Slashdot Mirror
German Copyright Group To Collect From Creative Commons Event
bs0d3 writes "In Leipzig, Germany, an 8 hour music/dance party event was organized to play nothing but creative commons music the entire time. A German copyright group called GEMA told the organizers that to be certain that no rights were infringed, it would need a list of all artists including their full names, place of residency and date of birth. After the event GEMA sent an invoice for 200 euros. They claim that behind pseudonyms some of their artists may be hidden and produce things that they would not earn anything from. According to German law, you are required to prove that an artist is not with GEMA. So even though GEMA probably does not have rights to any of the music, they are not required to prove that they do."
Sorry if this is off-topic, but I desperately need to find out what Sourceforge's top downloads are. Does anyone know where I can get this information???
It has become necessary that we all ignore copyrights from this point on, in civil disobedience. This has really gone too far. Take a look - an organization that represents a minority of the population's interests, can have more privileges than all other citizens, and other citizens are obliged to that minority. this is against democracy. property rights, cannot come before democracy.
Read radical news here
title says it.
they should rebel, the gema artists that is.
also germans should rebel, because gema is collecting money it has no way to deliver to the lawful owner(the artist).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
This is really sick, and sadly the same here in Hungary. A specific rightsholder group is granted legal monopoly on all the music business, and there is no way for art to exist outside them. They also have the right to tax all storage media because "they would be used for piracy anyway".
I asked our beloved SAZAS about this matter. The question specifically was: what was your opinion on playing open-source / cc music in a waiting room? The reply was that since all authors must report to SAZAS and report their incomes and creative commons authors do not, such music was illegal in Slovenia.
A German copyright group called GEMA told the organizers that to be certain that no rights were infringed, it would need a list of all artists including their full names, place of residency and date of birth.
So, to be sure no rights are violated, they need to be given private details about 3rd party individuals that they have no right to know?
IHRE PAPIERE!
I've just recently finished writing a book (prologue and first three chapters here, available under CC-BY-NC-SA) and I feel that, given that Apple iPhones can run the Kindle app, and my book will be available on Kindle, that since Apple can't prove that people aren't pirating my book I feel entitled to a cut of every iPhone sale. Let's start at 1% retroactive and see what we come up with. ... Oh, you're saying I have to basically own the government, like the RIAA/MPAA/GEMA do? Otherwise I have no real recourse, and it's touch shit for me, because I can't buy my own politicians?
Damn. Guess my novel might have to get by by giving back to people who read it, by allowing them to legally and safely write their own fanfiction, or to reimagine the characters and story as they see fit.
I really wish I was a rich, government-manipulating scumbag. That'd make this whole process so much easier.
P.S. I'm using Chrome. How come I can't seem to log in these days? It accepts my username and password, but just goes back to "Login"...
after i explained what GEMA is / does: "wtf? so they're the music-nazis of the world?"
The SACEM still sent a bill.
The treasurer of the band (not paying attention...) paid it.
After becoming aware of the error, the treasurer tried to reclaim the money, to no avail.
So, then the composer sent a letter to the SACEM, explaining to them that they had solicited money in his name, and that he wanted to have it.
A couple of weeks later, a bank transfer showed up at the band's account (not the composer's personal account) where the fee was reimbursed in full, but no explanation, nor excuse...
Probably, in the German case, it might not be so simple, as they played stuff from multiple composers, and if one composer complains, the GEMA could always claim that they solicited money on behalf of the other composers...
...is always more profitable than working, because you hardly have any overheads. You just need to supply the occasional fawn for your lawyers to swallow whole, before going into torpor until their next court date.
At some point, our leaders and their pet intellectuals are going to have to deal with the fact that one of the most basic assumptions behind our societies - that profitability is equivalent to economic success - is fundamentally flawed.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
I have long opposed extreme copyright terms and bad copyright law, and supported the public domain and creative commons licensing - but I have also supported paying artists for such work as they have copyrighted. I have always tried to buy a legitimate copy of music I like, where it has been available, and encouraged others to buy legitimate recordings.
But this is simply too much. If the copyright organizations are going to insist on collecting money for works they do not own nor represent, then they can go to hell. Really, this is just extortion. They deserve no more sympathy.
Even paintings now, some % after every sale goes back to the artist after the first sale. Auctions and the like have to uphold it. And if the artist isn't found, it gets put in some type of fund. Amazing amount of agencies spring up claiming to represent this or that artist, many overlap.
Amazing what government stupidity brings.
Guys, the TFS is bullshit. Germany has no concept of "copyright". But even many Germans don't know that.
We have "Urheberrecht", which is like "authors' right". The privilege of the original author to get something for his work. As opposed to the privilege to "copy" (usually the badly paid works of others).
The former once made sense in pre-Internet times. The latter is based on the lie that one could actually control who makes a copy of what information, and was designed to abuse artists from the very beginning.
The GEMA was originally there, to collect the money for those artists, and hand it straight to them. That service did cost a small monthly membership fee.
But nowadays, the GEMA is a bunch of 80+ dudes that keep practically all the money for themselves and buy seconds yachts and huge mansions.
While the membership fee is more expensive than what they get out for 99.9% of the artists. (I'm not even exaggerating.) Most members get something like 50 cent or less.
But GEMA acts like if you don't do anything, you're automatically a member. Without asking you.
And if you want out, they often simply act like it didn't happen and keep collecting "for you" anyway.
Oh, and their fees for "performing" a song are crazy high. High enough that no Internet radio station here could afford it, even with lots of advertising. (We tried, and had to shut down.)
This is just a simple case of some idiot in some federal bureau with nothing better to do. The Gema konzept isn't all to bad, but with all the DRM laws added in the last decade it falls flat on its face in so many places. For instance, you are allowed to make private copies of your music and there is a basic royalty on copy media such as CDRWs that goes straight to the GEMA - but it is illegal to circumvent copy protection. As usual: Lots and lots of messy and broken laws in this field by people without a clue.
This whole GEMA/GEZ thing is in for a complete redo by people who understand the subject. Until then stuff like this will continue to pop up every now and then.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
GEMA claims that they are collecting money belonging to their artists. But at the same time they admit that they cannot know who these artists are. Therefore they will have no way of giving the money to these alleged artists. Funny how german lawmakers are seemingly unable to see the total absurdity in this
This is my biggest bone with copyright laws - it gives rights to collect copyright fees to private entity - and what's most important - they don't have to prove that it is their representative they collect money for. Our local agency claims that they have rights to do it so, and after author will make agreement with them, they will pay money back (minus admin fees of course). This is bordering with absurd, but honestly, people lack of insight in such difficult subject helps heavily, as lobbyist groups have freeway to copyright laws.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
It's not a bad idea after all. Look at this scenario:
An artist does a painting, sells it while he's not famous for a thousand euros, then some time later he becomes famous and his painting is sold to a new owner for a million euros.
Shouldn't the artist get some of that money? or should only the "art industry" feed on it?
What if they don't pay? GEMA would have to take them to court, right? Is a judge really going to make them pay, without GEMA pointing out even a single song played at the event that infringed one of their artists' copyright? Is there any precedent for that in Germany?
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
I made no claims at all about what copyright is.
But your stance is easily debatable. Should one not have the right to one's creations? What gives you the right to claim them as your own or as the public's? Are the consequences of your claim - both in the decision of those who create works to continue to create them, and of the precedent your claim makes - are the consequences desirable or constitute a net benefit?
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
But at least our (Dutch) law has provisions against criminal organizations. These organizations are clearly criminal. Is there really nobody who files charges against these mafiosi?
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
It's not a bad idea after all. Look at this scenario:
An artist does a painting, sells it while he's not famous for a thousand euros, then some time later he becomes famous and his painting is sold to a new owner for a million euros.
Shouldn't the artist get some of that money? or should only the "art industry" feed on it?
No, since the artist fucking SOLD the painting in the first place. He got compensated for it.
No one should have a lock on the future.
The main problem with "your own creation" is the part, that is not your own creation. As all creations are cultural creations, e.g. only possible with a cultural and social background, and any (theoretical) creation that isn't founded in the social and cultural background, is non-understandable for any other than the creator and non-distingushable from random noise for everyone else, every creation is 95% background and 5% original creation. But it gets protected as if 100% of it was solely the accomplishment of its creator. A property has its welldefined limits, where it is easy to say where the property begins and what belongs to the environment around the property. Patents at least attempt with the claims system to point out the limits which distinguish between background and creation, but normal works of Arts don't. There is no claims list where the artist points out which of the work is reference, quote, copied from somewhere else, taken from nature etc.pp., and of which part the artist thinks to be actually his original creation. Persiflage and satirical usage can further muddy the water
If you look into court cases of plagiarism, you'll notice how complicated the differentiation between "original" and "non-original" can get, and how it depends on the actual argument of lawyers and quoted precedences, which part of a work is "creation" and which is not.
The idea of "give the creator the right to his creation" is well intended, but often very naive and unworkable. Sadly though, I have no solution how to improve on the idea to make it workable.
I've been stuck in the same dilemmy in Germany now for more than ten years, and how crazy this whole legislation is and has always been never occurred to anybody in public.
This goes so far that the rates are actually too low to really complain about, but high enough to be a big headache for small concerts and stuff.
If an artist is signed with GEMA (so, get's money from them), he even has to pay GEMA fees in case he organizes a concert himself, for himself, only playing his own songs.
He will get the money back later, of course - but subtract bureaucracy fees. Same goes on for CDs!
It's just completely crazy. So as an artist, you are either "in" - and pay to eventually get paid - or "out" - and you never get paid at all.
The winners? Big acts, as usual.
some time later he becomes famous and his painting is sold to a new owner for a million euros.
Shouldn't the artist get some of that money? or should only the "art industry" feed on it?
No, he shouldn't get any of that money. He should paint another painting and sell it for a million euros. (Or paint 100 more, sell each of them for 100K, and screw up the market.)
Never mind the copyright arguments. How do you prove you are not a member of some group? Do you need official papers stating all the groups you don't belong to?
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
"The idea of "give the creator the right to his creation" is well intended, but often very naive and unworkable. Sadly though, I have no solution how to improve on the idea to make it workable."
Is suspect a workable solution would include reducing the term that copyright and other intellectual "property" rights last. Copyright is meant to be a limited privilege afforded to the creator of a work, in order to reward the creator and thus encourage the creation of intellectual works. A noble intent, which has gotten lost over the years as corporations started receiving copyright and realised they could increase profits by lobbying the governments of this world to increase their copyright terms step by step until the current ridiculous system of decades of protection after the death of the artist.
It is now considered by many politicians to be inalienable rights and thus the original compromise between the freedom of expression and reward for authors/creators has been lost.
A workable solution would be to start from the assumption that there is no copyright any more and then reintroduce the original compromise in the context of modern society.
Should one not have the right to one's creations?
And they do. But that has little to do with the copies that other people possess.
What gives you the right to claim them as your own or as the public's?
Perhaps the government. Perhaps yourself. Perhaps the magical rights fairy. It really just depends on who you think grants rights. What gives you the right to do anything?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
It's a country where:
Presiding Judge Johanna Brueckner-Hofmann remarked upon delivering the verdict, "The court is of the opinion that Apple’s minimalistic design isn’t the only technical solution to make a tablet computer, other designs are possible. For the informed customer there remains the predominant overall impression that the device looks."
which essentially grants Apple monopoly on all rectangular multi-touch based display tablets with one button or less on the face -- the current industry standard.
GEMA - yet another association which has failed to adapt to newer technology and now is clawing at air while it sinks into fiscal bankruptcy. The moral bankruptcy came much earlier, when its' ur-members advocated the forced legal enlistment (enslavement) of authors (rather than works).
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" [Napoleon] Even by the low standards for such dinosaurs, GEMA appears unusually stupid. This is more stupidity and will hasten their demise--the publicity of their unreasonableness with encourage further bypassing/non-compliance. Eventually, the Piratenpartei will administer a coup-de-grace.
Please look at the gaming industry. It has grown considerably larger than movies even though the product is comparatively easy to copy illicitly. Nevermind the occasional whining about lost revenues, it is big and healthy. Why do people pay, then? At least partly because they want to, to reward production and encourage development.
You hit on it exactly, the solution to the current problems with copyright law would be to reduce the term of copyright to some reasonable length. I would recommend a term of something on the order of 28 years with 7 year extensions available at the expiration for a large fee that goes up geometrically with each extension (you could easily convince me that the fee should go up logarithmically rather than geometrically).
Twenty-eight years might be too long, but I think it is the place to start. Once we got the term changed to 28 years we could revisit the length of copyright again in a few years and consider shortening it further.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Why should an artist get more then people working in other areas. Should someone who sells a piece of land be forever entitled to a % of any new sales? Or even rents on buildings on that land? Or should a stock holder be entitled to dividends even after he has sold his stocks?
Just for your information, GEMA also collects money from the live performances.
IIRC, reason quoted was that the live performances harm CD sales and thus harm artists' profits.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
I'm studying German at the moment. Any tip for a good dictionary on the subject?
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
No. It is a terrible idea.
What if you buy a BMW 1201Whatever and later on this car becomes a classic collectors car, making it worth more money than it originally was? Shouldn't BMW get some of the money?
What if you buy a designer shirt from Le Whatever and later on this shirt becomes a "vintage" collectors shirt, making it worth more money than it originally was? Shouldn't Le Whatever get some of that money?
What if you buy a house and later on property prices go up and the house becomes worth more than what it was. Shouldn't the person who sold you that house get some of the money?
No. When you sell something, you've sold it. Meaning you've lost all claims to it. That is the risk of selling something. You may lose future income, but you have also protected yourself from the item losing value by realising its value in cold hard cash.
If the artists want to profit from future price rises, they should sell a share of the paintings. They can then still profit from future price rises, but obviously they have to take the risk of the painting actually decreasing in value over time.
The artist having the cake and eating it too is not fair. Not fair at all.
This is beyond ridiculous. These people live outside of reality (and at our expense).
So, when you get convicted of that Capital Offense that you did not factually bear any relation to, I too, will share your lack of outrage. Simple logic is for Simpletons.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Well, thats a nice sweeping statement, shame it doesn't mean anything. If you think it does, define the words "property", "functioning" and "democracy" - as precisely as possible.
Does the emergence of property rights in China make it more democratic?
Yes and No. China is certainly a more human place since limited property rights were introduced. And for those pessimist who see the glass as half full, property rights does not mean democracy – it is a necessary but not sufficient condition – hence the word “requisite”.
Does the fact that many EU countries have a larger public sector than, say, Russia mean that they are less democratic?
You hit the nail square on the head. Take a look at Boris Berezovsky. He criticized the Kremlin and then they stripped his T.V. Stations away from him. I have some issues with European media (like the captive French media) but this could not happen in Western Europe. Sure, the state can lean on you economically – but only so far. And you can always buy/rent a printing press from a private party instead of be censored by a state owned printer. One needs to have the rule of law to have democracy – and that rule of law must be extended to property.
This is the problem with ideological rhetoric. It all sounds very good, and is carefully phrased to be almost impossible to disagree with, but is devoid of any useful underlying meaning.
Not so. Read up on Milton Friedman. You may disagree with his conclusions – for example his OPPOSITION to the “Copyright Term Extension Act” - but he is not some empty headed shrill.
Exactly the same thing, that gives me any other right - a law, which is an agreement of a society I am a member of. Without such agreements the only basic right is the right of the might.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
With this in mind, US copyright was created as a balance, an incentive to people to produce in return for a LIMITED copyright before the works fell back to the public domain. Limited used to mean 14 years, as in people were personally supposed to see their own works go out of copyright to have incentive to create more to keep the money coming in.
In the United States the Constitution gives this right:
Article I Section 8:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
The idea behind this being that the public can give up rights to created works and allow the author to have exclusive rights for a while, with the end goal of having more works available to the public (domain). The problem comes when people no longer understand what the point behind copyright law and mutilate it into "it means it is the authors property forever." Should it be theirs forever? Does it really encourage an author to write more books if their grandchildren can collect a royalty long after their death?
That only reinforces my point. No artist should get paid for every time their song gets played. No inventor should get money for every copy of their design.
Make thing, sell thing. Once. That's the basis of all economy. Everything else is racketeering.
Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
Papers please!
They'd take you to court. And they don't have to prove anything. The law in this case says that GEMA can safely assume that every artist is a GEMA member and it's on you to prove them wrong. The German laws in this regard are unfortunately really fucked up and far from common sense...
The Angels have the Phone Box
Other posts say public disobedience is needed to fix this, but I think what we really need is much more public education. Most people (and I'm SURE, most Congresspeople) don't know shit about IP law. Lawmakers are happy to go along with what their industry lobby friends tell them they need. The public at large is at best woefully ignorant and at worst dangerously ignorant about what is and is not allowed under copyright. Trademark and patent law could be OK with relatively little reform. Copyright law needs a major overhaul. Until the public (and Lawmakers) realizes that, it will continue to be business as usual.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
No art is made from the void. All artists/creators stand on the shoulders of giants. THATS how we lay claim to another's work. IP is a SOCIAL BARGAIN, please try to remember that.
Good-bye
The GEMA concept is bullshit, based on the outdated and notion that only a handful of musicians exist and make money from their work. It's completely unworkable in today's society.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
That's "Lick/Kiss Me"
i.e. Mozart used that in one of his titles ... "Lick me in the ass"
Canon in 6 parts in B flat major ("Leck mich im Arsch"), K. 231 (K. 382c)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lick_Me_in_the_Ass
http://www.amazon.com/Mozart-Time-Karl-Ditters-Dittersdorf/dp/B00000E6S8
In the US, at least in the city I live, we pay our protection money "en masse" from the mafia. I assume GEMA is similar. This was a HUGE BOON to us. We didn't have to work out individual protection relationships with individual thugs. We didn't have to negotiate with individual groups. We didn't have to try and account for "now, who gets paid exactly?" for every sale. We didn't have to track every extortion we payed and be auditable. All we had to agree is "OK, we're operating a business. Here's a check. You deal with who gets what."
If you're a bar, or a small performance space, or a "special event" space, or or someone else operating a business in town, this is a HUGE time and headache saver. You get a license from the mafia that allows you to operate as long as you give them a cut, and then just cut a check once a month.
Admittedly, if you're a protectee, and you wind up with a less profits a certain month, you wind up paying the mafia too much when they overestimate profits. You know what? It's still WAY cheaper and WAY less hassle than trying to account for every individual sale. It's WAY less hassle than the mafia coming in and busting up shit because they didn't believe your claim that you had a 25% decrease in revenue this money and can't afford your protection money.
If you sell stuff in a street controlled by a protection racket, you pay their fees if you're selling stuff. Any stuff. If you didn't understand that, you either got ripped off by the space owner, or didn't do your homework. Because their agreement with the mafia says that's what THEY pay, and they pass it along. No space owner in their right mind wants the hassle of trying to deal with protection payments themselves.
Sorry, but I just can't feel sorry for these folks. They chose the wrong place to hold their event, and/or didn't ask the other shopowners.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I don't know about German law, but in the US, you're innocent until proven guilty. They *DO* have proof that their music is all CC licensed, but GEMA won't accept the proof. Perhaps this can be brought into the courts and ruled to be an unenforceable law (since it presumes guilt instead of innocence)? Or is that not a basic concept in German law?
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Creation as in: A particular expression of an idea, sure. But the ideas as such are not anyone's property since any idea is infinitely copyable. A carpenter does not expect to get paid every time someone sits in their chair, why should a musician get paid whenever someone plays his record on a radio? He sold the record, now create something new. Work is not a lottery. The entertainment industries are not tax collectors.
Nice! Since it's practically impolssible to prove the negative, GEMA always wins...
What makes you think that history would play out differently next time? Since copyright law could have been perverted once, it will again.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
I agree with the policy but why 28 years, seems like an arbitrary number, is there any evidence of what term is best. To me 28 years seems excessive since the vast majority of most songs/films revenues seem to occur in the first year. (I could be wrong) does anybody know some stats that describe what proportion of an average song/movie money is made over time.
It is a somewhat arbitrary number, 25 or 30 would work just as well. 28 is the result of the fact that at one point term of copyright was in multiples of 7 years.
The reason for, at this time, choosing a term between 25-30 years is because of the number of companies that have built their businesses on longer copyright. Additionally, while I, also, am under the impression that most copyrighted material makes most of its money in the first year, there is a lot of material where that is not the case, especially for small independently produced material.
I happen to think that the 25-30 year range is longer than ideal. However, I believe that by shooting for a somewhat longer time than I think is ideal increases the chances of getting the law actually changed.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
But your stance is easily debatable. Should one not have the right to one's creations? What gives you the right to claim them as your own or as the public's? Are the consequences of your claim - both in the decision of those who create works to continue to create them, and of the precedent your claim makes - are the consequences desirable or constitute a net benefit?
You have every right to create or not as you see fit. But do not have any rights at all to your creations. At least not natural rights.
If you supplied someone with all the materials for a house and they built a house with them on property you owned, would they have a right to the house just because they built it? If you improve your landlord's property with materials your landlord supplies are you then entitled to charge the landlord for your improvements because you have a right to them?
No, people have a right not to create unless they are recompensed. But they have no natural right to their creations, just the property used to make them.
I'm willing to entertain the notion that we should create a system of incentives to encourage people to create things for the general betterment of everyone. But predicating a system on the notion that people have a right to their creations is a terrible mistake.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
The GEMA concept is bullshit, based on the outdated and notion that only a handful of musicians exist and make money from their work. It's completely unworkable in today's society.
Which is exactly why they'll try to make it work. You know what they say about history....
If the majority are pissed, they will kill you. Don't misuse the democratic system, for when you do, those laws will do nothing to protect you.
If that were the social standard, there would still be slavery, no interracial marriage, women's suffrage, anti-homosexuality laws... either a "pure" democratic system sucks or you don't have a firm understanding of democracy.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
If GEMA doesn't have to show their relation to actual creators, and such false charges are billed or collected, then fundamentally it is a form of copyright fraud whether enabled by National (Socialist?) legislation or not. Using some kind of "opt out" logic is merely a means of enablement to establish a more perfect kleptocracy. This is a gross violation of personal (property) rights of the whole population.
I think you are right there. I was just replying to the UID Qbertino who thought that the concept isn't all too bad.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
"What makes you think that history would play out differently next time?"
There is no guarantee of anything in this world but it would at least provide benefit for a while. Then we'd just have to use the past as evidence not to extend copyright again.
Even paintings now, some % after every sale goes back to the artist after the first sale.
UK too: http://www.artquest.org.uk/articles/view/first-semester-report1
Would the carpenter be as apt to produce as many chairs if it required almost zero effort or investment to duplicate his creations?
For better or worse, the consequences of creating a physical item and an intellectual one are not comparable. Trying to compare them is naive, at best.
This is not to say the process has not devolved into a very abusive form, but there are serious consequences to the entire fabric of intellectual creation if it is to be treated identically to physical creation. Like many things, there will be people with different ideas regarding whether one set of consequences are preferable to another. Taking a side doesn't make anyone right, because both sides have legitimate arguments.
Arguing for no control is as extreme as arguing for perpetual control. Neither side is balanced, and both are extraordinarily selfish. Those arguing for no control are just as bad as the corporations who want to profit in perpetuity from every work they can acquire.
I think people have absolutely no idea what artist lives are like, especially painters. And the replies i got to my post show it clearly.
Most painters live in misery all their lives, selling their paintings for almost nothing.
Then a few become famous, and it's mostly the art industry that make money off of them.
Sorry, but the car analogy does not work here!!!
The Germans are doing something in the right direction to try to get the money to the artists instead of to the resellers.
It may not be perfect, but it's better than the system we have in other countries.
In the music industry, no one is surprised to see that the artist or their kids get some money decades after they created a music. The Germans are trying to do a bit of this for painters, I say it goes in the right direction.