![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This is the first assignment for The January Talking Meme. If you want to try your hand at coming up with a topic for me to ramble about as opposed to my normal ramblings - sign up HERE - there are still dates available.
The lovely![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
green_maia came up with the first question: What would be the ideal copyright law, and why?
Prior to my current gig - I was the manager of rights and permissions at a now defunct library reference publishing company (The HW Wilson Company). So I have a bit of experience in this field. Back in the 1990s, before the internet took off like a bat out of hell, I was watching two listserves, one for librarians who worried that copyright law was becoming a wee bit too stringent, and one for publishers (mainly academic journal publishers, but there were others in there too) who felt that copyright law was far too lenient.
The publisher's fear was that if someone reproduced their work - they'd lose money. And if you write or publish for a living that's a big fear. Which sort of makes sense in theory, except to the degree that you are hampering the flow of information. Taken to extremes, copyright law or intellectual property law, which is broader in its scope, could prevent the whole point of art - which is communication. If someone can't access your art or writing or article, then what was the point of writing or creating it to begin with?
Add to this another wrinkle: Part of the joy of telling stories or communicating stories to others through art is seeing what they do with them. How the other person interprets, digests, or plays with your story. If you create a law that states people are not permitted to adapt, reinterpret, play with or create new stories from your work without your express permission (meaning you have to okay whatever they decide to do and get paid for it) - you sort of chop off that communication trade-off at the knees. You may get a response - but it won't necessarily be an honest or spontaneous one.
The writer/artist's fear of someone stealing what they created and/or taking all the credit for it - thus taking away their lively hood, in effect, gets in the way of the whole reason most writers/artists did it to begin with - to share their ideas and views with others. On the other hand, it is a legitimate fear. Mrs. Fields after all took a friend's cookie recipe and made lots and lots of money off of it, leaving the friend in the lurch. Or Janet Daily copied whole sections of Nora Roberts novel Sweet Revenge - for "Notorious" and made money off of it, until a reader caught it.
Another way of looking at it, is the nervous parent who sends their kid off to kindergarten for the first time. They have created this wonderful little person, who they love to pieces, but at some point they have to let the person go - interact with other little persons and big persons, and come back an entirely different person as a result (And as time moves forward, have the opportunity to create new little persons with others.) Stories are similar - you send them out in the universe, they come back different. ( And in some cases, they create new little stories.) Once you send them out there - they are no longer just yours. But what you don't want, is for some other parent to steal your child and pass them off as their own. Anymore than a writer wants someone to steal their story and pass it off as their own.
Copyright law was originally set up to simply protect the writer or artist from someone else ripping off their work. It's become rather complicated over time, but then so has art.
I think, and I know this is a bit radical so bear with me, that the ideal copyright law would protect the artist/writer from someone ripping off their work, while at the same time permitting people to play with their work, make money off derivative works, adaptations, and new interpretations - without having to obtain the copyright holder's permission or wait until the work falls into public domain. Sort of like what people do now with Shakespeare, Jane Austen, the Brontes, or Moby Dick. In short, the ability to write and publish fanfic without legal repercussions. Or for that matter to direct a movie adaptation of a play or book, without having to obtain "permission". ( Read more... )
The lovely
green_maia came up with the first question: What would be the ideal copyright law, and why?Prior to my current gig - I was the manager of rights and permissions at a now defunct library reference publishing company (The HW Wilson Company). So I have a bit of experience in this field. Back in the 1990s, before the internet took off like a bat out of hell, I was watching two listserves, one for librarians who worried that copyright law was becoming a wee bit too stringent, and one for publishers (mainly academic journal publishers, but there were others in there too) who felt that copyright law was far too lenient.
The publisher's fear was that if someone reproduced their work - they'd lose money. And if you write or publish for a living that's a big fear. Which sort of makes sense in theory, except to the degree that you are hampering the flow of information. Taken to extremes, copyright law or intellectual property law, which is broader in its scope, could prevent the whole point of art - which is communication. If someone can't access your art or writing or article, then what was the point of writing or creating it to begin with?
Add to this another wrinkle: Part of the joy of telling stories or communicating stories to others through art is seeing what they do with them. How the other person interprets, digests, or plays with your story. If you create a law that states people are not permitted to adapt, reinterpret, play with or create new stories from your work without your express permission (meaning you have to okay whatever they decide to do and get paid for it) - you sort of chop off that communication trade-off at the knees. You may get a response - but it won't necessarily be an honest or spontaneous one.
The writer/artist's fear of someone stealing what they created and/or taking all the credit for it - thus taking away their lively hood, in effect, gets in the way of the whole reason most writers/artists did it to begin with - to share their ideas and views with others. On the other hand, it is a legitimate fear. Mrs. Fields after all took a friend's cookie recipe and made lots and lots of money off of it, leaving the friend in the lurch. Or Janet Daily copied whole sections of Nora Roberts novel Sweet Revenge - for "Notorious" and made money off of it, until a reader caught it.
Another way of looking at it, is the nervous parent who sends their kid off to kindergarten for the first time. They have created this wonderful little person, who they love to pieces, but at some point they have to let the person go - interact with other little persons and big persons, and come back an entirely different person as a result (And as time moves forward, have the opportunity to create new little persons with others.) Stories are similar - you send them out in the universe, they come back different. ( And in some cases, they create new little stories.) Once you send them out there - they are no longer just yours. But what you don't want, is for some other parent to steal your child and pass them off as their own. Anymore than a writer wants someone to steal their story and pass it off as their own.
Copyright law was originally set up to simply protect the writer or artist from someone else ripping off their work. It's become rather complicated over time, but then so has art.
I think, and I know this is a bit radical so bear with me, that the ideal copyright law would protect the artist/writer from someone ripping off their work, while at the same time permitting people to play with their work, make money off derivative works, adaptations, and new interpretations - without having to obtain the copyright holder's permission or wait until the work falls into public domain. Sort of like what people do now with Shakespeare, Jane Austen, the Brontes, or Moby Dick. In short, the ability to write and publish fanfic without legal repercussions. Or for that matter to direct a movie adaptation of a play or book, without having to obtain "permission". ( Read more... )