Comments on: the distortions of a form-less copyright system http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/ Blog, news, books Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.2 By: pick 3 lotto http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-27351 Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:08:50 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-27351 Hi, i think that i noticed you visited my website thus i got here to go back the favor?.I’m attempting to in finding things to enhance my website!I assume its ok to use some of your concepts!!

]]>
By: fair use http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19587 Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:54:36 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19587 “When a doctor is done setting your broken arm, you pay him for the work he has done. When a mechanic has fixed your car, you pay him for the work he has done. It’s the same for 99.99999% of us. When we stop working, we stop making money. But when Tom Cruise stops working on whatever movie he’s in next, he’ll keep getting paid until he’s dead or the movie goes out of print. Why should he? The people who operate the equipment that records the movie don’t get paid like that. The people who edit the movie don’t either. The people who make the actual DVDs don’t either. A tiny few, whose actual work is a microscopic fraction of all the work that makes their scheme possible, benefit indefinitely for they once did. Why should they? Where’s the benefit to society in work once, get paid forever? What is it, besides greedy and lazy?”

file://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151840&cid=12745413

]]>
By: fair use http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19586 Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:50:31 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19586 Artists should only be paid for PERFORMANCE or CREATION of works, NOT for reproduction or sale of recorded works. Why is it so hard for you people to understand? Every other person in the world earns a living based on WORK; you want people to earn a living based on OWNERSHIP or REPRODUCTION by others. You favor a decadent Leisure Class. We favor a society where every person pulls their own weight. There should be NO copyrights at all. People should be free to copy and sell copies. If they try to claim something is an original work, they can be arrested for fraud, but that shouldn’t entitle anybody to make money off of them. Artists should only be paid for performance or creation.

]]>
By: WJM http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19585 Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:22:12 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19585 Wow, did you blow that one. So if I record a copy of a record and press it into a record myself it was MY ‘tangible object” that was sold and those who actually put the music on the original record have no legal claim to their work?

That’s the Gary Gross case.

There are several links on this page to “the facts.” It appears clear, however, you are simply unable to make meaningful use of them.

I can make use of them, having now seen them. My point about droit de suite and ever other form of copyright over-compensation. Not every use or dealing with a work should demand payment to the copyright owner; in fact, very few of them, ultimately, should.

]]>
By: Rob Myers http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19584 Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:30:34 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19584 So if I record a copy of a record and press it into a record myself it was MY ‘tangible object” that was sold and those who actually put the music on the original record have no legal claim to their work?

It certainly was your tangible object. Unless you are using ectoplasm rather than vinyl, or pressing the records in ‘Second Life’.

The people who put the music on the record were the engineers and labourers who got the spiral scratch onto the disk. They have no further claim on it, unless you want tupperware to come with shrinkwrap licenses.

To answer the point you are trying to make: pleading for stronger copyright “for creators” on the basis of edge-cases (however tragic) is like pleading to make eviction easier so that more homeless people can be relocated into mantions.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19583 Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:40:11 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19583 What right does he have, or should he have, for a cut when a tangible object is re-sold between two strangers?

Should authors of books get a cut of used book store sales? Perhaps bricklayers should get paid again each time a house is resold.

Wow, did you blow that one. So if I record a copy of a record and press it into a record myself it was MY ‘tangible object” that was sold and those who actually put the music on the original record have no legal claim to their work?

There are several links on this page to “the facts.” It appears clear, however, you are simply unable to make meaningful use of them.

]]>
By: WJM http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19582 Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:14:04 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19582 And WJM, are you just “a” with a new nic? Or are you one of those copyright abolishionists? I think it is obvious why Gross deserves to be paid for work he created, you are the one not providing reason or sound argument.

I am not “a”.

Was he paid when he first took the photos, for paying them?

What right does he have, or should he have, for a cut when a tangible object is re-sold between two strangers?

Should authors of books get a cut of used book store sales? Perhaps bricklayers should get paid again each time a house is resold.

I’m all in favour of copyright. I’m also all in favour of legal, logistical, temporal, and spatial limits to copyright. Like, say, life+50. And like, say, no droit de suite, and the abolition of droit de suite where it exists.

Give me some more facts of this case, and I’ll decide how close your argument comes to being droit de suite.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19581 Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:54:20 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19581 If there is no originality in the first picture, the copyright law says that it has no new copyright.

This point has zero application to this context. Those pictures of Brooke were taken by Gross, they were original and he does have copyright on them and still sells them to this day. He hired Brooke from Ford, paid her five hundred bucks, and when Brooke got famous and her mom decided she didn’t want them published any more he sued Terri over his right to do exactly that.

They are, in every way, original works. An essentially exact copy of this original work, however, is not. Yet if Gross had even an inkling of a chance at victory in court it would have been pretty easy to get an attorney to defend his claim and he could have come away with a lot mroe than a mere two thousand dollars even after giving the lawyer half the judgement. Yet he didn’t — why do you think this is so?

And WJM, are you just “a” with a new nic? Or are you one of those copyright abolishionists? I think it is obvious why Gross deserves to be paid for work he created, you are the one not providing reason or sound argument.

Branko, you missed again.

A copyright is the right to create copies of works in a tangible form. In other words, the “progress of arts” (creativity) is interpreted by Congress as the production of works.

The pictures were taken, the “creative” part is fulfilled. Your post argues nothing at all in your favor in fact you are posting nearly completely out of context.

If an artist has already created a work but cannot find a publisher to reproduce that work en mass (and that is, at its heart, what we are talking about here in a photo processor refusing to make copies of her work) how are her rights in any way infringed? A publisher cannot be legally compelled to publish material they do not want to publish and a business cannot be compelled to provide services they do not wish to provide.

There are countless photo labs and even if every last one of them were to refuse to offer this service she can just go buy a good printer and do it herself. In fact, if she were to do this, she would then have a whole new opportunity to earn income by offering thiis service to other artists who find themselves in the same predicament.

]]>
By: WJM http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19580 Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:26:13 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19580 “Garry’s also the guy who, only after much wrangling, pocketed all of $2000.00 when a photograph of one of his now infamous photographs sold at Christie’s for more than $150,000.00.”

You say this like something bad happened.

Why should he have gotten anything, let alone “all of $2000.00″?

]]>
By: Branko Collin http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19579 Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:05:07 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19579 newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/arts/features/1695/ contains an article that claims Gross was way too poor for a legal fight, so he settled.

]]>
By: Joseph Pietro Riolo http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19578 Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:13:55 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19578 To poptones,

My point is that copyright law does not care what
you and others think of a picture that is a copy
of another picture. If there is no originality
in the first picture, the copyright law says that
it has no new copyright. Never mind what people
including yourself think of it as a unique work.

Why didn’t Garry Gross use copyright law to sue
Richard Prince? I can only guess several reasons:
1) Garry Gross might not have copyright in his
pictures due to lack of copyright notice and/or
copyright registration. (I checked
http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html and
although there are two records for Garry, it is
hard to determine the timeline of events surrounding
Richard’s copy of Garry’s pictures and Garry’s
claim of copyright in his pictures.) 2) He might
not have thought about that or had no standing to
sue Richard. 3) He might have tried it but failed.
The article that you quoted did not give the full
legal history.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
comment in the public domain.

]]>
By: Branko Collin http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19577 Thu, 23 Jun 2005 08:29:05 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19577 PB, the USA constitution says that “Congress shall have power [...] to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

It doesn’t say how this right should be implemented. USA Congress chose the form of copyright. A copyright is the right to create copies of works in a tangible form. In other words, the “progress of arts” (creativity) is interpreted by Congress as the production of works.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19576 Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:20:52 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19576 It doesn’t matter if the work is public domain or still under someone else’s copyright, the facts remain: a picture of a picture has been considered a “unique work” (and the article makes the point the photograph of the photograph is essentially an exact copy, and if you look around the web you can easily see this for yourself).

Garry could certainly use the money, and in infringement cases it generally seems easier for the plaintiff to rule the day – so I wonder why he did not press the matter? Is there some precedent for provenance in copyright? In this case that’s pretty much the only “original” or “unique” part of the “work” of Prince, for the photograph of the photograph would not be any more or less “original” than if Prince had simply. run off a color copy at the local kinkos.

The legal mess that Garry Gross is in is an
entirely different matter that has nothing to
do with originality.

Indeed. Such is the reason I never mentioned any of that. So why do you mention it?

]]>
By: Joseph Pietro Riolo http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19575 Wed, 22 Jun 2005 23:43:27 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19575 To poptones,

Either I miss your point entirely or you do not have
the correct understanding of the U.S. copyright law.

The point in my original response to Branko Collin
is that it is not the amount of time that you spend
on fixing something in a tangible thing that can
give you copyright. The only thing that matters
in the U.S. copyright law is originality. I
gave an example of photographer that spends one
hour trying to reproduce a public domain work
very accurately. The time that he spends does not
count anything for the purpose of copyright.

Your example of Brooke Shields is somewhat off the
point. The pictures that Garry Gross took of Brooke
Shields obviously have copyright if he properly
put copyright notice on the pictures, which is
required back in 1970′s. Richard Prince obviously
infringed Garry’s copyright in the pictures by
taking pictures of Garry’s pictures. Your statement
saying that a picture of a picture can have copyright
is true only up to the new materials that are added
to the first picture that are not in the second picture.
Otherwise, the status of copyright in the first
picture depends on the status of copyright in the
second picture. If the second picture is in the
public domain, the first picture is also in the
public domain except for the new materials that
are added to it.

The legal mess that Garry Gross is in is an
entirely different matter that has nothing to
do with originality.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
comment in the public domain.

]]>
By: pb http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19574 Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:32:50 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19574 Branko: “In the case of photo shops, the fear that modern copyright law instills in professional photo printers directly leads to less works
poptones: “How so? I have heard this said again and again but no one offers the least bit of evidence to back it up.
Branko: “It’s not me that equates the production of copies with creativity, it’s copyright law. Don’t blame the messenger.

Evidence please, Branko.

]]>
By: Branko Collin http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19573 Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:58:47 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19573 It’s not me that equates the production of copies with creativity, it’s copyright law. Don’t blame the messenger.

As for your comparisson with TV stations: TV stations won’t broadcast your videos, because they refuse to broadcast crap, not because they are afraid of the wrath of the law.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19572 Wed, 22 Jun 2005 16:09:51 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19572 In the case of photo shops, the fear that modern copyright law instills in professional photo printers directly leads to less works, that is, less creativity.

How so? I have heard this said again and again but no one offers the least bit of evidence to back it up.

In no way is there “less creativity.” The photos were still made, the only barrier (and only temporary at that) is to getting high quality prints of pictures that have already been taken.

Printer foo refuses to print pictures that are “too good.” Printer bar says “If foo won’t print them I won’t either.” So photographer takes pictures to her buddy who bought the photo printer last year but never uses it… or she gets fed up and buys one of her own. Now foo and bar have lost all her business, and she has all the prints she needs.

I can’t get the local TV station to broadcast my videos, either. Does that mean they should be required by law to broadcast anything their audience demands of them? How about if I go to kinkos, should they be required to reproduce any works demanded by a customer?

]]>
By: Branko Collin http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19571 Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:15:14 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19571 Re: the insanely inefficient part. Copyright in the USA exists to foster creativity. However, a lot of creativity (the way copyright defines it) does not stem from the promise of participating in the copyright lottery, but from other desires, such as the desire to have a memento of momentous occasions. In other words, there are far more copyrights out there than need be.

In the case of photo shops, the fear that modern copyright law instills in professional photo printers directly leads to less works, that is, less creativity. If something does the opposite of what it is intended to do, that thing is beyond being inefficient.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19570 Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:08:48 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19570 Brooke Shields is not a public domain work.

Of course not. Brooke Shields is a person. What are you talking about?

So, any picture of her can have copyright.

I put that link there for a reason, why don’t you bother with reading it before replying?

A picture of a picture CAN indeed have its own copyright.

]]>
By: a http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19569 Wed, 22 Jun 2005 08:57:20 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19569 Please could someone explain what the “insanely inefficient” part of copyright is
its the part where you don’t get laid.

]]>
By: Joseph Pietro Riolo http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19568 Wed, 22 Jun 2005 07:55:14 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19568 To poptones,

Brooke Shields is not a public domain work. So,
any picture of her can have copyright. When the
copyright in a picture of her expires 70 years after
the death of photographer, any identical reproduction
of the picture does not gain copyright due to the
lack of originality.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
comment in the public domain.

]]>
By: Ben http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19567 Wed, 22 Jun 2005 06:50:30 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19567 Please could someone explain what the “insanely inefficient” part of copyright is, and how to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

]]>
By: a http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19566 Wed, 22 Jun 2005 02:19:57 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19566 on Originality:

Mr. Schwartz of A.B.S. has some advice for newcomers: Stop whining. “When you are talking about fashion, lose the word original,” he said. “Ask the small designers where they got their inspiration. They pull their inspiration from others. It’s in the air. You don’t sit by the window and wait for it to materialize.”

]]>
By: a http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19565 Wed, 22 Jun 2005 02:10:56 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19565 “and nobody does hype like corporations.”

well you didn’t really show me any valid evidence for your claim, but you did prove to me that you dont know shit about modern society. Just because you ‘got laid’ and someone sent you some free gear is not a valid economics argument, its a stupid juvenile anecdote. Hey wait, the Beastie Boys are a ‘corporation’! they pool their resources and act as one individual financial unit. Lets kill them! Then we’ll get laid. Your idiotic us-them ‘evil corporations’ language has proven that you are a moron. Hey wait, your’e a brit arent you? why not go live on the other side of the moat with other Euro-peons. There will come a time when Lessig will have to make a choice: distance himself from morons like you and actually accomplish something, or forget the whole thing altogether.

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/the-distortions-of-a-formless/#comment-19564 Wed, 22 Jun 2005 01:29:58 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/the_distortions_of_a_formless.html#comment-19564 On the other hand, if a photographer spends one hour
positioning camera, set lighting, and other things
all to take an accurate picture of a public domain
artwork, the picture does not have copyright because
it lacks originiality (because the photographer
does not add anything to the picture).

Joseph, why don’t you tell that to Gary Gross? He’s the chap who took those photos of Brooke Shields all those years ago that led to her appearing in Pretty Baby, the film that essentially made her “America’s girl” for a decade..

Garry’s also the guy who, only after much wrangling, pocketed all of $2000.00 when a photograph of one of his now infamous photographs sold at Christie’s for more than $150,000.00. The real money went to Richard Prince – the guy who took a picture of his picture of Brooke and wrapped it all up with a fuzzy pink bow of neoartistic bullshit.

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/arts/features/1695/

I think this ‘honor system’ ethos is really extremely idealistic. the very fact is that in situation where there is no attribution, there will be no works.

First, attribution is not the same as getting paid.

Second – I, and a lot of other creative people, are living proof you are wrong. I have had people donate equipment to me because they value my work, I have had people offer to send me money, I have had people send me gifts – I’ve even gotten laid (IRL, not cyber) because someone was so into the words I put onto a computer screen.

it is becoming painfully evident that art is something that only very rich people get to make, at least here in the ol’ US of A.

And as proof of this you hold up Paris Hilton?

Sorry, that ain’t art. It would appear you have art confused with celebrity and hype. While art can lead to fame, fame is not the universal commerce of art – many of us run away every time fame rears its ugly head.

You can find my writings all over the internet and you can find my artwork on usenet. I create because I have to, not to make bank. Blaming corporations for your personal inabiliity to create something original does not hold water with those of us who know better.

What would occur if copyright were abolished would be an immediate return to the classical principles of form and proportion.

China has been essentially a “copyright free zone” for most of history.. Vietnam, Korea, Taiwan – even Brazil and Mexico.

Where did linux originate? In a western european country with reasonably strong copyright laws. And it has grown most substantially in those other countries where IP laws are the strongest. Others picked up on it, but it has taken a decade for many of those nations to realize the cultural toxicity of relying on “piracy” of other nations. Did the culture ministries of China and Vietnam and Korea encouage their people to “innovate?” No, they simply turned their backs while the peasants copied Microsoft and Sony.

Russia and Ukraine have been “copyright free zones” at least since the collapse of communism. And there have been and are a lot of great russian rock bands, I know this because I make an effort to seek out these artists and so I have heard many of them. So what do you find if you got to mtv.ru? Pretty much the same crap you find on mtv.com. Because the pop industry isn’t about creating art, it’s about selling hype, and nobody does hype like corporations.

]]>