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. "
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
http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp02242005.shtml
http://www.checkerboardnightmare.com/d/20050224.ht ml
http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/fanart/queenofwan ds.html
Of course, this being Slashdot, five people have probably already posted this by now...
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
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
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.
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/
This reminds me a lot of a problem my company is facing. One of partner sites that uses our free video hosting software http://video.freevideoblog.com/ gets a lot of "fan" dedications to popular TV shows like Buffy the Vampire slayer or Anime music videos set to popular songs. It's damn good work, and IMOHO only creates more awareness and popularity to the original work, but because we're paranoid of getting sued by the RIAA and MPAA, we have to delete those videos from the system.
I have to wonder how the Music industry gets around this as often I hear music that "samples" tracks from other artists, or even sound bites from TV and the movies. So I know there is a process in place to take an original work and modify it (And combine it with your own original work) to create your own unique art...but I don't know what it is, or where that shade of gray turns black.
I have to say that in this lawsuit happy time I'm more inclined to ere on the side of caution, but I feel a lot of unique and original work is lost or covered up by folks like myself moderating content off the system.
Anyhow just some idle rambling from my own experience.
-Adam
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
It's not that bad.
Most people mixing up their own derivative works for fun will share within their circle of friends privately, or via centralized services that haven't grown big enough to care about being legally anal, or via decentralized p2p (which is where I find most of those anime music vids, halo vids, GTA trick vids, CS cheater vids, WoW "hammertime" vids, and whatnot).
Power to the Peaceful
Because of that "IANAL" thing - true of most people with web content. And just putting a message like "You can copy my stuff within reason" is pretty much equivalent to "Help yourself to everything" if you ever want to take it to a courtroom.
The CC licenses, on the other hand, ARE written by lawyers. So they say exactly what you want them to say, and when you say "You can do this, but not that" you know that you're not leaving a dozen loopholes to be exploited.
So.. it has come to this
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.
The problem is that there's no taking. Taking requires that you deprive the owner of the thing taken; copying doesn't do that. A better, though still imperfect analogy, would be to trespassing.
Basically, you should work on your vocabulary; just because something is illegal, or even wrong in your opinion, doesn't mean you should call it stealing. A different word might be more appropriate. Arson isn't stealing, for example. Nor is kidnapping.
As it happens, there is a term that is exactly the right term to use: copyright infringement.
It might not inflame your passion, but it's accurate. I value the latter more, especially since it's difficult to have a rational discussion with someone that's being so emotional that they can't think straight.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
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.