Why, where do I not understand them?
I wish Harlan Ellison would just die already...
- Thread starter Tom Hendricks
- Start date
Why, where do I not understand them?
Yet you don't give a good reason WHY the laws should change. Other than the appeal of: George Lucas should allow anyone to make a Star Wars movie. WHY?
Many reasons have been given to you as to why the laws are the way they are.
Let's put it another way. Under YOUR system of copyright, anyone could make a Lord of the Rings movie--without permission, just pay a fee (of course not to high, according to you). Do you really want to see a Michael Bay Lord of the Rings?
If I was the Tolkein estate, would I want to see a Michael Bay Lord of the Rings? No. I wouldn't. (Hell, some member of the estate didn't want a Peter Jackson one). But, under YOUR view of what copyright should be, I would be powerless to stop them. It would be: shut up, here's your fucking money.
How is that right? How is it right that an artist creates something, it gets TAKEN by someone else, you are powerless to stop them, and basically paid off.
Correct, CBS can only block it due to trademark infringement they can not take it from Cawley and make a profit from it. Cawley would have to be compenstated for any and all non trademarked material in the production, this also includes compansation out of pocket production costs as well if CBS wanted the prodution.
That's not a good analogy. It's more like if a person made a sculpture of your house without your permission, would that give you the right to go to their house and steal it?
Or if you paint a picture of the Death Star on your van, can LucasFilm take your van away from you?
I don't know any of the facts behind what it is claimed LucasArts did, but I can't believe if it did happen that it is legal whether they own Star Wars or not. What they could do is demand the person take the work off the Internet, not steal it and make money off it.
I wouldn't watch a Michael Bay Lord of the Rings, even if it were the officially licensed version. But that's not important. The point is that Michael Bay should be allowed to do a Lord of the Rings movie if he wants, but that he has to compensate the Estate appropriately.
And how is it TAKEN by someone else? Nobody takes anything away from you, because you can do your own stuff at the same time. I don't understand why people are so overly protective, especially in this day and age. Nothing is taken away from you, nothing is desecrated.
That's my gripe with today's system, as there seem to be only exclusive licenses. Paramount owns the Star Trek movie license, and nobody else, for example. So you either have it, or you don't. I have yet to see a case where two, three or more parties share "ownership" of the same thing and independently produce their own versions of it.
And I see people are confused by the examples I make. Because I use Star Wars, Star Trek or James Bond they think it's because I'm a fan who feels treated unfairly. Not at all. I just use them as examples because they are well known names. I don't write fan fics, nor do I create 3D models or fan films. I'm only watching and reading.
Last edited:
But it IS important. Because a LOT of people wouldn't want to. And some of those people MIGHT BE THE PERSON WHO WROTE IT.
Why wouldn't you want to see a Michael Bay movie? I know I wouldn't: because I don't think he would do justice to the book. Because he's a hack. It would be bad.
And if you were JRR, would you want Michael Bay to direct it? No. Because it might be some people's exposure to your work. And people might go, "what a shitty movie... must be a shitty book." It taints the actual source material.
But why should he be allowed to WITHOUT PERMISSION. We don't disagree on the money. We disagree about permission.
Why should Michael Bay be allowed to take something that's not his and make something without permission? WHY? WHY is that MORE right than the current system?
This. Right here. THIS is why you don't understand copyright and intellectual property.
Do you let anyone just come in and use your stuff without your permission? If I come into your home and use your TV set while you're not using it, would you care?
What if I, a stranger, come into your house and take your favorite shirt? Do you mind? You weren't wearing it, I'll bring it back, even pay you a dollar. Would you mind?
People are protective of their property. That's how it's always been. Do you leave your apartment unlocked?
You wouldn't want to see a Michael Bay lord of the rings, because he would desecrate the fucking book. How would you feel if it was YOUR book and some one made a shitty movie out of it?
Why would they want to? I
Of course, there was the summer there were two James Bond movies that came out. Never say Never Again and Octopussy.
I'm not confused. Not at all.
The thing is: YOUR way of doing copyright would hurt the unknown author.
But you can't (or shouldn't) compare an apartment to intellectual property!
It vitalizes the market, adds more diversity, increases the challenge. Lets say three Star Trek movies, one by Paramount, one by Twentieth Century Fox, and one by Prof. Zoom Entertainment compete with each other. Whatever meets the audiences needs and expectations wins. How is that a bad thing?
Was that a bad thing in any way?
Why would it? He gets credited and he gets compensated.
Why not? While there are differences, they are striking similarities. For example, I can own a chair. I can also own an intellectual property. I can sell a chair, I can sell an intellectual property. My chair can be stolen, my IP can be stolen. I can rent out my chair, I can rent out my IP. I can choose not to sit on my chair, I can choose to do nothing with my IP.
So, why shouldn't I consider my property (be it a chair or a story) to be my property?
And both the chair and the rights to the intellectual property can be willed to another. The major difference is that the chair can be passed down for as long as anybody wants it but the intellectual property rights will at some point expire.
Complaining about not being allowed to use IP at will is equivalent to complaining about not being allowed to use somebody else's chair.
Jan
Because I would make a duplicate or rather my version of the chair while you keep your own to sit on. The analogy of stealing the chair is wrong in that case. It's still your property. I'd pay you a fee to take measures and photos and create a new one based on that while you keep your own chair. And you shouldn't be able to prohibit that because we're in a free country. And you shouldn't be able to take my version away from me (maybe because you like it better).
I can't take it away from you, but I'm allowed to profit from my version of it. And in turn you also profit from it, because my version is based on yours. We both win.
I can't take it away from you, but I'm allowed to profit from my version of it. And in turn you also profit from it, because my version is based on yours. We both win.
But, again, WHY should you be allowed to take my property without my permission?
AND, by YOUR logic, I SHOULD be able to take YOUR version and DO WHATEVER I WANT, so long as I pay you. You can't stop me.
Why shouldn't I be fine with that? Maybe I hate it, maybe I enjoy it, maybe I disagree with the message, maybe I agree with it, maybe I understand it, maybe I don't. It's art, isn't it? I don't see why I should be able to forbid you to do something you want to do. If you do something with it that's utterly disgraceful or illegal (I dunno, turn Superman into Naziman or whatever), that's your problem because it's going to fall back on you and not on the original creation.
Would you forbid parodies because they make fun of your work (and maybe even of you personally, because you are the creator)?
So, Cawley should be fine if Paramount took his work, and say, made it look like he was fucking a donkey. It's no problem, they paid him money. He shouldn't get a say in that, right?
Under US law, you CAN'T forbid parodies. Parody is protected free speech.
How can they make him look like a Donkey? What are you talking about? Are you talking about reedits of the episodes he did or what? No, the creation is still protected. As I said, I can't take the chair away from you. I'm talking about sequels, remakes, reboots, prequels, spin offs all the time.
That doesn't answer the question: would you do it (if it weren't protected)?
But under your version of copyright, NOTHING is protected, so long as I pay the owner of the copyright.
I can take a book make a version of it. Why can't I take a movie and make a version of it? That's what you want with Star Wars. To do "whatever you want."
So, why can't I, or Paramount, under your rules--where I only have to pay someone AFTER the fact--take your Intellectual Property--your movie--and do what I want with it. Like, reedit it, add new material, Spock fucking a pig, and then sell it?
This is the logical extension of your idea. Why are you unhappy with it?
Would I refuse a parody? Maybe, depends on who is doing it. If it was Weird Al, I would be THRILLED if he made a parody of my work. If it was Michael Bay, I would be a lot less interested.
Because this is not at all what I mean. I can't take the original Star Wars material and merely re-edit it. That's not what I've been talking about.
Well, at least that fits with your mindset why you disagree with me, no offense. I absolutely support the protection of parodies. And I guess what I want is an extension from parodies to serious works. To get back to the above point: have you seen parodies where they simply recut footage to make fun of the original? I haven't, and I doubt it's allowed, and I wouldn't allow it. What's perfectly okay is the remake.
Then what do you mean?
Because that's what you are ACTUALLY suggesting. Getting rid of the ability of the IP owner to say yes or no, could (and would) lead to this... and as you say, why not, people should be free to do as they wish... As long as they are paid, why should it matter?
But, again, you really DON'T. You want other people to make work in someone else's IP that is protected, while the original person's protection is rendered meaningless. Don't you see the hypocrisy in that?
Ok, let's look at it this way:
For the past year or so I've been working on an outline for my own original urban fantasy universe, and if by some million to one chance I actually got a whole novel written and published, and it was popular enough that someone wanted to rights to it, I would sure as hell want to have a say in what was done with it. One of the major characters is bisexual, but I'm making a point of treating her in a fair and realistic manner not just something that's there for titillation and I would want to be able that whatever adaptations are done portray that version of the character. Her sexuality is a big part of the backstory between her and another female character, and it effects the main character too, I want to make sure all of that is kept intact. I also have a very clear history set up, and I would like to be able to make sure that whoever does the adaptation accurately relates that history.
For the past year or so I've been working on an outline for my own original urban fantasy universe, and if by some million to one chance I actually got a whole novel written and published, and it was popular enough that someone wanted to rights to it, I would sure as hell want to have a say in what was done with it. One of the major characters is bisexual, but I'm making a point of treating her in a fair and realistic manner not just something that's there for titillation and I would want to be able that whatever adaptations are done portray that version of the character. Her sexuality is a big part of the backstory between her and another female character, and it effects the main character too, I want to make sure all of that is kept intact. I also have a very clear history set up, and I would like to be able to make sure that whoever does the adaptation accurately relates that history.
Bloody hell. Decades of battles for creator's rights and now the digital generation wants artistic communism. Steve Gerber is whirling dervishly in his grave.
If I kill off 3 characters you want to use, and you go and water that down by bringing them back to life in your version, that screws up my Sequel, and waters down my original version.
Say Prof Zoom puts out the Movie of the Year. The following year, 20th Century Fox and Paramount throw some cash at him and decide they want to do sequels. 20th Century Fox puts out a crap version in March of the following year, then Paramount puts out a crap version in June, who is gonna take the chance on wasting another $50 for the family to see Prof Zoom's Sequel to his original property in July/August?
The General Audience pays no attention whatsoever if a film is Distributed by Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Asylum, etc. They just know the Franchise. Heck most general audience members don't even know anything about the Directors and Producers, unless they're Spielberg or Lucas.
That's only Geeks of a specific Genre that can tell you the writer, the Producer, the Director, the Studio of a specific Franchise and it's individual movies or TV Shows.
Last edited: