Steve's and Roxanne's posts above are right on. We are, in fact discussing a number of issues and, frankly, I think the reasonable person can find a fair course through the complex. I think we're doing that -- as Roxanne suggests -- by having these discussions here. Lucas, I do not want to stifle 500,000 YouTubers from creating art. I said, explicitly, it would "kind of suck for me and cost me some amount of recognition." I don't see how you interpret that as "misplaced victimization or righteous anger." To characterize it that way is exaggeration. "Kind of suck" falls far short of victimization. I do want to constrain corporations from profiting on my back without compensating me. This thread is not about artists blurring the lines of other artist's CC licenses by grabbing content that is expedient to grab. It's about funded companies like MyHeavy.com and Magnify infringing our copyright and profiting by doing so without compensating us. To try to shame those of us standing up for our rights by calling us victims is to miss the point. Corporations, especially when they have capital, have advantages that tilt the playing field in their favor and make it easy for them to take advantage of our small independent operator status. And, legally, Lucas, my rights in my work are sacrosanct, whether you understand that or not. Practically I may have difficulty chasing down everyone who infringes my copyright, but legally and ethically I own my work and you are wrong as an individual or a corporation if you violate the terms under which I license it. You would be wrong to think that my insistence on this point is a desire to curtail creators and innovators. To the contrary, Lucas, protecting the individual against organized malfeasance is a necessary step to fostering creation and innovation.
--- In [email protected], "Roxanne Darling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There are separate issues here. > > 1) is the CC license - and yes people want attribution. It's a fairly > common human trait and in itself does not stifle creativity. And of > course, all of this creativity comes from "somewhere" - it is my big > picture belief that from way out there it all belongs to all of us. We > are the messengers. > > 2) is the practical aspect of who benefits and how. The people are > tired of seeing large concentrations of cash be controlled and > circulated among a few. The hosting companies, the aggregators, the > producers, we're all working long hours 7 days a week. But some are > getting paid (and are aiming for the big LBO) while others are not. > It's a new millennium. Why not use some of this creativity to craft > new relationships that are not at the expense of a certain group of > people? > > Mechanically speaking, this is easier done when people in fact feel > empowered, not victimized, and one of the ways people get power > (individually and collectively) is by having open discussions and > pulling back the veil on how things work. > > aloha, > rox > > On 1/27/07, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Im not sure Id agree that a sense of victimization or righteous anger > > are the primary driving forces behind such things, but they are in the > > mix somewhere when it comes to reactions of music etc industry. Ive > > yet to see it from any vlogger in response to creative re-use of an > > element of their work, perhaps sometimes towards comapnies/sites that > > may have deserved it. > > > > Personally I dont think vlogging is in quite that much danger yet, > > though there is a spectrum of opinion on rights, freedoms etc, at > > least the relationship with the internet is that it enables this > > stuff, rather than being the source of the threat. There will be a > > small minority of people interested in things like DRM and attempting > > strong control over distribution, and this may get worse as revenue > > streams appear, but generally at least were beyond the idea of denying > > basic rights to viewers, all the griping and desire for control covers > > those who are piggybacking off others work to try to get rich, so > > distribution/promotion/sponsorship/advertising stuff, and then the > > things you are talking about are the next step from that - rights for > > artists and re-use. > > > > That area interests me because I have dabbled with VJing in the > > pastwhere there were always hot debates about VJ's 'right' to take > > clips from other peoples work and remix/recontextualixe them and use > > them in their live shows. Visual sampling, usually without making much > > money, but arguably still using the work of others for potential > > financial gain. Opinions varied especially as some people struggle to > > see the artistic/creative merit in using samples, whilst others > > believe its a virtual free-for-all, and that in the USA they may be > > protected by some 'fair use' right to use snippets for certain > > purposes (educational and parody spring to mind). Theres never a > > conclusion, the nearest i could sum up is that people usually get away > > with it unless they get a lot of attention or make loads of money, and > > so are worth pursuing. And that many VJs would like to play it legally > > and ethically safe so were happy when creative commons and archive.org > > emerged. > > > > In the world of vlogging issues of disparity between videobloggers > > creative rights to protect their work, versus trampling of other > > creative peoples rights, can cause strange moral wormholes to open in > > my mind. I recall that in the earlier days of this list, there was > > much discussion about using copyrighted music in vlogs, and some > > feelings that it was unfair and overly restrictive for companies to > > crackdown on this sort of use. Funnily enough one of the many reasons > > this is less common now, is that it gets in the way of vloggers > > ability to use creative commons licenses on their own work. Obviously > > there are still large grey and unresolved issues here, such as deals > > we heard about where youtube paid loadsamoney to some corps to make > > legit the use of their artists works within things people uploaded to > > youtube. Ive never clarified just exactly what happened with this - > > can I upload a vid there of me dancing to copyrighted music from > > certain labels and it be ok? > > > > My own personal viewpoint has always been something to do with > > sampling, when done in some way that is not just a complete > > carbon-copy of the original work, can have merit, and indeed might be > > seen as an inevitable desire in people. Folk music would be a > > comparable thing, another thing that shows the social, creative & > > communicative nature of humans. We like to share experiences, and if > > our experiences and culture are partly due to the media we consume, > > we'll want to do a variety of things with it. > > > > I dunno, theres a balance somewhere but there will always be some > > people who will go far one way or the other. Judging by the state of > > the world in general, humans struggle to balance the idea of 'freedom' > > with the 'need for security'. Personally Ive not got my creative reuse > > juices flowing often, when I have Ive tried to mostly use public > > domain or cc-derivs allowed stuff, but see plenty of copyrighted stuff > > Id love to use if it felt right and justified. For example I tend to > > think that politicians, and footage of them speaking, should be public > > domain, but where does that leave the humans who have to operate the > > camera etc etc. > > > > I have no predictions for how any of this may change in future. I > > would guess that the most radical changes would happen if there > > suddenly became a huge amount less of real money available for > > creators of all kinds, for all the associated distribution and > > publicity industries, because the stakes would change. But I dont see > > that happening unless any of my doomer scenarios of the future happen. > > > > What a totally different attitude we might have to all forms of > > ownership, rights, control, freedom of all creative works, ideas, and > > reuse, if we lived in some totally different world where everybody did > > a practical job such as farming during the first part of the day, and > > then returned home to converse, create, remix and redeploy, entertain > > , amuse and educate fellow humans during the afternoon & evening. > > > > Cheers > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > --- In [email protected], "Lucas Gonze" <lucas.gonze@> > > wrote: > > > > > > On 1/27/07, David <david@> wrote: > > > > Even accepting reality for what it is, however, there are > > > > many good reasons to continue to push for our rights as creators to > > > > be sacrosanct. > > > > > > The problem is that videobloggers are going down the same hopelessly > > > unrealistic and ultimately disastrous path as the record labels and > > > movie companies. What's driving you is the same misplaced sense of > > > victimization and and righteous anger. > > > > > > Creators don't have sacrosanct rights in the US (except with regard to > > > attribution). That's not just a little wrong, it's wrong in a way > > > which is important. If creators were to be granted sacrosanct rights > > > it would be a massive expansion of copyright at the expense of the > > > public. > > > > > > And not just at the expense of the public, but also at the expense of > > > creators. The 500,000 YouTubers who you want to prevent from mashing > > > up your video have just as much right to make art as you do. If > > > what's at stake is the loss of 500,000 artworks, why does your work > > > trump theirs? > > > > > > > > > > -- > Roxanne Darling > "o ke kai" means "of the sea" in hawaiian > 808-384-5554 > > http://www.beachwalks.tv > http://www.barefeetshop.com > http://www.barefeetstudios.com > http://www.inthetransition.com >
