| "no right to dictate what other people do with his creations" seems a little radical -- i.e., you don't believe copyright should exist? Do you think a movie's creator can dictate that I'm not allowed to use a pirated version of a movie to display for 100% profit at my 10,000 AMC movie theaters? Or a book's creator can dictate that I'm not allowed to copy their book, put my name on it, and sell it on Amazon for half-price? If you agree that a creator can do those things, then you're already in a gray area between "they can dictate everything" and "they have no rights." At that point, you're arguing over the precise location of the line. |
| |
| ▲ | vunderba 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I must be misreading this. Are you saying the following is/should be okay/ethically okay/perfectly legal: Author A spends a year writing a fiction book. They are not well known in the industry. They publish the book, it sells very few copies (perhaps none at all). Person B (a well known Instagram influencer with tens of thousands of followers) downloads a copy of your book. Replaces your name with their name as the author, and promotes it as a book they've finished writing. Goes on to sell at a very profitable rate. If your answer is NO this should be illegal, what about if Person B searches/replaces all definite articles with indefinite articles, or changes all the proper nouns to begin with "schmla"? Where do we draw the line? If your answer is YES, then my gut instinct tells me you are neither a writer, composer, or creator in any meaningful sense of the word. | | |
| ▲ | daeken 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I wrote a fiction book, which has sold virtually nothing (maybe $50 gross, against an out-of-pocket cost of ~$4k). Both of these would piss me off if they happened to me or my author friends; I also don't think they should be illegal. I am an author, a digital artist, a programmer, and an extremely amateur musician. None of those things have demonstrated to me why copyright law is necessary, a net positive for the world, or ethical. | | |
| ▲ | voidhorse 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Why? You are holding a belief that works directly against your own self interest. If it's a principles thing—I'd ask, what is good in this principle? What is the good in someone else taking credit for your work? What is the good in someone else divesting you of wages you could use to live or support further creative acts? What is the good in any of that whatsoever? What real harm is the protection afforded you by the IP causing? If you worry underprivileged people can't access your work, you can give it to them for free as the IP holder. I simply cannot fathom any reasonable abstract position in which not having IP would be good for you. Sure, if you hand over your IP to someone else, I could see wanting IP abolished, but that's on you. Thant's the same as the parent scenario only you actually got a say in the matter at least. |
| |
| ▲ | constantcrying 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, I think it is okay. I think a very interesting case study would be YouTube. This exact scenario happens there regularly, with various consequences for the creators. |
| |
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | 6510 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What are your thoughts on peoples identity and trade marks? | | |
| ▲ | EvanAnderson 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Not the OP, but I have some feelings about that. The limits on trademark law are much more fair, in terms of the balance afforded to the public and the limited monopoly granted to the rightsholder. Trademark law can be abused, for sure, but it hasn't been used in the same abusive way as copyright law, nor has it expanded to be functionally infinite and all-encompassing. | |
| ▲ | constantcrying 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think the creative part of trademarks should be free to use, e.g. a film can have Coca-Cola bottles or some corporate mascot. But if you are commiting fraud, e.g. by labeling a Coca-Cola bottle, not from the company, as such then this should be forbidden. Not on the basis that Coca-Cola has any right to be the only ones using their logo, but that customers have a right to not be defrauded and make choices from whom they buy. As long as the trademark is not used to defraud people it can be used however people want. Someone's identity, e.g. their likeness and identification aren't just ideas. They actually physically exist. (I assume here that by identity you don't mean how they view themselves).
For identities I think it is very important to consider publication. If you publish something you have no right to tell others what to do with it. An actor in a movie has no right to tell someone that their fan cut of a movie is not allowed to exist.
On the other hand, as long as you do not publish some part of your identity you should have a right to it. If you are recognizable on a photo that you do not want to have published it should not be published. To make it short I essentially agree with the GDPR, with the exception of being able to retract consent, but I do not believe it invalidates my stance on IP in any way. Your likeness is not an immaterial idea derived from a creative process, neither is your own house address. You should be allowed to publish it and by publishing it, that publication is no longer yours to own and control. |
|
|
