![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Rambling philosophical musings ahead.
I've been downloading music again. Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I don't mean pirated stuff... these are mp3s (filk to be specific) that the artists themselves have placed on websites for download or have otherwise authorized the free distribution of over the internet. It's gotten me thinking about the concept of intellectual property again. And, I'm forced to admit, I really don't think I get it. The concept, I mean. At least, my idea of intellectual property doesn't much resemble the ideas of others that I have talked with.
I'm not quite sure how best to explain that statement, so I think I'll start by taking a moment to describe my view on intellectual property. Or rather, my view of a more ideal model of handling intellectual property. I've thought for a while now that intellectual property should be handled using more of a socialist model. Artists, scientists, and other professional creators of intellectual property should work directly for the community, placing their work immediately into the public domain in exchange for a scalable stipend in direct proportion to the perceived value placed on their individual work by the public. My reasoning for this is twofold: first, I believe that both scientific knowledge and works of art (the two main forms of intellectual property) should belong to humanity. Science because it has the potential to uplift the human condition and works best when able to freely draw upon the greatest pool of information available, and art because it performs similarly for the human spirit and works best when given the greatest repertoire to both incorporate and draw inspiration from. Secondly, I realize that artists and scientists require both the capacity to support themselves through their work and also the potential to increase their personal fortunes through their work if it is of sufficient value to the public. That is why I suggest that the stipend should be scaled according to the value placed on the work by the public, rather than simply suggesting a fixed allowance of some sort.
I have reason to believe that this model is workable, as elements of it have been in place before. At one point, for example, artists had patrons who supported them in this manner... this model merely replaces the individual patron with the community as a whole. Yet, speaking with others about this concept, I have found that there is considerable resistance to this model from the artists themselves. I still haven't fully understood that.
As I recall, the major objection was to the element of the work going into the public domain and other artists having the capacity to use it in whole or part in their own work. It was felt that the works of art (in this case a character in fiction) was too personal, too much a part of the artist, to let anyone else use in their own works. On one hand, I partially understand the emotions involved in that position, but on the other I think of examples of popular works in the public domain being reused by others in their own work and I cannot support ever-increasing restrictions on what material enters the public domain, which is where we are at now. One of my favorite episodes on Star Trek: TNG was when Data acted as Sherlock Holmes. Many good movies are remakes of older legends or fairy tales.... from Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves all the way to Robin Hood: Men in Tights. ;-) Indeed, the entire world of fan-fiction (something I truly enjoy reading quite often) blatantly violates current intellectual property laws and treats the material as if it were in the public domain... I would like to see a world where that could be done openly and legally, and where the artists who use characters in that way get similar (if lesser) recognition to those who actually created them. Yes, the work may be less original since it uses pre-made characters, but it also provides a service to the public by suggesting answers to the questions the original artist often leaves unanswered... the what-ifs. What if the character did something different in x-situation? What if the character was secretly gay? What if he died? What if he lived in another time? With the exception of the gay question, I know that certain comic-book series' used to write entire what-if comics addressing the answers to some of these questions.
Here's a what-if for you.... what if the rest of the world of intellectual property took a lesson from them? What would our world be like then? For an answer, perhaps take a look at the flourishing doujinshi industry in japan and their symbiotic relationship with the professional publishers that their works are often derived from. Personally, I believe that I would like that world... and I still don't really get the position of those who would not, though I am trying.
I've been downloading music again. Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I don't mean pirated stuff... these are mp3s (filk to be specific) that the artists themselves have placed on websites for download or have otherwise authorized the free distribution of over the internet. It's gotten me thinking about the concept of intellectual property again. And, I'm forced to admit, I really don't think I get it. The concept, I mean. At least, my idea of intellectual property doesn't much resemble the ideas of others that I have talked with.
I'm not quite sure how best to explain that statement, so I think I'll start by taking a moment to describe my view on intellectual property. Or rather, my view of a more ideal model of handling intellectual property. I've thought for a while now that intellectual property should be handled using more of a socialist model. Artists, scientists, and other professional creators of intellectual property should work directly for the community, placing their work immediately into the public domain in exchange for a scalable stipend in direct proportion to the perceived value placed on their individual work by the public. My reasoning for this is twofold: first, I believe that both scientific knowledge and works of art (the two main forms of intellectual property) should belong to humanity. Science because it has the potential to uplift the human condition and works best when able to freely draw upon the greatest pool of information available, and art because it performs similarly for the human spirit and works best when given the greatest repertoire to both incorporate and draw inspiration from. Secondly, I realize that artists and scientists require both the capacity to support themselves through their work and also the potential to increase their personal fortunes through their work if it is of sufficient value to the public. That is why I suggest that the stipend should be scaled according to the value placed on the work by the public, rather than simply suggesting a fixed allowance of some sort.
I have reason to believe that this model is workable, as elements of it have been in place before. At one point, for example, artists had patrons who supported them in this manner... this model merely replaces the individual patron with the community as a whole. Yet, speaking with others about this concept, I have found that there is considerable resistance to this model from the artists themselves. I still haven't fully understood that.
As I recall, the major objection was to the element of the work going into the public domain and other artists having the capacity to use it in whole or part in their own work. It was felt that the works of art (in this case a character in fiction) was too personal, too much a part of the artist, to let anyone else use in their own works. On one hand, I partially understand the emotions involved in that position, but on the other I think of examples of popular works in the public domain being reused by others in their own work and I cannot support ever-increasing restrictions on what material enters the public domain, which is where we are at now. One of my favorite episodes on Star Trek: TNG was when Data acted as Sherlock Holmes. Many good movies are remakes of older legends or fairy tales.... from Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves all the way to Robin Hood: Men in Tights. ;-) Indeed, the entire world of fan-fiction (something I truly enjoy reading quite often) blatantly violates current intellectual property laws and treats the material as if it were in the public domain... I would like to see a world where that could be done openly and legally, and where the artists who use characters in that way get similar (if lesser) recognition to those who actually created them. Yes, the work may be less original since it uses pre-made characters, but it also provides a service to the public by suggesting answers to the questions the original artist often leaves unanswered... the what-ifs. What if the character did something different in x-situation? What if the character was secretly gay? What if he died? What if he lived in another time? With the exception of the gay question, I know that certain comic-book series' used to write entire what-if comics addressing the answers to some of these questions.
Here's a what-if for you.... what if the rest of the world of intellectual property took a lesson from them? What would our world be like then? For an answer, perhaps take a look at the flourishing doujinshi industry in japan and their symbiotic relationship with the professional publishers that their works are often derived from. Personally, I believe that I would like that world... and I still don't really get the position of those who would not, though I am trying.
no subject
There is another issue too. When I create a work of art, it is a part of me. I have worked Magic into it, it contains a piece of my soul. If I let it go without acknowledgement that it belongs to me, I am diminished.
I agree that art should be accessible to all (as in, people should be allowed to view it somewhere) but I do not believe that it should be in any way separated from the artist's posession unless the artist him/herself specifically chooses that.
If things worked your way I would have no desire to be an artist at all.
no subject
With regard to having to pay the bills... I never suggested giving away work for free. That was the entire point of the section about professional artists being paid a stipend by the community, scaled according to the value their work is perceived as having by the community. It would basically make being an artist a salaried position, rather than working on a commission basis for each piece, with the salary being increased depending on how much the public valued the work being produced.
The second part is the part I think I really don't get... I don't see why one has to maintain copyright over something in order for it to be acknowledged as theirs. Even by current copyright law, the Mona Lisa's copyright would have expired quite some time ago... it has been used in hundreds of movies and tv shows for one end or another, reproduced for countless purposes... but does that make the magic that was put into it by the original artist any less? Does her smile not still captivate and inspire? Is she any less Leonardo's? Likewise with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's character Sherlock Holmes, or Brahm Stoker's Dracula, just to name a few examples of great works of artistry that have entered the public domain with their creator's magic undiminished.
I hope I am being clear in explaining why I am having difficulty grasping this...
no subject
That would imply that some organisation or committee or council sets prices for art work. I would like to be able to set my own prices for my own work. It should be consumer demand that sets prices. If people value my work they will pay what they and I think it's worth, it's not necessary for any sort of "decision" made by a third party to set this sort of thing. It shouldn't be a "salaried profession". The main reason I want to be an artist is because I WANT to work on commission, I DON'T want to work to salary.
The second part is the part I think I really don't get... I don't see why one has to maintain copyright over something in order for it to be acknowledged as theirs.
Because without copyright, it wouldn't be. There would be nothing preventing someone from taking, say, my 7-star design and saying they did it, and getting your "committee" to pay THEM every time it's put on a website. Leonardo da Vinci gets away with it because his paintings are already famous and nobody would believe someone else who tried to claim the Mona Lisa was all their own work. But how can this be done for non-famous artists like myself?
Like I said before, I find this to be a horrble unpleasant nightmare view that I would want no part of. If it ever actually happened I would quit being an artist.
no subject
As for the issue of plagiarism... is there a fundamental difference between the way copyright is handled in the US and the way that it is handled in the UK? Here, all works are assumed to be copyrighted by their creator automatically, but there is no built-in mechanism for preventing plagiarism at this stage. One may send a copy of their work, along with a fee, and register a copyright on it but most artists cannot afford that. Instead, the most common practice if one is afraid of their works being plagiarized is to send oneself a registered letter with the date stamped on it containing a hardcopy of the work, and keeping it unopened in their files. I think claiming to be the originator of a work when you are not is a separate issue from who has the right to use or reproduce the work in whole or part... and I think in a society where artists are treated this way, and their works belong to everyone, such misrepresentation of yourself as the originator of a piece you did not create would be considered an even bigger problem than it is now, and I think there would be mechanisms included within the framework for submitting the work to the public which would help prevent that. If worst came to worst, after all, there are experts who can identify the person who painted certain things by their individual brushstrokes... I'm sure there are equivalents in other fields, and these could be employed as arbiters in cases of dispute where evidence was not readily available...