Useful things to do with copyright
Oct. 16th, 2006 12:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandrootHaving watched the latest round of wrangling over fic and copyright, I am starting to think that it's time to stop slanging each other over who better understands what copyright law presently is.
Because copyright law is presently a morass of contradictory statements and precedents that don't gel into any even vaguely coherent policy, aside, perhaps, from "the one with the most money wins".
What we should do instead is think, seriously, about what we do and whether or not we think it is truly right or wrong.
If we think that what we do is wrong, we should stop. Stop ficcing. Stop vidding. Stop arting. If it's wrong.
But if we think it's right, that what we do causes no harm to anyone, either spiritual or monetary, then we should damn well act like it. If what we do is right, then we should, indeed, step forward and talk to the press and insist on legal protection against wrongful persecution--for example, having all your content trashed off the web because someone's lawyers sent a cease and desist notice to your service provider.
What we should be arguing over, and as visibly as possible, is the way in which what we do is just as valid a derivative art form as parody, and that copyright law as it is currently applied to us is abusive and incorrect.
Theoretically, copyright can only protect specific expressions. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. Yet. Every what-if, every missing-scene, every divergent-future is a new expression, and there is no good reason to quash them. Authorial emotional possessiveness does not count as a good reason, and, yes, that's a two-way street, and we need to deal with that fact too. Something that's published is placed into the common cultural dialogue, and you can't have it both ways.
And, while some big authors may use copyright as if it were meant to protect their worldbuilding efforts, they're ultimately shooting themselves in the foot. What copyright is really about, practically, is money, and as soon as they don't have big money behind them, they're SOL just like the rest of us. If copyright is "supposed" to protect worldbuilding, then why could I go out and publish a book about Tom Bottle, who has green eyes and black hair and goes to a school for magic and is destined to save the world and has these two really good friends, and a few arch-enemies, and Rowling would have a hell of an uphill battle to do anything about it? Consider Vanilla Ice versus Queen and David Bowie. Consider the Mitchell estate versus Randall and The Wind Done Gone. In neither case was there any kind of clear or definitive outcome, and the material that got taken to court (or, possibly, threatened with such) is still out there being published and paid for. ... well, probably not in Ice's case, but if the song had more staying power, it could be. The courts in this country don't care about artistic integrity or any of that, or else the outcomes of the conflics I just mentioned wouldn't have been such a bizarre mish-mash.
The point is, history and the balance of precedent are both on our side, not only when we claim fic is a valid artform, but also if we wish to claim fic is a valid commercial product. The latter will be a harder battle, to be sure. But I think it's worth fighting.
Because the current trend of limiting creativity to "valid" outlets, who have paid cash on the barrel for the privilege, of patenting and trademarking and copyrighting absolutely everything one can get one's (corporate) hands on, is going in a very bad direction. I really don't want to spend my writing time looking over my shoulder, wondering when they're going to come for me, and whether Disney has managed to convince a court that children's stories yet unwritten belong to them. And there's no reason any of us should have to.
Copyright, still, only protects particular expressions. We are in the right. I really think it's time we put some work into staying there, and making sure this current, insane trend toward "protecting" ideas is pushed back.
Because copyright law is presently a morass of contradictory statements and precedents that don't gel into any even vaguely coherent policy, aside, perhaps, from "the one with the most money wins".
What we should do instead is think, seriously, about what we do and whether or not we think it is truly right or wrong.
If we think that what we do is wrong, we should stop. Stop ficcing. Stop vidding. Stop arting. If it's wrong.
But if we think it's right, that what we do causes no harm to anyone, either spiritual or monetary, then we should damn well act like it. If what we do is right, then we should, indeed, step forward and talk to the press and insist on legal protection against wrongful persecution--for example, having all your content trashed off the web because someone's lawyers sent a cease and desist notice to your service provider.
What we should be arguing over, and as visibly as possible, is the way in which what we do is just as valid a derivative art form as parody, and that copyright law as it is currently applied to us is abusive and incorrect.
Theoretically, copyright can only protect specific expressions. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. Yet. Every what-if, every missing-scene, every divergent-future is a new expression, and there is no good reason to quash them. Authorial emotional possessiveness does not count as a good reason, and, yes, that's a two-way street, and we need to deal with that fact too. Something that's published is placed into the common cultural dialogue, and you can't have it both ways.
And, while some big authors may use copyright as if it were meant to protect their worldbuilding efforts, they're ultimately shooting themselves in the foot. What copyright is really about, practically, is money, and as soon as they don't have big money behind them, they're SOL just like the rest of us. If copyright is "supposed" to protect worldbuilding, then why could I go out and publish a book about Tom Bottle, who has green eyes and black hair and goes to a school for magic and is destined to save the world and has these two really good friends, and a few arch-enemies, and Rowling would have a hell of an uphill battle to do anything about it? Consider Vanilla Ice versus Queen and David Bowie. Consider the Mitchell estate versus Randall and The Wind Done Gone. In neither case was there any kind of clear or definitive outcome, and the material that got taken to court (or, possibly, threatened with such) is still out there being published and paid for. ... well, probably not in Ice's case, but if the song had more staying power, it could be. The courts in this country don't care about artistic integrity or any of that, or else the outcomes of the conflics I just mentioned wouldn't have been such a bizarre mish-mash.
The point is, history and the balance of precedent are both on our side, not only when we claim fic is a valid artform, but also if we wish to claim fic is a valid commercial product. The latter will be a harder battle, to be sure. But I think it's worth fighting.
Because the current trend of limiting creativity to "valid" outlets, who have paid cash on the barrel for the privilege, of patenting and trademarking and copyrighting absolutely everything one can get one's (corporate) hands on, is going in a very bad direction. I really don't want to spend my writing time looking over my shoulder, wondering when they're going to come for me, and whether Disney has managed to convince a court that children's stories yet unwritten belong to them. And there's no reason any of us should have to.
Copyright, still, only protects particular expressions. We are in the right. I really think it's time we put some work into staying there, and making sure this current, insane trend toward "protecting" ideas is pushed back.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-18 05:00 pm (UTC)That does sound like the sort of policy that comes out of 'slippery slope' thinking. As in, if you allow anything pretty soon you'll have to allow everything or else explain to a court why you shouldn't; and they want to avoid that, so they just have a blanket policy of never-ever.
Which I understand, but I don't think that makes it right or something that should go unchallenged. The crazies are always out there. If we live our lives according to what will protect us just in case a crazy ever crosses our paths, then everyone on earth would sit in a locked room all day doing nothing at all. If ideas are not copyrightable, then the publishers and authors are still protected from idiots like the one in the MZB kerfuffle, because any claim that the author stole the fan's idea would be chucked out of court instantly as invalid.