Techdirt. Stories filed under "incentive" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "incentive"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Wed, 9 Mar 2011 10:42:53 PST For Lady Gaga, Copyright Not About Music, But Her Image Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110308/14234413404/lady-gaga-copyright-not-about-music-her-image.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110308/14234413404/lady-gaga-copyright-not-about-music-her-image.shtml her image. A year ago, we noted that Gaga and her label made sure that her music was widely available for free (legally) to increase exposure, knowing that she would make money elsewhere (notably, Lady Gaga is signed to a 360 deal which gives her label a cut of touring, sponsorship and merch sales. That "job" she has as "creative director" at Polaroid? Yeah, Interscope/Universal gets a cut of that as well.) Lady Gaga, herself, has said that she doesn't care about piracy, saying that she knows that as more people download her music, she'll make it up on tour, saying "it's just the way it is today."

Okay, so she's good with free music and making money elsewhere. But she's still turning up as a copyright bully in certain cases. We just covered her silly complaint (not specified, but probably a publicity rights or trademark) against the makers of Baby Gaga ice cream, but in the comments to that article, it was pointed out that Gaga recently demanded that photographers at her concerts hand over the copyright to all the images they take. It also included strict limitations, saying that the photographer and his or her publication could only use the image for 4 months before having to take it down. The article notes that a few other bands -- the Beastie Boys among them -- have similar clauses in their photo release forms.

This clause has apparently gotten many photographers pretty upset, especially concerning some comments from someone who worked with Gaga who "questioned why photographers automatically own copyright on their work, since it's the artist who does the show."

While I won't step in between the photographers and the supporters of the musicians, what really strikes me about this is just how twisted copyright has become these days for folks like Lady Gaga. Reading through these stories, it's clear that she's not using copyright as an incentive to create music at all. Instead, it appears its sole purpose for her is to act as a tool for control over the use of her image. Perhaps that's fine, but that's certainly not the official reasons for copyright, and in an age when we hear about how important copyright is to artists, it seems worth noting just how much it's been twisted for totally unintended purposes here.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> it's-about-image-control,-not-business-model-control http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110308/14234413404 Fri, 12 Oct 2007 07:59:00 PDT Copyright Out Of Control: Does Saying '2012 Olympic Games' Violate All Sorts Of Copyright Laws? Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071009/011050.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071009/011050.shtml special copyright protection for the word "Olympics" and even "2012" (as that's when the Olympics will be held in London). This was hardly the first (nor last) time that the Olympics had gone overboard in trying to protect its brand. Years ago, they started threatening anyone who used the word, and more recently sought similar legal changes in Canada for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics (that's gonna cost me...). Over in the UK, playwright and president of the Writer's Guild, David Edgar is talking about how ridiculous all this is, specifically pointing to the Olympic committee's concern over a new novel called "Olympic Mind Games." Eventually (perhaps realizing the ridicule it would generate), it decided not to sue the author, but based on the law, it probably could have. As Edgar writes:
By declaring images, titles and now words to be ownable brands, these various organisations and individuals are contributing to an increased commodification and thus privatisation of materials previously agreed to be in the public domain. For scientists, this constrains the use of public and published knowledge, up to and including the human genome. For artists, it implies that the only thing you can do with subject matter is to sell it.
Edgar goes on to point to other similarly ridiculous attempts to misuse copyright or trademark law to prevent certain actions. The key problem here (once again) is that too many people now believe that the purpose of intellectual property laws is "protection" of the creator/owner. That's simply not true. The purpose of copyright law is to create the incentives to create the content in question. The purpose of trademark law, is really about consumer protection -- and making sure that someone doesn't buy something under the false impression that it was made and/or endorsed by someone else. Obviously, both of these require some amount of protection to make those things possible -- but in every instance, it should be viewed under the light of the original purpose of both laws. If the control is not related to the original incentive to create, or in preventing consumer confusion -- then the exercises in control should not be allowed under those laws.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> have-fun-with-it http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071009/011050