Creative Commons & Webcomics 144
xerexes writes "This week Comixpedia is publishing an article written by T Campbell called "Creative Commons and Webcomics" which features a roundtable discussion with comments from Lawrence Lessig, Neeru Paharia, Mia Garlick, JD Frazer and Cory Doctorow. Traditional copyright faces webcomics with an uncomfortable choice. Its restrictions, properly enforced, would mean a virtual end to crossovers and homages, fan art, fan fiction, and many other staples that make the webcomic a more entertaining creation and foster artistic growth. A total lack of copyright, however, leaves unscrupulous readers free to "bootleg" subscription sites, program tools to deprive comics of advertising revenue, and even profit from others' labor without permission. The Creative Commons license presents a possible solution. It lets copyright holders to grant some of their rights to the public while retaining others, through a variety of licensing and contract schemes, which may include dedication to the public domain or open content licensing terms. "
Re:Profit (Score:3, Insightful)
Not about Copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as trademark law is concerned, you either defend it or lose it. Fan art can exist in this realm, as it does with Lucas' properties, but Creative Commons isn't some panacea for all that ails these artists.
If they want control whilst allowing variations, they need to first pursue trademark protection.
Re:Profit (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
You can already just give anyone you want permission to use your work... why would giving someone permission to use your characters in a crossover have anything to do with someone bootlegging your site? That makes no sense to me.
Re:Profit (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't mind me asking, what do you do for a living? If you hate it, then follow your own advice: quit and "don't do it at all." If you love it, then follow your own advice: quit and do the work "for the love of doing it," not for compensation.
The webcomic artists do love what they're doing, And some of them are trying to make a full-time job out of it, with the intent that they can provide better work that way. To my knowledge, none of them are really getting rich. They're just trying to make sure that they make enough to keep giving us our comics.
Re:Profit (Score:3, Insightful)
Profits don't always beget greed, Profits are nessary for survival, and standard comfort.
Money, money, money (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe all copywritten works should go to the public domain after 20 years. Period. That should be plenty of time to make money off your work. And if you don't make any money, then it should pass to the public domain so someone else can take it and maybe make some money off of it. The majority of artists/musicians/filmakers/writers never get rich from their work. (Like me!!!) I would imagine that in the public domain, you might have another chance to get some recognition for your art. If you didn't make any money, letting somebody else alter it and re-package it could help you receive some recognition and lead to some $$$ for your other works. Maybe... what do I know... I'm a peasant.
Legality bites (Score:3, Insightful)
If you didn't read the article and are a comic or other artist, it's worth a read through!
Re:Profit (Score:3, Insightful)
But moving along, this article wasn't really about compensation beyond the value of their work as much as it is about increasing the value of their work. More specifically, increasing the value of their work through sharing. And finding the right balance between freely sharing work, and protecting it.
And there are plenty of valid reasons to protect it. One of the examples given by the UserFriendly guy is that he's not comfortable with people replacing the dialogue in his strips with stuff he deems inappropriate for his characters. Not only does he feel like his artwork is being needlessly defaced, but there's the potential for the modified stuff to get confused with the real thing. But at the same time, these authors are trying to come to grips with the fact that their fans want to actively engage in these stories and characters, and that allowing them to do so can grow their audience, and enrich their art.
It's all about finding a balance, while working within some very convoluted and confusing laws regarding copyrights and trademarks. And it's not easy.
Bull-pucky. (Score:5, Insightful)
With traditional copyright, you can still authorize people to do all of the things mentioned. Sometimes, I think the only reason there is a movement to create something new is because people don't understand the current standard.
Re:Profit (Score:2, Insightful)
Profit != greed != envy != hatred. Such simplistic thinking removes human free will, human spirit, and accountability from the equation and is a cheap view of humanity. I think more of them than that.
Speaking of Comics (Score:2, Insightful)
Doujinshi (Score:3, Insightful)
Doujinshi are illegal comics that are openly tolerated because the legal owners know that the comics actually help the overall market (a fan fiction that keeps people interested, trains aspiring artists, and promotes creative freedom.
Of course, another reason that they flourish, was provided to Lessig by a Japanese buisinessman, who said, "we don't have enough lawyers," to prosecute the cases. If only!
The same issue exists for all artistic endeavors (although music, through sampling, seems to be at the forefront these days). It really is worth considering the dampening effect that these policies have on creativity and innovation.
Re:Not about Copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there a net benefit to 'science and the useful arts' from trademark protection on Captain Jean-Luc Picard (TM)? Does it prevent unwary consumers being ripped off?
Re:Profit (Score:1, Insightful)
"Stealing" from dictionary.com
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
When you take music without paying you ARE taking it without permission. You may claim a moral right all you want, that doesn't change the fact that it is stealing. You can argue that they don't lose a cent, that doesn't change the fact that it is stealing. You can tell us how the music industry is corrupt, that doesn't change the fact that it is stealing.
The best you can claim is that your stealing doesn't hurt anyone. And that STILL DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT IT IS STEALING.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Why you should trademark characters and such (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't think so? In that case, I have an "official" Captain Jean-Luc Picard (TM) "Make it so!" Talking Toilet Bowl seat that I want to sell you. It programmed to offer such encouragement as:
"Make it so!"
"Tea, Earl Grey, Hot!"
"Engage!"
"These are not the droids we're looking for!
Yours for only four easy payments of 29.95!
It's about a lot more than copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Why?
Would a world without professionally produced entertainment be as bad as a world in which you need approval from some central authority every time you access a hard drive or move bytes from one piece of equipment to another? I can live a pretty full life without Madonna, Spiderman or Star Wars. I can't live nearly such a full life if every action I perform electronically is monitored, and everything I personally create and distribute must be checked for possible infringement or I risk losing my house in a lawsuit.
Preservation of copyright in the modern world creates these consequences. Like the War On Drugs, which currently accounts for 65% of our prison system, the War On Infringement will entail greater and greater enforcement costs. I don't want to pay those costs to preserve an industry that contributes only a few percent to the economy. I also don't want to further entrench the modern notion that ideas and property are one and the same, or that rights and property are one and the same. Given a choice between preserving the profitability of entertainment for the few people who earn a living that way, and perserving the personal freedoms that the other 99.999% of the population will lose -- and it IS a binary choice -- give me the latter.
Re:Hold on a sec (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah, I don't think this will fly. At all.
Under this theory, for example, I would be prohibited from doing anything destructive with a book -- e.g. tearing out some pages. This theory would immediately make the fast-forward button on VCRs/DVD players illegal. I guess it would make the mute button on the TV remotes illegal as well.
In fact, given the recent law explicitly giving permission to non-copyright-holders to modify and redistribute movies (primarily to take out cursing/sex/violence) -- I estimate the chances of this theory making it past the appeals court at zero.
Publishers might make a case for Trespass to Chattels, or Trespass, or Unfair Competition, or some other garbage tort that would boil down to "the courts are obliged to support my dumb-ass business model".
There might be a case against someone who strips ads and redistributes web pages (adless) to other people. Not against the end user, though.
Yes, I understand that you could make it a contract case -- make the user explicitly agree to a contract on the first page of the web site and then you can sue him for breaking that contract. However this has to generate so much ill will and bad publicity that I'd actually want to see someone try it..
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Licenses are simply a way to diseminate the different rights granted by copyrights. The thing is, though, that our new (post-1972) copyright law has an enumerated list of granted rights, any of which may be given or reserved by choice of the creator. Licenses simply are a legal mix of flexibility and technicality that covers the disemination of those rights in a set fashion.
So, if I were a webcomic author, I can say "Derivative works are allowed [insert hoops such as such works not being sold for service or profit]. All other rights to [stuff's] content are reserved solely by [me]."
And you can be sure of what you're saying there if you're smart, because there's a hundred years of precedent telling everyone what derivatives work (I'm pretty sure it's even written into the law).
Licenses don't create rights. They just distribute them. When you're dealing with something stupidly simple ("go ahead and make fanart! Just don't steal my stuff!"), a big license simply doesn't make sense when you're only worried about a few provisions of the relevant law.
Re:Bull-pucky. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Profit (Score:4, Insightful)
That's nice. But wanting to devote yourself to some craft, does not automatically qualify you for compensation.
If you want to make money, you have to do something that people are willing to buy.
It's about a lot more than just me. (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not the perservation that's the issue. It's those who feel that being entertained is an entitlement, and will do everything in their power to see that that happens.
If people truely put actions to words then they wouldn't have ANYTHING (buy, possess, talk about) to do with the commercial industy, and subsiquently they would collapse, IP laws or not. Instead being the ethical "sprinters" [slashdot.org] they are. They take the short-term easy solution to the issue.
"Would a world without professionally produced entertainment be as bad as a world in which you need approval from some central authority every time you access a hard drive or move bytes from one piece of equipment to another?"
As opposed to a world were artists refuse to produce anything in the face of a respectless audiance. Were whatever you produce is seen by the audiance as "theirs" not because they had any hand in it's creation, but just because "they can".
"I can live a pretty full life without Madonna, Spiderman or Star Wars. I can't live nearly such a full life if every action I perform electronically is monitored, and everything I personally create and distribute must be checked for possible infringement or I risk losing my house in a lawsuit."
The fact that there's widespread dissemination of copyright material means that while you can "do without". that doesn't mean the majority can.
"Preservation of copyright in the modern world creates these consequences."
More like "perservation of the unreasonable aspects" than the idea itself, but a lot is created by those who've either never learned what morals or ethics are, or don't care to learn. [slashdot.org] It's easy to blame the laws for the consequences. It's much harder to look at one's own heart and see the consequences arising from it's nature.
"Like the War On Drugs, which currently accounts for 65% of our prison system, the War On Infringement will entail greater and greater enforcement costs."
If it does, it's because people on BOTH SIDES either didn't do what they're suppose to, when they're suppose to. Or did do something they weren't suppose to. Actions have effects. Rights have responsabilities. That is an immutable rule, that humanity still refuses to come to terms with.
" I don't want to pay those costs to preserve an industry that contributes only a few percent to the economy."
And once again slashdot demonstrates it's myopic world view. Just as there's a world beyound the US. There's a world beyound just the "content industry" The contribution from all the individuals and companies, amoungst others who produce IP is incalcuable. IP rules are for everyone.
"I also don't want to further entrench the modern notion that ideas and property are one and the same, or that rights and property are one and the same."
That's not what's being etrenched. The basic idea that a man can enter in reciprocal agreements with his fellow man for the purposes of earning a living is what's being entrenched.
No one see's a problem with this idea when physical goods are being discussed. But when it comes to digital goods and services. Suddenly that rule no longer seems to apply, and it's every greedy person for themself, damn any agreement.
"Given a choice between preserving the profitability of entertainment for the few people who earn a living that way, and perse
Re:Why you should trademark characters and such (Score:3, Insightful)
Allow me to clarify, then.
First, the character is mine, all mine. I invented him (a detective, in my case) and no one else contributed. I have a past, personality and future all worked out for him. Name too.
If I do not protect him, you or someone else can create alternate storylines for him that have him behaving terribly or way off course. You could kill him, ressurect him (if I kill him), or turn him into a drag queen. No, no. He's mine, all mine.
By controlling him, I restrain you from abusing him as mentioned and preserve my artistic integrity. He's mine, all mine, y'see.
Go develop your own character and do what you will. That way, we both win. I control my artistic development, you work to create your own to play with. Your comparison fails for the following reason; the rights to WTP were sold to Disney. That gave Disney permission to market as they have done. Don't like Disney's approach? Simple. Don't sell your characters. See?
This is all a very, very thin smoke screen for one simple thing. The people who take other's work and then "create" new paradigm's for it are really lazy. Fan or not. They did not do the development or even have the brain sparkle which lead to the creation in the first place.
The free market would probably have crated WTP toilet paper, so yes, leaving it to the free market would produce a worse result.