I think the translation of “Urheberrecht” is “copyright”, and “Vervielfältigungsrecht” is reproduction rights.
So to more specific, you can temporarily license exclusive or non-exclusive reproduction rights, but you cannot transfer copyright to a third party unless you die.
Since copyright is so different in different territories, one lawyer is probably not enough. Copyright is actually pretty straightforward over here, but it seems especially fucked-up in the USA.
Although one can code artfully, coding is not art, it’s more of a craft.
Also I would not consider code itself as a work of art. Even inside an artwork that consists entirely or in part of software, the actual code is not work of art, it’s just code. From my experience, code in artworks is often especially crappy, as artists rarely have training as software engineers, and they are even more prone to hack it together until it works.
In Germany, that would be transfer of reproduction rights to a publisher, subject to the whole body of law applying to publishers. There’s some limitations on the terms, of course, and the publisher has certain obligations.
I looked, but I did not find a detailed explanation in English I could link to.
Wait, what? I might get this wrong, but it sounds to me like you are uncomfortable that the state uses law to protect artists, but you are not uncomfortable at all that the state imposes copyright in the first place?
It’s actually not that complicated: if you want to let adults enter into contracts as they see fit you would need to create a fair society, which would imply having 100% tax on inheritance, solid public education for everyone, and a body of law so simple that everyone can understand it. 
Until we have that, we need laws as to counterbalance the fundamental flaws of our capitalist and political systems.
Exactly. It’s not that hard, is it. The mistake young, inexperienced musicians make is to sign deals with old-style labels that are just too long. Sign up for a year or three if you must and then review if you can take charge and take more control. Signing up for 5-year or longer deals is madness. Of course, many labels won’t offer shorter deals…
I want to be grumpy about Taylor Swift, I really do, because she gives off the aura of someone only in it for herself and only caring about issues like private equity looters when hit affects her personally. But I can’t, because so many artists that I have met are like this. Especially the minor league bands and bar artists that I personally hang out with.
It is especially annoying because I am sure I have heard her music, but damned if I know which of those cookie cutter voices is hers. I also don’t know what she looks like, but with a name like that she must be dark blond most of the time.
So yeah, some artist whose name I recognise is calling out those who tried to leech dry her music catalogue revenue and leave her hanging. I guess the only surprising part (for them) is that she had the moxie to call them out on it rather than just suck it up as the way things work, like all the other good little worker bees do.
Yah I took issue with her sniping at “apps” as though they don’t require just as much effort and creativity to build as writing a song does. The current “app” I am working on has a team of 150 in four countries and has been in development for five years.
Pink went after went after Dubya hard and fast also, which was a joy to watch.
Better check your local laws on that one. Code is usually not protected by copyright, and if you work for anyone else or do work using anyone else’s hardware, odds are they own it. Check your contracts. It’s a big known thing in game development that the only “protected” aspect is the actual art assets made by the artists. The code and design of a game are not. The code has some IP protections if the company lawyers are doing their jobs, but design in particular is totally unprotectable.
As did the Dixie Chicks, which makes me wonder why Trump gets off so lightly.
Do you really want to start the “definition of art” conversation here? And stake your position on “code is not art because sculptors write crappy C in their arduino-controlled flippy-mirror installations”?
As a lifelong software engineer, I’ve seen plenty of code that was so beautiful it sent a shiver down my spine. That’s more art than most of the “writing” you see in the world (all of which is automatically protected because we’ve decided all writing is art because some of it clearly is).
Morris Levy
Because libruls don’t know how to be “civil”, and need to be checked.
#GOPliesthatsoundsuspiciouslyliketheywereconcoctedbyaneightyearold
Well, this seems as good a place as any to find some people to help with my concept:
Build a music label that acts as a bank for artists: loan money to artists at X%, depending on their popularity. Once the loan money is returned, all rights to the music belong to the artist, outright. Typical loans would be $10K to get a demo record out, or $50K to put together a little bigger album.
Once established, such a model would likely attract top talent-- they could borrow money at almost prime lending rates, and payback the loans given their popularity and sales potential.
Any loans that default (after 5 years or something) would release the music into a commons or open licence.
It would be like Patreon, but with loans.
Anyone in the music/finance industry listening here?
one of these things is not like the other
I think the issue here is the amount of time needed to ramp up protests. Next year is when I suspect a loft of anti-Republican music and art is going to hit the market. Assuming the execs at the labels, networks, and streaming platforms don’t smother it at birth.
“Bowie Bonds” were and are a great financial innovation, letting artists monetize their catalog and transferring the risk that they will lose popularity to the “greedy looters.” I was tangentially involved in Cyndi Lauper’s sale of a portion of her catalog to a firm I worked for. Ms Lauper was quite pleased to get a big chunk of cash up front and we got to work trying to extract more value from the investment by convincing ad agencies to use her songs in commercials. Good for artists and good for investors.
And Taylor? She is a savvy negotiator and saying “Boo-hoo, poor me” to her fan base is a cynical but smart move. The guys at Carlyle will be pretty pissed when she re-records her catalog but 'dems the breaks. PE is risky.
I’m really curious here. While the entire discussion here is about “big music” et al… And that IS the instance, is music REALLY the problem?
To me, this looks a lot like the lawyers and staff of their firms who facilitated Harvey Weinstein with absolute impunity.
Equity/Venture funds (and their legal staff) roaming the landscape funding whatever they think they can make big bucks from. The outcry is against the more visible bully and they fade into the mists… Until the next time.
Google did bad things to their employees with tracking code… But the code designers and coders who actually wrote the code wander the shadows like mafia hit men… On to paint the next house.
yuck
It appears I already did.
No, I meant that the code in an artwork is not the work of art. I just mentioned that the code is mostly crappy, too.
[quote=“VeronicaConnor, post:72, topic:157303”]
As a lifelong software engineer, I’ve seen plenty of code that was so beautiful it sent a shiver down my spine. [/quote]
I don’t mean any disrespect to your experience as a software engineer, but might it be that most of that was probably still just very clever engineering? People see cars that send a shiver down their spine. I would not call them art either (unless it’s an actual art car, of course).
Even though I would agree that most “writing” is not art, it does not follow that therefore code that sends a shiver down your spine is necessarily art.
Of course, in certain code might still be art, consider this bit:
#!/usr/bin/python
from gods_names import name_at_index
# say all 9e9 names of god
idx = 0
while (True):
print(name_at_index(idx))
idx = idx + 1
Of course it’s a not particularly clever piece of art, and it only works because it stands on the shoulders of a giant to stand on. But it is clearly something other than a clever bit of engineering, although it has some of that, too, if you will. One might argue, though, that it is not code
On the other hand, the code used in this work of art that stands on the shoulder of the same giant is not art in itself. We don’t see that code, so it can’t even send a shiver down our spines.
That’s what my point was.
Edit: fixed the code above
Scrolls to bottom of linked page…
Phew!!! Still a few names left to go.
Beauty does not (necessarily) equal art.
ETA @lizard-of-oz beat me to it (my insertion in italics):
