That’d be my guess, and this is a milder case of an automatic data driven decision going awry, but it’s a reminder if why you want a person in the loop at all levels of this sort of thing.
Possibly multiple people.
And that’s on top of the evergreen note that our current copyright policies are ridiculous, and running them at scale is absurd.
There seem to be two options here. Either (a) you have little or no rules and let the users sort things out for themselves, or (b) you add on increasing corrections to correct for antisocial behaviour. Or © you fix people, but that’s hard, and perhaps unethical. So let’s stay with (a) and (b) for now.
(a) is not nice: the fittest user is the fittest troll.
(b) is not an equal struggle: you have a limited (probably bored and hard-pressed) staff trying to discover or pre-empt every new attempt by the public to frustrate their handiwork.
(a) and (b) are extremes: there are all sorts of shades between. I suspect many of the Sony false claims are because they have automated the process of detecting similarity between two videos or soundtracks, and have banged out claims because it costs little to them, and the content provider has to bear the cost of checking the claims. Here, Sony has evolved to be the biggest troll, despite (b).
This particular case is even more complicated. One person posts a video game play, which means anyone else making a similar post will probably follow the same strategy, have the same images and soundtrack, and generally be as similar as the average pirated video where someone copies the content, adds noise, drops a few frames, and talks over the top. While I like the idea in principle of having the game company posting their own solution with built-in permission, there is little incentive to do this, and it might not match well enough to do the job.
The straight answer to your post is “yes, it could be implemented”, but it will probably leave another loophole. It’s like the gaoler’s problem in ‘Papillion’: the gaoler has to make sure each and every possible exit is barred, while the prisoner just has to look for the one that isn’t.
I would go for ©.
@Rindan Exactly this. & if we can’t fix the laws (or our legislators) we need to stop letting that system feed off our productivity. Defunding bad government & bad business has to be done at the same time.
@Richard_Kirk Or we could admit that copyright is a harmful, illogical practice with no valid justifications. Freedom of communication is a natural human right & any perceived ‘right to profit’ must never be given priority of protection. Just because one creates something does not justify restricting others from sharing it. Nobody has any legitimate right to hinder anyone else’s communication, in any form. Any claim to the contrary is evidence of misapprehension or bias. If we pay for media, the terrorists win. Attribution only; attribution always.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. As a talented but very financially poor artist, I’d be particularly incensed to find out a profitable brand like Crest was using one of my portraits in their advertising.
I have a number of patents. Patents are open to the same sort of abuse as copyright. In theory, they should allow someone who has invested some major effort to recoup their expenses before someone else muscles in and copies everything. The word ‘inventor’ comes from the Latin ‘inveniere’ or ‘to bring in’. If you could discover how someone abroad made silk, or porcelain, or stained glass, then you got about 20 years to r5eap the profits before anyone could. One of the first ‘letters patent’ when they were granted for the monarch individually, was for stained glass, after the recipe for ‘Purple of Cassius’ (the particularly deep red glass) was lost until Humphrey Davey rediscovered it. This lasted until the sixties in the UK and many other countries, before the drop in costs for travelling anywhere in the world made this ludicrous.
Copyright is particularly skewed in favour of the owner. Most of the profits of a copyright fir music are made within 7 years, and yet in America the copyright length is the creator’s life + 70 years. So Disney’s ‘Steamboat Willie’ cartoon is still under copyright. Both patents and copyright are restricted rights: they grant the holder the right to stop the general public from doing something. This is a rare form of right - most rights are the right not to have something done to you. I can see some sense of balance in patents, even if patent rules are gamed by large corporations. But copyright length in the US and elsewhere could be cut dramatically (maybe even to 7 years) without harming the average struggling artist.
Well frankly that’s a very poor choice of reaction on your part: If a well known entity used one of your portraits, the wide exposure such an attribution would bring you is likely far in excess of what you’d reach without such use.
Digital images can be duplicated at near zero cost & it is morally wrong & socially impoverishing to restrict others from doing so.
Since commissioned works are where most of the money is in your field anyway, getting your work seen by more potential clients is worth more than any one portrait.
Most of all though, your perception that you have any right to restrict the use of your creations by others based upon your desire for profit is entirely erroneous & contrary to the needs of society. Freedom of communication is much more important than your contribution; sorry, not sorry.
Creation does not & should not be expected to endow control. Once a thing is made, the ability to copy it is natural & proper.
Again, “Attribution only, attribution always.”
I’m already well aware of the history of patents & “intellectual property” law, thanks. The very example you gave is a prime example of the hypocrisy behind the “limited temporary monopoly” of patents! That color did not belong to Davey & the decision to grant exclusivity was an immoral one. It wouldn’t have been lost in the first place if the originators had put more effort into sharing it than hiding it.
If I discovered that smashing a blood-engorged tick gave my dyes a pleasing grayish-purple color (“puce”) should I have the right to prohibit anyone else from smashing ticks into their dye? Of course not! Patent law is no different: Patents serve a select few at the expense of everyone else. “I thought of it first” is not a justification for prohibiting copycats. It is selfish & short-sighted.
The supposed incentive to innovate created by promise of a temporary limited monopoly is dwarfed by the restrictions such a monopoly places on subsequent innovation. The desire for exclusivity is a selfish one; it does not serve the public interest. Most of human history is filled with vital innovations that preceded “IP” law. Most of the electronic systems our modern society relies upon leverage open-source or public domain designs, beneath proprietary surface aspects.
If a copycat beats an innovator to market… Good. All parties involved will be motivated to innovate further simply by the pressure of literally anyone with the means of production seeking to copy what has gone before. Newer, more innovative designs will follow as surely as the core innovation has utility. With attribution, the core innovator(s) will be sought out for further employment as the most likely prospect(s) for further innovation.
Almost any technology with enough utility to find a market will advance more rapidly in the absence of rights restrictions than in their presence. Music, engineering, information systems; innovators in all of these fields stand upon the shoulders of giants. Wherever usage of earlier methods & materials is restricted, innovation lags. Business interest must not be allowed to dictate the criteria for innovation. Innovation fosters business, not the other way around.
The establishment of socially enforced temporary limited monopolies is one of the most dire injustices in our modern age. Countless hours are wasted researching who might have claim to what & even education suffers as a result of this forced impoverishment. Novel compositions face an uphill battle against corporate industries that necessarily focus on centralizing profit over broadening innovation. People die for want of medical supplies that remain overpriced due to artificial scarcity. Whole industries are built upon usury & fraudulent claims; All because truly creative people are sold a lie that their work is worth nothing unless it is guaranteed exclusivity (which actually profits the distributor above all else). No sir: Patent law is unjust, impractical, & without redeeming virtue.
The only creative right important enough to warrant socially enforced protections is attribution.
Attribution is certainly the key, but copyright exists (but is often abused by some…*cough, cough…Disney) to protect those who are vulnerable to exploitation and extreme litigation from powerful opportunistic capitalism.
Artists gotta feed themselves, man. We don’t eat sunshine and poop rainbows. And no, society’s expectations do not determine what they are allowed to extract from me.
As many artists (and unionized collectives) say, “Fuck you, pay me.”
Sorry, not sorry.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
