How copyright could be killing culture

[shecky]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050117/DOCS17/TPEntertainment/Film

Interesting look at how stringent copyright rules can kill current works, nix future ones.

Before the digital and documentary explosion, a clip of President Nixon speaking, for instance, usually could be licensed "in perpetuity," meaning that the film could continue to use the footage indefinitely. Now the incentive is for copyright owners to grant only limited permission. "Increasingly, it's harder and harder to get 'in perpetuity,' because rights-holders realize that somebody will have to come back in five years or 10 years and pay more money," Flahive says.

Some are calling this the new "clearance culture," in which access to copyrights affects the creation of new art as much as, if not more than, actual artistic and journalistic decisions. It also means that access to copyrighted footage is only open to those filmmakers with the deepest pockets (or many lawyers on their side).

 

[crimresearch]

...As the award-winning filmmaker Katy Chevigny says in the American University report: "The only film you can make for cheap and not have to worry about rights clearance is about your grandma, yourself or your dog."

In other words, something created from scratch, and not copied.



In today's artistic community, 'cutting and pasting' or 'borrowing' the work of others has far too often become a synonym for 'creativity'.

And copyright laws which were written during a time when a karaoke winner would not have been considered a national singing 'Idol' are an inconvenience to these quasi-plagiarists who spend more time selecting their wardrobe and affectations, than they do on the quaint and outdated notion of working on their craft.

 

[SlippyToad]

In today's artistic community, 'cutting and pasting' or 'borrowing' the work of others has far too often become a synonym for 'creativity'.

And copyright laws which were written during a time when a karaoke winner would not have been considered a national singing 'Idol' are an inconvenience to these quasi-plagiarists who spend more time selecting their wardrobe and affectations, than they do on the quaint and outdated notion of working on their craft.

Well, someone will have to go back in time to bitchslap William Shakespeare, who borrowed the plots for most of his stories from others. That's just one example.

Throughout most of the history of art, there were no copyright laws. People freely borrowed from earlier artists, mostly re-casting previous ideas in current idiom. The genius of most of these artists is almost universally recognized not to be their originality of content, but their ability to render their ideas clearly and concisely.

Which is why it's so funny to watch a company like Disney, whose entire success is predicated on films made of recycled source material from the previous century, continue to fund the enactment of ever more restrictive copyright laws.

What is being created with intellectual property laws is not a new economy or an original society. It's a cultural black hole. Artists who successfully protect their works from being copied can expect to be forgotten by the time the term of their copyrights expire.

 

[crimresearch]

I would suggest that it is the entertainment business and the lumpen who feed off of it that are antithetical to creativity, not creative original artists who want to protect their work.

But it is a prevalent myth in Generation Karaoke that hard work and creativity are bogus, and copying is clever.

After all, how good could Jimi Hendrix have been when his parents didn't even buy him a modelling amp and a digital guitar with all the kewl notes stored onboard?

And I'll bet he never even set foot in Hot Topics.

 

[Daylight]

Another interesting side to this is an Aerospace company is claiming a trade mark infringement by plastic model companies and computer game companies claiming they own the visual image/likeness of aircraft they produced in WW2 for the US Government. One computer game company has already paid the money for a product they had already released. It appears this same aerospace company intends to go after Film Documentaries and History books that contain images of this plane.

 

[fsol]

After all, how good could Jimi Hendrix have been when his parents didn't even buy him a modelling amp and a digital guitar with all the kewl notes stored onboard?

He wouldn't have been anywhere near as good if he hadn't taken song structure, riffs and licks from other peoples songs and incorporated them into his own music. As in the tradition of the blues he was perfectly entitled to do so.

I don't see where your modelling amp and digital guitar comment comes from. Hendrix used custom effects built for him by Roger Mayer. I would guess that he would have jumped at the chance to mess about with digital guitars and modelling amps if he had the chance.

 

[iain]

Surely saying art should be entirely original is like saying science should be. No-one suggests that Einstein's genius was less because he was building on what had been done before; or that Darwin wasn't that bright because his ideas built on the foundations laid by others (such as his grandfather Erasmus).

Why should art only be considered original if it doesn't built on the work of previous artists?

 

[crimresearch]

He wouldn't have been anywhere near as good if he hadn't taken song structure, riffs and licks from other peoples songs and incorporated them into his own music. As in the tradition of the blues he was perfectly entitled to do so.

I don't see where your modelling amp and digital guitar comment comes from. Hendrix used custom effects built for him by Roger Mayer. I would guess that he would have jumped at the chance to mess about with digital guitars and modelling amps if he had the chance.

Hendrix did NOT become famous for recording the music of other people, and replaying it while he lip synched and danced around. He used *influences* from past artists..the fact that the record buying public can't tell the diffference between that and what Ashlee Simpson does, rather proves my point.

Hendrix also obtained his guitar sound by experimenting around with and altering the hardware, not by clicking a button on a modelling amp preset to someone else's famous sound.

Whether or not he would have enjoyed playing around with today's equipment is entirely beside the point. He used equipment to *create*, not to mimic.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote iain:
"Surely saying art should be entirely original is like saying science should be."

No one is saying that. The comments in the OP included complaints about original artists being allowed to use copyright to prevent non-original artists from helping themselves to the work of others.
I'm responding to the notion that copyright is somehow unfair to the cut and paste artists.

 

[Capitalist]

Huh? Copyright is killing culture? In this instance, what is culture anyway?

Copyright is indispensable to protect property rights, and, if anything, it increases the output of works of art. I'm just having a hard time understanding the complaint.

 

[fsol]

Hendrix did NOT become famous for recording the music of other people, and replaying it while he lip synched and danced around. He used *influences* from past artists..the fact that the record buying public can't tell the diffference between that and what Ashlee Simpson does, rather proves my point.

Nice strawman. I like the attention to detail with the toes. Most people don't bother.

Hendrix also obtained his guitar sound by experimenting around with and altering the hardware, not by clicking a button on a modelling amp preset to someone else's famous sound.

Whether or not he would have enjoyed playing around with today's equipment is entirely beside the point. He used equipment to *create*, not to mimic.

Hendrix made do with what was available at the time. When that wasn't good enough he got people to modify and build him new toys to mess about with. He was in a priviledged position at the time. It's almost as if you are saying that digital effects can't be used creatively. The thing with those modelling amps is that you can play around with them to make them sound like whatever you want them to. If you end up mimicing someone else with one that just shows your own lack of imagination.

 

[crimresearch]

Nice strawman. I like the attention to detail with the toes. Most people don't bother.

Hendrix made do with what was available at the time. When that wasn't good enough he got people to modify and build him new toys to mess about with. He was in a priviledged position at the time. It's almost as if you are saying that digital effects can't be used creatively. The thing with those modelling amps is that you can play around with them to make them sound like whatever you want them to. If you end up mimicing someone else with one that just shows your own lack of imagination.

Other than displaying your own strawman skills, what exactly are you babbling about?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I would suggest that it is the entertainment business and the lumpen who feed off of it that are antithetical to creativity, not creative original artists who want to protect their work.

Rhetoric and assertion.

But it is a prevalent myth in Generation Karaoke that hard work and creativity are bogus, and copying is clever.

Ad hominem argument.

After all, how good could Jimi Hendrix have been when his parents didn't even buy him a modelling amp and a digital guitar with all the kewl notes stored onboard?

Just plain irrelevant frothing.

The problem with copyrights is that they are too damn broad, more than anything else. I'm perfectly happy with laws that stop people burning and selling copies of someone else's CD. That's just fine. Laws that stop you recording your own version, or playing it live, or playing a song that is too similar are genuine impediments to art though.

I've never seen a remotely convincing argument that, say, sales of The White Album would be harmed if I used a riff from that album in a song I published. (I'm not a songwriter or anything, it's just an example). Nor would it hurt ticket sales for the next Star Wars film if independent studios could make their own Star Wars films. If Lucasfilm don't like the competition, too bad.

Especially in areas like music, the idea that art should be completely original is just daft. Music first and foremost is meant to be listened to and enjoyed. If an artist can make good music by ripping off bits from all over the shop, it's good music and that's an end to the matter.

 

[SlippyToad]

Hendrix did NOT become famous for recording the music of other people . . .

All Along the Watchtower, anyone?

Hey Joe, anyone?

You correctly note that he did not use a modeling amp. Such things did not exist in his day. What he did was take the idioms and influences around him and mix them into something new. I don't think anyone is comparing Ashlee or Britney to him, but there are quite a few rap acts that are getting screamed at for "sampling" who are doing essentially the same thing -- mixing old stuff into new stuff.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Copyright was a way to become rich. That sucked, and Im glad is ending now. An artist should be happy by having the opportunity to express himself.

RIAA bastards DIE....

 

[crimresearch]

All Along the Watchtower, anyone?

Hey Joe, anyone?

You correctly note that he did not use a modeling amp. Such things did not exist in his day. What he did was take the idioms and influences around him and mix them into something new. I don't think anyone is comparing Ashlee or Britney to him, but there are quite a few rap acts that are getting screamed at for "sampling" who are doing essentially the same thing -- mixing old stuff into new stuff.

So Hendrix totally ripped off Bob Dylan, hmmmm?

Are you seriously comparing Hendrix' version of All Along the Watchtower to something that was *sampled*?
Hendrix just added some overdubs and his name?

I had no idea that the music business PR had gotten so bad , but the posts here claiming that artists like Hendrix didn't create their own sound, or didn't play their own versions of covers is apparently the current state of understanding...
Push a button and the music comes out, no talent or work needed, other than reading the owner's manual on a piece of digital equipment.
A sad state of affairs indeed.

 

[SlippyToad]

Copyright is indispensable to protect property rights, and, if anything, it increases the output of works of art. I'm just having a hard time understanding the complaint.

Then you aren't trying very hard. I'll say it real slow so you can read:

Copyright laws are first of all a restraint of speech. They are an injunction to all others that the originator of a unique work of expression is entitled to control the reproduction of that work for a period of time. IN RETURN that person agrees at the end of the fixed term to give up the right to control that work into what is called the public domain.

Therefore, the originator gets to profit, while the public gets the fruit of their labors when they no longer need them. Since the original terms of copyright were for the life of the author plus some number of years, this was perfectly equitable.

However, as they are currently written, copyright laws DO NOT under any reasonable circumstances increase the output of the authors they purport to protect. Let's take an example: Mickey Mouse was created over seventy years ago, by a man named Walt Disney. Walt Disney was protected from copyright infringement for his entire life, and as such continued to churn out original works of animation right up until his death in 1966.

Under the original agreements of copyright, his works should have then become public domain around 1983. This would have worked fine. Disney was no longer around to be encouraged by copyright to make new cartoons, and no one was really making a lot of money off his old ones. The home-video industry was in its infancy at that time.

So, to whose benefit is it that the Disney corporation who haven't released an original cartoon worth a frick for some thirty-odd years, still holds the copyright on the original black-and-white Mickey Mouse cartoons?

Follow with me, Capitalist, because the next part is where it starts to actually hurt. Because Disney the corporation reneged on the deal originally engaged by Disney the man (by purchasing a Congressional extension every time the original copyright comes up for expiration), the Mickey Mouse cartoons remain under lock and key. Therefore, the public does not get the benefit of having those available for free use.

The cartoons, for all we know, could be moldering away in a vault. That's not the first time something like this has been lost due to greed and miserliness. Furthermore, Mickey Mouse the cultural symbol is vanishing into a black hole. My kids don't know who he is. If I sing M-I-C-K-E-Y, they don't know what goes next. They don't recognize those f**ing ears that Disney is so anal about protecting. They have no desire to go to Disney land -- they have no clue. Should Disney the corporation ever emerge from the hyper-conservative funk it's in and actually produce something worth seeing again, they will find their wonderful world of Disney falling on deaf ears. Kids, and adults who still enjoy kids' cartoons, have moved on to SpongeBob SquarePants.

So Mickey Mouse is now vanishing into a black hole. There may be a time when the company finally kicks the bucket. In fact I think it's happening now. The loss of Pixar was but stupid, and probably the last straw. But by the time those copyrights get through being haggled over by third and fourth-generation Disney heirs, and stumble out into the public domain, no one is going to give rip that he's there. The films, what remain of them, instead of being lovingly archived by a public that cares about them, will be forgotten, and disintigrate. They are 70+ years old, after all.

So, Mickey Mouse rots. No derivative works are created. After awhile, the most successful animator of all time is completely forgotten because of stupidity and greed. When people look back on the art of the 20th century, there are going to be huge holes -- an unacceptable and tragic result for a century in which saw an unprecedented explosion in the number and type of easily reproduced media.

 

[crimresearch]

I'm not sure that any dead artist gets to see their body of work treated in the manner they would have wished while alive.

Copyright doesn't prevent the Disney estate from doing something creative with Mickey, it keeps Sony from making and selling cartoons featuring a mouse named Rickey, with big round ears.

It is lack of creativity and bad business decisions that seem responsible for much of what you decry.

 

[SlippyToad]

Copyright doesn't prevent the Disney estate from doing something creative with Mickey, it keeps Sony from making and selling cartoons featuring a mouse named Rickey, with big round ears.

Too bad! Disney's time is up. The wishes of the dead artist are no longer of any concern -- and remember, it's not the dead artist doing this, it's the non-living corporation which will never die that is doing this. It's not Sony that wants to make a Rickey Mouse, it's someone neither of us have heard of who might be capable of doing something really creative with Mickey Mouse as source material.

I keep harping on Disney because they as a corporation have ripped off about 90% of their film canon from the prior century's "public domain." The hypocrisy is so thick it can be sliced and served as a sandwich.

 

[Art Vandelay]

What was really silly is that I came across a website with a catalog of laws, and it claimed that the laws are copyrighted by the legislature. Isn't that the very epitome of public domain?

Are you seriously comparing Hendrix' version of All Along the Watchtower to something that was *sampled*?
Hendrix just added some overdubs and his name?

In some cases, sampling artists display more creativity. If this is just rote work, why are newspaper editors considered so important? When you get right down to it, isn't "editing" just a fancy name for "sampling"?

I had no idea that the music business PR had gotten so bad , but the posts here claiming that artists like Hendrix didn't create their own sound, or didn't play their own versions of covers is apparently the current state of understanding...

Who is saying that?

Push a button and the music comes out, no talent or work needed, other than reading the owner's manual on a piece of digital equipment.
A sad state of affairs indeed.

What's sad about it? Is a mediocre piece of work that resulted from lots of hard work better than a wonderful one that was created by a machine?

 

[Ladewig]

Then you aren't trying very hard. I'll say it real slow so you can read:

Is that type of sarcasm necessary?

However, as they are currently written, copyright laws DO NOT under any reasonable circumstances increase the output of the authors they purport to protect. Let's take an example: Mickey Mouse was created over seventy years ago, by a man named Walt Disney. Walt Disney was protected from copyright infringement for his entire life, and as such continued to churn out original works of animation right up until his death in 1966.

If you are trying to show that the current laws DO NOT increase the output of the authors they purport to protect, then why do you suggest looking at someone who has been dead almost 40 years? Wouldn't it make more sense to look at someone who is currently creating artistic output and judge whether or not the laws protect that individual and whether or not the laws influence that individual's decision to create artistic output?

So, to whose benefit is it that the Disney corporation who haven't released an original cartoon worth a frick for some thirty-odd years, still holds the copyright on the original black-and-white Mickey Mouse cartoons?

It is my opinion that The Lion King and Finding Nemo were "worth a frick."

So, Mickey Mouse rots. No derivative works are created.

I am not convinced that the lack of derivative works is equal to "copywrite could be killing culture."

After awhile, the most successful animator of all time is completely forgotten because of stupidity and greed. When people look back on the art of the 20th century, there are going to be huge holes --

I am unclear as to where people looking at popular art in the 20th century will see huge holes because Disney has released all their classic movies on DVD. Just because people have to pay for it does not mean that Disney's works are being forgotten.