[Table of Contents] [Search]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: copyright

Dear Bruce,
> I think most of give a little internal scream every time we have to deal
> with the dreary business side of our work to the expense of our creative
> time.  Unfortunately, it is now a part of the times.  You are welcome to
> keep your head in the sand as long as you can deal with:
> 1. Losing money when someone pirates your work when you should have been
> paid for it.
> 2. Uses your work without authorization in a manner that you feel hurts
> your reputation.
> 3. Sues you right down to the shirt off your back for infringing on
> their copyright.
> Most of us can't afford any of this.  Most of us also simply don't want
> to inadvertantly infringe on our collegues' rights.  I personally am
> glad of this discussion and welcome any information I can get.
> Good luck, Bruce.
> Pam
> <<<<---->>>>*<<<<---->>>>
> Pamela Rups
> Computer Multimedia Specialist
> Instructional Technology Services
> Western Michigan University
> RUPS@xxxxxxxxx

Dear Pam,

 I am not anti-copyright protection or pro-ignorance. And I don't
think my head is in the sand (not since I left university, anyway.)

Please tell me honestly, how many times has the three points you
listed below really happened to you, personally-
1- lost money because someone pirated your work.
2- someone used your work in a manner you felt hurt your reputation.
3- had the shirt sued off your back. (there's the lawyers, Pam)

If any of the above has unfortunately actually happened to you, I
sympathize, but I don't recommend you hire a lawyer to reclaim your
artistic reputation or get someone else's shirt. My bet is you will
become financially challenged with a demeaned artistic reputation
intact. And the next time you see your shirt it will be on your
lawyer's back.
The best way one might reclaim artistic reputation would be to push
creativity up a notch and produce something wonderful and original,
proving to be even better than his or her admirers had considered.

The ART_BOOK forum appears to be mainly a group of nice, educated and
basically honest people preoccupied with theft, a subject about which
they frankly appear to have had very limited hands-on experience;
except for maybe a little software.

As you correctly observed, only an unethical intellectual parasite
would violate his or her colleague's rights or copy software.(Did I
just hear Bill Gates let out an internal scream?) But frankly I don't
believe a lawyer or D A are very effective remedies against this type
of problem. My point is that our present laws are enforced with
varying degrees of enthusiasm- depending on whether they are defending
the turf of Bill Gates and Walt Disney or regrettably ignoring the
pleas of besieged marbled endpaper and rubber stamp craftspeople.

This is why I consider the nature of copyright to be essentially
relative and theoretical. Therefore an endless discussion of such is
of limited constructive value and little more than a waste of valuable
time. Anyway, this is just an opinion based on 26 years experience and
observations in the fields of fine art and publishing.

Personally, I found the message about papercutters infinitely more
enlightening than all the messages about copyright combined. It
convinced me I was really in the dark about those papercutters.

Any 14" monitor can tell us about the nature of reality. Life isn't
black and white, it's 256 shades of grey. By the way, you wouldn't
have any copied software in your home computer, would you Pam?

Thanks for your comments,
And good luck to you too,

Bruce Miller
No titles or achievements attached

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]