Nina Paley is brilliant again, and makes a great point, though I know lots of people would debate the concept of Creative Commons. Still, she's an artist who lives on her earnings, so I think she should be heard:
I have mixed feelings about it too. The problem that she originially had (using recordings of a long-dead artist in "Sita" and being fined many thousands of dollars to use them because some recording company still had the rights) seemed messed up, and I know as a writer that it's really true that nothing is entirely original (it's all intertextual in a way). I once got into a really difficult negotiation when I was publishing a critical essay and wanted to quote about 200 words from a writer as part of my analysis of his style (oddly the problem came from my publisher--his own publisher couldn't believe I really had to ask for that). Beyond that, I can't think of much that I've read that doesn't in some way refer to or draw on something else that's been written. Last night's "House," for example, had a lot of references to the movie 9 to 5, starting with the title--and I really don't think they should have had to pay royalties for that.
On the other hand, people like you who put your creativity, hard work, and materials into your works certainly need to be able to profit from your creations. I did think "House" needed to pay royalties to the singers and music companies for the songs they played during the episode.
The question I can't resolve is exactly where to draw the line.
fining an individual artist for using such an old (and well known) song, is indeed messed up. on a much smaller scale, my friend sahar used to make videos. posted them online and woke up one day to discover that a number of his pieces had been removed from youtube for copyright infringement.
i don't understand all this stuff. how is it copyright infringement when you are writing an article about his work, and want to quote only 200 words? it's ridiculous!!!
in my own instance, i also create a body of work that i put out under a male pseudonym. i use old negatives, fragments of film i shot of famous paintings, etc...and have run in to difficulty, too.
it feels like copyright laws that were written to protect creative people, have been perverted somehow, and now protect companies.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
On the other hand, people like you who put your creativity, hard work, and materials into your works certainly need to be able to profit from your creations. I did think "House" needed to pay royalties to the singers and music companies for the songs they played during the episode.
The question I can't resolve is exactly where to draw the line.
no subject
i don't understand all this stuff. how is it copyright infringement when you are writing an article about his work, and want to quote only 200 words? it's ridiculous!!!
in my own instance, i also create a body of work that i put out under a male pseudonym. i use old negatives, fragments of film i shot of famous paintings, etc...and have run in to difficulty, too.
it feels like copyright laws that were written to protect creative people, have been perverted somehow, and now protect companies.
no subject
If there had been copyright holding companies in the time of TS Eliot or Picasso, we'd be missing a lot of great stuff.