publicity/exposure" (ie. "draws more to your story").

Houshalter 12y ago

I support copyright to some extent for economic reasons. It costs millions of dollars to produce a major game or movie, and writing a book takes weeks or months of an individuals time. Someone shouldn't be able to copy your book and take the market by selling it at a lower price or distributing it for free. At least for like 10 years while it's economically relevant. But that you can't make derivative work is insane. You would see fan art and fan fiction disappear completely if it was better enforced. The best book I've ever read was fan fiction. Before copyright it was common for characters to be reused between different stories. And it's still true that most works are not original. They are just different in ways that aren't copyrightable. Who cares if you reuse character names if your story is just a clone of another anyways?

nnnnni 12y ago
What's the name of the best book that you've ever read?
- morsch 12y ago
  5 bucks says he's referring to Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. http://hpmor.com/ http://hpmor.com/
coldtea 12y ago
>"But that you can't make derivative work is insane." Well, if you "support copyright to some extent for economic reasons" it's not really insane. In fact it makes perfect sense. The work, eg. a book, you've spend tons of money, thought time and effort to make, can be copied in a couple of days or weeks. What's to say what's just derivative or is a rip off? Is changing a few plot points or wording enough? >You would see fan art and fan fiction disappear completely if it was better enforced It's not like fan art and fan fiction ever produced anything that worthwhile though. Has there ever been any major fan fiction work hailed as literary worthy? Maybe you'll find one or two examples. I doubt you'll find ten.
- Houshalter 12y ago

coldtea 12y ago

>Is art, similarly to science, not an iterative process based on the input of dozens, hundreds, thousands of people that came before us? Are we all not standing on the shoulders of giants, pushing just a few steps forward more, both because we like what came before us but want to see it go someplace new? Yes, and a lot of us want to be paid for our contributions to this mass endeavour. Case in point, lots of those giants on whose shoulders we stand got ripped off and died peniless. Obligatory link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE&feature=kp https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE&feature=kp (Harlan Elisson, "Pay the writer").

quaunaut 12y ago
Of course, I'm not opposed to people being paid- I commission art regularly, I've got too many friends as artists to count, and the startup idea I've spent ages working on is based on the idea that artists currently don't charge enough for their work, and deserve more. But you don't avoid that by retaining tight control over your IP. You do that by providing a product people genuinely want, and giving them a way to pay for it conveniently. No one thing is an instant solution, and the possibility of your original artistic work being outright stolen for someone else is incredibly rare, as people naturally want to see more from the original author.

rayiner 12y ago

You're mixing up two different things. One is where you draw the line for derivative work. The other is copyright duration. I think the former should be drawn to allow inspiration. I see no reason to ever allow direct copying by allowing copyright to expire.

quaunaut 12y ago
No, I'm not mixing them up, I'm just commenting on something similar that informs our overall mindset as to creative work. Hence why I opened with "This isn't quite on subject" and even added a couple minutes after posting the addendum.
JackC 12y ago
> I see no reason to ever allow direct copying by allowing copyright to expire. The chart of books in print on Amazon, by decade, offers a compelling reason to allow copyright to expire.[1] There are more books available from 1830 than 1930; more books from 1900 than 2000. The cliff in that chart comes when the indefinite extension of copyright began in the early 20th century. It blew a massive hole in our cultural record. You'll see the same story in film, and in software, though we have no pre-indefinite-copyright data to compare to. There's an era between roughly 1930 and 1980 where works that would have gone into the public domain, no longer are -- and because they are locked away, they are being forgotten or entirely lost. We enjoy the Eternal Sunshine of the Copyrighted Mind. Though it's not a reason to allow copyright to expire, it's also worth noting that copyright expiration is required by the US Constitution. A copyright law that didn't include an expiration date would be unconstitutional. In practice, of course, a continually-increasing-yet-finite time is hard to distinguish from forever. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/the-hole-in-our-collective-memory-how-copyright-made-mid-century-books-vanish/278209/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/the-ho...
snsr 12y ago
> I see no reason to ever allow direct copying by allowing copyright to expire. You have no doubt benefitted from the richness of our culture, yet are seemingly willing to prevent those who come after you from doing the same?

snsr 12y ago

> They argued, all content should be original- but I can't fathom that. Is art, similarly to science, not an iterative process based on the input of dozens, hundreds, thousands of people that came before us? All art, indeed all creative endeavors, are derivative works.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]