Slashdot Mirror
Creative Commons & Webcomics
xerexes writes "This week Comixpedia is publishing an article written by T Campbell called "Creative Commons and Webcomics" which features a roundtable discussion with comments from Lawrence Lessig, Neeru Paharia, Mia Garlick, JD Frazer and Cory Doctorow. Traditional copyright faces webcomics with an uncomfortable choice. Its restrictions, properly enforced, would mean a virtual end to crossovers and homages, fan art, fan fiction, and many other staples that make the webcomic a more entertaining creation and foster artistic growth. A total lack of copyright, however, leaves unscrupulous readers free to "bootleg" subscription sites, program tools to deprive comics of advertising revenue, and even profit from others' labor without permission. The Creative Commons license presents a possible solution. It lets copyright holders to grant some of their rights to the public while retaining others, through a variety of licensing and contract schemes, which may include dedication to the public domain or open content licensing terms. "
If the same copyright both works for them in some cases and fails them in other cases, than perhaps they should review their morals.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
It's not copyright that's the big limiting factor here. Any Web Comic with enough of a following to generate fan art should have its characters and logos trademarked. We're talking about leaving the realm of "doing something neat" and entering the realm of "making a living".
As far as trademark law is concerned, you either defend it or lose it. Fan art can exist in this realm, as it does with Lucas' properties, but Creative Commons isn't some panacea for all that ails these artists.
If they want control whilst allowing variations, they need to first pursue trademark protection.
Video Game News, FAQs, etc
Mayhaps because hosting isn't free, art supplies aren't free. Perhaps because some of these people want to devote themselves full-time to their craft. Just because you don't see a monetary value in something, doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees with you.
Monstar L
Okay, I didn't RTFA, so I'm guilty of being a slashdotter. Also, IANAL and other standard disclaimers. But why would you need some special general purpose license?
You can already just give anyone you want permission to use your work... why would giving someone permission to use your characters in a crossover have anything to do with someone bootlegging your site? That makes no sense to me.
If you don't mind me asking, what do you do for a living? If you hate it, then follow your own advice: quit and "don't do it at all." If you love it, then follow your own advice: quit and do the work "for the love of doing it," not for compensation.
The webcomic artists do love what they're doing, And some of them are trying to make a full-time job out of it, with the intent that they can provide better work that way. To my knowledge, none of them are really getting rich. They're just trying to make sure that they make enough to keep giving us our comics.
Because they want to eat. And they want to eat in the future if they are not making as much money. Lets use JD Frasers Dust Puppy. All it is a bunch of scribbles with feet. But in the comics he gave the scribbles with feet a personality. Which is rather well known in IT. There is a lot of work and effort in givig this drawing a personality that people can relate to. Now other people who use it without compensiaton or permission can possibly do the following, Change or streach its personality to something the author doesn't want and doesn't want the reader to assoait with. Be Use his work in marketing and not getting a cut for his creative effort. C. Have the spin off become more popular then his verson and could be forced to change it to match the other version. It is not about money as much (although they perfer to have it) it is more of control of their work. If they want to make money off of it they should have the right to do so.
Profits don't always beget greed, Profits are nessary for survival, and standard comfort.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I believe all copywritten works should go to the public domain after 20 years. Period. That should be plenty of time to make money off your work. And if you don't make any money, then it should pass to the public domain so someone else can take it and maybe make some money off of it. The majority of artists/musicians/filmakers/writers never get rich from their work. (Like me!!!) I would imagine that in the public domain, you might have another chance to get some recognition for your art. If you didn't make any money, letting somebody else alter it and re-package it could help you receive some recognition and lead to some $$$ for your other works. Maybe... what do I know... I'm a peasant.
All men aren't pigs... we just smell that way.
As an aspiring comic myself, I have to say the concept is pretty good (of flexible license as opposed to copyright)... one of my larger worries is that my actual comics (not just the sketches on my art site) ... will be stolen and/or plagerized, this provides at least a source for advice and subject for consideration.
If you didn't read the article and are a comic or other artist, it's worth a read through!
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
Despite the fact that it's difficult to make happen, there are people who enjoy their jobs. Don't hate on them for that.
But moving along, this article wasn't really about compensation beyond the value of their work as much as it is about increasing the value of their work. More specifically, increasing the value of their work through sharing. And finding the right balance between freely sharing work, and protecting it.
And there are plenty of valid reasons to protect it. One of the examples given by the UserFriendly guy is that he's not comfortable with people replacing the dialogue in his strips with stuff he deems inappropriate for his characters. Not only does he feel like his artwork is being needlessly defaced, but there's the potential for the modified stuff to get confused with the real thing. But at the same time, these authors are trying to come to grips with the fact that their fans want to actively engage in these stories and characters, and that allowing them to do so can grow their audience, and enrich their art.
It's all about finding a balance, while working within some very convoluted and confusing laws regarding copyrights and trademarks. And it's not easy.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
With traditional copyright, you can still authorize people to do all of the things mentioned. Sometimes, I think the only reason there is a movement to create something new is because people don't understand the current standard.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
By all means feel free to donate your entire paycheck to charity and live at the mercy of others on welfare or in a commune. Me, I rather like owning my own home, driving my own car, putting food on my family's table, paying for my kid's college future, and saving for my retirement. I also would like to have disposable income and that means profit.
Profit != greed != envy != hatred. Such simplistic thinking removes human free will, human spirit, and accountability from the equation and is a cheap view of humanity. I think more of them than that.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Sinfest.net is one of my favorites - great strip, now available as a book.. And the idiot who argued that people shouldn't get paid for their work - pray tell, what is your job ?
I love the Creative Commons license, but I actually think that the example Lessig gives in his book "Free Culture" of the douginshi is a better market example.
Doujinshi are illegal comics that are openly tolerated because the legal owners know that the comics actually help the overall market (a fan fiction that keeps people interested, trains aspiring artists, and promotes creative freedom.
Of course, another reason that they flourish, was provided to Lessig by a Japanese buisinessman, who said, "we don't have enough lawyers," to prosecute the cases. If only!
The same issue exists for all artistic endeavors (although music, through sampling, seems to be at the forefront these days). It really is worth considering the dampening effect that these policies have on creativity and innovation.
"Stealing" from dictionary.com
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
When you take music without paying you ARE taking it without permission. You may claim a moral right all you want, that doesn't change the fact that it is stealing. You can argue that they don't lose a cent, that doesn't change the fact that it is stealing. You can tell us how the music industry is corrupt, that doesn't change the fact that it is stealing.
The best you can claim is that your stealing doesn't hurt anyone. And that STILL DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT IT IS STEALING.
My understanding is that to be parody, it would have to be "poking fun" at the original material. Just "changing the words" constitutes a derivative work and that falls under copyright. (That distinction is what led the folks who thought they owned "This Land" to threaten legal action against JibJab. What got JibJab off the hook was that the copyright had expired )
As a comparison, The Brothers Grinn took a number of "Chicken Soup for the Soul" articles that were circulating on the web and rewrote them to make fun of the original material.
You don't think so? In that case, I have an "official" Captain Jean-Luc Picard (TM) "Make it so!" Talking Toilet Bowl seat that I want to sell you. It programmed to offer such encouragement as:
"Make it so!"
"Tea, Earl Grey, Hot!"
"Engage!"
"These are not the droids we're looking for!
Yours for only four easy payments of 29.95!
It's interesting to me that most of these discussions assume that preserving the making of money in the entertainment business overrides all other considerations. As Doctorow sums up, "The inkers, artists, writers and pencillers should be protected by statute and practice in a way that guarantees them a decent wage and the means to care for their families." This is always taken as a given. The enterteinment business must endure.
Why?
Would a world without professionally produced entertainment be as bad as a world in which you need approval from some central authority every time you access a hard drive or move bytes from one piece of equipment to another? I can live a pretty full life without Madonna, Spiderman or Star Wars. I can't live nearly such a full life if every action I perform electronically is monitored, and everything I personally create and distribute must be checked for possible infringement or I risk losing my house in a lawsuit.
Preservation of copyright in the modern world creates these consequences. Like the War On Drugs, which currently accounts for 65% of our prison system, the War On Infringement will entail greater and greater enforcement costs. I don't want to pay those costs to preserve an industry that contributes only a few percent to the economy. I also don't want to further entrench the modern notion that ideas and property are one and the same, or that rights and property are one and the same. Given a choice between preserving the profitability of entertainment for the few people who earn a living that way, and perserving the personal freedoms that the other 99.999% of the population will lose -- and it IS a binary choice -- give me the latter.
A web page, served with embedded ads, may be considered a work covered by copyright and therefore protected from unauthorized derivative works, e.g. abridgments or ad-free versions.
:-)
Nah, I don't think this will fly. At all.
Under this theory, for example, I would be prohibited from doing anything destructive with a book -- e.g. tearing out some pages. This theory would immediately make the fast-forward button on VCRs/DVD players illegal. I guess it would make the mute button on the TV remotes illegal as well.
In fact, given the recent law explicitly giving permission to non-copyright-holders to modify and redistribute movies (primarily to take out cursing/sex/violence) -- I estimate the chances of this theory making it past the appeals court at zero.
Publishers might make a case for Trespass to Chattels, or Trespass, or Unfair Competition, or some other garbage tort that would boil down to "the courts are obliged to support my dumb-ass business model".
There might be a case against someone who strips ads and redistributes web pages (adless) to other people. Not against the end user, though.
Yes, I understand that you could make it a contract case -- make the user explicitly agree to a contract on the first page of the web site and then you can sue him for breaking that contract. However this has to generate so much ill will and bad publicity that I'd actually want to see someone try it..
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
That's nice. But wanting to devote yourself to some craft, does not automatically qualify you for compensation.
If you want to make money, you have to do something that people are willing to buy.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
"It's interesting to me that most of these discussions assume that preserving the making of money in the entertainment business overrides all other considerations. As Doctorow sums up, "The inkers, artists, writers and pencillers should be protected by statute and practice in a way that guarantees them a decent wage and the means to care for their families." This is always taken as a given. The enterteinment business must endure."
It's not the perservation that's the issue. It's those who feel that being entertained is an entitlement, and will do everything in their power to see that that happens.
If people truely put actions to words then they wouldn't have ANYTHING (buy, possess, talk about) to do with the commercial industy, and subsiquently they would collapse, IP laws or not. Instead being the ethical "sprinters" they are. They take the short-term easy solution to the issue.
"Would a world without professionally produced entertainment be as bad as a world in which you need approval from some central authority every time you access a hard drive or move bytes from one piece of equipment to another?"
As opposed to a world were artists refuse to produce anything in the face of a respectless audiance. Were whatever you produce is seen by the audiance as "theirs" not because they had any hand in it's creation, but just because "they can".
"I can live a pretty full life without Madonna, Spiderman or Star Wars. I can't live nearly such a full life if every action I perform electronically is monitored, and everything I personally create and distribute must be checked for possible infringement or I risk losing my house in a lawsuit."
The fact that there's widespread dissemination of copyright material means that while you can "do without". that doesn't mean the majority can.
"Preservation of copyright in the modern world creates these consequences."
More like "perservation of the unreasonable aspects" than the idea itself, but a lot is created by those who've either never learned what morals or ethics are, or don't care to learn. It's easy to blame the laws for the consequences. It's much harder to look at one's own heart and see the consequences arising from it's nature.
"Like the War On Drugs, which currently accounts for 65% of our prison system, the War On Infringement will entail greater and greater enforcement costs."
If it does, it's because people on BOTH SIDES either didn't do what they're suppose to, when they're suppose to. Or did do something they weren't suppose to. Actions have effects. Rights have responsabilities. That is an immutable rule, that humanity still refuses to come to terms with.
" I don't want to pay those costs to preserve an industry that contributes only a few percent to the economy."
And once again slashdot demonstrates it's myopic world view. Just as there's a world beyound the US. There's a world beyound just the "content industry" The contribution from all the individuals and companies, amoungst others who produce IP is incalcuable. IP rules are for everyone.
"I also don't want to further entrench the modern notion that ideas and property are one and the same, or that rights and property are one and the same."
That's not what's being etrenched. The basic idea that a man can enter in reciprocal agreements with his fellow man for the purposes of earning a living is what's being entrenched.
No one see's a problem with this idea when physical goods are being discussed. But when it comes to digital goods and services. Suddenly that rule no longer seems to apply, and it's every greedy person for themself, damn any agreement.
"Given a choice between preserving the profitability of entertainment for the few people who earn a living that way, and perse