If You Don't Plan To Enforce Your 'Rights,' Why Are You 'Reserving' Them?
from the put-the-weapon-down dept
Automatic Copyright is sort of like issuing everyone a gun. I’ve met many authors and artists who insist their restrictive licenses aren’t anti-fan, because they wouldn’t actually enforce them.
Filed Under: automatic copyright, copyright, enforcement
Comments on “If You Don't Plan To Enforce Your 'Rights,' Why Are You 'Reserving' Them?”
I miss the days when you actually had to do paperwork and send two copies of your work to the Library of Congress to receive copyright protection (and to renew it 27 years later).
Re: Re:
I miss the days when you had to do paperwork and send two copies of your work to the Library of Congress to receive copyright protection (and renew it 14 years later.)
I miss the days that copyright renewal meant it got expensive and expensive to renew things…oh wait that is not copyrights that is just for real important things like patents.
Best Mimi & Eunice ever!
Thank you Nina, usually I don’t care too much for these two, art being subjective and all that but I like this one.
*makes 2 bags of popcorn to watch trolls get all twisted in knots*
Re: Re:
So a Mimi & Eunice hippity hops for you its out of the question then?
http://mimiandeunice.com/2011/08/24/market-research/
Just checking 🙂
Re: Re: Re:
Yes I’ll take a pass on those.
Assume that they're right...
Grant their premise, just for one moment. Assume that if it’s not enforced, that they’re not anti-fan.
Now – how long does copyright last again? Something about “life of the author plus XX years”? What happens when they die – do they guarantee that the license won’t be enforced?
Get Real
As an artist I’m a bit peeved about this. There are so many of us that support the free culture movement and file sharing, me being one of them. To say automatic copyright gives me a gun is spitting in my face. I include on top of the copyright a Creative Commons license meaning everyone can download my music for free and share it, as long as its use is non commercial and attribution is given. If I didn’t have a copyright for my music it would void the CC license meaning whoever the hell wants can make money off my hard work and not even tell people who created it.
Copyright is important, it merely has a changed role in this new era.
And STOP thinking artists are the enemy. The number of DIY musicians like myself who earn nothing from music but happily do it for the love and passion of expression, far outweighs the Rihannas and Metallicas of the world.
The RIAA et. al. and big labels in general are the enemy. Get it straight.
Re: Get Real
Why is the gun example bad? I assume that the author of the article doesn’t like the Second Amendment right which gives all — or almost all adults an automatic right to keep and bear arms.
The implication being that automatic gun rights is eequivalent to automatic copyright is problematic, because copyright unlike
the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment is not a constitutional right.
Re: Re: Get Real
“the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment is not a constitutional right.“
WTF? Yes, yes it is, just like the rest of the bill of rights.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
Re: Re: Re: Get Real
Unfortunate linebreak.
Re: Re: Get Real
Its bad because I dont want all the people pointing to me with their guns when I pass on its sidewalk !! (with no fences on it)
Re: Re: Re: Get Real
Its bad because I dont want all the people pointing to me with their guns when I pass on its sidewalk !! (with no fences on it)
But if they didn’t point guns at you, you might rob them!
Re: Get Real
What would be the problem exactly if somebody else made money?
I don’t see the problem there either, if your art was a pizza and another guy made the same pizza as you and sold it where is the problem?
Until the 80’s people outright stole from each others and made fortunes, people apparently didn’t mind that much at that point only later this crap of “OMG he is making money with something I did it first but wasn’t able to monetize it”
I find that very disturbing. Everybody should rip the fruits from their work even if that work is based on the work of others, if one guy have the trouble to make a copy, package and then go sale it on the streets by himself he should get the money I don’t see the problem with that.
I don’t even care if the big labels make money out of some poor soul that couldn’t finance his way to fame, that was before the internet today the plain field is different money for distribution is no a problem, small or big everybody can compete on the same playing field now.
Re: Get Real
as long as its use is non commercial and attribution is given
So you’re against force except when you’re for it.
Gotcha.
Re: Re: Get Real
So you’re against force except when you’re for it.
Please don’t be mean. Understanding why nc maybe isn’t such a good idea after all takes time. Our friend Angus is fundamentally on our side so don’t knock him.
Personally I see the existence of the various different types of CC licenses as a plus – because it maximises the number of people who will be involved in free culture. Let’s live and let live!
Re: Re: Re: Get Real
Personally I see the existence of the various different types of CC licenses as a plus – because it maximises the number of people who will be involved in free culture.
No, they maximize the number of people involved with Creative Commons. They may be reducing the number of people involved with Free Culture. Creative Commons is not a Free Culture organization, and has no mandate to promote Free Culture. They do, however, offer some Free Culture licenses along with their more popular, more restrictive ones.
Re: Re: Re:2 Get Real
For someone who rails at copyright law in general, it does seem a bit inconsistent to embrace what is nothing more than “copyright lite”. No matter how you slice and dice it, it is still a part of the “permissions culture” that is regularly decried here as limiting “culture” and “promoting the progress”.
Re: Re: Re:3 Get Real
What is really funny is that people found a way using your own laws to make their wishes enforceable.
You don’t change laws showing that they work, you change laws showing how bad they can become and this is likely the most scaring thing that happened to copyright since the end of monopolies by force.
Re: Re: Get Real
I see this all the time in the “share, share, share” movement. Do anything you want as long as you do not try and make any money off my hard work, or don’t gove me credit for what I have done.
Oh yes, I do not enforce copyright (unless you try to make any money, use my name for credit, or use my trademarks).
Last time I looked this was called a “restriction” requiring what the “anti-permission” culture eschews, to wit, requesting permission.
Here I am, a copyright lawyer, who practices photography, and use the following “highly restrictive” language:
“Please feel free to modify and/or use these uploads for any purpose whatsoever (commercial or personal, for-profit or not-for-profit, for print, for web, for “print on demand”, for web templates for sale or distribution, for “whatever”, etc.) You do not need to contact me before or after using an image, though a note is always appreciated if you have the opportunity to do so. Similarly, attribution is nice, but not necessary.”
It seems to me that the author of this article embraces “free culture”, but only up to a point.
Re: Get Real
Nina is entirely correct. Default copyright is corporate welfare. It is the foolish legislators handing out commercially valuable monopoly privileges, at no cost to the recipients, and at substantial cost to the taxpayer. This constitutes mad extravagance with the taxpayer’s money. If the politicians were serious about doing something about the deficit, they would knock out extravagances as a matter of priority.
If somebody wants a monopoly from the government, they should have to pay handsomely for it and conform to bureaucratic requirements. No payment or failing to correctly satisfy the bureaucratic requirements means no monopoly for you, no ifs or buts and no second chances. Once something enters the public domain, it stays there forever. There should be a government-run website where every single one of these monopolies is documented, complete with its expiry date. It should be easy for any member of the public to search the database, then for any given work, be able to find out what is/is not permitted and when the work enters the public domain.
Re: Re: Get Real
Pre-1976, you had to actually apply for copyright and send two copies of the work to the Library of Congress.
There were NO fees involved, outside of postage.
After the first term of 28 years, you had to apply for a renewal. If you didn’t, the material became public domain.
Even with renewal, the material became PD after 56 years, which seems extremely reasonable.
Re: Get Real
“If I didn’t have a copyright for my music it would void the CC license meaning whoever the hell wants can make money off my hard work and not even tell people who created it.”
One doesn’t necessarily need to do away with copyright. Just changing the default to public domain or some liberal CC license and making it possible for creators to *actively* request more protection (eg. only allowing noncommerical use like in your case) and requiring people who receive such protection to state it explicitly when publishing their work would be a big improvement.
Re: Get Real
I think you missed the point. She’s talking about automatic copyright, not all copyright. And I don’t think she’s saying that artists are the enemy. She’s merely pointing out the potential for abuse. In fact, I get the feeling that she’s trying to address a specific argument.
Please stop thinking in absolutes.
Re: Re: Get Real
I think it’s worse than that. Look at what he’s saying.
I include on top of the copyright a Creative Commons license meaning everyone can download my music for free and share it, as long as its use is non commercial and attribution is given. If I didn’t have a copyright for my music it would void the CC license meaning whoever the hell wants can make money off my hard work and not even tell people who created it.
Basically, he doesn’t want to share it with the world. He doesn’t want his music to reach new audiences. He believes that if you ever need to profit off of his work, then that should be stigmatized.
In a way, it’s the same ideas that the RIAA are saying. The only monetary value someone can get out of a digital good, is that which he thinks up. In the past that has actually limited the CC license. If you own a coffeeshop and a local musician puts up a CC-license that says ND, would you bother using him or music that you get cheaper elsewhere?
Sadly enough, by showing us his reasoning, it’s not a spit in his face…
It directly applies to his situation.
I find that the worst problem of copyright in general. People don’t think “How can I gain an audience?”, they instead think “How can I get paid through my govn. monopoly?” in not as many words.
Re: Re: Re: Get Real
Let’s not squabble amongst ourselves – Angus is fundamentally on the right track – the nuances (and to someone coming from the old “all rights reserved” world they ARE nuances) of the different cc licenses take a while to appreciate fully.
Re: Re: Re:2 Get Real
Let’s not squabble amongst ourselves
No, let’s.
Re: Re: Re:3 Get Real
OK – you’ve got me there.. no wait .. how can you say that?!??!
OK I’m confused
Actually I didn’t mean we can’t disagree – even argue – but rather we shouldn’t do so in a way that might become a stumbling block to those just starting…
Re: Re: Re:4 Get Real
Want to know what’s even worse? I look at the site and he hasa a cover for Dragonball GT on one of his songs. Now he’s guarded by the fair use doctrine, but he’s profiting directly off of someone else’s work!
Does he pay anything to Akira Toriyama or Funimation for using that? No. Does the proceeds of the album go to anyone related to Toriyama or benefit them greatly? No. So basically, what I get from this is “You can’t make a profit off my work, but I’m going to make a profit off of someone else’s.”
Sheesh…
Re: Re: Re: Get Real
“Basically, he doesn’t want to share it with the world. He doesn’t want his music to reach new audiences. He believes that if you ever need to profit off of his work, then that should be stigmatized.”
Wrong. If you want to link to his work from your website,facebook, whatever feel free. Just let everybody know who the artist is.
Want to burn his music to a CD and sell them on the street? NO dice.
Re: Re: Re:2 Get Real
Did you see the cafe example? Just because someone makes profit in any way means it’s a commercial franchise means that he’s limiting how far it can reach. With that in mind, I have no interest in seeing his link. Hell, if I were to use his music on Youtube and put an ad for revenue sharing that means I’m liable. I’ll just go to other artists that have more of an open mind.
Re: Get Real
For the record, CC-BY-NC, CC-BY-NC-SA and any license that forbids for profit uses or modifications of the work are not free culture licenses.
You might already know this, but I feel I should say it for those who don’t.
Re: Get Real
Why the fuss Angus? It’s not directed at your case, you’ve left out restrictions that you don’t plan to enforce and kept those that you plan to enforce. So you are not saying, “I am pointing this gun at you, but trust me to not shoot”, you are actually not pointing the gun in the first place in instance where you don’t intend to shoot.
I’ll disagree with some of the other commentators here, if you don’t want to release your work to commercial use for free, that is your choice (even though I also think there are problems with NC). The important thing to me is that you as an artist/musician choose not to criminalize your fans for sharing your work and their love of your work. That’s the most important step for an artist to take, and you took it.
Re: Get Real
I think in this case, the ‘copyright’ in questions is the typical use of ‘all rights reserved’ copyright rather then the entire copyright system which includes CC and ‘all rights reserved’ copyright.
Re: Get Real
As an artist I’m a bit peeved about this.
Oh, so you’re one of *those* artists.
There are so many of us that support the free culture movement and file sharing, me being one of them.
You certainly don’t sound like it.
To say automatic copyright gives me a gun is spitting in my face.
To someone living in a society where the copyright gun is being constantly pointed at *my* head, to say that it isn’t is spitting in *my* face.
If I didn’t have a copyright for my music it would void the CC license meaning whoever the hell wants can make money off my hard work and not even tell people who created it.
That sounds like you’re in it for the money and are one of those people who think that the only way to make money is to keep other people from making money. And I bet that very little of your music is actually completely original. Of course, that’s probably OK for *you*, right?
Copyright is important, it merely has a changed role in this new era.
It’s important to those in the copyright industry, that is. And its role in “this new era” is to create a permission society where you can’t do anything without permission.
And STOP thinking artists are the enemy.
Who said they are? STOP thinking that all artists are part of the copyright industry.
…musicians like myself who earn nothing from music but happily do it for the love and passion of expression…
And the money right? If you really were happily doing it for “the love and passion of expression” then you wouldn’t be going around the copyright gun at people. What a load.
The RIAA et. al. and big labels in general are the enemy.
Copyright is bad, no matter how big or small you are. You don’t get a free pass just because you aren’t on a big label.
Get it straight.
Indeed. And abolish copyright.
Re: Re: Get Real
You seem to be squarely in the anti-copyright camp. While it does appear to me that you are about as anti-copyright as they come, I do have to ask one question. A “gun” notwithstanding, just how many times has copyright been asserted against you personally?
Experience informs me that the answer is likely “never”, but then again there are exceptions. Are you one of the exceptions?
Re: Get Real
I resent the notion those of us who would eliminate copyrights and patents are part of some sort of “free culture movement”. I consider myself “pro-culture” not “pro free-culture”. I’m not trying to promote free culture, I’m trying to promote ALL culture, and the best way to do that is to eliminate the anti-cultural “intellectual property” machinery.
And yes, I make my living as a creative person, from the fruits of my own creative work. Creative people are innovators, and we don’t need the government’s protection in the form of “intellectual property” laws.
yeah, it’s exactly like giving everyone a gun, great analogy. How dare anyone want to copyright something they put their blood sweat & tears into. Everything should be free.
Re: Re:
Do you pay royalties to the chef that put a lot of effort into making your dinner at the restaurant?
If art was food copyright would be the guns Somali pirates use to get all the food and only distribute to those that they like the others starve to death.
Copyright is an exclusion tool like a gun is to enforcement.
Re: Re: Re:
the chef that put a lot of effort into making your dinner at the restaurant
…but hopefully not his blood, sweat & tears 😉
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can say with experience that in a crowded small space, full of open flames and sharp objects the probability of one not putting some sweat and blood in it is rather slim.
Re: Re:
She didn’t say “copyright”. She said “automatic copyright”. There is a non-trivial difference.
Re: Re:
Yes, because those are obviously the only two possible scenarios: expansive copyright laws that grow more expansive with the passage of each piece of copyright legislation or no copyrights are at all and everything is free. Nope, that’s it. Those are the two sides, pick one.
Guns don't kill people...
I know plenty of responsible gun owners (both, um, real guns and following the metaphor). Still, though, maybe “Copyright Safety” lessons should be required to gain the copyright. Too many artists don’t understand it very well, if at all.
CC BY-NA 3.0
My subject says it all.
Re: CC BY-NA 3.0
I think that’s called a herpaderp moment.
Automatic copyright
So many of you seem to be skipping over that word, “automatic”. Automatic copyright gives you a copyright on your every merest utterance, free, with no effort required on your part. And it’s good for 70 years past your death.
Is that really a good thing? Used to be to get a copyright you had to register the work with the copyright office, which tends to separate the trivial from works that actually were worth the cost and effort, and the copyright only lasted for, what, a couple decades? I forget exactly but it wasn’t 70 years past the bloody heat death of the bloody universe.* With today’s laws this message I’m writing is protected so long that probably nobody reading it will live to see it enter the public domain. Why? I certainly don’t value it that much. It’s good for a day or two, then it falls off the edge. The most I can hope for is that somebody finds it insightful enough that it gets an honorable mention this weekend and it lives on for a few extra days. I certainly wouldn’t expend any effort to copyright it. I don’t want it copyrighted. That’s severe overkill, like putting an armed guard around a blade of grass on my lawn.**
That kind of overkill tends to trivialize the value of copyrighting. Everything is copyrighted, no matter how worthless. And making it effortless tends to further devalue it in the eyes of most people. Hey, it’s free, how much can it be worth? Right?
I’m sure there will be plenty of people who miss my point, just as there were many that missed Nina’s point. To those I say: willful ignorance is worse than ordinary ignorance.
Instead of trying to argue why Nina is wrong, please go try to figure out why she may be right. Then even if you still disagree, at least your arguments will make sense.
*That’s called “hyperbole”. It’s exaggeration for effect. (Though in this case the effect is mostly me letting off some anger and frustration without resorting to abuse.) Please don’t take it literally.
**Note: not a car analogy. 🙂
If You Don't Plan To Enforce Your 'Rights,' Why Are You 'Reserving' Them?
Because if you don’t reserve them you have no way of enforcing them.
Great cartoon (as always), Nina! Thanks!
I Don't Plan To Be Famous For At Least One Hundred Years After I Die
What really bites the big booger is when the RIAA, in their infinitesimal wisdom,decides to protect me from myself and forces a song sharing service to remove my work from their website on the grounds that I have an inherent copyright whether I applied for one or not! I know I am an acquired taste. I know that my little songs are the square pegs that will never fit into the round hole of popular contemporary music. (and I beg you to prove me wrong) Finally, I know that my songs are never going to get to go out and play outside my metaphorical backyard unless I turn them loose and set them free. As an educator, I would also be horrified to learn that any teacher was reticent about using one of my little songs to share with his or her students! Children are our future – and they are also our future consumers. If you are stingy with them when they are little, they will remember when they are adults! Fortunately, Soundclick.com has been braver than most song sharing sites and the RIAA has not been able to kick sand in my face on their beach. Michael Daly also allows me to share my sheet music with other teachers and students all over the world on http://www.sheetmusicdigital.com (just look for my picture on the front page and there is an active link below it or click here http://www.sheetmusicdigital.com/charlesconsaul.asp )
So be brave and persevere, fellow sharers of life’s spiritual children. the RIAA can kick sand in our face, talk about us behind our backs, and bully the faint of heart, but we still have a few champions out there. Chivalry is not dead, and it is not entirely subscription based yet. You can also find my little songs on Kiddidles by the way. Nice people, and very good to our future generations!
There’s a reason why automatic copyright exists: no poor sod should be robbed of his work by Big Media. Why is it such a problem that copyright is given by default? If someone wants to put his work in the public domain, CC licenses are just a click away. And it costs nothing. If copyright weren’t automatic, it would only add to the myriad troubles that artists currently face.
Re: Re:
except CC isn’t the public domain, and there’s not always the option of CC.
given an automatic copyright system, anything I write that’s long and uniquely worded enough to be considered original, for instance this post, is automatically granted copyright and cannot be used without my permission. maybe one day I decide to write a short poem in a post, for instance, to get my point across. Techdirt doesn’t offer offer me an option to apply a CC license when I post, though, so I am automatically granted the default copyright protection when I post it, whether I want it or not. obviously the solution would be to write in my post that people can use it, blah, blah, but I’d rather have people who want copyrights for their works have to actively get them than for everything to just be protected under copyright law.
there are already enough bogus lawsuits without people suing each other over who came up with an idea first and neither having any way to prove it because there’s no record of them filing for copyright, since they didn’t have to, they were granted it automatically.
if people don’t want to be “robbed of [their] work by Big Media” then they should apply for copyright before releasing it. that’s their personal responsibility as the creator of the work. if they’re too stupid to do that and they put their executed work out unprotected then they have to deal with the consequences when someone else makes money off the same execution.
I Don't Plan To Be Famous For At Least One Hundred Years After I Die
Please Charles, explain how this happens. Did you sign a contract with a record company? Did you sell your rights to someone? Or are you just randomly whining because you have no success in music?
Re:
Actually this is a bad analogy. A better one would compare it to PROTECTIP, where they say this crazy proposed law will not be used against every day normal Americans, just the bad guys.
Re: Re:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/545987.html
According to some people that is between 50% and 90% of the population already.
The USA is made of bad guys mainly apparently.
Automatic Copyright is sort of like issuing everyone a gun.
Imagine my surprise at finding an article on Techdirt that is apparently in favour of automatic copyright…
I love posts like this, where commenters attack eminently fair folks like Angus for having the temerity to suggest that there may be circumstances where he doesn’t want to see his work used without permission, and groups like Creative Commons for seeking to provide that flexibility. You do realize that it just proves that the free-culture/anti-copyright “movement” can’t be reasoned with and serves to further marginalize your views, right? No, I guess not…
AC said: “You seem to be squarely in the anti-copyright camp. While it does appear to me that you are about as anti-copyright as they come … just how many times has copyright been asserted against you personally?”
LOL, I’m guessing you’ve never Googled Nina Paley (then again, why would you?). You see, AC, the reason the author is the darling of the free culture/anti-copyright movement is because she made an animated movie based on music without bothering to clear the music first, and threw a hissy fit when the rights-holder dared demand she pay what she considered an unreasonable amount for the rights. After a lengthy PR campaign she complied, and now rails against the evil that is copyright any chance she gets.
H2.64
It suddenly occured to me that the very same situation is applicatable to the H2.64 versus WebM/VP8/Theora debate. MPEG LA promised to not sue anyone for at least ten years. But what happens after that period or when some sort of Oracle figure just buys MPEG labs (like Sun) and goes on a rampage?
Your reserve the right to make cartoons that aren’t all that amusing. Please don’t pull the trigger on any more of them, okay?
Everything
I am in a flux betwixt elation at my supporters and disgust at some of the vitriol flung my way.
I won’t quote everything but this one is a real piece of work:
“That sounds like you’re in it for the money and are one of those people who think that the only way to make money is to keep other people from making money. And I bet that very little of your music is actually completely original. Of course, that’s probably OK for *you*, right?”
Actually my music is entirely original and I DO do it for the love of it. I’m a gardener, that’s how I make my money. I barely get by and I spend most of my free time creating music with skills that I taught myself, guitar, piano, software that I have bought, and skills picked up in a Sound Engineering course.
I ask for nothing back from my hard work, but am highly thankful for the broad audience I have acquired by using a CC license to make explicit the fact that you can download and share my music for free. Have a look at the main site where I began distributing my music for free: http://www.last.fm/music/the+peach+tree and tell me I don’t like reaching a broad audience over making money.
Also, the Dragonball GT cover on one of my albums is hardly different from someone using the character, Goku, as an avatar in a forum or anything. It hardly adds to the “value” of my music even if there was a value. The music is free so I am not profiting off Funimation or anything. I support sharing. The reason I don’t just let my music loose into the public domain is because then Universal or whatever could simply take one of my songs, my pride and joy and the result of years of hard work, brand it with any old artist they like, and sell it.
How would you feel if you heard a song “by Lady Gaga” on the radio when you knew it was yours? And then see her CD in stores with your track on it and people buying it, all the profits going to Lady Gaga and her label?
The CC restrictions are just asserting the bare-bones rights I need to make sure that:
a) People know that I wrote and performed the song and
b) Big corporations don’t profit off my work.
Whilst also freeing up the restrictions of the basic copyright that would exist if not for CC, ie. the restriction on sharing.
Educational use, private use, even public use is all allowable under my CC licensing as long as I protect the above two things, which are pretty obvious and important.
On a final note, I advise you to read the FREE (Creative Commons Licensed) book entitled “Free Culture”, by the founder of both the free culture movement AND Creative Commons, Lawrence Lessig. It can be found at http://www.free-culture.cc/ it’s short and a great read and shows just how bloody stupid most of the negative responses to my post are.
Thank you to those who have defended me, complimented me, and generally said I’m on the right track.
Regards,
Angus