Copyheart: Encouraging People To Copy
from the copying-is-an-act-of-love dept
Occasional Techdirt contributor Nina Paley, who has pointed out some problems with Creative Commons in the past, is pushing an interesting solution: the Copyheart. It’s not a huge license or anything like Creative Commons, but just a basic suggestion: where you might normally put a © symbol, instead put a ♥ — and perhaps an explanation. As she notes:
Instead of
© Copyright 2010 by Author/Artist. All Rights Reserved.
you could write
♥ 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of love. Please copy.
Who knows if it catches on, but it’s a cool idea. Though… my only complaint is that she’s using a non-HTML standard heart character — so I’ve created a derivative version. While she uses a heart character, in this post I’m just using the HTML version, which is typed out as “♥” and will thus be more compatible with HTML documents and various browsers.
Filed Under: copyheart, copyright, nina paley
Comments on “Copyheart: Encouraging People To Copy”
Funny...
You could call it “Copylove”. 🙂
I also like the UPS advertisement that came with the article. It has plenty of hearts too. 🙂 Don’t have much use for UPS, though, but the ad arrived with the proper article.
Re: Funny...
I’d call it “Culture,” but I love what she’s doing here.
How do you type it out?
How do you type it out? Even if I view source all I see is a heart in quotes.
Re: How do you type it out?
Press Alt+3 on your number pad. ♥♥♥ Not sure how to do it without a number pad though.
Here’s a list of all the character Codes. Just hit Alt+ the corresponding numbers on the number pad.
Re: How do you type it out?
I guess this just means you don’t have a heart.
♥♥♥
Re: How do you type it out?
In HTML:
♥
That’s ampersand-“hearts”-semicolon
Re: How do you type it out?
That’s odd. We probably aren’t using the same software, but I would think you would see it as text, exactly as it is created for a webpage and sent over the Internet into your computer.
& h e a r t s ; (but without spaces)
How about something less hippy. An asterisk implies ‘everything goes.’
Re: Re:
Yeah, the heart is kind of gay. The asterisk is used too often for footnotes already though. How about (U+00A9U+0337) ?̷ instead?
Type that out as “ampersand h e a r t s ;” which looks like “♥” in HTML or ♥ in the browser.
Oops
Your ♥ shows up as an actual heart. And weird things are happening when I preview this comment. I think we’ve discovered a minor bug in your CMS.
Re: Oops
Your ♥ shows up as an actual heart. And weird things are happening when I preview this comment. I think we’ve discovered a minor bug in your CMS.
Hmmmmm. Weird. We’ll check it out. That is odd. It worked fine in preview for the post…
Re: Re: Oops
It works fine in preview, but then the text is updated to include the character, not the html-entity notation. I found that out when the “♥” previewed as “♥” and submitted as “♥”.
nice idea, but too cutsie.
Next from the **AA Copyclub
♣ 2010 by Author/Artist. Copying is an act of violence. Please don’t copy.
No, thank you.
I love Nina’s attempts at making things different, but this is just another confusing attempt at circumventing copyright issues. An artist can give their stuff away for free all they want but copyright law will always provide them with legal recourse.
Nice idea but worthless. Fix the law.
Even a change in the registration process to allow for distribution into the Public Domain is better than nothing.
Here’s what the notice should really look like:
? 2010 Author/Artist. No Rights Reserved. Copyrights Will Not Be Legally Enforced Under Any Circumstance. Please Copy.
It may help, but it still doesn’t remove the legal recourse option.
That’s the problem. Isn’t about time it gets fixed rather than another circumvention attempt?
Re: No, thank you.
Well, I don’t think it’s meant as a legal license, but more as a way to bring attention to the importance of sharing and that it is as an act that is rewarding to all parties involved – just like the Poetic License (a very nice interpretation of the BSD license) is not meant to be used as a legal tool.
Re: No, thank you.
From copyheart.org:
Re: Re: No, thank you.
Nice sentiments, but I agree with Miles… the primary issue remains that anyone who DOES copy such a marked document will always still be under the threat of copyright infringement lawsuit. It does not solve a problem at all. It may be useful to bring attention to the problem, but anyone creating content and marking it such is not really doing anyone any favors.
The law doesn’t belong involved with freely distributed works… but it has its hands in there already, so pretending it doesn’t is useless.
Re: Re: Re: No, thank you.
If you put that on anything you are giving permission to others to copy and share, that is written permission, it may not look serious but that can be argued in court.
Re: Re: Re:2 No, thank you.
Exactly.
It’s either a license or, possibly, abandonment of copyright.
Re: Re: Re:2 No, thank you.
“If you put that on anything you are giving permission to others to copy and share, that is written permission, it may not look serious but that can be argued in court.”
Firstly: this is NOT true! Copyright is applied by law and works no longer require registration to be covered (unless to sue for infringement damages).
Secondly: note the last two words of your own statement. That’s where the problem lies. Unless you have a written contract, in hand, web text doesn’t give a free and clear use of copyright works.
This is why I have a problem with Nina’s approach to the issue. I’m not sure where this “love” campaign comes from, but it’s completely ridiculous and, quite frankly, insulting to those of us who have spent countless hours and dollars trying to fight the issue on the government front.
I wish life was as cheery as “love… free… no STDs!”, but that’s not the world we live in.
Love is now a copyright protected IP because people have great ideas on who they love.
Just wait until some corporation patents the chemical configuration which creates those loving feelings.
Then we’ll all really pay.
Re: Re: Re:3 No, thank you.
Copyright may be “applied by law,” whatever that is intended to mean, but it is absolutely true that if the copyright owner gives you written permission to copy, then any lawsuit is going nowhere (and could be sanctionable). That would include somelike like a creative commons license notice or the “copyheart.”
Relying on the “copyheart” could be problematic since it’s not entirely clear what it means, but it would likely be legally enforceable to the same extent just about any license would be.
Re: Re: Re:4 No, thank you.
it is absolutely true that if the copyright owner gives you written permission to copy, then any lawsuit is going nowhere
You are definitely overstating the matter. Copyright law is so ridiculously intricate that there is ALWAYS something to squabble over, even in extremely thorough contracts. One of the first things that becomes apparent about U.S. copyright law is that nothing is “absolutely true”
Re: Re: Re:5 No, thank you.
Ok, you’re right that you can alway find something to squabble over. As I stated above, the scope of what “copyheart” actually means is not clear.
But my point is that something saying “please copy me” is no less legally significant than a 40 page contract.
Re: Re: Re:6 No, thank you.
Actually, it is. The words “please copy me” are essentially meaningless. They could have been added by a hacker. They could have been added by a disgruntled employee, web host, or any number of other people who might have access to the works. Heck, someone else could copy it, change a copyright notice to a copy me notice, and away you go.
The “40 page contract” (or a single page) notarized or otherwise appropriately witnessed as per the law would certainly have way more sway than a heart on a bottom of an electronic document.
Re: Re: Re:7 No, thank you.
Well if the original creator tried to say he was hacked he would have to prove it in court otherwise the opposing counsel would have a field day with him.
You know host services have logs, even self hosting must have logs and if they don’t show invasion he probably be in a world of trouble.
Those words are only meaningless if they didn’t come from the copyright holder because if it did and somebody can prove it, any legal action from the copyright party owner will end bad.
Re: Re: Re:7 No, thank you.
A 40-page contract can be signed by someone without authorization. It could be signed by someone who thinks they own the copyright, but actually doesn’t. A GPL notice can be added by someone who doesn’t own the copyright.
I’m not sure what you mean by “appropriately witnesses as per the law.”
My point is that if the copyright owner puts that language out there, it is likely going to be just as binding as something more “formal.”
Re: Re: Re:8 No, thank you.
If the state of copyright is unclear, as you admit it is with the copyheart, then no publisher is going to touch your work. It’s that simple.
So while a brief line saying “please copy” might *technically* be as binding as a more detailed contract, it is effectively meaningless, because nobody who actually cares about the copyright status of a work for financial/business reasons will consider that permission adequate.
Re: Re: Re:3 No, thank you.
“Firstly: this is NOT true! Copyright is applied by law and works no longer require registration to be covered (unless to sue for infringement damages).”
And because of copyright everyone needs permission from the holder of the copyright, since it is saying right there
That would probably be accepted in any court of law as written permission from the copyright holder.
Courts have accepted oral and written permissions, you just need to prove it that he said or wrote that, that is the hard part, the permission part is straight forward, if you got anything resembling a grant of permission it will be very difficult to claim otherwise later on, judges don’t look kindly to that kind of thing.
But don’t trust me go read common law cases to see the history of “permissions” not only in copyright, but patents, real state and any other thing that needs permission.
Re: Re: Re:3 No, thank you.
Oh well I think I see where I went wrong.
“If you put that on anything you produced and own the copyright you are giving permission to others to copy and share, that is written permission, it may not look serious but that can be argued in court.”
Sorry my bad LoL
Re: Re: Re:2 No, thank you.
Miles is right. If an implied license can be argued in court, no major publisher in any medium will touch it with a ten-foot pole. The last thing they want is it becoming the year’s big hit, earning a few million dollars, and THEN attracting a bunch of people who emerge from the woodwork claiming copyright.
Re: Re: Re:3 No, thank you.
Now that is not true, major players try all the time to claim copyrights on things they don’t own that are in the public domain.
And permission is different from license, if you write down in a piece of paper by hand “I grant you permission to copy and share this work of mine” it is valid in court and enforceable.
There is nothing “implied” it is written right there “Please copy”.
Re: Re: Re:4 No, thank you.
“permission is different from license”
Not really.
Re: Re: Re:4 No, thank you.
“Now that is not true, major players try all the time to claim copyrights on things they don’t own that are in the public domain.”
Yes, when it makes financial sense to do so, such as with something that is already hugely popular like “Happy Birthday”.
But try approaching a publisher with your manuscript, or a record label with your demo, when the copyright status is unclear. They aren’t about to invest in a new product when there is a fear that someone will show up claiming copyright if it succeeds. This is exactly the situation with orphaned works, which are a well-documented problem in copyright law.
Re: Re: No, thank you.
“♡copyheart isn?t a legally binding license is not a bug ? it?s a feature.”
She’s assuming that it’s *not* a legally binding license. I think it probably is, though it’s scope might be up for debate.
Re: No, thank you.
“An artist can give their stuff away for free all they want but copyright law will always provide them with legal recourse.”
that’s not necessarily true.
If you make a clear, public statement that you abandon your copyright, then it is abandoned.
It seems like that *might* be what the copyheart is intended to so, but since it’s not very clear, it might not count.
I mean, does the copyheart mean you can make a derivative work and use it in a commercial for something the artists hates? Not sure.
ALERT!
“so I’ve created a derivative version.”
LAWSUIT! She said COPYING is an act of love. Creating derivatives is an act of WAR!!!!!
Re: ALERT!
Absolutely. And I think that, as Nina Paley has associated herself closely with this idea, she should also sue for infringement of her publicity rights.
Re: ALERT!
This is a legit problem with the idea. Ill-defined licenses/agreements are a recipe for disaster.
Gag me
Awwww….but I think the winking smily would be better. 😉
CC licenses are complicated for a reason
Creative Commons licenses are complicated for the protection of the people relying on them.
Using
Copyheart.org
Please consider reading copyheart.org – it’s a very brief manifesto. To address some of the comments here, I’ll reproduce the text in full (read the original for active links and illustrations):
♡ Copying art is an act of love.
People copy stuff they like. They don?t copy stuff they don?t like. The more a work is copied, the more valuable it becomes. Value isn?t taken away by fans, it is added by them, every time they copy.
♡ Love is not subject to law.
Although we appreciate and use Free Licenses when appropriate, these aren?t solving the problems of copyright restrictions. Instead of trying to educate everyone on the complexities of copyright law, we?d rather make our intentions clear with this simple statement:
♡ Please copy and share.
The ♡Copyheart means we WANT you to copy and share. No restrictions. Just like it says: please copy and share.
Q. Is the ♡Copyheart trademarked?
A. No. It?s just a statement of intention. It?s effectiveness depends only on how people use it, not on state enforcement. Here are are some other symbols that aren?t trademarked, but whose meanings and intentions are widely (if imperfectly) understood:
Q.Is the ♡Copyheart legally binding?
A. Probably not, although you could test it:
1. Mark your work with the ♡Copyheart message.
2. Sue someone for copying it.
3. See what the judge says.
We really don?t think laws and ?imaginary property? have any place in peoples? love or cultural relations. Creating more legally binding licenses and contracts just perpetuates the problem of law ? a.k.a. state force ? intruding where it doesn?t belong. That ♡copyheart isn?t a legally binding license is not a bug ? it?s a feature!
Q. How do I use the ♡?
A. Use it wherever you would use the ?copyright symbol. Instead of
you could write
or any of these variations:
You get the idea. Of course you can do anything you want with the ♡Copyheart symbol, and any other symbol. We don?t own it. No one does.
copyheart.org
Re: Copyheart.org
Hey, you can’t just copy that whole article on here… 😉
Subversive!
This all sounds very unamerican to me. Joe Lieberman will be calling your isp in the morning.
@Miles
“…this is just another confusing attempt at circumventing copyright issues.”
It doesn’t confuse me. Speak for yourself.
In Linux:
CTRL + SHIFT + u + 2764
❤
In Linux:
CTRL + SHIFT + u + 2661 = ♡
CTRL + SHIFT + u + 2665 = ♥
Re: Re:
More accurately… in Gnome.
KDE is having a stupid turf war as to whose responsibility it is to provide this feature 😛
This page
http://home.telepath.com/~hrothgar/alle_psallite.html
with a “please copy me” notice has been up for years.
Re: Re:
….that’s because it’s 800-year-old public domain sheet music. Very different situation.
If you feel so strongly about this then maybe you could work harder to become a billion dollar multi-national coproration so you can lobby the US political class to change the law in your favor.
Re: Re:
Why?
It is much easier to convince other that you are evil and find alternatives that not involve paying you and your pals.
Compose Key
For those platforms that use a compose key, set your locale to a UTF-8 one. Then you can type compose-lessthan-3 to get ♥.
I think it needs a circle around it to look more like the ? symbol. Just the heart on its own doesn?t remind anyone of the association with copyright, or the absence thereof.
I know, let’s create another confusing non-standard standard for open source, copy left, public domain, GPL and such that we can all ignore.
If you want an alternate to copyright, fight to it in law in a manner that authors and creators can select an internationally recognized way to push something in the public domain. You don’t have to have a &heart; to figure that out.
copyheart… that’s cute.
It is what it is, and I love it!
Copyheart does not preclude a publisher from seeking an explicit license from the author before using the work. It doesn’t have to be a solution to everyone’s problem to be useful.
Any time you copy, you accept some level of risk (even with a signed 40-page legal document). How much risk you can tolerate dictates the kind of license you need. Copyheart lowers the risk sufficiently for most people who would like to copy for personal use and sharing with friends.
It is not, as some critics have declared, useless (unless you don’t use it), confusing (unless you are an IP lawyer), or insulting (unless you woke up feeling intellectually snobby this morning).
I♥Copyheart.
Copyheart
Unlike in Creative Commons, Copyleft, the Copyheart is silent about the commercial use of its licence and derivative works. In due course it shall evolve like any other concept of free culture on the Internet or someone may test it out in the courts.