|
Things don't "fall into the public domain" at the end of their copyright term, Ugh. Once released from copyright, works Ascend into the glorious ranks of the public domain, fulfilling their rightful destiny as part of the cultural heritage of humanity! 37 comments
 @kirch @duncanlock Creators and artists should have the right to decide what happens to their creations. "Consume" and "content" are problematic descriptions of people's work. Hmmm... I suspect the idea that artists should have unlimited rights to decide what happens to their creations is equally problematic, especially in these days when such 'rights' can be bought and sold - for example to corporate entities that never die. Are we going to privatise everything forever, and have no commons left for us all to play in? @GeofCox I'm talking about the actual creators. Once they sell their rights, different rules, but others deciding they want to profit from someone else's work is as bad as this AI crap. No one should have to worry about showing their work because assholes will then think it's fair game. @kirch @duncanlock @GeofCox @kirch @duncanlock It IS theft if you are copying it and distributing it without permission. @CStamp @GeofCox @kirch @duncanlock no, and someone just explained why. It's also not the same thing legally, copyright infringement and theft are completely different crimes. @GeofCox @CStamp @kirch @duncanlock I personally think that the concept that a corporate body is a person in law is a good example of the law being an ass. They are recognised as somehow different by taxation authorities hence corporation tax etc.  @CStamp @kirch @duncanlock Ugh... it's complicated. No, I think a lot of creators simply don't want to recognize the debt they owe to the mass of cultural production that has influenced them and made their own work possible. And I do recognize the moral rights that creators want to claim. It feels like one's baby, and one doesn't want it used it ways that reflect poorly on the author, or do the creator out of a living. But it IS complicated. @CStamp Should a "shoemaker have a right to decide what happens with their creations"? Like, limit you from wearing those shoes on weekends, or giving it to your sibling, or charging you (after the sale!!) for amount of steps taken in those shoes? Yet, that is exactly what #copyright does today (and not even to Creator's benefit!) @duncanlock I'm not defending their ownership or sponsorship of art, nor the choice of topics, but the most public art I've seen has been in Italian churches. Because you can walk in and see it. I know we have to pay artists a fair wage, but hoarding art away from a potential public seems to somehow make it non-art to me.  @duncanlock agree with this, as much as i love joking about me getting my "grubby little fingers" on previously corpo-owned works with a certain iconoclastic glee  @duncanlock Without researching it, my hypothesis is that “fall into the public domain” became a colloquially used phrase somewhere around the ‘60s-‘70s when huge swaths of feature films and shorts entered the public domain because the studios that originally produced them sold their libraries off to small TV distributors who botched things either by failing to renew at 28 years or leaving out the proper copyright information when creating new title cards as mandated by the sale.  @duncanlock May I quote you on that? I have no nefarious purpose beyond including it in a list of quotes I collect throughout the year, but it would be visible outside the fediverse. @duncanlock For examples of works ascending at the end of this year, you can follow the #PublicDomainDayCountdown hashtag. My blog, which uses that hashtag and is syndicated to the fediverse, features a different work every day that's ascending to the public domain in the US at the end of 2024. (Unfortunately, I don't think Canada's getting anything new, due to a recent copyright extension pushed by the US. Some other countries will, but often different works than what the US is getting.)   @duncanlock After a legally enforced copyright term originally meant to give the privilege to the author to benefit from their own work non-exclusively for a limited period of time, the cultural product is devolved / returns to where it naturally belongs, in concert with the heritage of humanity. Copyright is not a human right but a statutory privilege created to incentivize creativity and innovation. It exists to benefit both creators and society, with built-in limitations to ensure the public can eventually access and use creative works freely. Unlike inalienable rights, copyright is temporary and conditional, existing solely within the framework of the law. It's not even a right, much less a Human Right!  @vruz @duncanlock It is by definition a right to copy that comes with a moral right to be named as the author and for the work not to be used in a derogatory way and the majority of material created is not bought by corporations and horded or even generates a revenue. For any revenue to be created the copyright must be licensed or assigned and the moral rights waived. The fruit of intellectual labour should be protected and it is a right whether it took the author 10 minutes or 10 years. If your intent is to drop moral bombs without serious engagement, chances are that you're going to have to keep your morals to yourself. Understanding the vast difference between moral particularity, and our actually existing legal systems in the open and free world would be a necessary condition for a fruitful discussion. No amount of brutal maximalism is going to resolve that tension. @vruz @duncanlock A moral right is a statutory reference originating from the french droite moral where they were very advanced in their protection of creators. Do they sell soap boxes at the Anfield gift shop? You appear to be barely able to read Latin characters, your bad faith is only comparable to your ignorance and your lack of curiosity in the real world. Fuck you and fuck off, idiot. The rightful destiny of mankind is to fund the lavish lifestyles of the fifth generation of descendents of the genuinely creative original authors.  @duncanlock … or they don't because the editor made sure nobody could use it anymore. In which case, why would they get the protection under copyright in the first place?   @duncanlock That is true in the United States and some European countries. But Germany has no "public domain" concept. So being sure that an actual license is in place on every piece of creative work is vital to define what happens as time, authors, and other related things go away.  @duncanlock works break free from the cruel clutches of capitalism and (usually) corporate ownership |
Gregory's Server
@duncanlock I never understood the desire to hide media & make it rare combined with the simultaneous desire to create media for mass consumption. Like it's too good to even be seen? Only the right sort of people are allowed to consume this content? Preposterous.