All fan-created material--fanfic, fan films, fan art, etc.--are copyright violations under current law.
Illegal downloads
- Thread starter JarodRussell
- Start date
If even actors who played in the actual TV shows take part in fan films, and kinda every company allows it to happen, then there's definately something wrong with the current law.
Well then all you're doing is sidestepping my point; if Shakespeare was under copyright then a whole body of work simply would not have been able to be produced.
Intellectual property is by definition different from physical property and therefore needs different protection. To retread the thread before, you can't treat an idea like a house just because both are "important". Comparing it to a house simply ignores what intellectual property actually is, how it behaves and how people interact with it.
Not unless somebody is making a profit from them.
That's very likely true. Some other body of work would have been produced instead.
The difference is that it's easier to steal, and people don't take it as seriously. So, yes, it does need different protection. Not less protection.
I like to think I can come up with new art.
What goes on in some people's heads...
Wrong. Profit motive is not necessary for copyright infringement. Most copyright holders just don't do anything about it because it's not worth the trouble. "Tolerated" does not mean "legal."
Okay, then. I'll take your word for that. It doesn't really change anything. People should still own what they create.
You do get to own it--for a while. Then everybody else gets to. 
What do you own if you create a fanfilm?
^^ Nothing much.
But I still haven't seen any justification for allowing the government to "eminent domain" novels, music, art et cetera when people are allowed to keep their homes, businesses, automobiles and so on.
Well, that's very generous.You do get to own it--for a while. Then everybody else gets to.
But I still haven't seen any justification for allowing the government to "eminent domain" novels, music, art et cetera when people are allowed to keep their homes, businesses, automobiles and so on.
I already explained it. No one creates art without drawing on existing art--which would be illegal if all art was privately owned in perpetuity.
Owning your art for a limited time is the compromise you make for being able to draw on what's come before.
Owning your art for a limited time is the compromise you make for being able to draw on what's come before.
And I've already explained that deriving inspiration from existing works is not the same as plagiarizing. How is Psychohistorical Crisis impossible with Foundation still under Copyright?
And I've already explained that reuse of artistic material vitalizes and encourages the creation of new media and enriches all of society and the restriction of the ability for people to create artwork based on their culture is harmful.
But then you called me a socialist, so I guess the importance and relevancy didn't really sink in.
On a related topic, I came across this quote tonight as I've been reading this book:
-Wim Wenders, 2002
At the end of the day, though, an artist has the ultimate control over their work... if you don't want people to interact with your work, just don't release it to the public. Keep it locked away in your basement and never let it enter someone else's head. But the desire to retell, remix and reuse media is practically intrinsic to human nature and to restrict it as you desire is to hamstring the basis of the creative process for everyone. If you had your way, we would all suffer for it. And that's a real shame.
But then you called me a socialist, so I guess the importance and relevancy didn't really sink in.
On a related topic, I came across this quote tonight as I've been reading this book:
-Wim Wenders, 2002
At the end of the day, though, an artist has the ultimate control over their work... if you don't want people to interact with your work, just don't release it to the public. Keep it locked away in your basement and never let it enter someone else's head. But the desire to retell, remix and reuse media is practically intrinsic to human nature and to restrict it as you desire is to hamstring the basis of the creative process for everyone. If you had your way, we would all suffer for it. And that's a real shame.
ok my art is like at times original drawing on nothing at all .. not even light. but then to see this one needs to shine light upon it to tell the originality of these things. Robert, there is an exception to every rule/law, you should know that? btw art laws are for losers who.., anyway what ever art is the art law If I collected all the money I have "given" away as art, I could bankrupt three to four galactic banking syndicates.. LOL
maybe take this topic to a new thread? while i download something or other that is archived for the heck of it.
I can't totally parse your post but you seem to be saying your art is 100% original. Sorry, but it isn't. As if no one's ever made LSD-induced drawings before...
more then even the most potent LSD-induced drawings but really man what is ...
what is your sample size?
just the present existence that we know ., cough cough and love ...
the multiplex of myriad existences that are possible. and have will and are occurring in the timeless bliss.
or something larger where the probability envelope includes all of GOD"S creation starting with when his peepee turned to seeds of woe.. and beget life in this puny universe where we are..
or perhaps just that illusion of everything that is neither real nor unreal or surreal so there is no matter of either new or old just illusions of thought. that manifest times expressions inducing hallucinatory redundancy. there of..
Or, the ability to plagiarize reduces creativity while protection of intellectual property forces people to do their own damn work (or admit they're incapable of it).
And how does protection of intellectual property interfere with children playing?
Well, oddly enough, I don't want to live in a world where the only way an artist can protect his work is to hide it from people. You keep talking about how you want culture to be enriched, but everything you say opposes that end.
By deleting their youtube accounts once they upload fan edits and music videos, for instance.
Oh, dear. What did the world do before YouTube? 
Oh, dear. What did the world do before YouTube?
Silly knockout argument. What did the world do before television or cassette players, or 8 mm film, to get back to that Wenders quote?
Similar threads
