[pp.int.general] copyright vs. "droit d'auteur"

[Per von Zweigbergk]

7 jan 2009 kl. 10.07 skrev Reinier Bakels:

>> Second, even as regards commercial exploitation, the present  
>> collective management schemes assume that the author always wants  
>> to publish, or to allow derivative works, if only he is financially  
>> compensated. It ignores the alternative that the author may want  
>> not to allow derivative publications at all, for whatever sum of  
>> money. Eventually I believe that the fundamental right of the  
>> (real) author to dispose of his work deserves PP support, if only  
>> because collective rights organisations do NOT deserve support.

I'm sorry, I disagree completely. In the end, all progress in our arts  
and our sciences is because of the possibility to make derivative  
works to build upon the works of those that came before you. It's very  
rare that somebody comes up with something truly original.

As Pablo Picasso said: "Good artists copy. Great artists steal."

>>
>> Or would you prohibit somebody making a bad translation of your  
>> work  and distributing it noncommercially?
>>
> Yes, of course. Typically a translation is published under the name  
> of the original author, and the translator is only mentioned in  
> small print an/or at the bottom. Which is nice and modest, but  
> likely to give the impression that the original author is reponsible  
> for the wordings - and for a potentially bad translation. He is hurt  
> then in his *moral* interests.

The problem isn't, in this case, the bad translation. The problem is  
that the bad translation is misattributed to the original author. In  
that case, it is this problem that needs to be fixed, not the fact  
that the translation was allowed to be made in the first place.

> PP imho should seriously question all modes of *commercial*  
> exploitation of works. They are obviously most likely to be abused,  
> by nasty people with dollar signs in their eyes. But the personality  
> (=moral) rights of the (real) author imho deserve full support. To  
> give another example: you don't want the work of art you made  
> available for free to be used in a commercial campaign by Benneton  
> without your consent, would you? OK, assume you don't intend *any*  
> commercial exploitation by yourself - but then (perhaps even more)  
> you may want to prohibit commercial exploitation by others - and the  
> example shows that this is possible without affecting the actual  
> copyright, in an advertrising campaign.

Not an issue. I'm against unauthorized commercial use of a work (at  
least for a reasonable period after first publication). Use in an  
advertising campaign falls under that category.

But in the end, the fact that the art may be used commercially after a  
reasonable copyright period has expired is not a real problem in my  
opinion. I simply don't agree that the author is hurt by commercial  
exploitation of his work after the expiry of a reasonable (5 - 20  
year) copyright term. If anything, as long as it's clear that the  
author didn't endorse the use of the art in his campaign, I think it  
may increase interest in the artists work.

>
>
> reinier
>
> reinier
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general

-- 
Per von Zweigbergk

VARNING: E-post till och från Sverige, eller som passerar servrar i  
Sverige, avlyssnas av Försvarets Radioanstalt, FRA.
WARNING: E-mail to and from Sweden, or via servers in Sweden, is  
intercepted by the Swedish National Defense Radio Establishment.