Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Making the case for eternal copyright  (Read 8423 times)
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5735


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #40 on: February 24, 2012, 01:21:11 PM »
ReplyReply

... I see, Trailpixie you copyright the content of your web site. As an advocate for minimal or zero copyrights, why do you do this? (I'm curious, not antagonistic).

Hehe... but of course!

We are all socialists/communists as consumers and capitalists as producers.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #41 on: February 24, 2012, 02:09:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Trailpixie,

I agree with most of your argument and would like to expand on it.

...


We have never lived in an economy or society with very short copyright and patent terms. Only speculation can be made as to what would occur. I speculate that innovation would occur at a logarithmic rate of increase. Some claim that innovation would cease. The classic example being that it wouldn't be economically viable to produce, say, a cancer cure. I speculate that if Company X declined to produce such a drug, then Company Y, Z or Ω would step in to provide the product.

I include these examples of patent protection because it and copyright protection both fall under laws for the protection of intellectual property, and legal arguments for one can be easily applied to the other. This is because the ultimate aim of these laws is to protect the revenue derived from the intellectual property.

When we talk about photography, the immediate inclination is to view the copyright as a tool that protects income. Back in the 1970's and 1980's stock photography expanded greatly and provided many photographers with a good income. Comstock being the highest profile in 1984, with the owners taking crews to the Bahamas and producing classic BIBOB (babe in bikini on beach) images which sold by the truckload. Production costs ran about $200,000 with total sales at $1,000,000 it wasn't a bad investment (source: PDN, 2/1984). All these images are protected under the copyright act, but now Comstock's library is a part of Jupiter Images, which is a part of Getty Images. Getty Images' revenue was about $400,000,000 in 2008.

All the content that created revenue is protected by copyright laws, but now the business model is being eaten away by royalty-free imagery. This move to a royalty-free business model is caused and/or motivated by two things: quick access to billions of images via the internet, and the democratization of images. More people are producing photographs now than at any time in history. It's a buyer's market out there, but the content is still protected by copyright laws. If copyrights were reduced to 10 years total, would it affect this business model? Not significantly, because the rate of image creation will keep accelerating, and a better or more appropriate image would soon be available.

...

Lastly, I see, Trailpixie you copyright the content of your web site. As an advocate for minimal or zero copyrights, why do you do this? (I'm curious, not antagonistic).

Interesting stuff. It is amazing how many ways people can inadvertently get caught up in these issues.  I hadn't heard about the issues with corn growers.  It is amazing how far the reach of lawyers can go!

While many are unhappy about it, I agree that stock photography, has been commoditized.  The truth is that you don't need to be a "professional" to create work that is of professional quality.  Even if most amateur stock photographers don't produce good quality, by crowd-sourcing something like stock photography you can end up with the same results at a fraction of the cost.  Considering the recent CNN layoff of photo journalists , people are now thinking they can crowd source photo journalism.  You can debate the issue on journalistic grounds, but there is no denying that any shlub with a cell phone camera can be more effective than a photo journalist who might take hours or days to arrive on the scene and then catch the aftermath.  

Making a living at stock photography is dead.  Copyright won't stop it and didn't cause it.  Disruptive technologies killed stock photography. That may be seen as a bad thing, but disruptive technologies are where progress is made.  Patents and copyright slow down the development of disruptive technologies.

Photography as an art, as a service, or as a performance has a bright future.  People want fine art photography for their marketing, for their wedding, and for their walls.  For this work to be profitable, it needs to be one-of-a-kind.  You can't use stock photography for your wedding album.  You can't use stock photography for your band's promotional posters.  These photo shoots are a service that a photographer can provide and make a living at, particularly if they are excellent at their craft and at selling themselves.  There is nothing here about protectionism or copyright.  Photography as a service is most of what is left (except perhaps teaching workshops as our benefactor here does).

As for putting copyright on my website...good observation, by the way...even though I have copyright, I am not fiercely proprietary about the low resolution images.  I make a small amount on large prints of very high resolution images.  The capture, processing, and print is my performance.  It is difficult for someone to steal THAT from me unless I foolishly posted my 60 MP images online.  You can call my behavior hypocritical or you can call it flexible.  If one of my photos becomes famous for some bizarre reason,  I potentially have a lot to gain by copyrighting my work, just as many of the other talented LuLA photographers do. I work the system as it is today to my best advantage. If the rules ever change, we will all be forced to adapt.

When people are faced with the use of something they feel they own or created (see Everything is a Remix Part IV), they can get pretty emotional--even though the emotion isn't really based in any truly moral issue, but instead based on a perceived entitlement.  


Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #42 on: February 24, 2012, 02:10:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Hehe... but of course!

We are all socialists/communists as consumers and capitalists as producers.

That is a good way to put it. What is important is that as rational actors we learn to appreciate the both points of view.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


WWW
« Reply #43 on: February 24, 2012, 02:20:18 PM »
ReplyReply


Outside the world of stock photography, we have images from Ansel Adams and Edward Weston, for example. How is copyright protection a benefit to others? One way is that I can log onto the Ansel Adams gallery and buy a print from an original negative. The same is true for Weston's work. Because of the copyright laws, the gallery can retain control of the reproduction of the images and customers will receive a print that's been produced professional and with care to the content's reproduction. In addition to this benefit to the marketplace, the family heirs of both Adams and Weston receive financial revenue (Matthew Adams and Cara Weston, respectively). I speculate both Adams and Weston would appreciate this.

I am curious about something, which may be slightly off-topic; the paragraph above reminded me of it. My questions concern works that are in the public domain, like Dickens or Shakespeare, etc. If someone decides to re-publish a Dickens work, where do they get the source material? Do they hire someone to re-type a Penguin classic? Do they borrow the author's original manuscripts? From who? Are they curated in a museum? Is the media in a delicate condition that would preclude lending them out? Do the curators provide "official" copies to work from? What if 2 publishers want them at the same time?

Once the copyright runs out on Adams or Weston works, the people who hold the negatives now will still hold them. Printing from the originals will still reside with them, regardless of copyright status.  
« Last Edit: February 24, 2012, 02:22:25 PM by Robert Roaldi » Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #44 on: February 24, 2012, 02:53:47 PM »
ReplyReply

People who create modern editions of titles that are out of copyright can get it wherever they want...one place is from the Guttenbertg project, but there is nothing to stop them from rekeying it from a Penguin edition.  On the other hand, these book manufacturers manage to create the illusion of a copyrighted work by creating a new introduction or dedication by some notable related author.  That section is copyrighted, but not the text.  Further, they can copyright the layout, typesetting, cover and frontmatter of the new book.

As for historical negatives, Yes, I think you are right.  Those who hold the negatives will be the only ones able to make good prints, unless of course someone has been foolish enough to release high-quality digital scans of the negs.  Owning the negatives is actually more valuable to posterity and more protective than a copyright ever could be.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5735


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #45 on: February 24, 2012, 03:11:38 PM »
ReplyReply

... As for historical negatives, Yes, I think you are right.  Those who hold the negatives will be the only ones able to make good prints, unless of course someone has been foolish enough to release high-quality digital scans of the negs.  Owning the negatives is actually more valuable to posterity and more protective than a copyright ever could be.

Seriously!? You people never heard of scanners? Or digital cameras?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #46 on: February 24, 2012, 03:18:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Re.ARAT ... At first I thought he was being biblical, but that clearly didn't quite fit.
Another Rock, Another Ruin, Another Tree?
Logged
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 786



WWW
« Reply #47 on: February 24, 2012, 04:32:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting stuff. It is amazing how many ways people can inadvertently get caught up in these issues. I hadn't heard about the issues with corn growers.

Set aside a few bucks and 93 minutes and watch this.

I work the system as it is today to my best advantage. If the rules ever change, we will all be forced to adapt.

What I read here is that you'll gladly use the system which you disagree with. Any chance this year of you being pro-active about what you believe in? Again, I'm not being antagonistic, but it is a nudge. Complacency dooms all dreams.

One of my clients writes up a renewable contract every 10 years. If awarded, I become an "approved" vendor and get a lot of work from them. One of the stipulations, naturally, is a buy-out of all rights. When negotiating this contract last year, I stipulated that any image not selected for final use will have its copyright revert to me. The legal team had no idea that a simple shot of a few people in a corn field was only one selected from many and circled the wagons. I was brought in for a face-to-face. No designers, no art directors, no art buyers, no creative directors were there. Just me and two of their lawyers.

The lawyers wanted all the "data" even though the company only wanted to pay for final selected images. The contract is worth up to $1,000,000 of revenue. What would you do? Would you handle it differently if the copyright laws were different?
Logged

~ CB
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #48 on: February 26, 2012, 09:17:26 PM »
ReplyReply

You are a pretty strong defender of the traditional system of copyright and patent.  Me, not so much. I have repeatedly said that I probably wouldn't support completely abolishing copyright and patent, but I really want to see it radically transformed.
And yet despite repeatedly being asked, you offer no better alternative. It's very easy to criticise, a lot harder to be constructive.

Quote
You have claimed that I have only offered extreme anecdotes to "demonize" intellectual property. You are right that my method of argument has focused on anecdotal evidence because that is all we have.  There are no double-blind scientific studies that can prove or disprove our different points of view. Your arguments, on the other hand, have only been assertions with no backup.  You have claimed that all investment in R&D would cease.  That isn't an unreasonable assertion, but it is without any substantiation--it relies on the opinion of people who have a lot to gain or lose.  Your anecdote of the necklace as you admit doesn't rise to the level of a copyrightable idea or innovation.
My Bold.
Two things
It is not an anecdote, it is a specific example of copyright infringement.
I said you cannot copyright an idea e.g. dinosaur necklace. However the expression of the idea is copyrightable i.e. that specific design and that is what is being infringed in this example.

This is just another demostration of why I say you do not understand copyright. Which is not an ad hominen attack, just an observation because you simply keep posting things like this showing you are not fully aware what copyright actually is.
Also to be specific, I said expensive R+D would cease and it definitely would as if you cannot pay for it then it won't be done, outside of Government research or very rich philanthropists of which there won't be so many if patents and copyright are gotten rid of.  Tongue

Quote
It is very hard for either of us to prove whether intellectual property is good or bad because in the modern era, we have never really had an environment without intellectual property law to compare.  What we can look at are examples of disruptive innovations that have spawned rapid development and growth--without intellectual property dragging it down. For example, we can look at the dot com period of the late 1990s. There was a massive increase in innovation growth and investment.  Amazon wasn't able to patent online shopping because 500 people invented it at the same time, enabled by new, unpatented technologies that weren't present 1 year before.
Again, you've got your facts completely wrong. Amazon applied for a patent for 'One Click Shopping' and not  online shopping and was successful in doing so. I'd also be curious to know about these unpatented technologies that suddenly allowed online shopping.
BTW - I should point out that Amazon's idiotic applications for patents and all the other daft ideas that companies try to patent is very much not something I support. My suggestion is that you tackle the abuses of the system, not remove the system and replace it with nothing.

Quote
I would suggest that it could be really possible that weakening patent and copyright could have the unexpected effect of actually stimulating MORE innovation instead of less. The innovation may not like like the grand multi billion dollar develpoment projects that pharmaceuticals require, but they may be just as transformative, like the internet.
The internet was tranformative with our current laws, so you are very misplaced in thinking it was a patent free zone. And it was driven very much by the desire to make money and do not underestimate how expensive it can be to develop software. Even something as 'simple' as Angry Birds cost more than 100, 000 and the company did more than 60 prior attempts at a money spinner..
It should also be pointed out a lot of 'internet innovation' is not even subject to patenting in the same way that books are not subject to patenting, as content and presentation is the main thing. Though devices that produce books or allow the internet to work are usually patentable.

Quote
Fundamentally the creative impulse is NOT dictated by the desire for wealth....
True for some people, but not for others and not actually relevant. Personally, I'm not motivated by money, but a lack of money can seriously limit your creativity. Hard to take photos without a camera, process them without a computer or pay for film and developing.
Quote
....The human spirit is creative and inventive.  Look at the millions of people contributing to youtube...granted 99 percent of it sucks, but frequently there is some great stuff put up that is innovative, creative or beautiful.  ...and it is given for free.
This is a very naive and again not really relevant argument. Most of YouTube's content cost virtually nothing to make and is mostly done by people who have other income to be able to afford the limited gear you need to post on YT, besides you can make a lot of money from YouTube if you have a hit or if you get work as a result. And is exactly why a great deal of YT content is produced.


Quote
Now JJJ, I must say this is a very interesting topic to me, but I am not a big fan of your style of argument.   Your tone isn't pleasant to me.  For example "You simply have no idea about copyright..." and "...suggest a stupid one and I'll call it stupid." Those are ad hominem attacks and they do nothing to advance your argument except trying to bully your debate partner.  I am interested in continuing to discuss the merits of intellectual property rights, but we should stick to the topic.
It you do not want me to say you do not know anything about copyright, stop posting stuff that demonstrates exactly that or use examples that are simply made up. Also bear in mind that things may sound much harsher when typed than if said in person. I actually find these debates fun and stimulating.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2012, 09:20:53 PM by jjj » Logged

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

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #49 on: February 26, 2012, 09:32:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Entire legal teams exist only to pursue patent infringement. The latest example is in the crop fields of the USA where Monsanto sues farmers who inadvertently grow a few feet of Roundup Ready Soybean because a few seeds found their way onto the "infringing" farmer's land. Their actions are protected (and prompted) by our patent laws. (A dirt road typically separates one farmer's land from another).

BTW, Monsanto lawyers have shut down the majority of seed harvesters because kernels of their hybrids were found in the harvester's combines. This has effectively shut down the ability for farmers to grow heirloom food plants, drastically reducing the number of food varieties available to the consumer. These actions, too, are protected and prompted by our patent laws. A worst-case scenario from these actions would be entire crops wiped out (i.e., billions of acres) by a chemical-resistant strain of bug, weed or virus causing a massive, world-wide food shortage.
This is simply an example of corporate money using lawyers and deep pockets to crush smaller and far less rich opposition. And the case in many countries would probably be chucked out of court as it is absurd. I hate Monsanto for many reasons, this is just one of them.

Quote
We have never lived in an economy or society with very short copyright and patent terms. Only speculation can be made as to what would occur.
Not true We do so currently. Drugs have relatively short patent lives, currently 12 years [in USA]. So companies hope to make their money back before patent expires.
 
Quote
I speculate that innovation would occur at a logarithmic rate of increase. Some claim that innovation would cease. The classic example being that it wouldn't be economically viable to produce, say, a cancer cure. I speculate that if Company X declined to produce such a drug, then Company Y, Z or Ω would step in to provide the product.
So if company X decided it would lose money if it proceeded, then do you really think other companies would step in to lose money instead. That is not how businesses work.

Logged

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

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #50 on: February 26, 2012, 09:53:21 PM »
ReplyReply

As for putting copyright on my website...good observation, by the way...even though I have copyright, I am not fiercely proprietary about the low resolution images.  I make a small amount on large prints of very high resolution images.  The capture, processing, and print is my performance.  It is difficult for someone to steal THAT from me unless I foolishly posted my 60 MP images online.
One could simply buy a print and copy it. Job done.

 
Quote
You can call my behavior hypocritical or you can call it flexible.  If one of my photos becomes famous for some bizarre reason,  I potentially have a lot to gain by copyrighting my work, just as many of the other talented LuLA photographers do. I work the system as it is today to my best advantage. If the rules ever change, we will all be forced to adapt.
You do not have to do anything to copyright your work. It is covered as soon as you create it. You are not working the system at all, you are simply selling photos that as of yet, you do not know if they have been used to line other's pockets.
If you found someone else selling your photos, what would you do?

Quote
When people are faced with the use of something they feel they own or created (see Everything is a Remix Part IV), they can get pretty emotional--even though the emotion isn't really based in any truly moral issue, but instead based on a perceived entitlement. 
Funny that you think people perceive that they should be paid for work that they have done is not a moral issue. Shoplifting reduces profitability of a shop, maybe even closing it, taking people's copy written work could far more easily destroy their livelihood.
I think you entirely missed the point made about theft in that video. The author said people get very upset when it is their work is stolen, but often don't see any problem with stealing other's work. Which he pointed out was hypocritical.

If you think your business of selling prints is safe, don't. People can make reproductions of prints or copy your photos off the web and display them on their photo frames or TV instead of buying a print.
It's also interesting that you promote a reduction in copyright whilst you think your business would not be affected.
Logged

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

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #51 on: February 26, 2012, 09:54:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Seriously!? You people never heard of scanners? Or digital cameras?
Apparently not.
Logged

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

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #52 on: February 26, 2012, 10:05:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Set aside a few bucks and 93 minutes and watch this.
Not getting link to anything!
Is is the rather excellent Food Inc by any chance?


Quote
......The lawyers wanted all the "data" even though the company only wanted to pay for final selected images. The contract is worth up to $1,000,000 of revenue. What would you do? Would you handle it differently if the copyright laws were different?
That sounds normal for corporate work, you get paid well enough not to need to resell images and often they are not really that useful to anyone else.
As long as you can use them for portfolio work, most photographers would be quite happy with that. Particularly if paid that much.  Grin
However, when magazines that pay rubbish rates try and claim your copyright as has happened in the UK, then photographers get pissed off.
Logged

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

Posts: 786



WWW
« Reply #53 on: February 27, 2012, 09:16:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Is is the rather excellent Food Inc by any chance?

Yes.

That sounds normal for corporate work, you get paid well enough not to need to resell images and often they are not really that useful to anyone else.

You didn't answer the questions, but I'm guessing you'd be okay with the contract as offered.

Quote
You do not have to do anything to copyright your work.

To pursue someone in court, the work needs to be registered with the Library of Congress Copyrights Office before the date of first infringement. Therefore, an artist must register the work to protect himself even from possible future infringements.

Quote
Not true We do so currently. Drugs have relatively short patent lives, currently 12 years

Maybe for you 12 years is short (you must be 120 years old, eh?). To me, a span of time that would allow for profit making and innovation -- within the walls of the cathedral -- would be 5 years (otherwise known as a 2-version update cycle). The principle behind such short times is the freeing of information that provides for a logarithmic increase in innovation.

Where innovation stops completely is in the software industry. What would the world of retouching be like if Adobe released its source code 10 years ago? (To some, this is blasphemy).

Your posts, puttputt, are indicative of a corporate lawyer protecting his company at any cost. Is this your day job? I'm not reading any innovative ideas put forth by you, just a lot of huffing & puffing that you're satisfied with the way things are. If you've got some brave ideas, let's hear them. We promise that we'll butcher them. That seems to be the modus operandi here.

Quote
So if company X decided it would lose money if it proceeded, then do you really think other companies would step in to lose money instead. That is not how businesses work.

It's not how bloated businesses work. Your assumption -- all companies need decades to innovate and billions in profit -- is false.
Logged

~ CB
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #54 on: February 27, 2012, 09:52:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Wow, it's hard to be a moderate in this world.  Chris_Brown has me from one side as not having strong enough convictions.  and JJJ gets me from the other as being "naive."

Chris,  to answer your question about how I should pursue something like this with more conviction.  Simply put, I try not to be self righteous about everything I believe.  When true injustice faces the world in the form of starvation, human trafficking, war, suppression of free speech, or poverty, it is hard to see a debate about intellectual property as something worthy of self-righteousness.  It is the tendency for hyperbole in all debates that creates the toxic political environment we have today and makes compromise and progress impossible.  Few are likely to starve due to the lengthening or shortening of copyright. I will advocate and politely pursue my point of view, but I am not taking to the streets for THIS issue.


And now onto JJJ's littany:

Quote
I'd also be curious to know about these unpatented technologies that suddenly allowed online shopping.
I specifically mentioned one: Apache server. Do you want some others? TCP/IP, PHP, or Perl.  Though I disagree, you said that software doesn't count (I think you said that somewhere above).  If I recall correctly, you diminished open initiatives as unimportant because they are software and all of these had some large manufacturer backing as a loss leader.  I don't think that is true of these technologies. As for one-click shopping, we agree that this is another absurd example of a dumb patent. 

As for digital copies of my work, you said...
Quote
One could simply buy a print and copy it. Job done.
It is impossible to create a second generation copy of a print that equals the first generation.  Each subsequent digital rendering loses data and diminishes quality.  With all the very sophisticated printing and imaging discussions here at LuLa, I would have thought that everyone would understand that a copy of a print would always lose quality in each subsequent version.  My product is the highest quality print, not a low-res knockoff. The type of customer that I seek (and many of us here) values the highest quality. If you are referring to stock photography, yes fine.  But for fine art prints, copies will not be good enough.

Quote
It you do not want me to say you do not know anything about copyright, stop posting stuff that demonstrates exactly that or use examples that are simply made up.
Could you please tell me what examples I have sited that are made up?

Quote
And yet despite repeatedly being asked, you offer no better alternative. It's very easy to criticise, a lot harder to be constructive.
What you don't see is that I AM being constructive.  I have mentioned several times that by lowering barriers to copyright and patent, you would stimulate more disruptive technologies.  You would also reduce the wasteful impact of all these bad patents and patent wars.  This would increase efficiency of our economies so we could focus on actually inventing and building things instead of arguing about them and paying lawyers more money. This IS being constructive, though you don't see the wisdom in it.

Actually, it really appears that you are the one lacking in ideas.  You have offered very little outside of 'reforming' intellectual copyright laws, but you haven't given any sort of idea what that might entail.  How would you prevent patents on "on click shopping" from tyrannizing the market of ideas?

Quote from: jjj
Quote from: fike
Fundamentally the creative impulse is NOT dictated by the desire for wealth....
Quote from: jjj
True for some people, but not for others and not actually relevant.
Quote from: jjj
Personally, I'm not motivated by money, but a lack of money can seriously limit your creativity. Hard to take photos without a camera, process them without a computer or pay for film and developing.
Quote from: fike
....The human spirit is creative and inventive.  Look at the millions of people contributing to youtube...granted 99 percent of it sucks, but frequently there is some great stuff put up that is innovative, creative or beautiful.  ...and it is given for free.

Quote from: jjj
This is a very naive and again not really relevant argument. Most of YouTube's content cost virtually nothing to make and is mostly done by people who have other income to be able to afford the limited gear you need to post on YT, besides you can make a lot of money from YouTube if you have a hit or if you get work as a result. And is exactly why a great deal of YT content is produced.

You like to call people naive. That is almost the definition of a demeaning word choice...now on to the substance of your comment.  Well, actually, you didn't say much true here. Science has repeatedly proven that humans don't increase creative and analytical performance based on financial incentives.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

...and if you need me to draw a picture for you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

You say this isn't relevant, but it is.  The purpose of copyright and patent is to motivate people to create and innovate.  Increasing monetary profit doesn't increase performance and won't increase innovation in our society. 

Quote
I actually find these debates fun and stimulating.
Another point on which we can agree.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 786



WWW
« Reply #55 on: February 27, 2012, 10:40:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Chris_Brown has me from one side as not having strong enough convictions.  and JJJ gets me from the other as being "naive."

We share a cubical.   Cheesy

When true injustice faces the world in the form of starvation, human trafficking, war, suppression of free speech, or poverty, it is hard to see a debate about intellectual property as something worthy of self-righteousness.

Agreed. It's not worthy of self-righteousness (did I imply that?), but it is worthy of discussion and negotiation in our day-to-day lives. Anything you believe in is worthy of discussion. I don't expect to change your mind, or puttputt's, but I do expect critical thinking from those I work with and negotiate with. It is in these daily negotiations and experiences that one's private opinion is formed, and thus the public opinion.

We here are more informed about copyrights than any talking head on cable news blathering for a paycheck. It is here and in professional associations (ASMP, APA) where intelligent discussion takes place. It is in our workplace where true changes occur.

Like it or not, you are on the front line.
Logged

~ CB
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #56 on: February 27, 2012, 02:37:33 PM »
ReplyReply

We here are more informed about copyrights than any talking head on cable news blathering for a paycheck. It is here and in professional associations (ASMP, APA) where intelligent discussion takes place. It is in our workplace where true changes occur.

Like it or not, you are on the front line.


Exactly! And that's why I find it so odd that there are souls here who think protecting the little we have left is somehow flawed, an anchor chain on progress.

Stock had once been fondly imagined as being the greater part of my pension; what a cute idea that turned out to be! I'd probably have been far better off spending the time and money getting drunk.

Rob C
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #57 on: February 27, 2012, 07:51:33 PM »
ReplyReply

To pursue someone in court, the work needs to be registered with the Library of Congress Copyrights Office before the date of first infringement. Therefore, an artist must register the work to protect himself even from possible future infringements.
Not true at all. Remember most people do not live in the US and what the US copyright registration means is that you get a bigger payout in a US court.

Quote
Maybe for you 12 years is short (you must be 120 years old, eh?).
Hardly, but 12 years is short compared to lifetime + 70 years that copyright has.

Quote
To me, a span of time that would allow for profit making and innovation -- within the walls of the cathedral -- would be 5 years (otherwise known as a 2-version update cycle). The principle behind such short times is the freeing of information that provides for a logarithmic increase in innovation.
Yet other companies may need longer time periods to recoup costs and make money. Plus you need to make a decent amount to further future research.


Quote
Where innovation stops completely is in the software industry. What would the world of retouching be like if Adobe released its source code 10 years ago? (To some, this is blasphemy).
Yeah, there's been no innovation at all in software in last 15 -20 years, if only anybody could use other's work....

Quote
Your posts, puttputt, are indicative of a corporate lawyer protecting his company at any cost. Is this your day job?
My day job is photography which would take no effort for you to discover. And I feel part of my job is to be knowledgable about my industry including tedious legal crap. And do you really think mangling my business name helps you win an argument?

Quote
I'm not reading any innovative ideas put forth by you, just a lot of huffing & puffing that you're satisfied with the way things are. If you've got some brave ideas, let's hear them. We promise that we'll butcher them. That seems to be the modus operandi here.
Actually the onus on suggesting new ideas is on those who want things changing. I do think copyright and patents are fundamentally a good thing but that doesn't mean I approve of patent trolling and copyright daftness. The issue is not in fact the system, it's the people abusing the system and whatever the system people will abuse it. This you would have known if you'd read my previous posts. Clamp down on abuse of patents and such like is a far more sensible and practical approach in my view.


Quote
Quote
So if company X decided it would lose money if it proceeded, then do you really think other companies would step in to lose money instead. That is not how businesses work.
It's not how bloated businesses work. Your assumption -- all companies need decades to innovate and billions in profit -- is false.
Again try actually reading the words in my post, preferably in the order they were written before replying. All I said was that business want to make a profit. I gave no timeline nor did I state any amount of money. No business will pursue a modus operandi unless it is thought to result in making money. That is the only reason they exist.
Logged

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

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #58 on: February 27, 2012, 09:58:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Wow, it's hard to be a moderate in this world.  Chris_Brown has me from one side as not having strong enough convictions.  and JJJ gets me from the other as being "naive."
Er you are not being moderate. Your ideas are to my mind a tad extreme.

Quote
Chris,  to answer your question about how I should pursue something like this with more conviction.  Simply put, I try not to be self righteous about everything I believe.  When true injustice faces the world in the form of starvation, human trafficking, war, suppression of free speech, or poverty, it is hard to see a debate about intellectual property as something worthy of self-righteousness.  It is the tendency for hyperbole in all debates that creates the toxic political environment we have today and makes compromise and progress impossible.  Few are likely to starve due to the lengthening or shortening of copyright. I will advocate and politely pursue my point of view, but I am not taking to the streets for THIS issue.
And this particular quote is ironically,a perfect example of hyperbole.
In case you hadn't noticed, caring about one particular subject does not stop you caring about other aspects of life which may be less or more important. And as it happens, if you do not earn money from one's work, putting food on your table gets a bit tricky. Local supermarkets do not accept bylines in exchange for groceries.  Sad


Quote
And now onto JJJ's littany:
I specifically mentioned one: Apache server. Do you want some others? TCP/IP, PHP, or Perl.  Though I disagree, you said that software doesn't count (I think you said that somewhere above).
What I said was you cannot patent software like you can gadgets. Software is usually protected by copyright.
"Within European Union member states, the EPO and other national patent offices have issued many patents for inventions involving software since the European Patent Convention (EPC) came into force in the late 1970s. Article 52 EPC excludes "programs for computers" from patentability (Art. 52(2)) to the extent that a patent application relates to a computer program "as such" (Art. 52(3))." Though some companies have tried and succeeded to finagle patents for software.

Quote
If I recall correctly, you diminished open initiatives as unimportant because they are software and all of these had some large manufacturer backing as a loss leader.  I don't think that is true of these technologies.
Not really what I said. So was no-one involved in creating these open source initiatives, not employed by anyone else. As it's easy to do free work if you are being subsidised by a day job. Now if you dismiss patents and copyright a lot of people in work, suddenly won't be.

Quote
As for one-click shopping, we agree that this is another absurd example of a dumb patent.  
Actually do you know what would solve a lot of problems with copyright and patents? Ignore the crazy American legal system which allows these abuses to take place. It's far less of an issue in rest of the world, just as suing Raleigh, a bike company for an accident caused by the rider cycling a night without lights  or MacDonalds getting done by someone who spilt a hot coffee over themselves whilst driving. Here in the UK, the driver would simply get done for careless driving and the cyclist told off for riding withoutl ights.

Quote
As for digital copies of my work, you said...It is impossible to create a second generation copy of a print that equals the first generation.  Each subsequent digital rendering loses data and diminishes quality.  With all the very sophisticated printing and imaging discussions here at LuLa, I would have thought that everyone would understand that a copy of a print would always lose quality in each subsequent version.  My product is the highest quality print, not a low-res knockoff.

You really think a high quality copy cannot  be made of your prints? Of course it can. Technology is quite clever now.  Tongue

Quote
The type of customer that I seek (and many of us here) values the highest quality. If you are referring to stock photography, yes fine.  But for fine art prints, copies will not be good enough.
Lots of people have spent a lot of money on fake works of art. And no I was not referring to stock imagery - which actually demands pretty high levels of quality. And the beauty [and drawback for some] of digital, is that copying does not degrade information, unlike analogue data recordings.


Quote
Could you please tell me what examples I have sited that are made up?
"Amazon wasn't able to patent online shopping because 500 people invented it at the same time," was one of several inaccurate statements.

Quote
What you don't see is that I AM being constructive.  I have mentioned several times that by lowering barriers to copyright and patent, you would stimulate more disruptive technologies.  You would also reduce the wasteful impact of all these bad patents and patent wars.  This would increase efficiency of our economies so we could focus on actually inventing and building things instead of arguing about them and paying lawyers more money. This IS being constructive, though you don't see the wisdom in it.
Abolishing Copyright/patents is not constructive, it is destructive. Tell you what I will abolish all those pesky laws that impede my business progress and stop paying all those lawyers money. Robbing banks, of course I should be allowed to do that as then I can afford to buy a camera then, because with no copyright, I won't earn very much money from photography itself. Other laws that annoy me and impede my progress as a business are things like custom's tax. Why can't I simply buy things from abroad with out paying import duty, after all if everyone could do that people would shop more and stimulate the economy. Except it wouldn't as loads of other people would lose money locally and would make my countrie's economy suffer really badly. Technology has been continually disruptive over last few years even with patents in place. So much so, that it's a full time job keeping up and you think it should be even faster! Not to mention the big flaw in your plan that even a short 5 year patent would be irrelevant when things change annually or faster.
Another thing to bear in mind is that patents/copyright was brought is as no copyright/patents didn't work/was unfair.


Quote
Actually, it really appears that you are the one lacking in ideas.  You have offered very little outside of 'reforming' intellectual copyright laws, but you haven't given any sort of idea what that might entail.  How would you prevent patents on "on click shopping" from tyrannizing the market of ideas?
Copyright and patents are a good idea in principle. So why do I have to suggest a better solution as I already approve in principle of this system despite its flaws. The US allowing just about anything to be patented is the real issue.
 

Quote
You like to call people naive.
Only naive people.  Tongue

Quote
That is almost the definition of a demeaning word choice...now on to the substance of your comment.  Well, actually, you didn't say much true here. Science has repeatedly proven that humans don't increase creative and analytical performance based on financial incentives.
And I'd also be the first one to argue that financial rewards are not key to improving productivity or whatever. But unless money is made overall, businesses will fail. Which is the important issue here, not individuals motivation within a business. I am not primarily motivated by money, but am very aware that if I do not make make money I don't get to be creative or get to feed myself. Copyright allows people to be creative as they benefit from the fruits of their labour. Copyright is simply a wage for work done. We live in a world where money is needed and until that changes.......
Not really sure how to respond to rest of this point as the English doesn't much sense make.  Wink

As for the  Dan Pink talk you referenced. On the whole I'm very much in accord with motivation as described in this talk, but do not think it relevant to copyright protection. As removing copyright/patent protection is more akin to stopping people's entire wages and not their bonuses.
As it happened I solved the candle issue in about two seconds and the reason why offering money slowed people down when solving this problem is that it then put a stress on people to perform, as opposed to just letting them do things in their own time. Which is what the control group did. The erroneous and simplistic conclusion stated by Dan Pink in the early part of his talk is that money was the problem, whereas money was just the symbol of the pressure. Money could be replaced by a variety of other stress risers and you'd get the same results.
Seth Godin wrote an interesting article on motivation a while back and spoke about very similar things.

Quote
You say this isn't relevant, but it is.  The purpose of copyright and patent is to motivate people to create and innovate.  Increasing monetary profit doesn't increase performance and won't increase innovation in our society.
The purpose was for those who do create to be able to benefit from their work and to prevent others taking advantage of them.  People do object to themselves being exploited. I'm not money motivated, but I'm buggered if someone else is going to profit out of my labour with recompensing me. People do not feel exploited when adding to wikipedia, but if Wikipedia stated charging money and made billionaires out of their business, then people would be far less inclined to help.
My girlfriend's uncle is typical of those who do photography as a hobby and are not bothered about getting paid for it and as a result is thoroughly exploited by some businesses who now do not have to pay a pro to do it for them. Yet he can only do this as he had a well paid job already.  Now if the photographers offered to do his job for nothing as it was fun, he'd be out of a job and would have to charge for his photography and he'd be really pissed off.


 
« Last Edit: February 27, 2012, 10:21:59 PM by jjj » Logged

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

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #59 on: February 27, 2012, 10:23:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Stock had once been fondly imagined as being the greater part of my pension; what a cute idea that turned out to be! I'd probably have been far better off spending the time and money getting drunk.
Or buying Apple stock in 1997!
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad