[Table of Contents] [Search]


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

Re: [BKARTS] Corporate Lawyers, Court Cases and Copyright Law ... GO, Guy ...



On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 02:09, LAURIE MULLIKIN wrote:
> Hey Craig ... I  don't know this stuff that well so I'm thrilled you jumped
> in again!! The article you linked to in your last post was really
> interesting.
>
> Not sure how much endurance listserv members have for this dialog ...

We can only hope... :-)

Most of them have a lot at stake, and it's to their interest to know
what is really going on here.

> but if
> it continues, I might list the links on the "illegal art" site as another
> source for information.
>
> I discovered the corporate efforts to bastardize "intellectual property"
> laws years ago (way before the Bono ruling) when I learned Pepsi tried to
> patent (tradmark?) their shade of blue. What would our artist friends  think
> of that??? Pepsi lost, but if the current trend towards corporate domination
> of all aspects of our culture continues, they may well win next time.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Laurie
>

Laurie;

        those people ARE winning, and I think that the members of the list who
believe that Copyright is their friend and that it protects them from
'evil-doers' who are out to rip them off otherwise should take another
look at the current realities.

        It was SUPPOSED to protect an Artist/Creator, and when Copyright was
for 14 years, with another 14 years available if renewed, it had that
kind of force. You had to file for a copyright, and there was a clear
paper trail. If you decided to renew, that also left a paper trail. If
you didn't file for renewal, which the vast majority of authors and
artists never did, (and just as I would not have filed to keep my
copyrights from the 80's alive), then the works would become Public
Domain.

        That's how our society passed along information and ideas from one
generation to another for hundreds of years. If you created something,
you'd have exclusive rights to it for 28 years, and that would reward
people for taking the risks to do something creative. After that, it
would be available to everyone to use and learn from.

        Extending that exclusive term to a flat 95 commercial years or the life
of the creator plus 70 years benefits no one except the big firms who
have teams of lawyers to protect their interests.

        I am just alerting people that 'Copyright' is now a tool that can be
used against them more than it is a tool that protects them.

        Just like with your case of Pepsi trying to copyright a color, there
are people using the DMCA as legal leverage for claims of "Intellectual
Property" violations that any previous generation of judges and
attorneys would have laughed out of court.

        The point is that the truly creative innovators are not being helped by
this at all. For example, I produced a work called "Pirates of the
Barbary Coast" in 1986. So if some firm buys that rights to this from my
estate 45 years from now, (paying next to nothing for something that
will be 62 years old and only sold for $12.95 in the first place,) then
they would have the legal right to sue any firm that used the "Pirates
of the Barbary Coast" name or content for copyright violations since
they now 'own' the copyright.

        So if there is a major hit ( a' la Harry Potter) in the year 2087,
these lawyers can claim a violation and sue for major bucks. If you buy
thousands of these copyrights for next to nothing, you have a chance
that someone somewhere will accidentally use one incorrectly, and then
you can sic your Legal Team on them.

        This isn't about protecting people like us and our rights, it's a big
corporate scheme to get money from lawsuits instead of from creativity.
(By the way, these same corporate pirates have no remorse
against doing to other people the exact thing they don't want to be done
to themselves. You should look at what Disney has done to the family of
AA Milne and the wrangle over the rights to Winnie the Pooh.) It's not
about 'Fairness' in any sense of the word, it's about Acquisition and
Control.

        The more you look into it, the more ridiculous and offensive it
becomes. The evidence is out there.

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Craig Morehouse" <craigm@xxxxxxx>
> To: <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 10:37 PM
> Subject: Corporate Lawyers, Court Cases and Copyright Law
>
>
> > > Date:    Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:31:18 -0400
> > > From:    "Jeffrey L. Loop" <jlloop@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: Copyright Law
> > >
> > > There appears to be a great deal of confusion over just what copyright
> law =
> > > permits and prohibits, namely the concept of "fair use."  One poster =
> > > expressed her concern that one might not be able to quote or footnote a
> =
> > > work.  Nothing could be further from the truth--as long as the quote
> etc. =
> > > is attributed, there is no prohibition under U.S. copright law.=20
> > >
> > > As far as the comments that "powerful corporate lawyers" are expanding =
> > > copyright protection too far; well that arguement may have some merit,
> but =
> > > not in the copyright context--
> >
> > I wish you were correct about this, Jeffrey, but you aren't. You need
> > only see Eldred v Ashcroft for a recent and graphic example.
> >
> > Copyright has been extended 11 times this century, and the latest was
> > the 1998 "Sonny Bono" Act. This is sheer corporate plundering, nothing
> > more.
> >
> > I hold 135 copyrights, and I am no flaming liberal. Not by a long shot.
> > I simply think it is absurd to the point of being sick that works I
> > created in 1987-88 will not be available to the public domain until some
> > time in the next century. Let's assume I live another 25 years: add yet
> > another 75 years (as the copyright is 75 years after the life of the
> > author), and those things won't be free until the year 2103..
> >
> > And why did the Congress do this? Purely and simply to keep Mickey Mouse
> > (under the original guise of Steamboat Willy) from entering the public
> > domain. In fact, you can find a nice correlation to the copyright
> > extensions and the times when Steamboat Willy was about to go PD. Takes
> > Big Corporate Lawyers to achieve this level of legal thievery.
> >
> > Studies have shown that of the books published between 1924 and 1944,
> > only about 2% or less are still in print in any form. Since the Public
> > Domain ends at 1923, that means that more than 98% of the books
> > published in that time are basically, no longer available.
> >
> > Who did this? Big Time Corporate Lawyers.
> >
> > Also, "Fair Use" is in serious jeopardy due to the Digital Millenium
> > Copyright Act,
> >
> > The people here are right to ask questions, as the answers will probably
> > shock them.
> >
> > > it is in the patent arena that the fiercest =
> > > battles are being waged.  Those who wish their works to be available for
> =
> > > derivative works by others don't have to copyright what they do.
> >
> > You really need to read the Law, Jeffrey. 'Copyright' is not an act that
> > someone needs to voluntarily commit. Works are considered copyrighted
> > when published in any form. There are no longer forms to fill out or
> > things to register.
> >
> > A Work is copyrighted unless an author deliberately chooses to publish
> > under a different form and license.
> >
> > The smart authors are doing this, as they know that 'copyright' is not
> > their friend, it is their enemy. You should see the Creative Commons or
> > GNU sites for practical examples of alternatives. 'Copyright' has become
> > a game that only the biggest firms will win. You might think you are
> > protecting yourself this way, but that's a delusion. Look at the
> > comments that have been made on this group and you'll see that the small
> > author or artist has little recourse when he or she discovers a
> > violation. However, the huge firms make a living tracking down and suing
> > people, whether justified or not.
> >
> > Fair warning. You should see what large firms are suing for under the
> > DMCA. Any of us could be next. They are changing the rules.
> >
> > Do a little googling.
> >
> > > However, =
> > > saying that one has some overarching creative claim to take whatever =
> > > anyone else has created and use it for their own ends is absurd.
> >
> > This is the Logical Fallacy of the False Alternative, something that
> > most people have learned by the time they are college sophomores. Not
> > only has no one here advocated "some overarching creative claim to take
> > whatever anyone else has created and use it for their own ends", but
> > that's not even indicative of the actual considerations. If you can only
> > win by knocking down straw men, you don't impress anyone.
> >
> > > It is =
> > > like saying to the man who has just built his house with his own hands:
> "I =
> > > like your roof, I think I'll take it if you don't mind."  As The United
> =
> > > States Supreme Court put it in Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 219
> (1954):=20=
> > >
> >
> > This case was actually stated thusly:
> > "[3] Petitioners are partners and, like respondents, make and sell
> > lamps. Without authorization, they copied the statuettes, embodied them
> > in lamps and sold them"
> >
> > The question was:"Can statuettes be protected in the United States by
> > copyright when the copyright applicant intended primarily to use the
> > statuettes in the form of lamp [p*205] bases to be made and sold in
> > quantity and carried the intentions into effect?
> >
> > If you're going to quote cases in a books forum, try staying on topic,
> > OK?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > "The economic philosopy behind the clause empowering Congress to grant =
> > > patents and copyrights is the conviction that the encouragement of =
> > > individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public =
> > > welfare through the talents of authors  and inventors in "Science and =
> > > useful Arts."
> >
> > Pray tell, how does extending copyright terms to 75 years after the
> > death of the author or to 95 years for commercial firms "advance public
> > welfare through the talents of authors and inventors in 'Science and
> > useful Arts'"?
> >
> > It does precisely the opposite. Think about it.
> >
> > > Sacrificial days devoted to such creative activities =
> > > deserve  rewards commensurate with the services rendered." =20
> > >
> > > Regarding Mr. Chapman's statements:=20
> > >
> > > <<The reduction to absurdity that underlies the position that art is
> > > created 'ex- nihlo' is exposed by our ability to know exactly what we
> > > mean. The problem is that understanding a language, even an artistic
> > > one, is insufficient. We must have negotiable means to use the language
> > > through which understanding is transmitted or that language atrophies.
> > > Because no one needs permission to understand the language they are
> > > situated in it is permission itself that becomes, simply, that which
> > > needs to be negotiated and 'grasped.' Knowing when we're infringing on
> > > private languages and symbols is never easy; can I talk about Mickey
> > > Mouse after my vacation is over- can I write about him in a hand made
> > > book I intend to distribute as a gift to my family? The list
> > > demonstrates to me that legislation currently is going entirely the
> > > wrong way because most lawyers are deaf to the old distinction between
> > > 'mention' and 'use' preferring to register medium rather than message
> > > and ownership over intent. Perhaps someone on the list can describe the
> > > legal continuum of permissiveness towards corporately owned brands and
> > > images as they relate to their use in the construction of hand made and
> > > coterie published art objects?
> > >
> > > I would love to know what the law says>>
> > >
> > > I have two comments: First, perhaps you should find out "what the law =
> > > says" before making derogatory comments about what lawyers are "deaf"
> to.  =
> > > Secondly, you are conflating trademark law (which protects indicia of a
> =
> > > company or product) and copyright, which protects the work of "authors".
> =
> > > You cannot copyright a trademark (however, Mickey Mouse is a character
> and =
> > > is thus copyrightable).
> >
> > Folks, this doesn't state the case properly. Check it out for yourself
> > or ask your lawyer.
> >
> > > As Andy Warhol's ouvre famously demonstrates, the =
> > > appropration of trademarks into artwork does not implicate trademark law
> =
> > > because (one assumes) the art work is not being used to sell competing =
> > > products.  Put another way, the Campbell's Soup painting did not violate
> =
> > > trademark law because it was not on a can of soup.  This is of course a
> =
> > > very simplified explanation, but it points out a common misconception.
> =20
> > >
> > > For a brief synopsis of copyright, take a look at the Library of
> Congress =
> > > copyright site--it is in plain English and is quite good:
> http://www.loc.go=
> > > v/copyright/
> > --
> >
> > Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
> > immane mittam.
> >
> >              ***********************************************
> >             BOOK_ARTS-L: The listserv for all the book arts.
> >       For subscription information, the Archive, and other related
> >             resources and links go to the Book_Arts-L FAQ at:
> >                       <http://www.philobiblon.com>
> >
> >         Archive maintained and suppported by Conservation OnLine
> >                     <http://palimpsest.stanford.edu>
> >              ***********************************************
> >
>

             ***********************************************
            BOOK_ARTS-L: The listserv for all the book arts.
      For subscription information, the Archive, and other related
            resources and links go to the Book_Arts-L FAQ at:
                      <http://www.philobiblon.com>

        Archive maintained and suppported by Conservation OnLine
                    <http://palimpsest.stanford.edu>
             ***********************************************


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