We have been having quite some discussions the last few days on Copyrights and Intellectual Property Rights. I have come up with an idea that I hope more people will start to follow in the future. This because I believe that respect and not copyright is what makes things work out. If someone dosn’t respect you, they’ll steal your stuff regardless of copyright or not.
I think that we should include a “Mutual Artistic Respect” clause in our artistic domains (web sites, publications, etc…). Unlike the copyright, this would be include under the assumption that people will steal your stuff, for different reason. It will state what you do and don’t mind them using, and in what ways, and what you hope them to achieve with it. I have learned from examples and been inspired by others designs. But there is no pride in plagurism, this is why I think people want to be origional, pride.
I plan to integrate this into Iptic, I want the whole site to be a pool of knowledge and potential for education. I want to discourage plagurism through promoting artistic pride, rather than flaunting the little ‘c’ symbol.
Its an ideal that i would belive in but the problem is the “unnoble” people out there that try to take advantage of this.
But what do you do when you show your work on a webpage.
Than some say rich dude uses it as his own work and makes ton o money.
Then you lose out on something that you sept time, work, and so forth on.
This is a system that can only work if all the people “respect” this system.
That is instead of taking advantage of others. Shall we say ideal ideas for more ideal times?
But the same is true for the copyright, people will take it either way. The copyright is a tool, to allocate power that is hardly ever used. What I’m saying, is use the copyrights power allocation, yet give exceptions and encouragement. For instance, as a web designer, I know the potential of someone taking your layout, colors, code, or all of the above. But what I propose to do, is say “use it, but here is a tutorial on how to modify and/or make your own”. So perhaps we can use the normal level of plagurism to our advantage, to educate and promote creativity, by providing the means for others to accomplish something of their own, thus promoting a sense of artistic pride. While implementing the copyright to prevent the case of abuse you speak of.
Now I understand better.
So your proposing a system to make better artists out of all of us?
Man then it gotta be a great system. Not only do we have a system that could cut down on plagurism.
But there is no pride in plagurism
But also helping in the education of others.
Now the only thing i see is convincing the greedy people to go with this system, since they wont want others to have access to their “quality” work.
They can do what they want, but they’ll be the ones missing out. Look at this community and how people here learn and excel. We benefit so much from helping each other out. So if they don’t like it, then their loss.
However I was wondering about one thing. How can we promote the concept down the chain. Lets say I start it with Iptic, then people take things and modify and learn from it. How can we encourage them to do the same ? Pehaps start something like the Blender web ring, in which participants can join ? Or even for more complex pieces, such as programs and such, include something like the GPL, in which they too must offer it up for people to get as they did.
But either way, in the end, if it is a success or a failure, the copyright law will still exsist, so what do we have to lose ?
I think you can. Anything you make is copyrighted implicitly, however if someone comes out at the same time and says they made that before you, how do you decide? If the other person, has their’s registered (it would be dated), then they win, unless you can prove yours was first. I heard you can use the mail-it-to-yourself trick, but again I’m not sure.
Actually Chris, Bill Gates has given away MILLIONS of dollars to many different organizations supporting the education and care of children. Granted, he has done alot to protect HIS company but he also has a big heart. No, I do not work for Microsoft and I use a Mac most of the time but I do live in the Pacific Northwest USA and know what this man has done for people here and around world. I, for one, will not hold it against him.
You’ll be hearing from my lawyer in a few days, if you have any questions feel free to contact him at the law offices of Long & Ramsay, P.C. The Whitfield Building, 558 West Uwchlan Ave. etc etc
First of all, the concept of inherent rights to intellectual “property” is simply unconstitutional (at least, when speaking of the US constitution), as was pointed out in the article I posted earlier.
The point of copyright laws are not, in fact, to protect a persons “property”. Rather, the purpose of copyright laws is to give artists/writers/etc. incentive to create things for the benefit of the public. In other words:
artist paints a painting.
artists files for copyright.
artists can now make money off of painting.
Now, if it weren’t for copyright laws, the artist wouldn’t be able to make money off of their painting, and thus would have much less incentive to paint. And because some art is of benifit to the public, it is obviously a good idea to give incentive for artists to create art. So, to summarise: copyright is a tool to be used in the publics best interest, it is not an inherent right of a creator to something (s)he created.
And to support my statements, here is a quote from the US constitution (Section 8, Clause 8): “[The Congress shall have Power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”
Note the stated purpose. (BTW: the article I posted goes into more detail about this. Also, note that that clause also applies to patent laws, because it refers to “discoveries” as well as “writings”.)
Anyway, I like your idea, Acasto, mainly because it is, indeed, and issue of respect, not of rights. I think that the only inherent right that an artist has to his/her work is the right of getting credit for having created it (assuming that they want credit). Aside from that, it is all about respecting the artists wishes.
Acasto, I fully support your idea, and I plan to start using it myself… you haven’t patented the idea, have you?
(Phew… that was long winded. Sorry about that, but since nobody read the article a posted earlier, I had to give some background info.)
I like your idea, acosto. Was this based on my declaration in one of those discussions about how the theft of IP hinges not on the law but on respect? I said it first, and I copyright the text!!!
That said, I really really like your idea. Maybe you could found a .org website that contains different levels/variations of the Mutual Artistic Respect license/statement. That way, someone could simply state that their works exist under MAR-3 or MAR-2 or whatever, with appropriate links.
I’m not sure I agree with this - I like the idea, but we’re dealing with human nature here. The problem is that many people don’t understand what’s involved in the production of creative works, whether it be a movie, a song, or a 3D rendering. A lack of understanding makes it easier to justify use without compensation. Further, I think all of these things have value, and that this value should be determined by normal market forces. The ONLY thing that makes it easy to circumvent the market is that these creations are easy to reproduce. The interesting thing about this is that despite the ease of reproduction, it apparently does NOT detract from its value- otherwise P2P (illegal) file sharing would be no where near as popular as it is.
Generally, there needs to be some kind of legal framework to protect the artist, other than the honor system. What the legal framework provides is an objective means of measurement (i.e., who has paid and entitled to use, and who hasn’t). Without this kind of objectivity, it’s hard to make a case that one has been harmed by people failing to pay them for their work.
Preface: I can only say the following applies in the US. Furthermore this is all based on my hazy memory of reading literature that a published writer gave me well over 5 years ago. Please excuse the ‘matter of fact’ tone.
If a work is that important, or has that much effort put into it, then copyright it. Yes we are working with human nature, but do you think a copyright is goign to protect you. Chances are, you wouldn’t find out if someone took it anyways. This is not an honor system, it is built off the idea that people will steal stuff no matter what. Lets says you make a movie that took a couple years to do, copyright it. Then lets say you put it in a website, then someone comes along and would like to use some of your site HTML (not your movie), that would fall under the Mutual Artistic Respect clause.
The Mutual Artistic Respect idea is basically a copyright with different levels of exclusions and exceptions. You decide what has full copyright regulations, and what can and can’t be used for what purposes.
Bill Gates is a marketing genius. Maybe his donations are not tax deductable, but they are PR. I don´t know who he is, but I have heard that the behaviour of his company is not very noble.
To get the copyright for copyright, you must prove that you made the copyright. So a time travel is needed here. I think patents and trademarks are more expensive.
