Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Does copyright stifle creativity?  (Read 16497 times)
Moynihan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 28, 2008, 10:56:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Nevertheless, due to technology changes, any monetary valuation process will now impact creativity, in a systemic sense.

>What does this mean?!

Alot of creativity arises from interchange, and exposure, between people, artists, etc. The feeding the head part. Communication, and art "objects", and representations of art, if not the artifact itself, can be shared electronically. Technically, the monetary valuation step is "extra" to that aspect  creativity process, apart from the necessity of valuation for supplying time/materials to the artist.

Monetary valuation is no longer (excluding the social/politcal/culture elements, which include law, ie copyright) a necessary element to the creative process, in and of itself. That can of course not be true for an individual, if the creative process is for them, only triggered pecuniary renumeration. The monetary process is important to allow time/materials for the artist. But that is due to the form of social organization, not the creative process, in and of itself.

>Fine then here is the point I'm making "no money = no new art" it's simple!

Yes, I agree, since we use pecuniary systems for status seeking and reciprocal alturism. You are right. I am actually agreeing with the vast majority of what you say.

>.... a good amount of great art has been brought about on socialist issues. Art that we can experience and brings new creative ideas to our art.

I agree.

>How do you think John Lennon must feel looking down to hear his music selling cars?

I do not know. I thought he was dead?

>What creative advantage will come when great artist don't leave their work to the next generation in fear of it being exploited by an idea they don't believe in?

I do not know....for some, maybe none? That is always a problem though eventually, is it not?  Eventually, when a copyright type right lapses, or lapses for hiers, or the state that supports it collapses or what ever, they get used for all kinds of stuff probably never envisioned by a creator. I would assume the sculptor who made  say, that famous bust of a Pharoah's wife, never imagined it would be used to sell beauty cream, 3200 years later.
Logged
lightstand
Guest
« Reply #21 on: November 28, 2008, 01:01:14 PM »
ReplyReply

"Monetary valuation is no longer a necessary element to the creative process, in and of itself."  Cool I'll take the Phase back with all the Schneider lenses, pay my ISP, & snag me a new laptop (note: nothing even about a printer)

definition for Create: verb; bring (something) into existence (copied from a dictionary)

Maybe I should sell the Duchamp idea: it has no existence, just my conceptual thought, it'll go great with your couch!

"Alot of creativity arises from interchange, and exposure, between people, artists, etc." Bull$hit! creativity arises from being creative, getting off your A$$ and making something with actual tangible substance. In our world money is a much better motivator than chanting with crystals hoping to pay rent, why the heck do they sell their weed!

Let's look at this a different way. We would all like the human race to have better health, correct? Let's tell the pharmicudical  companies they can only reap the rewards on their patents for two years and that the prices were fixed. How many new drugs would get developed? Let's tell engineering firms that all expenses for bridge building needs to come out of their pocket. Let's tell all colleges that tuition cost have been waived, how much more creativity would that bring into the world?  

Money is a symbol of energy. It would not matter if we were in your Star Trek fantasy world.  If there was no energy/value placed on a subject there would be no advancement of that subject. To take away the potential for value/energy in our world and that would reduce that subject's advancement. Plain & simple

Take away protection from socially minded artists and you will take away their art from future generations.

edit: You can throw value at a subject and it might not grow, take away value and you are guaranteed for it to be reduced
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 01:09:56 PM by lightstand » Logged
Moynihan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 28, 2008, 02:13:37 PM »
ReplyReply

>Money is a symbol of energy.

Actually, it is literally a symbol of value. But granted, socio-economic structures do tend to resemble ecosystems in operation of energy/money flows.(well presented in "Nature: An Economic History" by Geerat J. Vermeij).

>It would not matter if we were in your Star Trek fantasy world.

Well, I do not think we need to go that far for a reasonable example.  
Let use take the "amatuer" or avocational artist. Granted, they do need an "energy" input (money) to stay alive, but that input is not derived from the sale of their art.( I am here, defining a working, or vocational artist as one who gains income wholly or in part from sale of their art).

I think it would be safe to state that the amatuer or avocational artist can have a rich and vibrant "creative process", and never sell anything. As far as outside verification, there are in history, famous artists who never sold squat, and "discovered" after their death. Creativity, as commonly studied or discussed, is a mental process. In art, it can "create" non-material art (poetry, song, dance, etc) or material art (painting, scupture, photography, etc.)

>If there was no energy/value placed on a subject there would be no advancement of that subject.

Yes.

On the "value" part;
The artist can "value" it.
The artist can do art that is emotionally valued by others.
The artist can do art that is financially valued by others.
All work. It is not uncommon for the first to result in continued, or longer periods of that artist's creativity. The last, being a strong reward system, can train the artist to reduce exploration and concentrate on what is rewarded, thereby reducing "creativity".
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 03:11:40 PM by Moynihan » Logged
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 29, 2008, 05:52:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
A recent thread on intellectual property brought up an old pet subject of mine: intellectual property and copyright.

While there should be a balance between creating an incentive for original artistic creation for professionals through copyright, intellectual property laws are absolutely ridiculous: it is outrageous to extend copyright well beyond the lifetime of the artist.

If copyright was for, say, 10 years, how do you think it would change photography? I think it would encourage photographers and other artists to continue creating original art, rather than wasting their resources on litigation and defending their existing hey-day works. At the same time, photographers would have a (limited) time frame where they can capitalize on a certain photo.

And perhaps most importantly, after 10 years the work would be in the public domain, free for others to use for their own creations - thus encouraging more creativity.

IS THIS A JOKE!
I rarely get angry about a stupid post but this makes my blood boil. 10 years you have got to be kidding!!! We have images in stock that were shot 20 years ago that are our copyright and will continue to do so. There is real value in owning your work with extra income & building a body of work through your career. We also have images purchased by the National Portrait Gallery of Australia that were taken more than 10 years ago. There is real value in owning your work & it not only money. Laws have been created to protect the artist, these laws were hard fought. Thank god the copyright laws changed in the photographers favor in Australia in August 1988.
Denis
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 09:29:18 PM by mcfoto » Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8388



WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 30, 2008, 07:15:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
While there should be a balance between creating an incentive for original artistic creation for professionals through copyright, intellectual property laws are absolutely ridiculous: it is outrageous to extend copyright well beyond the lifetime of the artist.

If copyright was for, say, 10 years, how do you think it would change photography? I think it would encourage photographers and other artists to continue creating original art, rather than wasting their resources on litigation and defending their existing hey-day works. At the same time, photographers would have a (limited) time frame where they can capitalize on a certain photo.

And perhaps most importantly, after 10 years the work would be in the public domain, free for others to use for their own creations - thus encouraging more creativity.

Copyrighted material is often already available for viewing, that is enough to trigger inspiration.

I am with Rob here, an artist should keep the legal rights on his/her work forever. This doesn' t mean that the re-use of work will always be forbidden.


Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

A few images online here!
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3648



WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 01, 2008, 04:43:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
(And as for the off-handed ad hominems: you can see from my website that all photography is released under Creative Commons, so I walk the walk.)
Bollocks you do!
From your website.
"I currently reside and work in the Netherlands in corporate finance."
You appear to earn your money from outside of photography. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't have come out with the naiive nonsense you did regarding how copyright should only last ten years.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 01, 2008, 07:06:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
You appear to earn your money from outside of photography. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't have come out with the naiive nonsense you did regarding how copyright should only last ten years.
What you're saying is essentially that unless someone makes his/her money from photography, that photography clearly isn't art, or that that person's opinion is therefore naive.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I'd much rather not produce "art", and I prefer being "naive", to your world.  But I don't think your newspeak is worth the money you spent on it.
Logged

Jan
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #27 on: December 01, 2008, 08:46:54 AM »
ReplyReply

I dont presume to speak for jjj, but I think there is some severe misinterpretation of his post: I read it to mean that it is only because the poster works and earns his keep outwith photography that he has, can afford to have, as relaxed a view on copyright as he claims to have.

Rape is always rape, even though there are sometimes those raped who are considered to have been willing rapes!

If you rip me off, I shall attempt to chase you to the edges of hell, should I need to so do.

Rob C
Logged

jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 01, 2008, 09:06:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
I dont presume to speak for jjj, but I think there is some severe misinterpretation of his post: I read it to mean that it is only because the poster works and earns his keep outwith photography that he has, can afford to have, as relaxed a view on copyright as he claims to have.
Perhaps that was his intention, but jjj seems a wee bit more aggressive than that, and indicates rather clearly that feppe isn't entitled to have an opinion, or that his opinion is naive because he's not a professional photographer.

There seems to be no mitigating factors.

Quote
Rape is always rape, even though there are sometimes those raped who are considered to have been willing rapes!
While I won't call it "rape" any more than I'll agree to the term "piracy" for illegal copying of software, I see your point.

Q.v. Eirik Solheim's blog entry about how he was ripped off (and got compensated!).
Logged

Jan
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3648



WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 01, 2008, 12:30:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Rob C is correct - Jani has misread my post, very badly. And very obviously, not in context of the the post I was replying to.
Feppe was trying to say he put his money where his mouth is by issuing his work under Creative Commons. Where in fact, he can only afford to do so as his income comes from outside of photography.
Feppe can have as many opinions as he wants, but unfortunately this one is certainly comes from a distinctly naiive/ignorant viewpoint. For those whose income is obtained via copyright, his 10yr suggestion is patent [  !] nonsense.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 01, 2008, 12:35:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mcfoto
IS THIS A JOKE!
I rarely get angry about a stupid post but this makes my blood boil. 10 years you have got to be kidding!!! We have images in stock that were shot 20 years ago that are our copyright and will continue to do so. There is real value in owning your work with extra income & building a body of work through your career. We also have images purchased by the National Portrait Gallery of Australia that were taken more than 10 years ago. There is real value in owning your work & it not only money. Laws have been created to protect the artist, these laws were hard fought. Thank god the copyright laws changed in the photographers favor in Australia in August 1988.
Denis

It is not a joke.

I was not for the abolition of copyright but you must have missed that part. In any case, there is no coherent question or contribution in your post.
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 01, 2008, 12:42:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
Rob C is correct - Jani has misread my post, very badly. And very obviously, not in context of the the post I was replying to.
Feppe was trying to say he put his money where his mouth is by issuing his work under Creative Commons. Where in fact, he can only afford to do so as his income comes from outside of photography.
Feppe can have as many opinions as he wants, but unfortunately this one is certainly comes from a distinctly naiive/ignorant viewpoint. For those whose income is obtained via copyright, his 10yr suggestion is patent [  !] nonsense.

So rather than attacking the arguments, you attack the poster? Seems to be the preferred method of "debate" on this forum these days.

And there are professionals putting their money where their mouth is as well, Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails and Cory Doctorow come to mind, each with varying degrees of "free" and copyright-light-ness. Curiously, there are no notable photographers I know of.
Logged

lightstand
Guest
« Reply #32 on: December 01, 2008, 01:54:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
And there are professionals putting their money where their mouth is as well, Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails and Cory Doctorow come to mind, each with varying degrees of "free" and copyright-light-ness.

Not sure I would consider that an apples to apples comparison. In the Radiohead example that was only for a limited time(maybe 2 months) and their business plan was they would make the same amount of money if fans donated $1 verses paying the Record Companies $15 for their songs. I would also bet if I was Coke and wanted to use a Radiohead song in a TV commercial I would still need to pay for the licensing.

And the final point would be look at an Artist like Blondie from the 70's where the record company completely changed her sound from punk to a pop sound for the radio stations. I can only image the conversations with NIN & their record company "Trent can you change this lyric... so it can be played on the radio at little Suzie's birthday party"


When Lewis Baltz gives his copywrite up to Century 21 or Walmart then you'll have a relevant example.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 01, 2008, 02:24:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
Rob C is correct - Jani has misread my post, very badly. And very obviously, not in context of the the post I was replying to.
Feppe was trying to say he put his money where his mouth is by issuing his work under Creative Commons. Where in fact, he can only afford to do so as his income comes from outside of photography.
Feppe can have as many opinions as he wants, but unfortunately this one is certainly comes from a distinctly naiive/ignorant viewpoint. For those whose income is obtained via copyright, his 10yr suggestion is patent [  !] nonsense.
It seems I haven't misread your post at all.

For all we know, feppe might have earned good money from his photography, but he's chosen not to.

Choosing so is something you label as "naive/ignorant" solely because he's not a professional photographer, and that is the point I'm disagreeing with.

Feppe's opinion isn't naive or ignorant. It's informed, but it's not your viewpoint. Make rational arguments against it rather than dragging us further down in the muck, please.
Logged

Jan
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 01, 2008, 03:27:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jani
For all we know, feppe might have earned good money from his photography, but he's chosen not to.

 
Logged

spidermike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 127


« Reply #35 on: December 02, 2008, 03:22:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Feppe made an interesting point - OK, it riled a few people especially those who make a living out of photography but it is one that is quite valid.
Pesonally, I don't believe copyright does stifle creativity. To extend what others have alluded to it does the reverse. If you can't just go out and copy someone's work you have to be creative.
But how long should copyright last? To say 'forever' means that in a thousand years your distant relatives are still earning money from your photos. You really would have to justify that!!  In the UK and USA it is 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies which means that not only the photographer but their grandchildren will benefit. And I suppose it means that photographs could be under copyright for anything up to 150 years. That seems enough to me.
Logged
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 02, 2008, 06:29:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
It is not a joke.

I was not for the abolition of copyright but you must have missed that part. In any case, there is no coherent question or contribution in your post.

In your opening post you quote " If copyright was for, say, 10 years, how do you think it would change photography?"


Denis
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 06:35:55 AM by mcfoto » Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 02, 2008, 02:34:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mcfoto
In your opening post you quote " If copyright was for, say, 10 years, how do you think it would change photography?"
Indeed, and that is called a "question", which when posed to a group, would indicate that the original author might be interested in viewpoints about that question, and not in derogatory insults.
Logged

Jan
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 02, 2008, 07:25:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jani
Indeed, and that is called a "question", which when posed to a group, would indicate that the original author might be interested in viewpoints about that question, and not in derogatory insults.

When it comes to copyright both Gay & I did talks ( Copyright ) for both the AIPP & ACMP in Australia in 1998-2000. This was just after the laws changed in Australia in the photographers favor. Both the AIPP & ACMP fought long & hard for this change. I know of a few photographers who invested a lot there time over the years for this to come about. So when someone comes suggests that copyright should only last 10 years, I personally find that an insult to our profession. What I was trying to explain to the topic starter was that we still get income from photographs from images taken over 10 years ago. Copyright has real value to the photographer ( artists ), that is why we have these laws in place.

Denis
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 03, 2008, 06:07:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mcfoto
So when someone comes suggests that copyright should only last 10 years, I personally find that an insult to our profession.
Yeah, I noticed, and I also noticed that was how others took it, too.

Apparently, having a civil discussion regarding the question and proposal itself is impossible.

Quote
What I was trying to explain to the topic starter was that we still get income from photographs from images taken over 10 years ago. Copyright has real value to the photographer ( artists ), that is why we have these laws in place.
Others have tried "explaining" it, too, also with insults added.

If you'd written the above, and stopped short of shouting "murder, bloody murder", I'd be willing to take your arguments at face value.
Logged

Jan
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad