Copyright Stupidity

[BlkHawk]

The Italian goverment is claiming a copyright violation to stop a gun company from using Michelangelo's David in an ad campaign.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26501460

How the hell can anyone claim copyright on images of a 500 year old statue? Copyright law is one of my push button issues, I'm pissed that current law allows works to be protected for 70 years after the creators death. The fact that a goverment can claim copyright over images of a statue that has existed since before that government came to be is simply absurd. When does art or an idea cease being personal property and become culture available to all?

What's next? Every time a sporting event sings, or plays the national anthem a check should be written to the descendant of Francis Scott Key?

 

[Ace Bandage]

The Greeks should have copyrighted democracy.

"I'm afraid you can't have a government for the people, by the people. We own that. You'll have to think of something else."

What's next? Every time a sporting event sings, or plays the national anthem a check should be written to the descendant of Francis Scott Key?

This should be mandatory for people who sing it poorly or try too add their own spin to it. If you're going to fuck up the anthem, you have to pay somebody for the privilege.

 

[SabrinaDeep]

You are a bit confused, here. The David itself is not copyrighted, but any photo, reproduction, derivative work etc are, by its legitimate owner which is the Italian government; and quite rightly i'd say.

 

[BlkHawk]

You are a bit confused, here. The David itself is not copyrighted, but any photo, reproduction, derivative work etc are, by its legitimate owner which is the Italian government; and quite rightly i'd say.

No I understood it, in my original post I mention they are claiming copyright of the image not the statue.

How the hell can anyone claim copyright on images of a 500 year old statue?

I don't see how they can, unless they themselves took the image in question.

It would be no different than Egypt asking a travel company to pay for using the image of the pyramids in a brochure.

Letting governments and corporations maintain copyright for indefinite periods is harmful to innovation and creativity. Nothing created today is wholly original, everything is inspired, or derived at least in part, from previous works. Allowing copyright to exist forever would either mean a death of all new works, or a system of never ending payments to originizations that had nothing to do with the original creation.

Copyright should exist in a limited form to protect creators, it should expire with the death of the creator, or a set number of years. Extending copyright beyond the death of the creator in no way benefits the creator, or innovation.

Disney wouldn't exist with perpetual copyright as many of their successes are retellings of previous works. George Lucas' Star Wars was heavily influenced, and even copied the personalities, screen transitions, and overall plot of Akira Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress. Even Shakespeare based his work on those who came before. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090621/1753275301.shtml

 

[SabrinaDeep]

No I understood it, in my original post I mention they are claiming copyright of the image not the statue.

Yes, but you pointed out that the artwork is 500 years old and that is somehow making the copyright claim outrageous. The image is not 500 years old and the copyright violation is over the image or derivative work or however you want to call it. It makes perfect sense. You don't seem to understand the difference. The government owns the artwork and they have copyrighted the use of its image. The artwork might be old, but the copyright is not on the artwork. It is on the picture of the artwork. There are two chances:

1) The gun company took a picture of the artwork (i doubt it) and then made a derivative work about it: they would have needed a permission to take that picture and use it as is or in a derivative work for commercial scopes. Obviously they haven't been granted that permission.
2) The gun company has used an existing photo of the artwork (most likely) and used it for personal gain and out of its scope without permission.

Rest assured that if the Cheope pyramid was used wrapped in a condom in a Trojan or Durex commercial ad, Egypt would act exactly as the Italian government. Rightly.

An unretouched photo of David in a travel brochure vs. a photo of David holding a rifle: i hope you can spot the difference.

I also disagree about copyright killing creativity and innovation. It's the other way around, eventually. Copyright stimulates to create something original and new. Something copied is never truly innovative.

Went the gun company putting a picture of Obama embracing a rifle or playing with drones, if they wanted to be "creative" and closer to reality.

 

[BlkHawk]

Yes, but you pointed out that the artwork is 500 years old and that is somehow making the copyright claim outrageous. The image is not 500 years old and the copyright violation is over the image or derivative work or however you want to call it. It makes perfect sense. You don't seem to understand the difference. The government owns the artwork and they have copyrighted the use of its image. The artwork might be old, but the copyright is not on the artwork. It is on the picture of the artwork. There are two chances:

1) The gun company took a picture of the artwork (i doubt it) and then made a derivative work about it: they would have needed a permission to take that picture and use it as is or in a derivative work for commercial scopes. Obviously they haven't been granted that permission.
2) The gun company has used an existing photo of the artwork (most likely) and used it for personal gain and out of its scope without permission.

Rest assured that if the Cheope pyramid was used wrapped in a condom in a Trojan or Durex commercial ad, Egypt would act exactly as the Italian government. Rightly.

An unretouched photo of David in a travel brochure vs. a photo of David holding a rifle: i hope you can spot the difference.

I also disagree about copyright killing creativity and innovation. It's the other way around, eventually. Copyright stimulates to create something original and new. Something copied is never truly innovative.

If they used a recent image of the statue taken by the museum Italy may have a case. What if they used an image taken by a photographer who granted permission? What if they used an image that is a hundred years old? In the EU copyrights on photographs last exactly 70 years. So what happens if they if they used a photo from 1940?

I agree copyright can protect and benefit the creation of art, but only in limited terms, not indefinite never ending copyright. Long term copyright is a relatively new concept in the course of human history. All of the classical works predate it, in fact everything prior to the 19 80's predates copyright protection after death.

I am not against copyright, I'm against copyright after the death of the artist. There is nothing 100% original now, everything is either a derivative, or ispired by, work that came before. It is how we as a species work, everything from art, architecture, science, math, and medicine, has elements from prior works. That is why permanent copyright cannot work, eventually only the rich could create, as only they would have the money to pay all the prior creators estates.

Copyright isn't just used to prevent exact copies, it is also used to prevent similar or derived works. If your interested search Harlan Ellison and his successful suit against James Cameron.

In what way do you as a creator benefit from having your work protected after your death? I am genuinely curious if you see a benefit.

 

[SabrinaDeep]

Alright.

 

[Philbert]

Well...if I have a 300 acre farm, I can leave it to my children.
An artist is able to leave his property to his family, and any revenue due is inherited by them.

How is it that Mickey Mouse is still under copyright by Disney Corp?

 

[BlkHawk]

Well...if I have a 300 acre farm, I can leave it to my children.
An artist is able to leave his property to his family, and any revenue due is inherited by them.

How is it that Mickey Mouse is still under copyright by Disney Corp?

There is a difference, if your children don't work the farm nothing happens with it. They can sell it and then they lose it, they can rent it out, but they have to maintain it. They have to do something with it they just can't live there do nothing and generate an income from your previous work. Also you don't have a monopoly on what your farm produces.

Kiplings heirs (if any) can currently continue to publish his works and sell them. What they lose with an expired copyright is the monopoly on his works, anyone can print his public domain works and sell them, or give them away, or like Disney make a movie on the Jungle Book.

Mickey falls under a corporate copyright not directly under Walt. Currently that copyright is around 100 years from publication, it is up around 2030 for now. So far every time he has come close to falling into the public domain Disney lobbies congress to extend copyright terms. The last extension was in the 1990's the Sonny Bono copyright act. Most likely they will began to lobby around that time for the terms to be extended again. The original term of copyright in the USA was 14 years and could be renewed for an additional 14 years, you also had to apply for copyright on your works.

Currently a single author can publish a book, it is automatically copyrighted for his life plus 70 years. It is that 70 years part that makes no sense to me.

 

[BlkHawk]

Alright.

I am guessing that you think I am an internet loon and don't want to discuss this with me. That's fine, but as I stated I am curious what the benefit of extending copyright protection of your work beyond your lifespan is. I really don't understand how that benefits society or the artist.

 

[SabrinaDeep]

I am guessing that you think I am an internet loon and don't want to discuss this with me. That's fine, but as I stated I am curious what the benefit of extending copyright protection of your work beyond your lifespan is. I really don't understand how that benefits society or the artist.

It's not about benefiting the artist or society, but the owner. An artwork does not die or get pulverized with his artist's death. It keeps being an artwork for as long as it exists and it is owned by someone.

So to answer your question: it benefits the rights' owner. It's very plain and simple. You don't own it, the gun company doesn't own it; the Italian government owns the David, pays huge amounts of money for its maintenance, recurring restoration and security and you rightly need their permission to use the David's image for commercial scopes. People like me and you have to pay a museum ticket to see it; the Italian government encourages the use of its image in art history books, travel brochures and commercials and all the other cases when the use of the image is an incentive to promote Italian tourism, history, culture and heritage. For all the rest, there is no Mastercard: there is a permission requests which the owners of the artwork may or may not grant depending on the use' scope and for a fee. It's beyond me what you don't understand about that. There's no point on discussing something in a vicious loop kind of way and that's the reason for my previous post.

 

[D-rock]

It's not about benefiting the artist or society, but the owner. An artwork does not die or get pulverized with his artist's death. It keeps being an artwork for as long as it exists and it is owned by someone.

So to answer your question: it benefits the rights' owner. It's very plain and simple. You don't own it, the gun company doesn't own it; the Italian government owns the David, pays huge amounts of money for its maintenance, recurring restoration and security and you rightly need their permission to use the David's image for commercial scopes. People like me and you have to pay a museum ticket to see it; the Italian government encourages the use of its image in art history books, travel brochures and commercials and all the other cases when the use of the image is an incentive to promote Italian tourism, history, culture and heritage. For all the rest, there is no Mastercard: there is a permission requests which the owners of the artwork may or may not grant depending on the use' scope and for a fee. It's beyond me what you don't understand about that. There's no point on discussing something in a vicious loop kind of way and that's the reason for my previous post.

You are mistaken. Copyright and most other intellectual property doesn't last forever, maybe with the exception of trade marks in some situations. The Italian government would be very hard pressed to make a viable case here considering the age of the statue and all the other factors involved. It also sounds like they are trying to apply things to a company outside of Italy even which is even more asinine. After something becomes public domain it doesn't matter who actually owns the original peace of work anybody can copy, reproduce, and make money off of it it for pretty much any reason they want.

One of the very purposes of copyrights being able to expire is to benefit society as the rights to it become the property of everybody. That's why they don't last forever and shouldn't. It's bad enough we let people, governments, and corporations horde knowledge and works of culture as long as we do now.

 

[SabrinaDeep]

You are mistaken. Copyright and most other intellectual property doesn't last forever, maybe with the exception of trade marks in some situations. The Italian government would be very hard pressed to make a viable case here considering the age of the statue and all the other factors involved. It also sounds like they are trying to apply things to a company outside of Italy even which is even more asinine. After something becomes public domain it doesn't matter who actually owns the original peace of work anybody can copy, reproduce, and make money off of it it for pretty much any reason they want.

One of the very purposes of copyrights being able to expire is to benefit society as the rights to it become the property of everybody. That's why they don't last forever and shouldn't. It's bad enough we let people, governments, and corporations horde knowledge and works of culture as long as we do now.

I'm sorry D, you are mistaken. There are certain international agreements about copyright. There is a very precise law about copyright, in Italy which extends to all the affiliated countries, USA being one of those. You also don't seem to understand the differenrtce between artwork copyright and artwork reproduction copyright. The image derivative work is nothing older than now. Nothing to do with the age of the artwork, nothing to do with lasting forever.