Photographer gets $12million....

[TheKrikkitWars]

Information will spread around the world, but original thought, ideas and content (for want of a better word) needs to be protected for the original thinkers/producers to carry producing to the best of their ability imho.

Is protecting ideas from being re-thought, products being re-used, concepts being re-explored really sensible?

Take the Wankle-NSU engine. Every rotary piston engine concept since then, has used several similar design points, they're all different attempts at the same concept, and some portions all need to be similar.

If patent law was as prohibiting as copyright law, none of the ideas would have come to fruition, and I'm sorry to say this but engineering is far far more cut thoat, more creative and more financially immersive than any art form, yet week after week people invent new things off the back of old ideas... all in a way that would infringe on intellectual property if patent law was as overzealous as copyright law.

James Dyson has the motto "better by design" that defacto means that none of his work is "original" in the conventional sense, but I severely doubt anyone else would have created his products. If the original inventor of the vacuum cleaner has copyrighted the "idea" of cleaning via suction... he would have a monopoly because other designers wouldn't be able to think about it...

I don't object to artists being able to protect their work from being used as someone else's product FOC, but in the same breath you want all or nothing, The specter of lost sales to the general public are really sales that never would have existed... at one point 500 copies of The Revenge of The Sith (Star Wars III) were downloaded every ten seconds... that level of sales was never ever going to be achievable in real life.

In short, get off your arse, stop whining about "thefts" that exist only in your head and go do something great, something people WILL pay for.

 

[Anthony.Ralph]

[..]

... go do something great, something people WILL pay for.

But based on what I understand you to say, people will (yes) think it is great and want/get it without having to pay for it - or did I miss something?

Oh, and in 60 years time I will be looking forward to my 123rd birthday - that's not going to happen either.


Anthony.

 

[TheKrikkitWars]

But based on what I understand you to say, people will (yes) think it is great and want/get it without having to pay for it - or did I miss something?

Not really, if people like it enough, they'll pay for a physical copy... thats where potential profit comes in. If you want to make money, you need to reserve things such that only you have a means of production for that... basically business goes back to being about things... not about elusicdory rights for many people to use a single product.

Copyright has only been a real issue since a certain Mr Gates realised that he didn't need to sell a product just access to it, the problem is now that the producer has no control over access.

Remind me to wish you a Happy 123rd birthday BTW.

 

[redhed17]

Is protecting ideas from being re-thought, products being re-used, concepts being re-explored really sensible?

This is not about being re-thought, it is about being copied.

Take the Wankle-NSU engine. Every rotary piston engine concept since then, has used several similar design points, they're all different attempts at the same concept, and some portions all need to be similar.

But they are not the same, which is the point

James Dyson has the motto "better by design" that defacto means that none of his work is "original" in the conventional sense, but I severely doubt anyone else would have created his products. If the original inventor of the vacuum cleaner has copyrighted the "idea" of cleaning via suction... he would have a monopoly because other designers wouldn't be able to think about it...

The individual elements of his vacuum cleaner design may or may not have been original, but he put the parts together in a unique way, and from what I've seen in the past spent many many thousands of £'s doing it. If he didn't have the protection of a Patent at the end of it, would he have bothered?

Every word is in the dictionary, should people not bother writing any books?

It is how people put them together which is unique, and hopefully of value.

I don't object to artists being able to protect their work from being used as someone else's product FOC, but in the same breath you want all or nothing, The specter of lost sales to the general public are really sales that never would have existed... at one point 500 copies of The Revenge of The Sith (Star Wars III) were downloaded every ten seconds... that level of sales was never ever going to be achievable in real life.

I doubt anyone apart from George Lucas' lawyer could argue that they were all lost sales, but there were lost sales amongst them.



If you produce original content, and people want it, then you should have legal protection to be able to benefit from it. That something can be easily copied should not negate any protection of your original thought or product.


I'm saying all this as someone who has sold 2 pictures in my life, and that was the same picture, so it is not as if I'm making a living at it.

 

[Jamougha]

The rise of the file sharing culture has sadly diminished the value of intellectual property, at least in the digital domain, but that doesn't mean that the law shouldn't be enforced when a person, or organisation has been caught. The photographer's pictures were used to help the company that used them make multi million $'s, so he deserved a share. Maybe not that much, but his input contributed to the profits.

I agree with the law as it applies to this case, and it's enforceable. I'm arguing somewhere between the two extremes in this thread.

Every generation thinks that their generation has the best music. There may indeed be some artists making a lot of money, but there is a lot of people not making that much, and while there may be more people making music, the subjective quality is in the ear of the beholder. There were a lot more groups signed to record labels and making/releasing music in Liverpool in the 80's at least, whether they were making a living from it considering the power of the record companies at the time is another matter. If you make music now, and there are people that wish to buy it, while you may make more money from the individual item of music you happen to sell (if selling direct), once people can copy it easily and illegally, that revenue may not be as much as it should be in the long term.

The 90's are my generation. I was there and it sucked. Yes the 'goodness' of music is subjective but we can approach a measurement of its utility by looking at the subjective value it gives to the general population and by that measurement the 90's fall pretty far behind almost any other decade of the late 20th and early 21st.

Selling copies of their music is no longer the primary revenue stream for bands. They make money from touring, gigs, memorabilia, commercial licensing and radio. It's good for them and it's good for consumers. I don't believe that there's some amount of money that they 'should' get - the world doesn't owe anyone a living and society is not obligated to defend data as if it were property.

 

[photon]

. . . society is not obligated to defend data as if it were property.

What other laws are you prepared to break? What protections, if any, do you feel society is obligated to extend to you?

In any case, by definition, it's intellectual property we are discussing. We are free to do with our property whatever we choose, subject to prevailing laws of decency etc. Any of us can choose to give away our goods and chattels. But do we guiltlessly take whatever we want from the supermarket or our "friends"?

Just because cases of infringement of our copyright are for most of us at present undetectable, does not mean that in the near future we won't have powers of detection similar to Corbis etc. If international law enforcement keeps up, it'll be a major boost to creatives. As stated earlier, property rights gave a major impetus to our forebears in medieval England. We are each probably within a few metres of a microchip design by ARM Holdings, a company that exists by the success of the licensing of its intellectual property.

 

[Jamougha]

What other laws are you prepared to break?

Oodles. Law and morality are quite distinct; ask any lawyer.

What protections, if any, do you feel society is obligated to extend to you?

Obligated? None. I don't have some god-given right to have other people do my bidding. There are plenty that people will generally agree it's sensible and practical for society to grant, and IMO some form of copyright protection should probably among them, but in a somewhat different form from the current laws.

In any case, by definition, it's intellectual property we are discussing. We are free to do with our property whatever we choose, subject to prevailing laws of decency etc. Any of us can choose to give away our goods and chattels. But do we guiltlessly take whatever we want from the supermarket or our "friends"?

Intellectual property is property in much the same way that a hot dog is a close relative of a chihuahua. Metaphors are not reality.

If I had a magic wand that would allow me to copy my friend's new D700 without changing it in any way, would I use it? You bet. This issue is not about theft. If you try to make it about theft then you will hurt your argument more than help it, because people can instantly see that it does not involve the same moral and legal aspects.

Just because cases of infringement of our copyright are for most of us at present undetectable, does not mean that in the near future we won't have powers of detection similar to Corbis etc. If international law enforcement keeps up, it'll be a major boost to creatives. As stated earlier, property rights gave a major impetus to our forebears in medieval England. We are each probably within a few metres of a microchip design by ARM Holdings, a company that exists by the success of the licensing of its intellectual property.

Amusing that you draw an example from patent law, which in my view is much more rationally designed than copyright law.

Enforcement would require the kind of pervasive surveillance that even the world's most repressive regimes can only dream of. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[puddleduck]

Someone is welcome to infringe my copyright for £12 million

 

[photon]

Jamougha, you say that in your opinion some form of copyright protection should be granted. Care to expand?

 

[TheKrikkitWars]

In any case, by definition, it's intellectual property we are discussing. We are free to do with our property whatever we choose, subject to prevailing laws of decency etc. Any of us can choose to give away our goods and chattels. But do we guiltlessly take whatever we want from the supermarket or our "friends"?

Intellectual Property is not like any physical thing, by being intellectual it is essentially as infinite as the number of people with the congnitive function to perceive it.

It is TOTALLY incomparable with real property, and thus Intellectual Property "Theft" is not comparable with "Theft" as it does not seek to deprive the owner of it, simply to obtain the information, which entails copying it in some way.

 

[Bluesman graham]

I'm on my way out now to shoot some pics of the new building sites in my area! . If any building co or there designers wish to use my pics as a result i am quite happy to pretend i didn't know !! . Graham.

 

[jerry12953]

Thanks to those that have defended the concept of copyright in this thread.

In the real world, for every photographer willing to stand up on copyright issues, there is unfortunately another quite happy to ignore them for a few quid.

And in the long run, all photographers lose. :bang: :bang: :bang:

 

[photon]

Intellectual property can earn dosh. It can be sold/hired/given/taken/stolen and used to earn dosh for others. That dosh can be converted into other property, be it food on the table, payment for something you may also regard as intangible such as electricity used for watching a BBC TV programme which also needs paying for.

If you don't accept my terms for using my IP you are free to develop your own or negotiate with any of the infinite number of monkeys bashing away at typewriters etc. But as long as you aren't reduced to starvation, I expect you or your family and friends to pay for your food rather than steal it, and the same goes for my IP.

Many people have an ingrained sense that land belongs to all, just because wild places and agricultural land have few people around. As long as we do not deny the landowner his rights, he will generally tolerate our use of his property, as it does not conflict with his interests.

 

[Jamougha]

Jamougha, you say that in your opinion some form of copyright protection should be granted. Care to expand?

I would like the following modifications to the current system:

• Extension of the fair use clause. Copyright has frequently been used, not to defend revenue, but to silence criticism and debate by censoring sensitive materials. Example include numerous threats by the Scientologists over secret church materials as well as companies trying to cover up their misdeeds. This is abuse of the law in a way that was not intended. Also, more lattitude for derivative works that show significant creativity.
  
• Shorter expiry dates. Life plus 50 is bad enough, but in the case of companies this means the copyright never expires. Patents last fifteen or sixteen years in most places. Twenty seems like enough for copyright.
  
• And yes, I'd like to see the restrictions on non-commercial sharing by individuals weakened or abolished, or at very least the penalties reduced significantly.

I think the current situation shows that people who originate value will still be able to generate adequate revenue under this set of rules, and the benefits to society in general are clear.