It bears repeating that, from a U.S. perspective, at least, the creation of copyright was not to secure some natural right of the authors but instead to further the public good by encouraging publication. This was accomplished by granting "for limited times" the right to prevent others from copying a work.
A comparison to patent law is helpful. Despite the fact that (in theory, at least) patent law requires complete originality in what is claimed as an invention, patent terms are far shorter than copyright, and a patent must be renewed several times over its lifetime, with the fees increasing each time. The idea behind such fees (which admittedly have their critics) is that inventors will only invest in the renewal fees if the invention has sufficient commercial worth.
Copyright, by contrast, no longer requires a renewal, and the term has been getting longer and longer. In the US this is being done to conform to what other countries are doing, but US law has no compulsory licensing scheme except for certain limited types of uses (copying of albums and CDs onto cassettes for personal use is one), nor does it have provisions for use of a copyrighted work when the author cannot reasonably be located.
The idea of "copyright is forever" strikes me as absurd. I'm sure there are descendants of Virgil and Ovid out there, but do we really want to have to track them down to pay royalties on their works?
Kevin Grierson
>>> NSMITH[_at_]nla.gov.au 08/29/00 12:06AM >>>
Linda Gruber said:
> I disagree. Look at babies playing with their toys. They don't know
> anything
> about the law or government. They do know when someone takes a toy that
> they
> believe is theirs. Property rights are natural rights. Many species have
> home territory they defend, or tools they use and don't want anyone to
> touch, or prey they consider is theirs by right of the kill. Governments
> impose language that alters the view of a natural right so the government
> can manage it, tax it, and make a national asset of it. They limit rights.
> They define rights according to their own purposes. They don't create
> them.
>
>
++ If intellectual property were a 'natural right', that is, it
automatically goes along with the business of being human, then it would be
universal. That is, all cultures would have it. The truth is the idea of
owning your cultural creations perpetually and totally is quite localised to
(a) the West and (b) modern times.
++ for example, Australian aboriginals believe that the work of their artists is merely an expression of their long cultural tradition and belongs to the community not to the individual artist. Try running your idea of the product of a creator's labour as 'an inalienable private right' past people from various types of indigenous cultural backgrounds and see how far you get.
++ Pre-modern European artists did not prize 'originality' as we know it today as you can see from a tour of any pre-modern art museum (endless variations on a theme).
++ The notion that an individual artist has utter and irrevocable ownership of her creation is a highly artificial one, no matter how deeply you feel this. It is not 'natural' at all.
++ I recall that in one of your previous emails you said [I'm paraphrasing here, I hope I don't misstate your position] that while developing artists might use the public domain as a basis for their work, more mature artists would not as they are 'totally original'.
++ There are two points to make about this: (1) All mature artists were once developing artists. Without access to the public domain to train developing artists, you will never have 'mature' artists. How many artists arise from a cultural vacuum? Mature artists, be they painters or writers or whatever, are synthesing and adding to all the cultural material they have ever been exposed to. All writers were readers first. You were probably exposed to 10 000 (or more) pictures before you produced your first commercially successful image. This is an essential part of your development as an artist.
++ How will placing such material under tighter copyright control aid the development of artists in the future?
++ (2) There is no such thing as 'total originality'. All human cultural material is part of some tradition or other. You said that you were a fantasy artist. You are part of the genre of fantasy art and your work looks not unlike other fantasy art I have seen (I had a brief look). Is it a coincidence that you, an American, are producing fantasy art (which is primarily an American genre with plenty of work also done by non-Americans)? Do you think that you would be producing this type of art if you had been born in China and had been much more influenced by the artists of the Sung Dynasty (for example).
++ You seem to be asserting that you owe no cultural debt to any other creator before you (from the public domain); that your work has sprung from you, fully formed, and from nowhere else. Creation of art is a cycle: you are exposed to art, you create art, adding something of yourself, and then others are later exposed to your art, inspiring them to create and add something of themselves and so on.
++ Where would you be if the first fanstasy artist (who knows, Heironomys Bosch, Breughel the Elder? ;-) ) had said: this is my art, no one may take anything from it without my permission, no one may paint dragons and unicorns as I have done (which would really leave FA in trouble)...?
++ I hope I have not focussed on you too personally Linda. And I agree that there is not sufficient respect for creators and creations of the mind in our socieities but the solution to this is not to assert that artists own their works perpetually and utterly.
++ OK. Rant over.
Nick
> --
> =========================================================
> Nick Smith
> Executive Officer :: Australian Digital Alliance
> Copyright Advisor :: Australian Libraries Copyright Committee
> PO Box E202 \\ Kingston ACT 2604
> Ph: 02 6262 1273 \\ Fax: 02 6273 2545
> Email: nsmith[_at_]nla.gov.au \\ Web: www.digital.org.au
> =========================================================
Received on Wed Aug 30 2000 - 21:54:09 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:40 GMT