dagblog - Comments for "Copyright vs. Truth"

There's definitely a problem

Doctor Cleveland — Tue, 15 Apr 2014 04:26:14 +0000

In reply to This is just stunning, Doc.

There's definitely a problem with people trying to use intellectual property law to *effectively* control things they are not allowed to own, such as underlying facts. This is a problem with databases, for example, because some database owners try to control the data itself. And don't get me started on genome sequencing.

And I certainly agree that many works and characters should be available for remixing by this point. It is a historical oddity that they aren't; at no other point in history have 85-year-old books been kept out of public domain.

This is just stunning, Doc.

Michael Maiello — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 16:49:00 +0000

In reply to Copyright vs. Truth

This is just stunning, Doc. Generally speaking, the truth has been a terrific defense in matters of expression. In the U.S., at least, being able to reasonably prove that what you've written is true will dependably defang any threat or libel or slander lawsuits or of the nice trick of claiming "tortious interference." Now, suddenly, copyright outweighs truth even when a great many other legal complaints do not.

As a creative guy rather than a scholar I am most annoyed that these newly strengthened copyright laws do nothing but protect the achievements of the recent past while they actually hinder the development of new art that is based on recent art. This actually creates discontinuity in art history.

Take music sampling as an example. The way I see it, people making music in the era of recorded technology are largely making art based on the art they've been exposed to. If the culture is going to give you certain hooks, baselines and vocals, you should be able to use those hooks, baselines and vocals to respond to the culture.

Similarly, there's my recently published (and proud to say it) parody of A Perfect Day For Bananafish. There's a very good chance that I am simply lucky that Salinger's estate is not looking that way, even though a friend of mine remarked that it's a pretty darned good expression of where Salinger saw the culture heading.

Honestly, I feel like I should be allowed at this point to make a Super hero team out of Fitzgerald and Hemingway characters and to make a franchise out of it, but I am not allowed. The culture exposes me to all of these characters in high school but as an adult, I am not allowed to play with them?

Yes, which I believe could be

Verified Atheist — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:31:46 +0000

In reply to Yes, but families are using

Yes, which I believe could be successfully defended in court, but as you point out the threat itself might suffice to keep publishers away.

Or the historian's lobby.

Doctor Cleveland — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:22:34 +0000

In reply to Where is the academic

Or the historian's lobby. It's political and historical figures, too.

It's about money and about

Doctor Cleveland — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:22:08 +0000

In reply to "Here's the joke: this law

It's about money and about control, I think. MLK's family wants to control his legacy, which is understandable. But they shouldn't get veto power over history.

Yes, but families are using

Doctor Cleveland — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:21:07 +0000

In reply to They can copywrite quotes,

Yes, but families are using copyright to protect facts anyway. Look at the Salinger decision, which forbade paraphrase of the letters. If you can't even describe the contents in other words, the fact itself has been improperly copyrighted.

Where is the academic

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 21:50:43 +0000

In reply to Copyright vs. Truth

Where is the academic biographers' lobby when you need it?

George W. Bush Used Top

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:09:51 +0000

In reply to Copyright vs. Truth

George W. Bush Used Top Google Results for All Paintings; Who Will Sue for Copyright Infringement?

http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/george_w_bush_used_top_google_...

Just awful.

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:12:37 +0000

In reply to Copyright vs. Truth

Just awful.

"Here's the joke: this law

EmmaZahn — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:06:00 +0000

In reply to Copyright vs. Truth

"Here's the joke: this law can only be used to prevent a scholar from telling the truth. The estate only holds the copyright of a letter or diary because their ancestor did actually write it. A writer's heirs could never sue a biographer for libel. Dead people cannot be libeled. But a writer's family can come after your house for quoting that writer accurately."

Copyright is intended to preserve and protect the monetary value of an author's work(s). Isn't it therefore reasonable that the heirs would want to prevent anything that would diminish it value like diminishing the reputation of the author?

In this context, I cannot help but think of the very frequent public rows over Martin Luther King's papers and personal effects. It always seems to be about the money involved.