Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Should Encourage Derivative Works
Techdirt has an interesting look at copyright and the idea that an author is the originator of a new work. Instead, the piece suggests that all works are in some way based on the works of others (even our own copyright law), and the system should be much more encouraging of "remixing" work into new, unique experiences. "Friedman also points back to another recent post where he discusses the nature of content creation, based on a blog post by Rene Kita. In it, she points out that remixing and creating through collaboration and building on the works of others has always been the norm. It's what we do naturally. It's only in the last century or so, when we reached a means of recording, manufacturing and selling music — which was limited to just those with the machinery and capital to do it, that copyright was suddenly brought out to 'protect' such things."
Just look at software. How many developers learn to code without looking at examples? And why does good documentation contain lots of those?
Face it: once you've seen some code, from that point on everything you write can be considered a remix of all those, coupled with your own ideas.
Anything more than ~30 years is harmful to the industry.
Oh no, it helps the industry, it just harms culture.
I'm not so much into music, as I am into books. Over several years, I read almost all of Marion Zimmer Bradley's books. I'm sure I missed some, but I read a LOT. Bradley's Darkover books, especially, inspired a huge fan club. Not only did Bradley tolerate, but she ENCOURAGED new authors to explore her Darkover universe. I would hate to count, but there are probably 5 or more published books about Bradley's Darkover than she ever published.
If I recall correctly, all of those derivative works pay tribute to Bradley, somewhere within the pages. To my knowledge, Bradley never was paid a cent on any of those derivative works. Bradley DID BENEFIT from them, in that they expanded her sphere of admirers, who in turn bought more of her original works.
This is the correct and proper way for copyright to work, regarding derivative works. Pay homage to the master who showed you the way, but you really owe him nothing more. Just like education - teachers teach to earn a living, but they HOPE that one or more of their students surpasses them. If/when a student does surpass his/her teachers, he isn't required to come back and pay them again for teaching him so well.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
But I do not think some two bit hack should be able to just create a Batman comic strip without permission.
Sorry but this is the purest form of assholery enabled by copyright.
If someone random releases a Batman comic, then there are three possible outcomes:
1. It sucks. Nobody cares, the original author does not lose anything. Publisher is annoyed because somebody is using "their" franchise, but since people tend to forget about shitty comics they doesn't care much.
2. It is acceptable. Some people will buy and enjoy it, but most probably won't consider it canon. The original author is unaffected. Publisher is annoyed because they think that money should belong to them.
3. It is absolutely great. Readers have a great comic, the "unauthorized" artist has a lot of money. The original artist might have a reduced ability to sell his future works if they aren't as good as the "unauthorized" ones, but most probably his earlier works will sell better because of increased popularity of Batman in general. Publisher gnaws his arms off because they did not make any money from the hit.
Conclusion: this use of copyright does not benefit the authors or the readers in the slightest. They only benefit the publishers, who can turn the creative arts into a money farm. The effect is a cultural land grab that stifles creativity, and prevents a great many works from being created because they would not be authorized. For example, a movie about the Stalinist terror using Disney characters could become a cultural milestone, and yet there is no chance of that ever being authorized.
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
It helps a few major players, but harms industry on the whole. The same is true for other creative arts. The proponents of restrictive IP rights usually misrepresent the good of those few best known players as the good of the industry, but the reality is that prosperity lies in plurality and "lawless free-for-all", not exclusive deals.
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
In it, she points out that remixing and creating through collaboration and building on the works of others has always been the norm. It's what we do naturally.
AFAICT, the real point of talking about "derivative works" with copyright is just to close a loophole where someone might say, "Oh, I don't have the right to distribute your work? Well no problem, this isn't your work. I changed 5 words in the novel, which makes it a different work. This new work is mine."
Since then, some people have taken it to mean that all new copyrighted works should be 100% original, not inspired by anything, and not borrowing from anyone's past work. But that's impossible.
Consider a form of art unhindered by copyright: dance.
The age of Internet is also the golden age of dance. Little known or local styles like Melbourne Shuffle gain worldwide recognition. A plurality of others, like the many variants of Jumpstyle, Tecktonik or Hardstep are created, because the elements from many styles can be combined to form a new mix, while the Internet and Youtube in particular allows easy sharing of demos and tutorial videos that allow anyone to learn a particular move they like. Classical styles are becoming more popular as well. Never before in human history was there such a vibrant dance scene. And even though "anybody" can dance, professional dancers still have jobs (see Riverdance, Stomp, any music video).
There is a lesson to be learned from this.
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
You missed the real case.
1a. It sucks. People buying it decide that ALL "Batman" stuff sucks. Nobody gets any money for stuff that sucks.
This is the problem unless you envision a world where everyone hears about everything on an equal basis. Sorry, nobody is that well informed, no matter how much time they spend on the Internet looking around and following links.
It is perfectly possible to destroy a "brand" with inferior merchandise, just as long as the inferior crap is put in front of people. This is what the battle for "counterfit" goods is all about and "derivative works" as well. If I can take over any brand and distribute my own version of it it cannot help the original brand much. It may not hurt it, or it can destroy it.
Here is another concept of "unauthorized" works. How about a film about the secret passions of Pol Pot enacted with nothing but Disney characters. I'll bit Minny Mouse would look real cute in the gangbang scene. Do you believe this would encourage more parents to bring their children to the Disney store? Why would you assume that this wouldn't happen?
Artistic characters should only be protected by trademark. Artistic works which are covered by copyright should only include actual works (e.g. Steamboat Willie) and not abstractions of those works (e.g. the Mickey Mouse character). Somewhere in between there is a gray area between paraphrase (probably should be protected by copyright) and summary (shouldn't be restricted by copyright).