![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatThis 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".
The ideal copyright law would protect the original version of the work - and protect the original creator's right to create adaptations, derivatives, or continuations unhampered by legal repercussions. Because you shouldn't have to get permission to play with what you created. But at the same time, it would not prevent others from adapting, continuing or playing with the work either - any more than a parent should protect their child from playing with other children, borrowing clothes, changing their hair style, or learning from people outside the home. Or other children borrowing their child's clothes or learning from their child.
The ideal copyright law would provide protection but not restrict interpretation, interaction or prevent discourse. People could quote from it, without being required to obtain permission. Writers could create their own original stories from it and sell those stories. Readers and viewers could create role-playing games from it and sell those games. The only thing they would be prevented from doing is recreating, plagiarizing, copying/reposting, or translating without permission. In short - they wouldn't be permitted to pass off another person's work of art as their own.
Granted to a degree, the current copyright law does permit some of these things, but with restrictions. You can't make money off fanfic. You can't mass produce it. You can't do adaptations that are commercial. Parody is permitted but within certain boundaries. And scholars can quote but only within specific constraints. I'm suggesting we remove those boundaries and constraints completely.
I propose limiting copyright law to the essential protections - in order to enhance creativity and open-up discourse. So that people can play with Harry Potter and Buffy the Vampire Slayer in the same ways people currently play with Shakespeare and Jane Austen.
For example? How about an all male version of Buffy and an all female version of Harry Potter performed on stage?
John Le Carre once stated that a movie adaptation that did not re-interpret his work wasn't that interesting. He didn't want to see work adapted exactly from the page - he wanted to see another interpretation. Imagine what would happen if we could freely do that - without fear of copyright law? Could freely play with works of art. Each derivative, adaptation, or fanfic continuation commenting on the original, telling us something new about it, redefining and broadening it.
Sure this might restrict some of the royalties that publishers obtain. After all sub-rights is a pretty lucrative field. But it would also open up creative endeavor. And provide the writer with insight on how his/her work is being interpreted. It would also allow the writer to play with other works of art.
Right now, intellectual property law is far too restrictive, too limiting, and too expensive. Only those with money and backing can cut through the red tape and do adaptations, continuations, and derivative works. Others are restricted to underground fanfiction communities. And fanfiction is given a derogatory name - considered laughable by the mainstream. When it should be the exact opposite - for it is in truth the viewer or reader interacting with the work, reinterpreting it, playing with it, exploring ideas that the original writer may not have explored or merely threw out there.
I'm not suggesting we do away with copyright law, so much as simplify it, make it less restrictive, and take it back to the basics - where it protects the original work from being "copied" or "passed off as someone else's" and where the original creator continues to get credit for his/her work, but at the same time, their work is not suffocated, it's not locked up, or tied up. It's allowed to breath, frolic, and play with whomever happens upon it.
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".
The ideal copyright law would protect the original version of the work - and protect the original creator's right to create adaptations, derivatives, or continuations unhampered by legal repercussions. Because you shouldn't have to get permission to play with what you created. But at the same time, it would not prevent others from adapting, continuing or playing with the work either - any more than a parent should protect their child from playing with other children, borrowing clothes, changing their hair style, or learning from people outside the home. Or other children borrowing their child's clothes or learning from their child.
The ideal copyright law would provide protection but not restrict interpretation, interaction or prevent discourse. People could quote from it, without being required to obtain permission. Writers could create their own original stories from it and sell those stories. Readers and viewers could create role-playing games from it and sell those games. The only thing they would be prevented from doing is recreating, plagiarizing, copying/reposting, or translating without permission. In short - they wouldn't be permitted to pass off another person's work of art as their own.
Granted to a degree, the current copyright law does permit some of these things, but with restrictions. You can't make money off fanfic. You can't mass produce it. You can't do adaptations that are commercial. Parody is permitted but within certain boundaries. And scholars can quote but only within specific constraints. I'm suggesting we remove those boundaries and constraints completely.
I propose limiting copyright law to the essential protections - in order to enhance creativity and open-up discourse. So that people can play with Harry Potter and Buffy the Vampire Slayer in the same ways people currently play with Shakespeare and Jane Austen.
For example? How about an all male version of Buffy and an all female version of Harry Potter performed on stage?
John Le Carre once stated that a movie adaptation that did not re-interpret his work wasn't that interesting. He didn't want to see work adapted exactly from the page - he wanted to see another interpretation. Imagine what would happen if we could freely do that - without fear of copyright law? Could freely play with works of art. Each derivative, adaptation, or fanfic continuation commenting on the original, telling us something new about it, redefining and broadening it.
Sure this might restrict some of the royalties that publishers obtain. After all sub-rights is a pretty lucrative field. But it would also open up creative endeavor. And provide the writer with insight on how his/her work is being interpreted. It would also allow the writer to play with other works of art.
Right now, intellectual property law is far too restrictive, too limiting, and too expensive. Only those with money and backing can cut through the red tape and do adaptations, continuations, and derivative works. Others are restricted to underground fanfiction communities. And fanfiction is given a derogatory name - considered laughable by the mainstream. When it should be the exact opposite - for it is in truth the viewer or reader interacting with the work, reinterpreting it, playing with it, exploring ideas that the original writer may not have explored or merely threw out there.
I'm not suggesting we do away with copyright law, so much as simplify it, make it less restrictive, and take it back to the basics - where it protects the original work from being "copied" or "passed off as someone else's" and where the original creator continues to get credit for his/her work, but at the same time, their work is not suffocated, it's not locked up, or tied up. It's allowed to breath, frolic, and play with whomever happens upon it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-01-06 01:29 am (UTC)I was deliberately taking a radical approach, mainly because in the past I did the opposite. Curious to see if I got any reactions. LOL! [Also..sigh, I hate intellectual property law. Hated it in law school and hated it the five-six years I did it. Contradictory and stupid in so many places. But it was fun watching the libriarians and publishers fight over it.]
It's like most laws - they want to please everyone and end up pleasing no one. And cause all sorts of clusterfoks and red tape as a result.
The internet has just made it even more complicated, because not all countries have the same copyright laws. China is notoriously lax, with almost no protections. (IT is a communist country - so...there is that.) And cultural attitudes towards property ownership vastly differ.
I do tend to agree with you...it's not possible to do a simple solution and I honestly don't believe there is such a thing as an ideal copyright law. In order to be ideal you'd have to please everyone and that's just not possible. The best approach is create some sort of compromise, the only question is who you want to get the most out of it - the copyright holder or the artist. They aren't, unfortunately, always the same. Actually a good percentage of the time they aren't. At least not in the US. (ex: Whedon doesn't own the copyright to Buffy, any more than the Beatles owned the rights to their own songs - well until Michael Jackson gave the rights back to them (or at least I think he did, honestly can't remember.) And most of the writers in comics don't own anything they create. Only the people who own Marvel do. The guys who created Superman - didn't own it, DC did. )
So sure, the artist should have some control and some ability to control it - but I think the Sony Bono Act and various others have stretched it too far. I'd sort of like to do the opposite - throw it in the opposite direction, just to see what happens. (grins fiendishly)
But I do realize that's impractical.