Fair Use was designed more to abide by the freedom of the press so that someone writing a commentary on a piece of work could reproduce the work as a citation, and for educators so that they could reproduce the work for the purpose of cultural education - both without having to go through the hassle of tracking down the owner and asking for permissions and having to pay untold monies in doing so.

Fair Use does not cover “borrowing” or “hot linking” images for use on personal websites, digital manipulations, inclusions, or distortions of an original work to be distributed as a secondary work, or anything outside the scope of informative critiques and educational analysis.

At the same time, copyrights do not give the creator the ability to sue a person who exercises fair use correctly for untold amounts of money, or another artist who had a similar idea and executed it in their own fashion.

The advent of digital technology has not changed fair use, only increased the number of uninformed individuals on the playing field who think they know the rules and like to make as much noise to have the attention on them.

I believe one problem is that there is a fundamental laziness that arises from a misunderstanding of what art is.

Let’s face it: most artists never rise above mediocrity (due to laziness, lack of ability, or misapplied persistence), and appropriation art [parody, homage, fan fiction, etc] is their chance to easily get some recognition in lieu of actual creation. To further complicate the issue, they now can receive peer recognition (the internet’s true purpose) which, lacking before, now makes them believe they are liked or cool. This is addicting.

The burst of creativity that comes in youth and causes a boy or girl to endlessly copy the things they love is wonderful. In Junior High and High School, I did that with comic strips and cartoons and my favorite movies. But such copying is make-believe, a natural and good extension of playing with action figures or dolls. I stopped copying because it held no interest to my circle of friends and girls found it interesting only in so far as it related directly to them. I stopped copying because my own ideas began to muscle out the ideas of other men and women. I am grateful for the time spent doing this: youthful copying developed my skills in areas that have led me to an interesting professional career.

Luckily, I had no internet. When the internet says “yes,” there is no need to go beyond the first junior high levels of awe. The masses will win out and they get what they want: the work of adolescents, liberated from the gadfly of conscience.

Thanks for many many interesting posts.
Sincerely,
~Brian

copyright © 2008 Brian R. Hischier

dun feed the hand that bites you …

All in the name of merchandising of course.

Regarding the appeal above to think about copyright outside of thinking of money, I don’t think you can do it. Copyright is money, without money there is no reason (aside from what, ego, bragging rights perhaps?) for copyright.

For instance, copyright applies in the USA from the instant of creation but most folks assume you have to register your photos with the government to gain copyright. What registration does is allow you to obtain punitive damages beyond recovery of lost revenue due to a copyright violation.

Can you have a copyright violation without demonstrating lost revenue? I suppose so but who beside a major corporation would bother?

@34 above: Rob you already have filmmakers giving away their works, just check out youtube, you’ll find dozens of clips uploaded in the hopes of recognition, perhaps in the hope that some band will recognize the brilliance and hire the creator for their next video? Who knows.

How about the content creation of “America’s Funniest Videos” or whatever it’s called? Surely that show doesn’t pay for all those home movies? If they’re given in hopes of a reward for most popular or something like that, I would bet the prizes don’t amount to what you’d pay a production company for a half hour of content.

Sure, difficulty of production ensures rarity, if not quality, and thus the chance for more cash per sale. Few photographs means more money per sale. But are quality and quantity inversely related?

Go to a sports analogy, what about a sport program that concentrates on a few potential athletes. Spend massive amounts of money on a few athletes and does that provide more gold medals than programs that rely on selecting out of massive grassroots participation? How did/does Brazil produce so many top soccer players while East Germany went lacking? Of course the opposite was true of swimming or biathlon I guess.

Maybe the same with the creative arts? More kids with cameras may just mean more great photographers in 20 years time?

Few people in highly technical things = best quality?, large numbers in low technical things = best quality? Simpler cameras means highly technical becomes point and shoot at all levels and so mass numbers is the best way to get quality at the top?

Kim Taylor

greetings,

http://www.billjayonphotography.com/Walter%20Bentley%20Woodbury%201834-1885.pdf

What if filmmakers start giving away their work for free in exchange for a credit in hopes of scoring a lucrative advertising gig?

From my limited experience in film making, I think that this is actually a huge problem for independent film makers. You can’t walk down the street with a camera without having to clear many, many copyrights.

I think this leads to a lot of stunted shots and wasted energy because a lot of the challenge of doing a shot in a city becomes avoiding the trademarks (gas stations, fast food, etc.) that pop up along the way.

Has Bound By Law, the Fair Use comic book, been brought up yet?
http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/

From my understanding, for the low budget documentary producer, clearing copyrights is a byzantine task, and is almost as much work/money as the film itself. Even in Dave Chappelle’s Block Party (a killer film btw), you see people blurred out in the background. I guess they forgot to get their signed release forms. If Michel Gondry and his crew are screwing it up, it’s going to be hard for the guy down the street who has a good idea to have any chance.

There’s no argument that people have every right to control the ways that their work is used, but I also believe (stepping up on a soapbox here) that creative work and creative freedom is an important part of having a democratic society. And low-budget documentaries, to me, are a particularly interesting and important form. I think there needs to be some middle ground here.

Photographers have it incredibly easy compared to film makers; I’ve never understood exactly why.