Copyright, Fair-use And You...

[Msterbeau]

As an artist and a person who creates, this is a topic often on my mind when I post my work on the web. A lot of people here create work (Images, writing, music, etc) that is subject in some way to copyright protection. I 'd like to see a discussion here and see how others feel on the topic.

Here's some recent stories that got me really thinking about the whole thing:

Read some of the linked stories from this one:

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2007/12/photographer-la.html

Related to the above:

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/200...t-its-mine.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/technolo...amp;oref=slogin

This I saw today:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080...t-creators.html

[Destroit]

It's hard, a very fine line to me.

Personally, as someone who also creates (but does not do so as a livelyhood because I'm smart enough to realize there is a lot of truth to the whole "starving artist" cliche), I really would be honored to have another artist either include or reference my work in theirs, so long as I were properly credited, and would never expect a dime for it. That's just me. Money takes all of the fun out of art in my opinion, to me art SHOUDLN'T be anyone's job, it should be a passion.

But in that sense, shouldn't everyone's job also be their passion? I'm going to be a nurse because hospitals give me this warm fuzzy childlike joyous feeling and I'm not sure why (if you're wondering, malls do the same although I hate shopping and don't buy anything from them. I realize I am odd). I'm fascinated with the human body, it's my passion to understand how it works, so it seems only appropriate that I be a nurse, doctor, biologist, etc.

So in that sense we need art to be a job for some people. It's their skill, much like a surgeon with a scalpel, an artist has their paintbrush, camera lens, guitar strings or piano keys. Who am I to say it shouldn't be a profession? As much as I'd also like to deny it, money makes the world go around and has been a driving influence for a good amount of decent art. Since art as a profession is here to stay we need to learn how to deal with the fair-use confusions properly, a delicate task obviously.

For someone who is strictly a photographer and that's how they feed their children, they need those royalty (however it works, I don't know much about how photography payments work) checks coming to keep alive.

So for instance, in the first article at the top about the band that used a photograph from another artist's work in their music video without permission, it seems harmless. It's one picture, the photographer obviously isn't starving to death, and one would think "My God, she's putting up a fuss about...that...? What a bitch!" Actually to tell you the truth, that was my inital thought, because as I stated above, I'm the type who would be geeked as all hell to see my art featured appreciatingly in another artist's work and would never ask a dollar for it.

Since the cranks in my head are constantly turning, however, another thought popped up directly after the first, almost as if on que: "But wait...sure there was one isolated incident this time, but where does one consider the line to be crossed? If one band could use a photo without the photographer speaking up about it, then surely another band could have done the same after that, and then more pictures, and then sooner or later the photographer is having a substantial amount of cash robbed from her pockets."

With small time artists it's a very fine line; a fine and invisible line that is sometimes crossed unknowingly. To me, in instances like that, it should solely be left to the discretion of the artist who feels as though their copyright has been infringed upon. Every artist will handle this differently, in the case of the photographer vs. the band in question, I believe she has the rights to either demand money or demand it be pulled, no questions asked. I don't think that's asking too much, it's not very hard to get written permission ahead of time and that's exactly what should have happened in this case. If she refused permission without seeing money, well tough shit for the band, find something else. Many artists (such as myself) would have let it slide, and that's great if that's your perrogative than go for it, let it slide and be honored someone liked your creation enough to encorporate it into their own. But if you need the money, well then as Tupac Makaveli Shakur said, "Well then hey, then that's the way it is". (ohh come ON you couldn't have expected me to be for serious 100% in this post, that happens next to never ). With that in mind, it's necessary to have copyright laws put in place by the goverment to prevent poor or starting artists from having money or ideas stolen from them, it should be up to the artist whether or not to utilize those laws if they feel as though their rights have been violated.

As my last note, I'd like to say: RIAA and big name artists can buzz off and get a life. Going after poor college students for downloading a few songs, literally ruining their lives beyond repair just so you can get a designer dog and a golden DVD remote in your private fucking jet plane is ridiculous. Most musicians make so much of their money from merchandising and concerts, I'm sure they're not going to go hungry if some people download their MP3s for free. People have been doing it for years, I mean, cassette tapes plus radio waves anyone? Everyone has always recorded stuff off of the radio since the 80s.

My last note: Recording industry scum need to be shot or need to find a real job, especially since they're just the fat cats sitting back on their asses, which are growing lazier and greedier at a geometric rate as we speak, collecting money from work that isn't theirs. Fuck those people, they can go to hell. Suing someone $50,000 dollars for a few songs to me is even a violation of our American rights, ever heard cruel/excessive/unfair punishment? I was told that there's an amendment that supposed to protect us from that. To me that seems as though the RIAA lawsuit frenzy doesn't just cross that line, it stampedes right over it, I don't understand how they even get away with that. Even if you lift something from, oh say Target, the court can only charge you X amount (help me out people, I can't remember the multiple) times the actual value of the product.

An MP3 costs 99 cents. That, to me, does not equate to several thousand dollars no matter what light you look at it in. Period.

[Tryp]

I have my name Tryp copyrighted, due to it being my stage name for my DJin' and rapping.

Its a smart idea to do.

[Scales]

Fair use is a delicate subject to me, I would say I'm more lenient towards independent artists exclusively when talking music.

I decided to make all the music I was doing by myself free and move off of myspace mostly due to the song limits. I didn't have the money for hosting the mp3's but eventually found another artist who used a site called archive.org that lets you put creative commons licenses on everything, no funny business; so I went with that site and so far it's been alright. I can be very open with sharing my personal literature and music with the respect it's not tampered with, they ask permission to use or publish it, and I'm given credit if it's put somewhere else.

A lot of what I write or compose for practice I think is wasteful or just that, practice, so I don't care as much about it. I've written pages worth in poetry/prose, had novel attempts, ect, and just permanently scrapped all of it. So the worth of my own writing to me goes up and down with the tides. However, I wouldn't want anyone stealing or altering my artwork whatever it might be without my permission.

As far as off-linking photos and artwork, I think that's fine to me, as long as it's not people's personal photos; obviously famous people are sometimes screwed in that respect.

I think big labels are all going to fall and the RIAA is pretty much doomed; the RIAA did bring it on themselves with the choices they made when music piracy was becoming a "thing" on the internet; the RIAA took the wrong actions and focused on greed instead of where music was going.

As far as independent music goes, I choose to buy that music. I feel a good independent musician/group that gets a fan-base, maybe more inspiration, will go on to create bigger and better things. I think it's only fair that if a struggling independent musician is trying to sell CD's and you like what you hear, then you should buy one; usually they are priced cheaper anyways.

[Der Nister]

You know, people like to throw around the label "copyright" as if it has more weight to it than it really does.

Can you sue someone for stealing someone else's song? Well, depending on a veriety of shades of grey it really depends. Does it hurt someone's career to get sued for stealing another artist's song? No - just ask Jimmy Page and Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin.

I think copyright laws are good for making sure the public knows whom owns what and to prevent greedy coporations from using songs for adverts and what not so those artists get paid. I don't think piracy hurts anyone. I also feel that record companies are being too stingy about what ownership really is whare it concerns buying a cd.

The RIAA are trying to go after people for up loading music from their own cd's onto their own pc's. They are now calling that "illegal" but I ask - if you purcahse the cd, shouldn't you have the right to make a back up copy?

Not according to the RIAA. So my friends is this how things should be? I don't believe they should. Only a hand full of artists bitched about copyright infringement. Only a few people that I see think getting something copyrighted will protect them. It does to some degree but let's face it - you can't copyright ideas and with music it's really difficult to protect your music from all sides.

But that's just how I feel about it.

I'm not worried about someone trying to steal my songs or my song ideas.