Today's copyright and trademark laws inhibit creativity

[Hard Truth]

I see many problems, but the solution is not so clear, since I do think creative people should have some control over how their work is used and be compensated when others make a profit from their work.

 

Some examples:

The musician who wants to use snippets of broadcast newscasts in a song can't due to the cost of acquring the rights.

 

Folk music has a long tradition of making small changes to existing songs-such as a minor change to the melody or the words. Now this practice is only available to artists who can research and acquire the rights.

 

Many artists using trademarked or copyrighted images as social commentary have been sued or threatened with lawsuits.

 

Some suggestions:

Establish arbitrary thesholds for permitted use. For example, allow audio samples if they are under one second in length.

 

Establish a mechanism so that when a copyright or trademark infringement claim is made, a preliminary hearing, without lawyers, is held to determine the validity of the plaintiff's complaint. If handled properly this would help even the playing field so that a well-financed corporation can not bully a small time artist with a bogus claim that is too expensive for the artist to fight.

 

Do not allow extension of copyrights beyond the life of the creator. I do not think that the relatives of an artist deserve compensation for work that they did not perform.

[Dean Roddey]

I find this argument to be pretty illogical. The fact that you cannot use other people's creative works *encourages* creativity, because you have to create unique works.

[Jeff da Weasel]

Geez, Truth. I can't really disagree more with every single one of your points, to the point I can't even address them. Just take everything you wrote, write the opposite, and that's how I think.

[Rabid]

I think a better title for the thread would be "Today's copyright and trademark laws inhibit proffit off of others." It is the same arguments used by people that want to sample songs and use the loops in their "origional" creations.

[Hard Truth]

You folks disagreeing with my proposition did not address the use of copyrighted and trademark content for social commentary purposes. For example the early 1970s poster showing Disney characters having sex and taking drugs.

 

I guess you guys don't like any rap or electronic dance music. I hear more creativity in much of these genres' creative use of samples than I do in most rock or country music's constant recycling of chord progressions and lyrical themes. Can you really argue that another song about a cheating lover sung over a I-IV-V progression is more original and creative than a dance song using a unique combination of sound bites from films, TV shows, old records, radio news etc? It is also worth noting that many musicians, such as James Brown, had their careers boosted because of the use of samples of his records.

 

There is also the folk and comic tradition of parody songs, answer songs and local variations of songs. Would Allen Sherman or Weird Al have been able to do their parodies in today's legal environment without a battery of lawyers?

 

Collage in the visual arts has been widely used since at least the early 20th century Dada movement. Should only those with access to lawyers be allowed to make collages?

 

Another example of copyright laws inhibiting creativity is the accidental or incidental inclusion of trademarks on signs and T-shirts that may appear in a photo, film or video. High end productions go to great lengths to avoid the inclusion of any such items. Since our environment constantly surrounds us with copyrighted and trademark content it is impossible to do a documentary of someone walking down an urban street without including trademarks. The law theoretically requires that any artist in any media depicting the real world obtain permission from dozens of trademark and copyrighted holders.

 

I don't support piracy or plagarism, but I don't see anyone being harmed by the minor use of copyrighted and trademarked content in other people's work.

[Dean Roddey]

 

For example the early 1970s poster showing Disney characters having sex and taking drugs.

 

 

I get the joke, but it's not something that should be legal.

 

 

There is also the folk and comic tradition of parody songs, answer songs and local variations of songs. Would Allen Sherman or Weird Al have been able to do their parodies in today's legal environment without a battery of lawyers?

 

 

Yes. Parody is well recognized as a protected type of speech and has stood up to many challeges as I understand it.

 

 

 

Another example of copyright laws inhibiting creativity is the accidental or incidental inclusion of trademarks on signs and T-shirts that may appear in a photo, film or video. High end productions go to great lengths to avoid the inclusion of any such items.

 

 

This is purely for their on comfort and sometimes misunderstanding. They have nothing to fear about this. As I understand it, this is something that has withstood plenty of challenges and no one with any common sense would sue you over it. Of course some people don't have any common sense, but that has nothing to do with copyright law and highly litgious people can sue you over anything.

[Billster]

The thread title is actually fairly accurate in my view, but the specific points in the first post are not the real problem. Today's copyright laws have evolved as a form of interpretive dance designed to guarantee that Mickey Mouse and several other iconic images never enter the public domain.

 

Copyrights need to expire at some point. Read some Lawrence Lessig.

[UstadKhanAli]

The costs of obtaining rights to a 2-bar loop or whatever are not prohibitive.

 

Doing a parody of a song is perfectly legal and, in fact, protected.

 

And you can do all these things without spending a dime if you choose not to release it. And if you do release it, the costs are not prohibitive.

 

I like electronic music, hip-hop, rap, and other stuff, and regularly used a sampler, as well as experimental music, which uses a lot of samples. I am not clear as to why you feel this inhibits creativity.

 

Of course, the most creative thing you could possibly do is create your own loops, your own rhythms, your own chord progressions, your own textures, your own arrangements, your own everything. That's the ultimate in freedom, and there's never been a better time in musical history than now to seize the moment and create something really great.

[Dean Roddey]

 

Today's copyright laws have evolved as a form of interpretive dance designed to guarantee that Mickey Mouse and several other iconic images never enter the public domain.

 

 

I have to ask... Other than Chinese t-shirt manufacturers making yet still more money off of the backs of the US without even breaking the law not to pay us, what cultural good is Mickey Mouse becoming public domain going to achieve?

[UstadKhanAli]

I was a little puzzled by that as well. I'm not sure why it's great that Mickey Mouse would become public domain. What's the rule on that anyway? Is it something like 75 years, and more if the appropriate party chooses to extend it, or something else?

[philbo]

Sirs,

 

I represent the Amalgamated Phoneme Acquisition Group, LLC (APAG). I have been asked by my clients to notify you that you must cease and desist in the abusive use and abrogation of our trademarked property, the word "the".

 

APAG has owned the rights to all spoken and written forms of this word since March 15, 2004, and is now in the process of filing retroactive torts to recover damages from any and all users of this word beginning at the forementioned date.

 

This notice is to formally inform you that if you persist in your use of legally owned APAG property you will find yourself subject to civil action with triple damages payable to APAG.

 

Sincerely,

Hugh Lewis Dewey, Attorney

of the law firm

Dewey, Fukem and Howe, PC

 

P.S. APAG has provided provisional permission for our firm to make use of the word 'the' only for the purpose of pursuing their interests in protecting their trademark. Accordingly, should you have occasion to make any sort of reproduction of this document, any and all occurences of 'the' must be redacted in said reproductions, including derivative forms of the word, such as may appear in these and similar words: them, they, another and mother.

[flatfinger]

Perhaps we need this:

 

 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

[Billster]

 

I have to ask... Other than Chinese t-shirt manufacturers making yet still more money off of the backs of the US without even breaking the law not to pay us, what cultural good is Mickey Mouse becoming public domain going to achieve?

 

 

It's not neccesarily Mickey. The thing is that obviously they can't create a special copyright category for Mickey Mouse only, or for creations that become so popular as to be transcendant. So the law gets manipulated to protect a few corporate interests, but the law applies to everything.

 

Just as a for instance, would liberalizing copyright durations lead to some new repertoire for symphony orchestras? Are the orchestras suffering because they play the same warhorse pieces every season with no budget for performing newer works because of the need to pay fees for a copyright that should have expired under the earlier rules? Would the listening public be better served to hear something besides Haydn #93 for the six billionth time?

 

And as for Mickey specifically, there's a difference between a trademark and a copyright.

[Jon Gnash]

Geez, Truth. I can't really disagree more with every single one of your points, to the point I can't even address them. Just take everything you wrote, write the opposite, and that's how I think.

Same here. Truth needs a polarity inverter.

[Dean Roddey]

 

Would the listening public be better served to hear something besides Haydn #93 for the six billionth time?

 

 

Probably also not a good example. Very little of the listening public goes to see symphonic music, and to the degree that they do manage to get some of the hoi polloi in, I imagine that they'd tell you that the old standards tend to be the things that pull them in.

 

If new composers charge more to play their pieces than anyone can afford, no one will play them and it will be self defeating. There is a natural feedback cycle involved that tends to naturally deal with any discrepancies. The composer wants his or her stuff played, and will adjust to what the market can bear.

[Anderton]

About getting clearance for samples...it would make my life easier if I could "quote" short pieces of music, which would have no effect on the artist's income, except possibly increase it because people would be more aware of it. BUT wanting to quote a piece of music means, quite simply, that the artist has produced something I want. No matter how much I add to it, alter it, improve it, or whatever, it still plays off that person's creativity and yes, they're entitled to a piece of the action.

 

If someone samples a James Brown riff or whatever, they're sampling it because it has some element that attracts them, and that's what they want. Generally, in the world of economics, people pay for stuff they want, or figure out some kind of barter. No one samples stuff that sucks

 

Ultimately, the solution is to come up with riffs that other people want to sample!

[Anderton]

 

Do not allow extension of copyrights beyond the life of the creator. I do not think that the relatives of an artist deserve compensation for work that they did not perform.

 

 

Considering all that my wife has to put up with while I pursue my career, she definitely deserves some compensation if I'm no longer around!

[Dean Roddey]

Absolutely. What is it about creative work that makes people think that the people who do it deserve less than others? If I create a company, that's not a physical thing. It's an abstract thing I created. But I can pass it on to my children and they can continue to benefit from their stock holdings. A tiny percentage of its worth may be in actual physical things, but that's not what I'm really passing on to them. I'm passing on that abstract entity that makes money. So why, if I create a business for myself writing songs that lots of people like, shouldn't my children be able to inherit the benefits of that work?

[Cry Logic]

"Perhaps we need this: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ "

[Active Reasoner]

Take any contemporary music and break it down to it's basic components

of rhythm, harmony, and melody;

and it becomes obvious to any experienced objective listener,

that all music is just variations on what has come before.

Just because one hasn't heard a type of music before,

doesn't mean it's original.

Perhaps music recordings should have a disclaimer

like the one at the end of films -

Any similarity to other music is purely coincedental.

[Dean Roddey]

BTW, I have to point out the inconsistency of the constant arguments that copyright law is supressing new material and that the surfeit of material out there cheapens it all because there's so much of it. Both of these things cannot be true. If copyright prevented new material from being created, the more that was made, the less that could be made. But of course this is not the case. And if you argue that it's all sounding the same, then obviously this implies that copyright law doesn't prevent lots of even very similar sounding stuff from being made.

 

So I just see no real world basis for this argument.

[Anderton]

 

Take any contemporary music and break it down to it's basic components of rhythm, harmony, and melody; and it becomes obvious to any experienced objective listener, that all music is just variations on what has come before.

 

 

And if you break down speech, it's just a bunch of phonemes. And literature is all based on the alphabet.

 

There's a lot more to music than rhythm, harmony, and melody - like lyrics, arrangement, the mix, the singer, and most importantly, the way notes are combined. It's the unique arrangement of all these elements that make people interested in a piece of music.

 

But I must say -- this is a thought-provoking thread, to say the least. Good stuff.

[Jon Gnash]

I guess you guys don't like any rap or electronic dance music. I hear more creativity in much of these genres' creative use of samples than I do in most rock or country music's constant recycling of chord progressions and lyrical themes.

I wonder what percentage of the music that we hear (that incorporates samples of older music) came from the creative impulses of a young na

[flatfinger]

Do you think that the copyright holders of Boston's "more than a feeling " should have sued Nirvana for "smells like teen spirit" ?? Those chord modulations and the rythmic signature are awfully similar !!

 

It does come down to a jury trial , correct?? Maybe You can get lucky and draw the group of clowns who fell for the Mcdonalds coffee is frig'in hot lawsuit!! It is a concern that you might subconciously , or through parralell development , come up with something to similar to someone elses work.

 

You know that the reason that many record CO's won't take unscreened submissions is because som idiot can drag them into court an accuse them of ripping them off because of him having sent them a submission years ago.:poke:

[Billster]

Probably also not a good example. Very little of the listening public goes to see symphonic music, and to the degree that they do manage to get some of the hoi polloi in, I imagine that they'd tell you that the old standards tend to be the things that pull them in. If new composers charge more to play their pieces than anyone can afford, no one will play them and it will be self defeating. There is a natural feedback cycle involved that tends to naturally deal with any discrepancies. The composer wants his or her stuff played, and will adjust to what the market can bear.

 

Maybe its more of a symphony issue than a copyright issue, but I said newer works, not new works. New works are usually commissioned, but I'd like to hear something that was written in the 20th century and hasn't been beaten to death. But as you point out, symphony ticket subscribers are conservative and don't like it when they don't get their comfort food.

 

Traditionally, copyrights were life of author + some years, so that's enough for your immediate heirs.

 

To compare to passing along a business entity, somebody has to run it after you're in the hereafter, so that doesn't compare to something that requires no further daily maintenance. Imagine Bill Ford, III still selling Model T's. Come to think of it, maybe he should try that because a lot of what Ford has done since Henry passed away hasn't been exactly brilliant.

 

And finally, maybe there should be a statute of limitations on containing wealth. Warren Buffett has publicly stated his intent to give most of his money away. It does more good in circulation than it does under lock and key. Compare that idea to letting go of a copyright at some point.