Thanks for taking the time to reply to my comment, and in such depth as well!
"One of the points usually discussed is that there's hundreds of models possible."
Well fair enough! The reason why I'm thinking of these big acts is that I think there are some performances/concerts/videos that wouldn't have been possible without the amount of financial and social clout that they possess. It would sadden me for the music world to be reduced to a stream of "mom-and-pop" and "starving" artists. It takes all kinds, and the big, rare, super-stars just seem to be more vulnerable in some ways, than the small indie artists thick on the ground in europe and north america.
What you say about Beyonce, well though I am a fan, fair enough it's all subjective. But there is a reason she holds the record for "most grammy's won by a female in a single night", though admittedly it would not be apparent listening to her radio singles. For Kanye, well, that track never really blew my mind either. It's his production skills, and the fact that he tends to pre-empt most of his genre-mates that's so crazy to me. Kanye is actually a pretty mediocre rapper, just like Beyonce is a pretty mediocre song-writer.
I agree with most of the sentiments on this site, that copyright is getting to long, that laws surrounding it are getting crazy, that record labels have too much power over artists, and treat them unfairly. I'm just wondering about how my favourite artists are going to weather the storm, that's all. It's true that if they can't survive, then they can't, no one owes them a living. But I'll be sad...
While I realize Imogen Heap IS a pretty big deal, by Hollywood standards, she's still a small fry. How would this scale for bigger artists, like Beyonce or Kanye West? How would this apply to genres like those two artists record and perform in? Beyonce's fanbase is global, yet her musical "flavour", especially in her concerts are very "louisiana/deep south" or at least, a take on it that is easily commodified. How about Kanye's music, most of the reasons why it is good is because it is so very unexpected. I'm just curious...
Well, as I understand it, creative works such as the arts or sciences should be shared, for the common good, and the betterment of humanity, etc, etc. But these are not art as a public good, but a private piece of prestige and recognition. They do not contribute to progress, they are a piece of identity.
While this does not mean they should be protected, I think it supports why they should not be shared as other's classes of creative works are. Also, because they are signifiers of identitiy, maybe the display of them by individuals outside the group/tribe/clan could be seen as fraud, as they are not authentically what the tattoos are proclaiming they are.
This has been done before with regards to words. Lego made a series called Bionicle, where they butchered a whole shitload of polynesian words. So some maori council sued them, and got them to stop making bionicle (something like that, details elude me)...
Why would this be considered public domain? The families/clans/tribes would have a communal right to the patterns, just as they have communal ownership of their tribal lands.
Re: Re: How well would this scale?
Also: thanks for not giving the patent pending indie/hipster sneer when I mentioned two big label commercial artists...
Re: Re: How well would this scale?
Thanks for taking the time to reply to my comment, and in such depth as well!
"One of the points usually discussed is that there's hundreds of models possible."
Well fair enough! The reason why I'm thinking of these big acts is that I think there are some performances/concerts/videos that wouldn't have been possible without the amount of financial and social clout that they possess. It would sadden me for the music world to be reduced to a stream of "mom-and-pop" and "starving" artists. It takes all kinds, and the big, rare, super-stars just seem to be more vulnerable in some ways, than the small indie artists thick on the ground in europe and north america.
What you say about Beyonce, well though I am a fan, fair enough it's all subjective. But there is a reason she holds the record for "most grammy's won by a female in a single night", though admittedly it would not be apparent listening to her radio singles. For Kanye, well, that track never really blew my mind either. It's his production skills, and the fact that he tends to pre-empt most of his genre-mates that's so crazy to me. Kanye is actually a pretty mediocre rapper, just like Beyonce is a pretty mediocre song-writer.
I agree with most of the sentiments on this site, that copyright is getting to long, that laws surrounding it are getting crazy, that record labels have too much power over artists, and treat them unfairly. I'm just wondering about how my favourite artists are going to weather the storm, that's all. It's true that if they can't survive, then they can't, no one owes them a living. But I'll be sad...
How well would this scale?
While I realize Imogen Heap IS a pretty big deal, by Hollywood standards, she's still a small fry. How would this scale for bigger artists, like Beyonce or Kanye West? How would this apply to genres like those two artists record and perform in? Beyonce's fanbase is global, yet her musical "flavour", especially in her concerts are very "louisiana/deep south" or at least, a take on it that is easily commodified. How about Kanye's music, most of the reasons why it is good is because it is so very unexpected. I'm just curious...
Re: Re: Re: Re: From Another Angle
Well, as I understand it, creative works such as the arts or sciences should be shared, for the common good, and the betterment of humanity, etc, etc. But these are not art as a public good, but a private piece of prestige and recognition. They do not contribute to progress, they are a piece of identity.
While this does not mean they should be protected, I think it supports why they should not be shared as other's classes of creative works are. Also, because they are signifiers of identitiy, maybe the display of them by individuals outside the group/tribe/clan could be seen as fraud, as they are not authentically what the tattoos are proclaiming they are.
Re: Re: Re: Re: From Another Angle
This has been done before with regards to words. Lego made a series called Bionicle, where they butchered a whole shitload of polynesian words. So some maori council sued them, and got them to stop making bionicle (something like that, details elude me)...
Re: Re: From Another Angle
Why would this be considered public domain? The families/clans/tribes would have a communal right to the patterns, just as they have communal ownership of their tribal lands.