The Big Picture: Copywrong
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That depends on how much resemblance your work has to the publisher-in-question's output. It's one thing to create a character who has similar traits to one whose already been created, or write a film/book/comic with similar story or thematic structure, but it's another to just go out and publish your own Spider-Man stories without Marvel's permission.Entitled said:
If you're doing the latter, then you're not really creating anything, your just appropriating somebody else's work without their consent.
Over the past year I've been thinking of adopting the position of complete copyright abolition. It seems just about every corperation is trying to abuse the system. One thing that isn't getting mentioned in these discussions is abandonware. That is old games that exist in outdated media witch are at risk of being lost to the Mists of time due to greedy corporations that don't give a dam. So, yea, let them go without any copyright for a while. Then maybe they will be in more of a mood to be reasonable.
No, that's only if you are publishing THEIR earlier spiderman stories. If you are publishing your own, then you have just created something, namely those stories.Kmadden2004 said:
Would you say, that with the Walking Dead game Telltale "didn't create anything", just appropriating AMC's and Image's work WITH their permission?
Or that Alan Moore "didn't create anything" with The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, just appropriating various 19th century writers' stories without their permission (thanks to the Public Domain time passage empowering him to do so)?
Reality [http://www.gamespot.com/articles/square-enix-shuts-down-final-fantasy-vii-web-series/1100-6412449/] disagrees [http://www.dualshockers.com/2013/08/10/metroid-fan-film-seeks-funds-on-kickstarter-because-the-final-fantasy-vii-lesson-wasnt-enough/] with you.Kmadden2004 said:
Now, Im not saying these people are neccearly great artists because I have no clue about the quality of their output.
But to begin with what makes a great artist is subjective. Second I'm pretty sue "whatever they want" Includes fan projects like this, and as you can see, they can't do it without being greeted by lawyers.
And yeah, I'm opposed to this copyright bullshit, as to why:
Short version:
Long Version [http://everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/]
Actually, that was posted long before my knowledge of this site, so I don't remember it. Thanks for pointing it out though.Entitled said:
It's a tricky thing to pin down, how much piracy is a good amount to the point where it can be beneficial. I was wrong to take such a hardline stance, but it still irks me that - particularly in the case of smaller devs and artists - that their work can be enjoyed without ever paying a penny for it. I certainly don't think that it'd good up until 100% though, because at a 99% or any other large percentage the sheer size of the audience that doesn't pay for it is galling. Piracy does help the sale of it in general, but it just doesn't sit well with me a lot of the time. I'll concede the point though, because I don't really have a leg to stand on at this point.
However, I do completely agree about corporations eliminating everything derived from a property they own being a bad thing. My post probably made me sound like a copyright apologist, but I'm not as extreme as that. When it comes to pieces of work spawned from a bigger property - like parodies, fan fictions, and references - I'm absolutely with the people saying these are good for both the franchise and the culture that it enriches. That deals with the "doing their own thing" of your sentence. What I'm reluctant about is the idea of sharing a complete game or piece of property, but as you said the benefits probably outweigh the detriments in that case.
Perhaps the reason for that is because I'm thinking in terms of real world logic (and tangentially, that might be the reason for a lot of anti-piracy crap that comes up). I can't help but equate copying a file and sharing it on the internet to taking a physical book or disc and somehow making a complete copy of it to share in the real world. Except an infinite supply of it, because there's no limit to the number of copies that can be made off of a file. It's been proven before that physical-world logic doesn't apply to the virtual world though, so I'll just sit back and be educated by the changing era.
Fair enough, I'm still too ignorant in terms of copyright to make broad sweeping statements like I did in my post. In your particular example, then I'm with anyone who says copyright should be outfitted to protect creators as opposed to companies. I'm just against the crowd that says the elimination of copyright would be wonderful, because it would ultimately leave a lot of would-be artists starving.the hidden eagle said:
The Walking Dead games, other than the appearance of Glenn in the first Episode of Season One, actually have little to no connection to either the comics or the TV series beyond "they both have zombies in them".Entitled said:
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is a different set of circumstances, as it actually fits into the broader category of satire. Alan Moore took those characters to write a commentary on literature and propaganda.
What you're describing is fan-fiction, which - contrary to public opinion - most comic book publishers are actually (secretly) okay with. They just ask that you don't publish it to sell and try to infringe on their label. Which, frankly, is fair enough.
Ah. That's a good point. was it the PM Lord North and some in parliament that wanted to continue the war after Yorktown? Anyone who is more versed in the British side of this story fill the blanks for me please. I pretty much understand the usual highlight reel and the factual bits from '1776'MB202 said:
Yeah, and I'm pretty sure that a lot of that isn't coincidential either. For example, here is a chart [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=intellectual+property%2C+copyright&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cintellectual%20property%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccopyright%3B%2Cc0] about the occurences of the phrase "intellectual Property", and how unlike the actual centuries-old legal definition of copyright, it's pretty much an ammunition of the recent digital age copyright debates.Banzaiman said:
Basically, publishers like to present their copyright monopoly as "property", so that it's not seen as a regulation that needs to justify itself by practicality, but as part of their human right to ownership that shouldn't be "taken away" to any degree unless necessary.
So they keep arguing whether a Public Domain or a Fair Use limitation on "letting them keep their stuff" is necessary at all, instead of what price their current control has compared to it's benefit.
Well, I'm not against copyright. Guess why?Deadagent said:
I'm an artist.
And copyright law prevents my work from getting stolen. So for you to just dismissively turn around and call pretty much the one law out there that protects my income "bullshit" doesn't leave your attitude particularly endearing to me.
Does that mean there's no room for improvement in the current landscape? No, I do think the current laws do need to be rewritten to accommodate the changes in technology and culture that could never have been foreseen back when these laws were first written. Does that mean I agree with what's going on with YouTube right now? Hell no, the vast majority of the guys getting hit by the Content ID system are well within the realms of fair use.
But that does not mean that copyright laws should just be thrown out all together because, for guys like me, they are a helluva lot better than the alternative.
Yet it couldn't have been published without Telltale's permission. If anything, you are demonstrating my point, this is an example of too much copyright control, that the existence of a quite "original" story like that is still depending on other publishers' permission.Banzaiman said:
And I haven't said anything about MY hypothetical Spiderman comic not having satirical tone.Banzaiman said:
I'm pretty sure that you couldn't get away with using copyrighted characters as protagonists in your own published stories with that excuse.
Satire is the most narrowly interpreted section of Fair Use, essentially it only works in non-profit works or non-significant scope.
It is "fanfiction" by the virtue of being legally unpublishable, not by a real measurment of failing to be a creative work. I could name hundreds of other examples of public domain or licensed stories written by someone else than the IP creator, that are no more "original" than even the average fanfiction, they are merely more official.Banzaiman said:
There are stories published on fanfiction.net, such as the Alexandra Quick [https://www.fanfiction.net/s/3964606/] series, that has less to do with Harry Potter than Walking Dead with it's show counterpart, or like Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality [https://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry-Potter-and-the-Methods-of-Rationality], which has more skillfully employed it's canon protagonists for satire than Alan Moore ever did.
Yes, what I'm talking about is fanfiction. But fanfiction itself is an abomination caused by hiding piles of creative works as bannable from publishing, keeping them on an unprofesional level, hidden among a million amateurs.
Some form of Copyright Law is certainly necessary, but Copyright Law as it currently stands is incredibly fucked up.
I agree with you, Bob. I feel that copyright is something that is a good thing. Defending those who create content from others who would steal it. Or make cheap knockoffs. Or just make something that is based on another person's work. Imagine if someone made a show out of a character you created and you had no recourse to sue them.
That being said, abusing your fans who are trying to enjoy and share your work is not a good idea. Taking down reviews won't help you. Imagine if no one was able to review The Room. How many people would never have even heard of that movie? How much money would it have even made?
That being said, abusing your fans who are trying to enjoy and share your work is not a good idea. Taking down reviews won't help you. Imagine if no one was able to review The Room. How many people would never have even heard of that movie? How much money would it have even made?
I don't consider such people to be fans. Why wouldn't you want your favorite band to enjoy success? That way others get to enjoy their music, too. To me, they just want to feel special and have something others don't.MB202 said:
If I had a 5 cents (living in europe) everytime someone used this argument.Kmadden2004 said:
Yes, of course. You are one of the chosen people to create arts and you with the other chosen few, truly understand the struggle of creation.
Dude, spend enough time online (or live long enough in general) and you should realize few things
A) You are worthless no matter who you are
B) You are not the only one on ANYTHING. So you are not the only one who understands
C) You dont have to be an artist to have heard this stuff countless of times
I don't know you but I assume your an adult and as an adult I expect you to understand all of what I mentioned above
TL;DR: You're not special, deal with it
Im not here to please you, I'm here to tell the truth as I see it.
Futhermore, If you had watched the video, you would understand that im not completely against copyright, but I am against it's current state, and will continue to do so as long as I think the system is broken.
I never proposed to Abolish the system completely, Im proposing the return to the 28 year model.
The really hilarious thing about Youtube's content ID system is how completely idiotic it is about cross checking data. Numerous devs/publishers that don't want to deal with claims are having to tell users to protest strikes on their record so they can just green flag it and get on with it.
And then you get to the really funny part, the content ID system putting strikes on users for THEIR OWN CONTENT. In particular, this happened to AMC's channel for having the Breaking Bad promos and commercials of THEIR OWN SHOW, and Jonathon Blow's channel for his preview footage of The Witness. Blow's in particular was funny, because the strike claimed Sony owned the game, but Blow is self publishing the game again like he did with Braid. So Youtube's system is not only stupid, but wrong.
To put it in a simplier example, take what major game publishers and devs are finally realizing, and some have said for ages (like Valve): "You can't beat pirates." It can't be done. The DMCA and others of it's ilk are just like DRM in games. They don't really deter a whole lot, and just make things harder for legitimate users. If someone posts a video review of GTA5 that has the background music running, should they be punished for the 5 seconds of ACDC you hear playing the same as someone that posts a torrent of the newest Hobbit movie?
Copyright laws are super broken, and need to be fixed.
And then you get to the really funny part, the content ID system putting strikes on users for THEIR OWN CONTENT. In particular, this happened to AMC's channel for having the Breaking Bad promos and commercials of THEIR OWN SHOW, and Jonathon Blow's channel for his preview footage of The Witness. Blow's in particular was funny, because the strike claimed Sony owned the game, but Blow is self publishing the game again like he did with Braid. So Youtube's system is not only stupid, but wrong.
I'm just gonna put this out there: No it hasn't. Never, in the history of ever has copyright law prevented theft. It has given you ways to punish people for the theft, or the belief that maybe it would prevent theft, but it hasn't. If you find people trading your work online, the theft has already happened. Now all you can do is file a DMCA if you're in the US, or whatever relevant law in your home country to get it taken down. Copyrights and patents are all over the place in the world, and yet ideas and content are stolen every single day. Copyright laws are basically a warm blanket to wrap yourself in and hope they are working. But we live in the real world.Kmadden2004 said:
To put it in a simplier example, take what major game publishers and devs are finally realizing, and some have said for ages (like Valve): "You can't beat pirates." It can't be done. The DMCA and others of it's ilk are just like DRM in games. They don't really deter a whole lot, and just make things harder for legitimate users. If someone posts a video review of GTA5 that has the background music running, should they be punished for the 5 seconds of ACDC you hear playing the same as someone that posts a torrent of the newest Hobbit movie?
Copyright laws are super broken, and need to be fixed.
Wow, that's quite a chip on your shoulder, kid.Deadagent said:
Seriously, where the hell did this come from? I never said I was special, I just said that I was an artist.
Jeez, no need to be a dick about it, or anything.
Whoa he's not saying copyright should be thrown out all together. It's current form not adapting to way people create is bs. It's backwards thinking. Because on every economic level we're not protected. At least a more accessible and easy licensing communication system should be forged to ensure everyone's getting paid, when ideas are copied transformed and reproduced. but that the public domain doesn't remain stagnant because large corporate entities want additional decades of limits to material you want to appropriate in reasonable and economically harmless levels. If you checked the 'Everything is a Remix' link and saw the fourth video you'd see the problem is that it's getting to the point that it services market disputes, and even sample trolls and patent trolls that exist only to digging through all sorts of published creative properties and make money off random lawsuits When they haven't put the work in either. Thousands of songs are painstakingly constructed from scales and rhythm. Some dont take more than a few hours in the studio and mixing and mastering tricks. Who gets the lionshare of that effort and argue even more about copyright? People selling marketing and promotion. Some (not all) but some who don't understand their artist's true intention, who don't necessarily contribute enough to the forging of creations None of us likes people taking their ideas but how much longer after our natural lives should they service only us, and how long will it be before real world concepts, (not just old media ones) become off limits for common commercial artworks, and who will own those properties.Kmadden2004 said:
I think this is turning into another question what matters more, the flow of ideas (despite how confusing and disagreeable, or shameless public works can be) or artistry being a more nebulous market protected standard, in order to protect the integrity and economy of what was already made. We all need to get paid as creators, but the job of art is future education and inspiration of all mankind. It has to get off it's pedestal and get up there in the chop shop to really do that. The best way it can be done is allowing others to deconstruct it and re-contextualize it for themselves. Not everyone's going to understand certain artworks on the original artist's terms. Even at the commercial level. Look at what Id, and Valve did by giving out the source kits of DOOM and Half-life to the modding community. Not everyone has to allow their property to be freely changed and un-commercially shared but they knew actions like that were important to fostering the legacy of their creations, and a future contributors who as Gabe Newell himself admits "have far surpassed us."