Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Rob, I mentioned that beautiful South poster of yours a while back. Well, some of its communicative power was about knowing Ansel Adams' landscape photos or Ronnie's other work. He didn't "own" those cultural references and neither did you. But you profited from them, as they added value to your marketing material and the album cover featuring that photo. Helped me decide to buy it, for one, and I also regard it as a taonga for all New Zealanders.
ronnie didn't do that photo, his brother did and iit was designed and treated by scott wilkinson from ballon d'essai. its an original work of art made specifically for that release, and I own it.
I wasn't referencing anything in choosing it cos I wasn't familiar with ansels work at the time, I was paying scott wilkinson to make me a pretty cd cover in his style, which is developed from being enrolled at polytech in chch and hanging out with a thriving scene of talented people who ( and this is the bit you're getting at) were taught about and influenced by many various sources. true, very true, but the artists I support are people who add something to the mix. that poster is very much scott wilkinson. he did the logo and the bold lines design.if somebody went an made a t shirt of that poster and started selling it as their own I'd be pissed off firstly, and secondly I'd wonder why they didn't make their own design, or filter something back to the owner of it (me) or the designer (scott) or francis van hout (the photo artist). a lot of the referencing argument is driven by laziness or cheapness. go do your own art, or front for the cost of doing your own.
-
take modern hip-hop music. It often contains samples from other songs.
what do you think a hip hop artists motivation for sampling is?
its expense. that great 60's drum loop. you can re create that in a studio, but that costs money. The original artist paid to create the original recording. it cost them money to do it. why should someone have free access to cake without paying something to ward the ingredients. its only fair don't you think?
-
What it sounds like you're saying is that someone should be able to create one thing, and live off that forever. That works in almost no other space. You can give someone a building, but it doesn't produce income by default. I don't give the plumber a dollar every time the toilet is flushed.
you make it sound like all created things are done in an afternoon (some are, most aren't by a long stretch).
the workings of creating things has been explained furher up the thread. sometimes many years of unpaid work goes into a creation which then owes that creator that time and money back, and it may take many years to deliver that. its investment in a way and yes investments in other sectors do yield dividends in perpetuity or not. if you want a more secure income get a job at macdonalds.your plumber performs one part of the task of disposing your shit. installing it. its a service job, not a production job. slightly different. pick another example that fits better.
-
But in answer to the question, because society says so. The artists are given the right to control copies for a limited time, in exchange for which the public gets to make copies after that time.
yeah I know that's how it is but you're not illuminating me as to why it is. just cos we say so isn't good enough, it has to compare to similar property rights and examples of how it works in other fields, other wise it looks like its big kids beat up on the minority and steal their lunch. (which they had to get up at 5 am and make by the way)
-
There is no natural right to restrict free flow of ideas,
an elvis recording isn't an idea, its a product. why should it ever be public domain.
why should after 70 years people who are legal owners or inheriters of the recorded work suddenly have to compete with legal thai knock offs of their products.what about the recipe for kfc, or cocca cola, can you take their industrial secret after 50 years?
I don't see why mickey mouse should become public property when there is a business that legally manages and maintains that icon directly stemming from the creator and his family.
I take it when it becomes public domain we can have mickey mouse pron? how is that in thw interest of the creator? -
and their work wouldn't exist but for those that came before it, acknowledged or otherwise, and so on so forth. It's turtles all the way down.
I get your logic, but I think its wrong.
in your world there is no original thought, just derivative thought.
by your reasoning anyone who uses language is copying off people who developed words. -
Because that's part of the arbitrary deal. There's no real underlying reason exactly, it's just that society gives and society takes.
is that a good enough explanation in the modern world.
The whole social good argument doesn't really add up when compared to other endeavours, like land speculation and oil production. I'm up for some open source petrol. -
Because if it doesn't, then all new access to that content is lost when people decide to stop publishing it any more.
surely a not published becomes public domain clause would deal with that, rather than stripping everyone of their rights.
-
Were Shakespeare's plays tied up in copyright, society loses out because they can't do that.
no, you could do it but you would have to contribute some reddies to the originator of the work, or get their permission. your work would not exist as referential if their work did not pre exist so it seems only fair to acknowledge it.
-
Copyright expires as an intentional part of its design.
why? no ones explained why yet. why is it necessary to expire it?