Asklemmy

43913 readers

297 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

What duration of time do you connect to intellectual property? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It's one thing that copyright/IP is such a matter of debate in the creative world, but a whole new layer is added onto that when people say that it only matters for a certain amount of time. You may have read all those articles a few months ago, the same ones telling us about how Mickey Mouse (technically Steamboat Willy) is now up for grabs 95 years after his creation.

There are those who say "as long as it's popular it shouldn't be pirated", those who say "as long as the creator is around", those who don't apply a set frame, etc. I've even seen people say they wouldn't dare redistribute paleolithic paintings because it was their spark on the world. What philosophy of statutes of limitation make the most sense to you when it comes to creative work?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] adam_y 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I see you make art. What if I said to you, I'd like to give you some money for that art, for maybe a print of it. Not just so that I can own some but because I want to support you.

And then someone just copies your art and gives it to me free. You get no money for it.

Are you genuinely OK with that? Are you saying that everything you make is copyright free?

[–] BitSound 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not the person you're asking, but I'd say yes. Don't bother charging for bits, except for something like the bandcamp model, i.e. "yes, i could pirate this but i want to support the creator and it's really easy to do so".

We have better funding models now that we've solved the problem of copying at zero cost. Patreon is a good and popular one, as well as kickstarters. You can't pirate something that doesn't get made, which is the perfect solution. Other art like music also makes money off of things like live performances that can't be digitized.

Note that the one aspect of copyright that I like is attribution requirements. I think it's perfectly fine to hand out information to anyone, as long as you say "here's this cool thing, this is who created it, and this is how you can give them money".

[–] adam_y 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm telling you this as someone that works in the arts, that's just not true.

You can pirate digital material and repackage it. I see illustrators getting their designs ripped off by large scale clothing manufacturers all the time.

Similarly, I know some acts that have heard their music on adverts and films and haven't been paid. It seems like it is being stolen if you ask me.

There needs to be protection or the creation of art becomes a luxury for those that can afford to not make money from it.

[–] BitSound 2 points 2 months ago

I respect that you work in the arts. However, I think too many people worried about copyright think that things would look similar to the way they are today, but the situation would be radically different without copyright. For example, Disney wouldn't exist. You wouldn't have large corporations taking and not giving back, because those large corporations wouldn't exist like they do now in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I do not make art, I just post it here on lemmy. I'd be OK with that. People freely create, copy, and iterate on memes, and they are the greatest cultural touchstones we have. First and foremost, people create because they have something to say.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm sure astronauts love their work too, but they still get paid. Artistic endeavours cannot be reserved solely for the idle rich.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Art isn't work, it's speech. It's part of the human condition. Art is useless, said Wilde. Art is for art’s sake—that is, for beauty’s sake.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Art, as the old adage goes, is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. It certainly is work, if you've ever sculpted an eight foot block of marble, or memorised one of Beethoven's piano sonatas. And it doesn't leave much time for paying the rent. The question is whether we compensate people for art, such that they can keep doing it. Does society invest in it, so that people of limited means can participate and have their voices heard? This debate has existed for thousands of years.