this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2022
7 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43811 readers
922 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's still an interesting question to know where to draw the line about reusing other works of art.
Is taking a picture of a drawing and selling it with a filter fair? Our without filter? Is a recording of a recording where you tweak really little things fair?
Where do you draw the line?
Copyright started when French composers noticed people were using their music and they didn't get anything from it. Are you ready as a professional musician to accept people monetising your work without your knowledge, consent and without you getting anything?
What would be a good system? A system that can realistically be implemented as of today.
Good question. Some people have suggested some kind of flat fee/tax that will be given to artists and copyright holders. I don't remember the exact implementation, if it allowed for the more stupid forms of copyright (after authors death etc).
With this system all art would be like creative commons I think
@Openmastering
i don't know where you got that information from. according to University of Georgia School of Law professor L. Ray Patterson's "Copyright and 'the Exclusive Right' of Authors" (link), the first copyright law was the Charter of the Stationers' Company, created in 1556. it granted the Stationers' Company the power to seize and burn presses and books, thus implementing a powerful tool for the government to censor subversive literature. the first copyright law was not about credit or getting paid, it was an authoritarian crackdown on literature
You're entirely right, I mixed things up. It's the SACEM, the french royalties collecting company which has been started this way.
@Openmastering
no system can be realistically implemented, thanks to the power of the copyright lobby, but if they weren't so powerful, i'd like to see automatic copyright replaced with automatic CC BY-SA. it ensures that artists have to be credited for their work, while allowing a lot more freedom of culture. if copyright had to still exist, i'd like to see it be something that an artist/publisher would have to apply for. it would only be valid for one year, and you can apply for copyright restrictions a maximum of 20 times
@Openmastering
it's going to happen anyway. the internet has made information slippery and difficult to control, and people are going to do that whether you like it or not. and that's kind of the beauty of the internet, the ease of remixing things nowadays has brought about a cultural renaissance. copyright is failing anyway, might as well speed it along and keep up with the times as a creator
One solution to the revenue issue for musicians is freely distributing the digital music and selling merch, physical copies, and concert tickets for income, much how Run the Jewels operates.
This doesn't work, however, if one's work is largely copied by larger figures early on, such that building a following and steady income is difficult to impossible because people first and foremost encounter soullessly copied derivatives of one's music and the original artist is now "just another copy."
Hence the discussion on how much of a work must be original.