[pp.int.general] copyright vs. "droit d'auteur"
Carlos Ayala Vargas
aiarakoa at yahoo.es
Wed Jan 7 19:11:33 CET 2009
Per von Zweigbergk wrote:
> 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."
I think maybe Reinier confounds integrity's moral right with derivative
works' commercial right. The second one expires -when not given up
previously- at the expiration of commercial author's rights; the first
one -except for those exceptions commented by Reinier- is permanent even
for works in public domain. I believe that the fact that, with CC
licenses, one may give up the exclusivity to make derivative works (the
/nd/ clause) while may not give up authorship (the /by/ clause) I think
that proves that the right to make derivate works is a commercial right;
and if it's a commercial right, of course it should have an expiration term.
Reinier: imagine someone making a composition of Spanish Golden Age
paintings -from Velazquez to Murillo, from Theotokopoulos to Zurbaran-
to promote an exposition of some of those paintings ... and having to
find their heirs just to ask for permission. Are commercial rights
supposed to be eternal? I bet they aren't.
> The problem isn't, in this case, the bad translation. The problem is
> that the bad translation is misattributed to the original author.
I think that's true: the problem -regarding moral rights- would be to
attempt against the integrity of the work, purportedly presenting a bad
translation as a faithful translation of the original work.
> 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.
I think you're right again. Actually, according to UN standards,
commercial rights are supposed to grant authors "/an adequate standard
of living/"; while such grant may be in doubt to non selling works,
aren't incomes from David Bisbal's (one of Spain's highest supporter of
levies, mainly because due to his sales is one of the most
income-receiving artists) 7 million worldwide sold albums (according to
Vale Music agreement terms unveiled at the Operacion Triunfo show, 0'60
€/sold copy, i.e., 4'2 million € before taxes) enough to grant him /an
adequate standard of living/?
I'm not David Bisbal's father, thus he's up to employ his money on
whatever he wants; however, if when he become 50-some he demands more
levies and such because of being in bankruptcy -and you know it happens
with certain artists-, as long as I still am not his father, I'm not
gonna give him -willingly- a cent. Specially for best-seller artists,
5/10/20/30 years of commercial author's rights term are pretty enough
-even more than enough-. Regards,
( Aiarakoa )
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman
More information about the pp.international.general