| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like an author, Tracey Alley, has ripped off, at a bare minimum, the Mystara world map and country names for a series of hack fantasy novels, and has been caught doing it:
Mystara IP Theft Part 2 - with map overlay goodness showing the pretty-much direct trace of the map, with little more than place names moved around. It's even got Karameikos on it, still.
One of the books has a Pathfinder gobbo on the cover, even (though, I don't know what the copyright rules are there - is their "distinctive image" covered?).
I would ask how people think they'll be able to get away with this, but apparently, she's been doing so for about three years, if publication date of the first novel is any indication.
According to posts on her Facebook page (not going to link, easy to find) and G+, she's apparently also using copyrighted artwork for other book covers, such as stuff done by Clyde Caldwell for White Wolf.
Wow.
Well, speaking as an amateur cartoonist, using other peoples's artwork is a Douchebag Move {tm}
You should, at the very least, be able to draw a new map and give all the zones (duchies, principalities or whatever) new names. That's, like, Fan Fiction 101 right there!
Author Bruce Heard called her out on it, and she responded, claiming that she has never heard of Mystara, and that the map and place names are "purely coincidental."
Yet, on Amazon, she cites D&D as being an influence on her fantasy writing...
Aaaand, it also appears she's ganked Jeff Easley art from Dragon #138 for a book cover.
Some f**king coincidence though, right? Using other peoples paintings just totally undermines that legal defense.
It depends who holds the actual copyright on said map (or who actually painted the painted the fricken painting!) The thing is, as IP law works these are pretty simple questions: Just because theres a map from decades ago doesn't, like, put it in the public domain, automatically.
Regardless of the copyright status of the underlying map, I'm pretty sure that "The Grand Duchy of Karameikos" isn't in the public domain.
That's a stupid, stupid move. Denying it and calling it a coincidence just adds to that.
I don't think the personal attacks on her Facebook page are warranted, though. That doesn't reflect well on any campaign trying to get her to stop and/or retract her "works."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My life-partner has worked as an illustrator for more than 10 years and this wholesale stealing of other people's work does happen rather often, sad to say.
It seems that more and more people feel that they can earn some good money through cheating and either believe they will never be caught or that it will take so much time to go to court that they can just keep on doing it.
I went through the links, what a hoot!
Liked the Mykal Lakim stuff too, hilarious!
All seems totally co-incidental of course.
|
Author Bruce Heard called her out on it, and she responded, claiming that she has never heard of Mystara, and that the map and place names are "purely coincidental."
Yet, on Amazon, she cites D&D as being an influence on her fantasy writing...
LOL, of course she never heard of Mystara. Is she crossing her fingers when she says that hoping no one asks her if she ever heard of the D&D Known World?
I first heard of this and what she was doing back in 2012...I assumed she was foolish enough to believe that a few cosmetic changes was enough to avoid violating trademarks and copyright laws. Now I guess she actually thought at the time no one would notice because the campaign setting was discontinued almost 20 years ago.
Of course she has ever heard of Mystara...In the Gazetteers it is called the Known World.
|
Looks like an author, Tracey Alley, has ripped off, at a bare minimum, the Mystara world map and country names for a series of hack fantasy novels, and has been caught doing it:
Mystara IP Theft Part 2 - with map overlay goodness showing the pretty-much direct trace of the map, with little more than place names moved around. It's even got Karameikos on it, still.
One of the books has a Pathfinder gobbo on the cover, even (though, I don't know what the copyright rules are there - is their "distinctive image" covered?).
I would ask how people think they'll be able to get away with this, but apparently, she's been doing so for about three years, if publication date of the first novel is any indication.
I still think that current Copyright Law is way too complex to live and should be abolished for the good of all mankind. After all, we do have an Internet.
I have zero issue with the idea of copyright.
Overall, my biggest issue is the term of copyright.
I think that if the term of copyright were truly "limited", and, by my preference, limited to 20 years (to match patent term), you'd see a lot less folks arguing that copyright should be abolished.
I do think creators should be allowed that 20 year period to do with as they please their created works - to be the only one able to profit on it, to bottle it up, whatever.
But past that? Public domain.
Now, that said, if that were the case, then this might not even be an issue, but, at present, you're still not allowed to do this - and even if she was, the earlier claims that these were her own original creations are just insulting.
Now, she's waffling.
When called out by Bruce Heard, her first claim was:
No Bruce the work is all original, any similarities are purely coincidental. I'd never even heard of the World of Mystara before you mentioned it.
Now:
Yes there are place names in my work that I had come across while role-playing D & D. I used those names because I liked them and as a type of homage to what I've always considered an exceptional game.
I'd absolutely LOVE a truly limited copyright term, allowing people to do this kind of thing - but right now, that doesn't exist, and flagrant violation of copyright undermines the movement to reform it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you seriously believe that everything Stephen King wrote prior to June 1993 should be in the Public Domain right now? He's still alive and still writing.
Now, I might agree that works should be officially considered for the PD following the death of the creator (say one year for argument's sake). Nonetheless, the Mystara shared-world is owned by a business entity, not a single author--there's no reason, save the complete dissolution of the company, to ever consider it unused and eligible for the PD.
As an author I'm very happy my legal rights to my own writings don't expire decades (hopefully) before I die.
|
|
So you seriously believe that everything Stephen King wrote prior to June 1993 should be in the Public Domain right now? He's still alive and still writing.
What does the date of death of the author have to do with the length of time that society should be prevented from benefiting from technological advances that have simplified duplication?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I most assuredly do believe such a thing.
Copyright originally had a far shorter term - 14 years plus a 14 year renewal.
I'd be willing to accept a compromise of that term, but I'd far rather a standardization to patent terms of 20 years.
And just because a copyright expires doesn't preclude the author from creating new work, or continuing to publish old works.
Copyright, at least in the US, isn't to (solely) benefit the creator. It's to benefit the public good, and the public good is not served from copyright terms being anywhere near as long as they are.
Create your work, market and profit from it exclusively for 20 years. Make new work. Market and profit from it exclusively for 20 years. Lather, rinse, repeat.
|
|
So you seriously believe that everything Stephen King wrote prior to June 1993 should be in the Public Domain right now? He's still alive and still writing.
What does the date of death of the author have to do with the length of time that society should be prevented from benefiting from technological advances that have simplified duplication?
I love my kids, and I'm sure my grandkids will be pretty awesome, but they played outside in the sandbox while I was sweating bullets at the typewriter. Once I die, I'm happy for my work to belong to the public, and for them to share and distribute it in the easiest manner possible. Until then it should belong to me.
Works of fiction, for example, which I write and publish, should benefit me for as long as I choose to publish them--or am alive to choose to do so. Stephen King's The Stand may have been written almost 40 years ago, but if you're picking it up for the first time today, it's new to you. Why shouldn't King benefit from his endeavors, at least for as long as he lives to do so?
|
|
Oh, I most assuredly do believe such a thing.
Copyright originally had a far shorter term - 14 years plus a 14 year renewal.
I'd be willing to accept a compromise of that term, but I'd far rather a standardization to patent terms of 20 years.
And just because a copyright expires doesn't preclude the author from creating new work, or continuing to publish old works.
Copyright, at least in the US, isn't to (solely) benefit the creator. It's to benefit the public good, and the public good is not served from copyright terms being anywhere near as long as they are.
Create your work, market and profit from it exclusively for 20 years. Make new work. Market and profit from it exclusively for 20 years. Lather, rinse, repeat.
If I were a public-supported (government or public university, for example) scientist or researcher, I would agree wholeheartedly. As an independent author of fiction, for example, I challenge you (plural) to create your own worlds and people them with your own creative imagination, not mine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I challenge you to defend why you think that copyright should have been extended to the obscene terms that it has, mostly by corporations buying corrupt politicians to extend it to their benefit.
Support of obscene copyright terms is not support of copyright, it's actually anti-copyright.
|
|
And I challenge you to defend why you think that copyright should have been extended to the obscene terms that it has, mostly by corporations buying corrupt politicians to extend it to their benefit.
Support of obscene copyright terms is not support of copyright, it's actually anti-copyright.
I have a feeling we're talking past each other: I'm saying that I should financially benefit from my own creative work, and that you should not. I'm also saying that my work should be protected from devaluation in terms of creative sovereignty.
I'm not concerned with people photocopying my novels for themselves or their friends (barring any attempt to subsequently sell the copies they make), but I am concerned with someone republishing my novels with their name on the by-line, or diluting my work by trying to squat in it.
dot
And I challenge you to defend why you think that copyright should have been extended to the obscene terms that it has, mostly by corporations buying corrupt politicians to extend it to their benefit.Support of obscene copyright terms is not support of copyright, it's actually anti-copyright.
Current copyright is for the author's life plus 70 years for published authorial works. That sounds excessive, but depending on the life of the author maybe not so much. I'm fairly sure that the Tolkien and Burroughs estates were fine with the length. And to be blunt, having read their works I'm fine with it too. ERB died in 1950 and his works will enter public domain in 2020. Tolkien died in 1973, guess we'll have to wait until 2043 before some talentless hack can exploit his work.
As for Andrew Turner's belief it should be his at least until he dies, he created it. You didn't. And he thinks it belongs to him, at least as long as he's alive. And I agree. In perpetuity, no, but at least as long as the author is alive.
If he built houses instead of writing literature and left it to his descendants would you be whining that the house should revert to "public domain"? Or is your prejudice just against people who's work is intellectual as opposed to physical? The work you do should benefit your descendants. Maybe not forever, but a generation doesn't seem all that excessive to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I'm quite sure the Tolkien or ERB estates are quite fine with current terms. I'm sure Disney and others are, too.
For now - because I'm also quite sure that when these works come up for copyright expiration/termination, that yet again, politicians on the take will yet again extend copyright for another ridiculous term, so it's now life + 100 years, or whatever.
But, let me ask: why is it OK for the inventor of something physical, protected by patent, only allowed 20 years?
Do you think patent should be for life of the creator?
Imagine, if you will, that the automobile or the assembly line had been able to be protected by patent until some time in the last decade or two.
Do you really think the public good would be served by that?
A house is a physical piece of property, and is a ridiculous analogy to utilize. Instead, we'll use patent:
If a definitive cure for cancer was invented tomorrow by Andrew Turner, do you believe he should be allowed to patent such a cure and prevent anyone from using that cure for 20 years? For life plus 70 years?
If cold fusion were discovered tomorrow by Andrew Turner, do you feel that he should be able to keep it from the public for 20 years? For life plus 70 years?
If not, why do you think copyright should be any different?
Or is your prejudice only against people who's work is phyiscal, as opposed to intellectual?
I have no prejudice. What I do have is a belief that copyright has been perverted by corporations and politicians, and that the public good is not served by copyright terms as excessive as they are.
I believe that, like things used to be, and like patent, copyright should last for a truly limited term, then fall to the public domain for everyone to benefit from.
The limited term provides a very adequate time for the creator to be the sole beneficiary of the work, and then it falls to the public domain for the public good, and encourages the original creator to create again.
That said, to merge the original subject and the copyright sidetrack:
If copyright terms were to my liking, then this really wouldn't be an issue. The setting first came out in, what, 1980? And hasn't been really used since the mid-90's?
So most of it would already be public domain, and the rest, soon to be.
But, that's not currently the case. And therefore, this particular hack is in the wrong.
Amusingly, she's now threatening folks with legal action for the classic charges of libel and slander. Good times!
Oh, I'm quite sure the Tolkien or ERB estates are quite fine with current terms. I'm sure Disney and others are, too.For now - because I'm also quite sure that when these works come up for copyright expiration/termination, that yet again, politicians on the take will yet again extend copyright for another ridiculous term, so it's now life + 100 years, or whatever.
But, let me ask: why is it OK for the inventor of something physical, protected by patent, only allowed 20 years?
Do you think patent should be for life of the creator?
Imagine, if you will, that the automobile or the assembly line had been able to be protected by patent until some time in the last decade or two.
Do you really think the public good would be served by that?
What does a work of literature have to do with "the public good"? Is progress going to cease if people can't set their works in Middle earth or on Barsoom? You can make an argument of "public good" for an invention, not a work of literature.
A house is a physical piece of property, and is a ridiculous analogy to utilize. Instead, we'll use patent:
Patent and copyright are two different things. So my analogy using something different makes no sense, but yours does? Yeah.
If a definitive cure for cancer was invented tomorrow by Andrew Turner, do you believe he should be allowed to patent such a cure and prevent anyone from using that cure for 20 years? For life plus 70 years?If cold fusion were discovered tomorrow by Andrew Turner, do you feel that he should be able to keep it from the public for 20 years? For life plus 70 years?
If not, why do you think copyright should be any different?
Because it *is* different. You can make an argument for the public good outweighing private rights in the case of an invention. Not so much when it involves fictional literature. That's why "copyright" and "patent" have different terms / protection. It's not hard to figure out.
Or is your prejudice only against people who's work is phyiscal, as opposed to intellectual?
As you pointed out, patent is different because it has the ability to effect the public and progress. Copyright material does not. Barsoom being protected by copyright for another 7 years will not hinder the development of mankind.
I have no prejudice. What I do have is a belief that copyright has been perverted by corporations and politicians, and that the public good is not served by copyright terms as excessive as they are.I believe that, like things used to be, and like patent, copyright should last for a truly limited term, then fall to the public domain for everyone to benefit from.
Again, what public good is Burroughs or Tolkien's work being protected interfering with?
The limited term provides a very adequate time for the creator to be the sole beneficiary of the work, and then it falls to the public domain for the public good, and encourages the original creator to create again.
We agree :) Lifetime plus 70 works. Oh, you mean less. Well then, we don't agree. And other than being behind some author's back with a whip saying "right more!" what public good is being served in the realm of literature? Peoples "right" to get stuff free? Check it out in a library. That's what they're for, bringing literature to people without cost. Library's even loan e-books these days.
|
|
As to patents and scientific research:
If I developed the equations for cold fusion in my upstairs study, I would feel compelled to share it with the world.
If I developed the equations for cold fusion at Bell Labs, I would be compelled to do as my contract with Bell Labs stipulates.
If I developed cold fusion tech in my home lab, I would be Bruce Wayne.
If I developed cold fusion tech at Bell Labs, Bell Labs would have spent millions and millions of dollars in real money and resources and would have to have some legal protection (like patents) to help them recoup that cost and allow them to continue to conduct research.
As to copyrights and creative writing:
If I wrote The Lord of the Rings, I would never want Brian Harris to be able to republish it under his own name.
If Middle Earth were my bread-and-butter as a writer, I'd probably not want Brian Harris to write competing for-profit fiction using my world, settings, characters, environments, etc.
The fictive worlds I (Andrew Turner) create are open to all: I'd love to see other talented people writing stories using my landscapes as the background, à la Lovecraft and the Mythos. But the stories I've published are mine. Don't retitle them and reprint them with your name on them. Respect a person's livelihood, and credit where credit is due; that's really all I'm saying.
The problem then comes in, as was briefly mentioned above, when the copyright belongs to a company and not a single author. Then the whole "until the author dies" is thrown out the window.
The problem then comes in, as was briefly mentioned above, when the copyright belongs to a company and not a single author. Then the whole "until the author dies" is thrown out the window.
It becomes a straight 95 years when it's corporate iirc. Kind of a fictional lifetime plus 70.
Feeling compelled to share isn't the question, though.
Do you think that, if you did those things, on your own, without any other contractual obligations, that you should be able to keep them to yourself, and prevent anyone from using or benefiting from them for the duration of copyright terms?
Regarding republishing public domain works under one's own name: That's something that can be done today, but can be easily addressed by enacting a "right of paternity" to public domain works: Specifically, the original author(s) would be required to be credited. The fact that this isn't part of current copyright law is as equally ridiculous as the obscenely "limited" term of copyright.
Regarding competing work, I can understand not wanting competition, but, here's the kicker to the whole truly limited term: You can use the competitions work when it expires. And, you'd still be recognized (either officially, if a right of paternity was enacted, or unofficially, since if your work is popular enough for folks to create derivatives, then it's popular enough for people to know your name), so that, even in competition, you're still the "official" or "canon" source.
I don't see anybody supporting the idea of taking credit for that which you have created - that's a tangent you just brought up, and one that's easily remedied - though, I would be less than surprised to discover that it's also a concept opposed by those who have pushed copyright extension after copyright extension - they make great use of public domain work, yet they don't credit the original creators, and are opposed to the public domain.
It becomes a straight 95 years when it's corporate iirc. Kind of a fictional lifetime plus 70.
The problem then comes in, as was briefly mentioned above, when the copyright belongs to a company and not a single author. Then the whole "until the author dies" is thrown out the window.
And either one is ridiculous. Simplify things, bring it into parity with patent.
A work for hire? 20 years. Original author? 20 years. Patent a teleportation device? 20 years.
The problem then comes in, as was briefly mentioned above, when the copyright belongs to a company and not a single author. Then the whole "until the author dies" is thrown out the window.
It becomes a straight 95 years when it's corporate iirc. Kind of a fictional lifetime plus 70.
And either one is ridiculous. Simplify things, bring it into parity with patent.
A work for hire? 20 years. Original author? 20 years. Patent a teleportation device? 20 years.
I'm not sure if I explained this properly above, but to put it simply... people with patents have a short period to exploit them for a reason. To put it in "trekky" terms "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one". Their rights are terminated for the demonstrable public good. That argument can be made for inventions and it is the basis of the relatively short patent protection times. Mind you they grant too many patents for fairly stupid reasons, but that's another story. That same argument is far harder to make with a copyright on a work of literature. Hence the longer period of protection. Because, again, what is being hurt by the lack of people using other people's fictional characters and settings?
But, the thing is, the limited terms were implemented in the first place for that very reason: That there IS demonstrable public good for these ideas to be open and available for the public to freely use after a relatively short exclusivity period for the original author/creator.
Literature is not the only thing restricted by effectively unlimited copyright terms. Software source code, as an example, is protected by copyright. One could argue that source code is the equivalent of a physical invention.
But as far as literature? I make the argument that we're all irreparably harmed by these terms, because works very often fall out of publication, physical copies become impossible to locate, electronic copies either don't exist, or, are no longer distributed (legally or illegally), and these works end up being lost to time, because an author created something 30 years ago when he was 20, and if he lives to be 80, that's another 100 years (life plus 70) until, HOPEFULLY, someone who has a copy is able to then legally duplicate it and distribute it.
Our very cultural enrichment is endangered by these terms - only that which is the most popular stays in some kind of constant production, and therefore, accessible to others.
And as to being able to use someone else's work that is now in the public domain? Again, I cite cultural enrichment. I think H.G. Wells' "Time Machine" is a beautiful example of that. As that work is now in the public domain, numerous people have been able to build off that work, and enrich our literature with all kinds of derivative tales or re-tellings.
Had Wells' published it later in his life, we could very well still be prevented from creating those derivatives for another few years.
I'd like to counter your question, and ask, what's being hurt by only having a copyright for 20 years, or 28 years? Why is that not "enough" time for a creator to profit, but it somehow is enough time for an inventor to profit?
Why should an author of a work receive an unlimited (to said author) term, but an inventor should not?
We have patent rules such as FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing that require a patent holder to license their work when adopted as a standard, and at fair rates to all licensees (i.e. Apple not charging HTC one rate, and charging Samsung a rate 5 times higher).
I'm not saying that these rules aren't a good thing for the public good, but copyright holders? They don't have to deal with this kind of thing. Patent holders get the shaft.
By your own statement, the argument of the public good is harder to make on a work of literature, so for what justification is it protected so much more?
By that argument, shouldn't we then seek to encourage the invention of items beneficial to the public good by securing a "life plus 70" or "95 years for corporations" right to royalties for patent holders, rather than simply terminating their patent rights at 20 years, and forcibly placing their work into the public domain?
We shouldn't, because even then, with mandatory licensing and mandatory royalties, it would severely inhibit the ability of people to build of another work and create something newer, different, potentially better.
And those same reasons should apply to restoring or overhauling the term limits of copyright, because already, copyright is being abused as a hammer to beat down someone who comes up with a vaguely similar idea (original post subject matter NOT being referred to here).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really can't imagine a worst problem for authors than limiting copyright to twenty years. Authors would be forced to abandon popular creative settings because suddenly every fanfiction writer (regardless of how good a writer they were) could then produce sequels to books that were earlier published. Whats more authors would loose any creative control of their property in film and other media. Imagine when in a few years A Game of Thrones copyright expires...now we can get all sort of "improved" versions from Asylum films and other companies where Ned doesn't die, or where Tyrion is actually a gorgeous fashion model. No thanks.
I think it would also severely undercut an authors ability to actually profit from their work, as you would see huge cuts in advances and pay from contracts, as a book would be overall much less profitable. Quite a few authors are not George R.R. Martin or Stephen King or J.K. Rowling; they are not rolling in cash and cuts in pay would probably eliminate their ability to pursue a profession in writing.
Now if you want to argue that copyrights should expire shortly after an author's death, I have less of a problem
|
|
Feeling compelled to share isn't the question, though.
Do you think that, if you did those things, on your own, without any other contractual obligations, that you should be able to keep them to yourself, and prevent anyone from using or benefiting from them for the duration of copyright terms?
No; that's why I wrote that I would share.
Regarding republishing public domain works under one's own name: That's something that can be done today, but can be easily addressed by enacting a "right of paternity" to public domain works: Specifically, the original author(s) would be required to be credited. The fact that this isn't part of current copyright law is as equally ridiculous as the obscenely "limited" term of copyright.
This works well when the author is Poe or even Lovecraft; not so well when the author is Never-heard-of-him Andrew Turner.
Regarding competing work, I can understand not wanting competition, but, here's the kicker to the whole truly limited term: You can use the competitions work when it expires. And, you'd still be recognized (either officially, if a right of paternity was enacted, or unofficially, since if your work is popular enough for folks to create derivatives, then it's popular enough for people to know your name), so that, even in competition, you're still the "official" or "canon" source.
I don't want to need to steal my stolen work...
I don't see anybody supporting the idea of taking credit for that which you have created - that's a tangent you just brought up, and one that's easily remedied...
That's precisely what this thread is about: Alley has lifted the work of others and called it her own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really can't imagine a worst problem for authors than limiting copyright to twenty years. Authors would be forced to abandon popular creative settings because suddenly every fanfiction writer (regardless of how good a writer they were) could then produce sequels to books that were earlier published.
None of that forces them to "abandon" a popular creative setting. And if such a creative setting truly is popular, why would the fanbase abandon the author?
Whats more authors would loose any creative control of their property in film and other media. Imagine when in a few years A Game of Thrones copyright expires...now we can get all sort of "improved" versions from Asylum films and other companies where Ned doesn't die, or where Tyrion is actually a gorgeous fashion model. No thanks.
Only the most popular authors actually retain meaningful creative control, these days.
Even then, drek doesn't survive today. It wouldn't survive in a copyright-term-limited world. Sure, it gets out there, but it pretty quickly turns into "direct-to-video" style garbage, if even that.
As far as the comment about "improved" versions, referring to significant changes, hell, we regularly see that today with copyrighted works, because, as I mentioned, only the most popular authors actually retain meaningful (if any) creative control.
How many significantly different versions of Batman or Superman have made it to the screen? Or, to use a current movie example, how about World War Z? Max Brooks has been quoted as saying that the only thing the movie and the book share is the title.
Further, it's ridiculous to assume that simply because a work is creatively restricted by it's creator that this is some measure of quality. Witness the debate on Star Wars - there's a pretty good case made that the more Lucas was involved with "creative control", the worse the work got.
A person can have great, amazing ideas. That doesn't mean that this person is necessarily the best at developing those ideas.
I think it would also severely undercut an authors ability to actually profit from their work, as you would see huge cuts in advances and pay from contracts, as a book would be overall much less profitable. Quite a few authors are not George R.R. Martin or Stephen King or J.K. Rowling; they are not rolling in cash and cuts in pay would probably eliminate their ability to pursue a profession in writing.
As if they're not already seeing huge cuts in advances already. Only the most popular authors get financially significant advances anymore.
Certainly, this would impact financial benefits that some authors see today. Since Stephen King was cited as an example, yeah - King wouldn't be making the money he's made off of works older than 20 years.
But I fail that as a bad thing, especially when considering that the term of copyright was never intended to be as long as it is now (were such an intent existent, it would have been enumerated originally, instead of having been extended legislatively multiple times, after significant lobbying by the affected industries.
The extent of the profits seen by corporations and creators due to these copyright terms never should have existed in the first place.
Now if you want to argue that copyrights should expire shortly after an author's death, I have less of a problem
That'd be better than things are now, but still not enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No; that's why I wrote that I would share.Feeling compelled to share isn't the question, though.
Do you think that, if you did those things, on your own, without any other contractual obligations, that you should be able to keep them to yourself, and prevent anyone from using or benefiting from them for the duration of copyright terms?
OK, so, I understand that you said you would share. However, to clarify, is your "No" answering the question of "should you be able to prohibit use?"
If you feel that you should not be able to prohibit use via patent for a term equivalent to that of copyright, why is that you feel patent should be different than copyright in that respect?
This works well when the author is Poe or even Lovecraft; not so well when the author is Never-heard-of-him Andrew Turner.
How does a hypothetically enacted law ensconcing a right of paternity for the original author work better for Poe or Lovecraft, but not you?
I don't want to need to steal my stolen work...
A derivative of your work is not your work. It's based off of your work. It uses your work, but it's not your work.
Tracey Alley is a good example of this:
Tracey Alley has created a work derivative of Mystara.
She is prohibited, by copyright, from selling/distributing/whatever that work, but she actually has a copyright on HER work.
Let's assume that, when all is said and done, the various copyright holders have sued her to stop her from continuing said infringements.
She doesn't magically lose her copyright, unless that was actually part of the settlement or judgement.
This is why a LOT of publishers and others don't accept unsolicited submissions of work, because until a contract is in place, they don't hold a copyright to that submission. They may hold a copyright to much of the subject matter, but they don't automatically get a copyright on work they didn't create.
That's precisely what this thread is about: Alley has lifted the work of others and called it her own.
Only in part.
I should have clarified that statement under the context of the right of paternity discussion, which is what it seemed you were referring to earlier with your statement that someone could simply republish something you created, and then take credit for it.
Alley hasn't whole-cloth republished previously existing work, claiming credit for it. She has, quite clearly, infringed upon other copyrighted work, and has, quite clearly, lifted much of the work of others, and not credited them for it.
But, that said, her overall story is her own - it's not a novel written by someone else.
And, yeah, under current copyright law, that's illegal. One could additionaly argue that, even if it WERE legal under current copyright law, which doesn't currently contain any right of paternity for the original authors/creators, it's unethical to not credit the original authors/creators.
|
|
I'm still trying to understand why you believe an author shouldn't profit from their previous works.
For example, Stephen King published Insomnia 20 years ago. This coming fall he's publishing the sequel to this novel. By your philosophy he should not profit from the previous novel (because it should reside in the PD), which is likely to see a resurgence upon publication of Doctor Sleep.
But, the thing is, the limited terms were implemented in the first place for that very reason: That there IS demonstrable public good for these ideas to be open and available for the public to freely use after a relatively short exclusivity period for the original author/creator.Literature is not the only thing restricted by effectively unlimited copyright terms. Software source code, as an example, is protected by copyright. One could argue that source code is the equivalent of a physical invention.
And I think code should be treated differently than literature, for much the same reason that inventions are treated differently.
But as far as literature? I make the argument that we're all irreparably harmed by these terms, because works very often fall out of publication, physical copies become impossible to locate, electronic copies either don't exist, or, are no longer distributed (legally or illegally), and these works end up being lost to time, because an author created something 30 years ago when he was 20, and if he lives to be 80, that's another 100 years (life plus 70) until, HOPEFULLY, someone who has a copy is able to then legally duplicate it and distribute it.
Great literature doesn't go out of print that easily. Check the shelves in any B&N or library. Typical / average works may, but that pretty much eliminates the "harm" caused when it drops out of print. There i9sn't enough time in any life to read every average work published. Especially these days when far more is published than in the past.
Our very cultural enrichment is endangered by these terms - only that which is the most popular stays in some kind of constant production, and therefore, accessible to others.
In older works immediate popularity is not as important; it tends to be about the critical quality of the work.
And as to being able to use someone else's work that is now in the public domain? Again, I cite cultural enrichment. I think H.G. Wells' "Time Machine" is a beautiful example of that. As that work is now in the public domain, numerous people have been able to build off that work, and enrich our literature with all kinds of derivative tales or re-tellings.Had Wells' published it later in his life, we could very well still be prevented from creating those derivatives for another few years.
Personally I think we would be more enriched by new thoughts / concepts, but that's just me. As fan fiction that's fine, I would prefer there be some sort of judgment applied to who can make use of an author's work.
I'd like to counter your question, and ask, what's being hurt by only having a copyright for 20 years, or 28 years? Why is that not "enough" time for a creator to profit, but it somehow is enough time for an inventor to profit?
It may not be "enough time" for an inventor to profit. Say somebody invents something and nothing happens for 20 years. Suddenly due to other inventions his work is wildly popular. He gets nothing. The time limit on patent was chosen as a compromise of inventors rights and the public good. Copyright of literature is not a roadblock to progress. That's why the author gets more time than the inventor. His rights to his (intellectual) property is not as much a problem to the "public good".
Why should an author of a work receive an unlimited (to said author) term, but an inventor should not?
Answered above I think.
We have patent rules such as FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing that require a patent holder to license their work when adopted as a standard, and at fair rates to all licensees (i.e. Apple not charging HTC one rate, and charging Samsung a rate 5 times higher).I'm not saying that these rules aren't a good thing for the public good, but copyright holders? They don't have to deal with this kind of thing. Patent holders get the shaft.
Yes, they do get the comparative shaft. Again the weighing of public good v. private property rights is the reason. The dividing point in the time line has to be marked somewhere. Where depends on the product. It's forever (barring eminent domain or failure to pay property taxes) for property, it's life + 70 for literature (copyright) and twenty years (patent). Different types of product different times for the duration of protection.
By your own statement, the argument of the public good is harder to make on a work of literature, so for what justification is it protected so much more?
Because there is less reason to infringe the rights of the individual (author).
By that argument, shouldn't we then seek to encourage the invention of items beneficial to the public good by securing a "life plus 70" or "95 years for corporations" right to royalties for patent holders, rather than simply terminating their patent rights at 20 years, and forcibly placing their work into the public domain?
No, for reasons mentioned already.
We shouldn't, because even then, with mandatory licensing and mandatory royalties, it would severely inhibit the ability of people to build of another work and create something newer, different, potentially better.And those same reasons should apply to restoring or overhauling the term limits of copyright, because already, copyright is being abused as a hammer to beat down someone who comes up with a vaguely similar idea (original post subject matter NOT being referred to here).
Abuse of copyright is another topic entirely, and I agree it's widespread and needs to stop. Patent trolls need to be smacked down too, but, again, that's another topic.
I'm still trying to understand why you believe an author shouldn't profit from their previous works.
That's a rather disingenuous summary of my position.
For example, Stephen King published Insomnia 20 years ago. This coming fall he's publishing the sequel to this novel. By your philosophy he should not profit from the previous novel 9because it should reside in the PD), which is likely to see a resurgence upon publication of Doctor Sleep.
Negative. Once again, that's NOT what my position is.
If the work is 20 years old (or older), then I do not believe that King should hold the copyright on it any longer. That does not mean that I do not think he should profit from it. If he wants to continue to print it and sell it, he should most definitely be allowed. One could even argue that writing and selling a sequel falls into the category of profiting from that previous novel.
But maintaining exclusivity to the work? Nah, I don't think he should have that past a reasonable term (20 years, 28 years, something like that).
|
|
I'm still trying to understand why you believe an author shouldn't profit from their previous works.
That's a rather disingenuous summary of my position.
For example, Stephen King published Insomnia 20 years ago. This coming fall he's publishing the sequel to this novel. By your philosophy he should not profit from the previous novel 9because it should reside in the PD), which is likely to see a resurgence upon publication of Doctor Sleep.
Negative. Once again, that's NOT what my position is.
If the work is 20 years old (or older), then I do not believe that King should hold the copyright on it any longer. That does not mean that I do not think he should profit from it. If he wants to continue to print it and sell it, he should most definitely be allowed. One could even argue that writing and selling a sequel falls into the category of profiting from that previous novel.
But maintaining exclusivity to the work? Nah, I don't think he should have that past a reasonable term (20 years, 28 years, something like that).
Not so; I'm not deliberately pretending to misunderstand you. I'm saying that losing copyright protection is effectively losing profitability: I'm saying that the logical consequence of your 20 year requirement is that King will no longer profit from his older books. I love his work, but if Amazon is offering it for $0 as one of their PD offerings, then I'm 'buying' it for free from Amazon. If King is selling it for $1, that's still more than free, and he can keep it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I think code should be treated differently than literature, for much the same reason that inventions are treated differently.
And once again, I think that it should all be treated equally.
Great literature doesn't go out of print that easily. Check the shelves in any B&N or library. Typical / average works may, but that pretty much eliminates the "harm" caused when it drops out of print. There isn't enough time in any life to read every average work published. Especially these days when far more is published than in the past.
Why limit it to what someone else's subjective opinion is on the matter? Just because you consider something "average" doesn't mean that others will. Just because someone else considers something "great" doesn't meant that I do.
Yeah, the "classics" and the popular stuff will remain in print - as I stated, but the other stuff? Lesser known works by popular authors? Those aren't always in print, because someone doesn't deem it profitable enough to keep in print.
And hey, what about extending this to video games? How many classics are no longer available for whatever reason? The video game industry is seeking to undermine the right of first sale by twisting copyright about by "licensing" a work to us, rather than selling us a copy. This helps to destroy our collective cultural trust.
In older works immediate popularity is not as important; it tends to be about the critical quality of the work.
Again, subjective.
Personally I think we would be more enriched by new thoughts / concepts, but that's just me. As fan fiction that's fine, I would prefer there be some sort of judgment applied to who can make use of an author's work.
You do realize that these things aren't mutually exclusive, right? That is, to say, one can create a derivative work that has plenty of new thoughts/concepts. Again, examine the plethora of derivative works of H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine" for examples.
It may not be "enough time" for an inventor to profit. Say somebody invents something and nothing happens for 20 years. Suddenly due to other inventions his work is wildly popular. He gets nothing. The time limit on patent was chosen as a compromise of inventors rights and the public good. Copyright of literature is not a roadblock to progress. That's why the author gets more time than the inventor. His rights to his (intellectual) property is not as much a problem to the "public good".
But, that's NOT why the author gets more time. The author didn't originally get more time (relatively).
The time limit on copyright, as originally enacted, was 14 years, with a voluntary (not automatic) renewal term of 14 years.
Copyright has not been extended on behalf of the creator, it's been extended on the behalf of corporations. Now, I'm not by any means anti-corporate, or going to go off on an "evil profiteering corporation" rant (they're supposed to profit, duh), but, fact is, copyright hasn't been extended as some magnanimous act of Congress because the little guy doesn't have enough time to profit. It's been extended, repeatedly, because large corporations, rather than be forced to innovate (which is what that relatively short copyright term was supposed to force them to do in the first place!), they'd rather continue to milk old work.
That doesn't benefit anyone but the copyright holder, and that's the opposite of why copyright exists.
Yes, they do get the comparative shaft. Again the weighing of public good v. private property rights is the reason. The dividing point in the time line has to be marked somewhere. Where depends on the product. It's forever (barring eminent domain or failure to pay property taxes) for property, it's life + 70 for literature (copyright) and twenty years (patent). Different types of product different times for the duration of protection.
Physical/real property rights have nothing to do with this, and illuminate the problem of applying terms related to tangible items to intangible items (like ideas, concepts, etc.) - but that's an entirely different debate.
To turn it around on you: Rather than trying to prove why the public good is benefited by restoration of appropriate copyright terms, can you explain why the public good is NOT benefited by said term restoration?
And, ultimately, if a copyright of life + 70 years is acceptable, then why isn't perpetual copyright acceptable? What's the difference? Why is one better than the other?
If the positive benefit to the public good of a 20 year copyright is unjustifiable, why is a life + 70 year copyright somehow more justifiable?
Because there is less reason to infringe the rights of the individual (author).
But plenty of reason to infringe on the right of the public, apparently...