Forums » General
What a fascinating discussion we have spawned.
But you're misrepresenting (or perhaps you aren't fully aware) of the power that the law actually grants copyright holders who I would remind you are very rarely the actual artists themselves, which completely debunks the idea that the law serves only to reward creative individuals.
It's not even a matter of having to pay a certain fee, they can flat out prohibit the use of their work. This is not about somebody plagiarizing someones creative work and passing it off - this has no effect on their moral rights (which is the right to be recognized as an author, something completely different from copyrights which are the rights to reproduce a work) - this is about the fact that people (rich stakeholder type people) talk about how great copyright is at incentivising creativity, yet here we have a fantastic opportunity to merge some beautiful music with an awesome game and create some truly fantastic artwork and copyright is standing in the way going 'nah-uh!'
That's not even considering arguments about how people are able to copyright things that should, in the interests of promoting creativity, be free and usable by everybody nor is it considering critiques that rightsholders can and have previously acted against the interests and the wishes of the original artists and the actual creative minds.
Also copyrights are not at ALL like patents, they are completely separate areas of law with completely different rationales and purposes. The fact that they are grouped together as so-called 'intellectual property laws' is an abomination that only serves to confuse and obfuscate the real issues, ultimately benefiting only those people who benefit from the confusion, misinformation and corruption. If you need more convincing on that issue you should definitely read Stallman.
It's not even a matter of having to pay a certain fee, they can flat out prohibit the use of their work. This is not about somebody plagiarizing someones creative work and passing it off - this has no effect on their moral rights (which is the right to be recognized as an author, something completely different from copyrights which are the rights to reproduce a work) - this is about the fact that people (rich stakeholder type people) talk about how great copyright is at incentivising creativity, yet here we have a fantastic opportunity to merge some beautiful music with an awesome game and create some truly fantastic artwork and copyright is standing in the way going 'nah-uh!'
That's not even considering arguments about how people are able to copyright things that should, in the interests of promoting creativity, be free and usable by everybody nor is it considering critiques that rightsholders can and have previously acted against the interests and the wishes of the original artists and the actual creative minds.
Also copyrights are not at ALL like patents, they are completely separate areas of law with completely different rationales and purposes. The fact that they are grouped together as so-called 'intellectual property laws' is an abomination that only serves to confuse and obfuscate the real issues, ultimately benefiting only those people who benefit from the confusion, misinformation and corruption. If you need more convincing on that issue you should definitely read Stallman.
It's not even a matter of having to pay a certain fee, they can flat out prohibit the use of their work.
Well... no. They're not going to get an injunction against your use of their copyright. If I'm a politician who wants to use a copyright owner's song at my rally, and they don't want me to, the worst thing that can happen is I have to pay actual (or statutory, but those are generally low) damages -- which he has the legal burden of establishing. The copyright holder, assuming I stipulate to having infringed his work, can't get a dollar more than statutory damages (see the Copyright Act) without proving up his specific, quantifiable damages. IIRC, there aren't any punitives for copyright violations.
There are other statutes (states, non-US countries) that grant creators of works certain "moral" rights that may encompass court-enforced control over use. But copyright ownership is basically just a right to obtain a form of royalties if someone decides not to bargain with you.
Well... no. They're not going to get an injunction against your use of their copyright. If I'm a politician who wants to use a copyright owner's song at my rally, and they don't want me to, the worst thing that can happen is I have to pay actual (or statutory, but those are generally low) damages -- which he has the legal burden of establishing. The copyright holder, assuming I stipulate to having infringed his work, can't get a dollar more than statutory damages (see the Copyright Act) without proving up his specific, quantifiable damages. IIRC, there aren't any punitives for copyright violations.
There are other statutes (states, non-US countries) that grant creators of works certain "moral" rights that may encompass court-enforced control over use. But copyright ownership is basically just a right to obtain a form of royalties if someone decides not to bargain with you.
TRS, you are basically saying that copyright is evil because people sell their copyrights to evil people. It's not like a record company can come along and just take the rights to something I created. I have to agree to transfer the rights to them. If I don't want to do that, I can tell them to bugger off. If they don't, well, then things get fun (at least until it's time to clean up the mess, which would be rather less fun).
I have no real issue with copyrights. I do have some issues with laws geared toward protecting copyrights (e.g. dmca), but not with the actual copyrights themselves.
Patents, OTOH, are much more nefarious, though mostly irrelevant to this discussion as I think you also mentioned.
I have no real issue with copyrights. I do have some issues with laws geared toward protecting copyrights (e.g. dmca), but not with the actual copyrights themselves.
Patents, OTOH, are much more nefarious, though mostly irrelevant to this discussion as I think you also mentioned.
"yet here we have a fantastic opportunity to merge some beautiful music with an awesome game and create some truly fantastic artwork and copyright is standing in the way going 'nah-uh!'"
You can merge all you want to merge without permission as long as you don't do it for profit or in a way that imposes on the "moral right" of the original author (i.e. plagiarize). The second you start making money or claiming ownership of someone else's intellectual creation without their permission is where things get complicated, and rightly so.
Clearly I'm not a lawyer, and I fully accept there are problems that result from the current legal structures in place, but calling the entire thing bullshit and insinuating that intellectual rights should be thrown out all together is insane talk.
I re-iterate my point -- music licensing is a much larger source of income nowadays for artists since the rise of digital music and the fall of physical album sales. It's a totally legit way for them to make money for their creation, and to shit on it is to show your disdain and disregard for the talents and efforts of artists today.
You can merge all you want to merge without permission as long as you don't do it for profit or in a way that imposes on the "moral right" of the original author (i.e. plagiarize). The second you start making money or claiming ownership of someone else's intellectual creation without their permission is where things get complicated, and rightly so.
Clearly I'm not a lawyer, and I fully accept there are problems that result from the current legal structures in place, but calling the entire thing bullshit and insinuating that intellectual rights should be thrown out all together is insane talk.
I re-iterate my point -- music licensing is a much larger source of income nowadays for artists since the rise of digital music and the fall of physical album sales. It's a totally legit way for them to make money for their creation, and to shit on it is to show your disdain and disregard for the talents and efforts of artists today.
Lector but you will get a cease and desist if you're unlucky enough to infringe on the wrong rightsholder. And I'm not going to run with your example of a rally here because we've got a perfectly good one already: using a derivative work in a commercial game.
Questions of damages aren't really relevant in any case if you're trying to avoid the risk of litigation the result is you're not going to go anywhere near it. It's counter-creative for people trying to incorporate derivative works into new creative works, assuming they are doing so in good faith and in respect of moral rights. I mean sure you're correct as far as I remember on technical questions of law but this is really more of a political question than a straight question of law.
"You can merge all you want to merge without permission as long as you don't do it for profit or in a way that imposes on the "moral right" of the original author (i.e. plagiarize)."
Not without avoiding copyright infringement you can't
"and to shit on it is to show your disdain and disregard for the talents and efforts of artists today."
No, my issue is with a law, not with an artist singular or plural. You couldn't be more irrelevant at this point and trying to hijack the discussion by suggesting that I'm disrespecting art when I am clearly not is ridiculous.
Rin, to run with your line of thought, It's not entirely accurate but if I were to entertain it I'm saying copyrights are 'evil' because they are permitted to be sold to evil people, as in they shouldn't be a commodity in the first place because it fly's in the face of the purported purpose of the law.
Anyway, it's a big ongoing debate and it's one that I'm very interested to hear different views on which is why I started it. My views are obviously quite radical but I definitely don't want to spend hours and hours elaborating them on game forums especially when I suspect I am not having a purely academic debate here with greenwall, seemingly determined to paint me as some sort of art or music hater.
If you get right into the debate on copyright there are two radical camps: abolitionist and reformist. I am an abolitionist despite the inner pragmatist in me which knows its highly unlikely we will ever see the abolition of copyright law. In terms of an academic discussion though I find it more helpful to view things from the abolitionist perspective - indeed copyright has not existed as long as music, culture and art and so it stands to reason its demise is not going to suddenly halt it.
Incarnate has cited the legality and licensing of the music as one of the fetters on an upgrade to VO's soundtrack. I understand why and I think there are many many many more examples of the chilling effect of copyright de-incentivising creativity instead of the reverse which is why I take the position I do.
Anybody interested should check out questioncopyright.org, I also recommend the literature of Laurence Lessig and Richard Stallman if you want to understand the arguments for copyright reform and abolition.
Questions of damages aren't really relevant in any case if you're trying to avoid the risk of litigation the result is you're not going to go anywhere near it. It's counter-creative for people trying to incorporate derivative works into new creative works, assuming they are doing so in good faith and in respect of moral rights. I mean sure you're correct as far as I remember on technical questions of law but this is really more of a political question than a straight question of law.
"You can merge all you want to merge without permission as long as you don't do it for profit or in a way that imposes on the "moral right" of the original author (i.e. plagiarize)."
Not without avoiding copyright infringement you can't
"and to shit on it is to show your disdain and disregard for the talents and efforts of artists today."
No, my issue is with a law, not with an artist singular or plural. You couldn't be more irrelevant at this point and trying to hijack the discussion by suggesting that I'm disrespecting art when I am clearly not is ridiculous.
Rin, to run with your line of thought, It's not entirely accurate but if I were to entertain it I'm saying copyrights are 'evil' because they are permitted to be sold to evil people, as in they shouldn't be a commodity in the first place because it fly's in the face of the purported purpose of the law.
Anyway, it's a big ongoing debate and it's one that I'm very interested to hear different views on which is why I started it. My views are obviously quite radical but I definitely don't want to spend hours and hours elaborating them on game forums especially when I suspect I am not having a purely academic debate here with greenwall, seemingly determined to paint me as some sort of art or music hater.
If you get right into the debate on copyright there are two radical camps: abolitionist and reformist. I am an abolitionist despite the inner pragmatist in me which knows its highly unlikely we will ever see the abolition of copyright law. In terms of an academic discussion though I find it more helpful to view things from the abolitionist perspective - indeed copyright has not existed as long as music, culture and art and so it stands to reason its demise is not going to suddenly halt it.
Incarnate has cited the legality and licensing of the music as one of the fetters on an upgrade to VO's soundtrack. I understand why and I think there are many many many more examples of the chilling effect of copyright de-incentivising creativity instead of the reverse which is why I take the position I do.
Anybody interested should check out questioncopyright.org, I also recommend the literature of Laurence Lessig and Richard Stallman if you want to understand the arguments for copyright reform and abolition.
""You can merge all you want to merge without permission as long as you don't do it for profit or in a way that imposes on the "moral right" of the original author (i.e. plagiarize)."
Not without avoiding copyright infringement you can't"
I guess that's true, I take that back.
-----
"and to shit on it is to show your disdain and disregard for the talents and efforts of artists today."
No, my issue is with a law, not with an artist singular or plural. You couldn't be more irrelevant at this point and trying to hijack the discussion by suggesting that I'm disrespecting art when I am clearly not is ridiculous.
Your issue is with a law that gives rights and protections to artists -- and you want to abolish those rights. I take issue with that, and yes I do feel it disrespects art.
-----
"Incarnate has cited the legality and licensing of the music as one of the fetters on an upgrade to VO's soundtrack. I understand why and I think there are many many many more examples of the chilling effect of copyright de-incentivising creativity instead of the reverse which is why I take the position I do."
This is why there are lawyers and agents. If they can't afford the legal/professional counsel, then they should just use library music. I'd be interested to see where this supposed pandemic of copyright de-incentivising of creativity is taking place, because I, as a music professional, rarely see it. I would be willing to bet that most artists, whether in music or otherwise, would agree with the notion of giving credit where credit is due, and would likewise disagree with your extremist views.
Not without avoiding copyright infringement you can't"
I guess that's true, I take that back.
-----
"and to shit on it is to show your disdain and disregard for the talents and efforts of artists today."
No, my issue is with a law, not with an artist singular or plural. You couldn't be more irrelevant at this point and trying to hijack the discussion by suggesting that I'm disrespecting art when I am clearly not is ridiculous.
Your issue is with a law that gives rights and protections to artists -- and you want to abolish those rights. I take issue with that, and yes I do feel it disrespects art.
-----
"Incarnate has cited the legality and licensing of the music as one of the fetters on an upgrade to VO's soundtrack. I understand why and I think there are many many many more examples of the chilling effect of copyright de-incentivising creativity instead of the reverse which is why I take the position I do."
This is why there are lawyers and agents. If they can't afford the legal/professional counsel, then they should just use library music. I'd be interested to see where this supposed pandemic of copyright de-incentivising of creativity is taking place, because I, as a music professional, rarely see it. I would be willing to bet that most artists, whether in music or otherwise, would agree with the notion of giving credit where credit is due, and would likewise disagree with your extremist views.
you will get a cease and desist if you're unlucky enough to infringe on the wrong rightsholder
So? The response is 'I'm going to use this. Sue me if you want, but you'll pay your own costs and I'll pay nothing because I don't need a lawyer to admit to infringing, deny everything else, and make you prove up actual damages in order to collect a dime. Or you could just license it to me for $X.'
C&D letters are just somebody writing you a love note. Unless it's signed by a judge, you should feel free to wipe your ass with it (assuming you correctly understand your legal position and are prepared to handle whatever comes next).
So? The response is 'I'm going to use this. Sue me if you want, but you'll pay your own costs and I'll pay nothing because I don't need a lawyer to admit to infringing, deny everything else, and make you prove up actual damages in order to collect a dime. Or you could just license it to me for $X.'
C&D letters are just somebody writing you a love note. Unless it's signed by a judge, you should feel free to wipe your ass with it (assuming you correctly understand your legal position and are prepared to handle whatever comes next).
Yes those of us with law degrees are aware of this, those of us without law degrees are at this point either putting $2000 into someones trust account on account of costs and disbursements or are removing the content from the game.
As I said, it doesn't get that far because developers hear at seminars all about these potential copyright headaches and all they want to do is make sure they can get the copyrights assigned so they never have to deal with this problem. That's why we don't have new music yet.
As I said, it doesn't get that far because developers hear at seminars all about these potential copyright headaches and all they want to do is make sure they can get the copyrights assigned so they never have to deal with this problem. That's why we don't have new music yet.
"I, as a music professional"
Well why didn't you say so!?!? Surely then you can tell us approximately what percentage of your income you derive from music licensing vs other mediums and give us an idea of what percentage of that is profit to a copyright holder rather than yourself as the original creative artist so we have something to work with here?
Well why didn't you say so!?!? Surely then you can tell us approximately what percentage of your income you derive from music licensing vs other mediums and give us an idea of what percentage of that is profit to a copyright holder rather than yourself as the original creative artist so we have something to work with here?