It would be more impactful if an argument was based on "I made this and cannot do something with it because of x reasons" rather than "I haven't made anything but are more than willing to argue endlessly about theoretical and philosophical concepts"
Fan Works, Copyright and Fair Use
- Thread starter Matthew Raymond
- Start date
[Old Timey Door to Door Salesman] Hey everybody! I have a solution in desperate need of a problem, would you like to have it! [/Old Timey Door to Door Salesman]
"Clears throat"
Sir, did you properly attribute that work? If so, here's your license!
It's credited. And less than one page at that. Clearly I win the thread.
Congratulations! Your speech is now Protected™
Great! Now, about that studio.
You're the one who keeps saying, or at least implying, that copyright law gives absolute power to the IP holder. True, it gives them massive power, but Fair Use leaves some reasonable outlet to others. Also, the fact that, unlike patents and trademarks, copyright law does NOT require the holder to defend the IP at every turn means they can choose to ignore derivative works such as fan-films/fan-fic.
They may even be selective in their enforcement, such as when J.K. Rowling (if memory serves) sent C&D to those fan-fic which put HER "teenage" characters in very adult scenario, but left the family-friendly fan-fic alone. The dude tried to counter-sue claiming that since she didn't shut down ALL fan-fic, she effectively put her work into the Public Domain. Sorry, but copyright law doesn't work that way.
The guy who bought land next to your must allow you a road for access. He might let your kids play stick-ball in the open field on his land but prevent the older kids from doing Little League practice there.
I don't think "here" is an appropriate format. Because it won't change the law, and certainly is coming across as "I should be allowed to use other's properties because I want to."
Because I see the Fair Use currently in place as sufficient.
Since it isn't our property, should we be free of all repercussions?
Yes, because they violate an understanding and used someone else's property for profit. Guess what? Consequences. It happens in almost every facet of life.
But, this isn't one collection, nor has every business responded the same way. In point of fact, it is rather unfair to take "all fans" and lump them in one big category. That is largely unfair when different fan bases respond differently and IP owners also respond differently.
Ultimately, it comes down to this. It is the IP owners property, and I see no reason thus given to weaken their ability to protect their property, profitable or not. It's the same as hunting on private land to me. Does it benefit the land owner to say "Yes." Not really. But, it's their property, and they are allowed to decide. I cannot sue them to increase my access to their property.
TL: DR-fans have no rights to IP owners properties, from CBS, all the way down to the Deviant Art artist that I enjoy.
In some states, land owners may charge a fee to hunters wanting to use their land. How would such a concept apply to copyrights? Oh, yes, that's right: license agreements. And how funny, but doesn't the current law allow the IP holder to lease out licenses to use their works beyond what Fair Use demands they allow??
Take me to your Kickstarter!
If you really want to change the law what you are doing here will have zero effect on that. Even if everybody here agreed with you, I don't think anybody on here is an elected represenative who can have any affect on the law.
What you need to do is setup a meeting with your congressman or senator and convince them to submit a bill ... though you need to have your language down as to how you are going to prevent abuse of this trunk size loophole because they will likely want that before tellling you that your idea is dumb though they'll likely be nicer about it.
What you need to do is setup a meeting with your congressman or senator and convince them to submit a bill ... though you need to have your language down as to how you are going to prevent abuse of this trunk size loophole because they will likely want that before tellling you that your idea is dumb though they'll likely be nicer about it.
Hahahahaha In what universe?
Modern copyright legislation is absolutely absurd, extremely harmful to culture, technically basically much of our culture infringes copyright and studies after studies show that Copyright should be limited between 7 and 20 years, not what it is essentially in practice, between 95 and 150 years.
If Modern Copyright laws existed decades ago, most of modern culture simply wouldn't exist. Hell according to modern copyright law, if the owners wanted too, they could sue producers of ENTIRE GENRES of music into oblivion. The Amen Break is copyrighted. Drum and Bass, Hip Hop, Breaks etc are technically infringing on copyright.
Honestly applaud anybody who fragrantly ignores copyright laws. Hate Alec Peters as a person and I think Axanar would have been terrible, but I absolutely applaud him in infringing nonsense laws written by corporate suits and rubber stamped by congress because of money under the table. TOS should have been public domain decades ago.
Of course someone here is going to throw out the extremely lame argument "if you don't like it, talk to your congress person blah blah blah"
Honestly you're an idiot if you use such a ridiculous argument. Yeah okay, Give me hundreds of billions of dollars to fight the extremely corrupt entertainment industry, their full time lobbyists and all the Politicans they've bought off, and maybe we'll do something about it. But no, it's not going to happen, because we all live in a Oligarchy.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...age-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
The only way to fight such ridiculous laws is civil disobedience.
Copyright law protects the little guy, too.
If you don't like the law, work within the system to change it. Good luck. With that argument, you'll need it.
It actually really doesn't. Modern Copyright law is specifically designed to protect large corporations that can last centuries so they can hold onto everything they own and never, ever have it enter the Public Domain.
The vast majority of profit on any production is actually made in the first few years, this is why several studies have now shown that even 7 years is the "optimal" copyright length, because for the vast, vast majority of producers, by the 7 year point they're basically reaping nothing from their production.
Again, absolutely ridiculous statement. Give me billions of dollars and control over large sectors of the economy and I'll try and fight it, but lets be real, Copyright and IP protection laws are written by corporate suits and then get rubber stamped by Politicians who are bought off because they can afford full time lobbyists and control large sections of the economy, look at the TPP which went from a reasonable trade deal to pretty much became the "Give Corporations unlimited IP and Copyright terms over the entire Pacific" and written by US corporate suits.
The only actual real way people have to fight these laws is through disobedience and it's a GOOD thing the Internet allows people to do that. Piracy has done far more to damage IP/Copyright laws than any study, economist, sociologist etc that has advocated and petitioned for change.
Also Trademark also gives decent enough protection to a corporation. If CBS is producing Star Trek, they can still trademark elements basically indefinitely.
What do you care? Create something, and it will be protected.
Arguing against copyright just tells me that you want to steal from people who actually produce new works.
Step up or shut up.
The End.
It can be done. It won't be easy.
Piracy is far, far, easier than making new works or working to change the law.
Hello, madame moderator?
...
Look, copyright extensions have gotten out of control, but 7 to 20 years feels too short for individuals who may not have the marketing power to exploit their creative work in that time period. I would be fine with a shorter term, but not that short.
The whole system needs a revisit, sure, but the oft-mentioned deep-pocketed corporate interests are going to make changing the rules to something sensible a steep uphill climb. Still, if you want the rules to change, then Urbandefault is right on this count: you can either try to do something about it, as tough as that will be, or shout into the wind. Civil disobedience? Fine, Donker, YOU want change so badly, you take point. Thus far, none of the actual fan filmmakers posting here are stamping their little feet about this, so it seems it's some—frankly—entitled fans of said works with no skin in the game that are demanding this.
Last edited:
1. this isn’t true in regards to television. Most shows operate at a loss for a few years until syndication or overseas sales kick in. It’s changing somewhat with Netflix and Hulu, but not much.
But syndication is where the real money is made. And that’s years after the product was made. How much do you think Seinfeld has made in the years and years it’s been off the air?
2. Changing it to 7 years would devastate book writers. You know the little guy and gal.
You’ll have to post a link to those “studies”
Oh, besides no longer receiving a royalty for past books, another reason 7 year copyright would devastate writers: liscensing.
Why would a studio pay anything for your book, just wait 7 years and it would be free to use.
Why would a commercial want to pay a band for a song? Just wait seven years until it’s in the public domain.
Changing copyright to such a short term would be terrible to the artists who haven’t made millions, but the ones who rely on royalties from a back catalogue of work.
Hell, HBO wouldn’t have had to pay George RR Martin a dime to make Game of Thones. Anyone could make one.
Is copyright to long? Perhaps. I’m more concerned about how long a company “lives” in terms of copyright. But shortening doesn’t solve the problem.
Why would a studio pay anything for your book, just wait 7 years and it would be free to use.
Why would a commercial want to pay a band for a song? Just wait seven years until it’s in the public domain.
Changing copyright to such a short term would be terrible to the artists who haven’t made millions, but the ones who rely on royalties from a back catalogue of work.
Hell, HBO wouldn’t have had to pay George RR Martin a dime to make Game of Thones. Anyone could make one.
Is copyright to long? Perhaps. I’m more concerned about how long a company “lives” in terms of copyright. But shortening doesn’t solve the problem.
