Copyright law radical
Copyright law as it stands today is intent on destroying artists along with the free-wheeling chaos that is culture. So why do some artists still believe in it?
For more articles focusing on why free culture should be embraced by artists, visit this section of my blog.
A conversation about copyright excerpted from Twitter after I posted about this vlog there:
gwennpaints: If you’re an artist who believes in copyright law, please explain to me why. I’m a copyright law radical.
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints Because under our system of legal precedents there is no other tested mechanism to defend against serious infringement.
gwennpaints: @PhoinixArt Infringement? Of what kind? Culture always builds on culture. Is that what you call infringement?
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints It’s business. Margins are small & a company stealing art for a t-shirt or a gallery stealing for promo material costs big $$$
gwennpaints: @PhoinixArt Don’t tell ME art is business…I know! I make my living with my work AND I’m a copyright law radical.
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints When the revolution succeeds & gives me food/shelter to paint, then I’ll stop suing people for IP infringement/contract issues.
gwennpaints: @PhoinixArt Really? Does it really end up hurting the artist so much? And fighting it comes at the expense of hurting free culture.
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints The law clearly defines these terms. Don’t misconstrue them. Using property w/o permission & usually for monetary gain.
gwennpaints: @PhoinixArt Does copyright law give you food/shelter? Or does it just make it easier for you to get sidetracked from making more work?
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints Sure. & you can choose to abrogate your rights if you want to. The law isn’t self-enforcing. But that’s a biz choice.
gwennpaints: @PhoinixArt You’re a radical in so much of your politics. Why does this part of your art practice make you so traditional?
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints Free Culture? I don’t care about culture. I produce a product that may or may not qualify as culture. I’m not a charity service
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints IP law allows me to resolve business disputes & deters behavior that does indeed cost me money. It’s a framework to work under.gwennpaints: @PhoinixArt Art in reproduction is no longer for sale. The Metallica/Napster issue made that clear. Live art is the only thing that makes
gwennpaints: @PhoinixArt money anymore.PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints Does the law need to change? Sure. It’s behind the times. But it can be a useful tool.
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints & if you don’t want to use it. That’s cool. It’s a business choice. I’ve used it successfully to defend against loss.
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints Creative output will always be treated as “property.” Just like any other property you are free to give it away if you wish.gwennpaints: @PhoinixArt But at what cost? You’re supporting a law and a system that hurts so many artists!
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints How does it hurt artists? Which artists? In what cases?
gwennpaints: @PhoinixArt Recording artists whose art is owned by the corporations that represent them.
gwennpaints: @PhoinixArt The way I see it, people who are worried about having designs stolen aren’t making an original that’s special.
gwennpaints: @PhoinixArt If they were, they’d be golden. Their original would sell for more because so many people already like the reproductions!PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints I personally just know far more people who routinely have merchandising designs stolen by Urban Apparel etc. & need protection.
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints That’s a work for hire or contract issue usually. Selling rights etc. It’s a bad system but eliminating copyright is overkill
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints Within recording contracts the artists (those who self-write) sell or license their IP rights away. But that’s a contract prob.
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints You can sell or give away your claim of ownership like I said. And that process can be very very unfair in many situations.gwennpaints: @PhoinixArt But do you want to see the visual art world turned into that. Where we’re all trying to sign on with a corporation who has the
gwennpaints: @PhoinixArt capacity to promote our work in reproduction?PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints I don’t think there’s a risk of that. If anything, music is decentralizing to be more like visual art.
gwennpaints: @PhoinixArt If that’s the case, then why are you worried about Urban Apparel stealing your designs?
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints The means of reproduction & distribution of music right now is changing with the ability to self record & market.
gwennpaints: @PhoinixArt Copyright law and trying to own your bits of culture is a slippery slope.
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints How so? It’s clearly defined and limited by both statute and case law to balance free speech & contract issues.
gwennpaints: @PhoinixArt It’s slippery because corporations wanting to own something intangible makes it so.
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints I agree. The law itself needs to be updated. Don’t get me wrong. It ain’t perfect. But it is limited.
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints Very simply, the artist who had their design stolen was producing tshirts herself. Urban Outfitters stole the property for gaingwennpaints: @PhoinixArt But what about her original? Wasn’t it better than the reproduction and therefore potentially worth something?
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints By stealing her work, they had an unfair competitive advantage & directly competed against her production.
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints Same issue as if Honda had a car design copied by Ford.gwennpaints: @PhoinixArt So? Art in reproduction is up for grabs these days. Always has been really. The original is the only tangible left.
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints Sure. But in this specific case, that orig value is massively less than a chain store’s profit from 20,000 reproductions.
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints There are different ways to apply the law in different circumstances. And it’s not self-executing so it’s up to each artist.
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints Just because there is a history of theft doesn’t affect the law or ownership under the law. Just argues for more enforcement
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints If reproductions are stolen that often & artists can only profit from origs then doesn’t that argue *for* strong copyright law?gwennpaints: @PhoinixArt Does it? Art in reproduction is up for grabs. Period. If you don’t like it, that’s tough! That’s the way it is.
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints How is it up for grabs? More easily stolen? But that doesn’t prove the law is useless.
gwennpaints: @PhoinixArt Yes it does. We dont believe in paying for art in reproduction anymore as a culture. Were paying for the tshirt, not the design.
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints If a repro is stolen & the legal criteria are met, & they’re sued then the damage/loss is recovered.
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints Copyright doesn’t protect ideas. Just the execution of them.
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints But again, the law allows you to treat your work however you want. You can license it or distribute it in any way you wish.
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints I’m in no way saying that open-source is bad or that the current law doesn’t need serious changes to it.
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints A world where copyright wasn’t an option would be as bad as one where everyone HAD to use it.
PhoinixArt: @gwennpaints So I’m not saying you’re doing things wrong. Just that I don’t want my ability to use sections of the law removed.
RELATED ARTICLES:
- John T Unger says “DEFEND ART.”
- The un-myth of originality
- Steal this.
CATEGORIES: - Video - Practice - On free culture -
