I can't say that I agree with the copyright laws or the definition of what is and is not fair use, but I am sure that the laws were set up with the best of intentions. Seventy to a hundred years seems excessive. It seems that the bulk of the protection needs to cover only a few years and that some rights and protections should drop off sooner. With such an extended period, even the ability to locate the copyright holder would be diminished.
Perhaps my logical analytical side is running on overload, but when I look at the definition of fair use, I have to wonder if it is really possible to justify usage under the current definition. If the test is, if you are teaching a unit and you are using copyrighted material, can you teach the lesson without the material, then I doubt it is all that common. Educators, by nature, are extremely resourceful individuals and there is usually more than one way to skin a cat. (Mathematicians tend to think a lot like attorneys.) However, many laws, established with the best of intentions, fail to see the full picture. I for one, find the stoplight quite useful, except in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere, when I have been sitting at a light waiting for it to change. As I see it, the best alternative is permission, so make it easier to get or more people will break the law.
Creative Commons is like a flashing red light in the middle of the night. It doesn't mean you don't have to obey the law, it just adds a little common sense to the situation. Creative Commons is a good solution for all those concerned. Most of us want to share our work, but we don't want to be taken advantage of. CC makes it possible to share, but still retain some control over your work. It would be wonderful if more artists would voluntarily submit to this common sense approach.
Anne,
ReplyDeleteNice analogy to the red light vs. flashing red light. More autonomy in sharing is an important work around for our current...extremely restrictive copyright system. The fair use laws should be a right not just a defensive point that can be argued. I do not see the harm that could come from sharing information in an educational arena. I imagine many copyright holders would be afraid to attack a teacher or school because of bad press and ...well most people understand that information sharing in schools is necessary...but I am certain that it has happened. Creative Commons and moroguefile are great additions to the copyright problems right now. I understand the need for protection, because I have worked in the creative industries, but when we hold on so tight that we impede the growth of society it is too much.I get really torn about the issue because our surroundings are so saturated with the creative works of others it can seem impossible to express yourself without including the environment you live in. It is great to see the rise of sharing communities. The phenomenon has happened over and over in the art community even without copyright. Creative groups like the photography club f/64 and Andy Worhols The Factory. Although, they did not allow others to take what they had made... they shared ideas, styles, and images.I think of content sharing sites in this way. It's like a global club of artists and people in general.
Dear Anne,
ReplyDeleteI’m surprised that I was surprised that we both wrote about intentions, not to mention our shared emphasis on common sense. Leggis’ example of the farmers and the airplanes illustrated that our culture has developed in ways unfathomable to those original law-makers. You’re right; the Creative Commons approach balances protection for the original artist with cultural and creative freedom for the artist who interacts with the original work.
It’s so tempting to make the corporate music structure the villain here, but it’s an establishment that worked for everyone—artists, listeners, investors. I have to confess to a deep pang of nostalgia when I saw the “Tower Records going out of business” sign! Change is a force of nature—and this change in the accessibility of publication, from a years-long battle with infinitesimal chance of success to an instant exposure for anyone who can click a mouse, has been more like a tornado than a cleansing rain. It’s understandable that the establishment would resist the onslaught, especially when the precipitousness of it gave little chance to recognize it and evolve.
But the kids have hacked into the system and set the stop light to blink in the middle of the night. And the cops can instigate a big old manhunt… or they can acknowledge that the kids have got the clearer view, and withdraw with good grace.
:<) Debra
Dear Anne,
ReplyDeleteAs I read your blog, and the comments of others, I too like your analogy with the red light and the flashing red light. I also noted your ambivalence to the copyright law which to me is quite understandable. There is a saying, by whom I do not know, nor recall, but it is said "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." By the good intentions to protect innovation and creative thought, it seems there has been a wall built round the wall of protection to prevent nearly any use by others at all and to the detriment of our society. If the premise that all cultural expression is built on the foundation of those who have gone before, then this generation of students will not have a right to learn and grow from the "use" of the materials used before unless there is a major change in the system, or an alternative offered. And suddenly: TA! DAH! Creative Commons appears as an answer to this harsh dilemma. Perhaps creativity will win out after all.
great observations and comments. Larry Lessig did note the unusual nature of the Supreme Court's ruling using common sense when called upon in the airline right of way case. Thus, common sense when discussing copyright issues, well, not so much.
ReplyDelete