I must respectfully disagree with your characterization here. There's nothing ridiculous about owners of property specifying how that property may be used.
This wasn't just a copyright issue... and the school mischaracteriEs it as such. It's. Matter of contract. When the license agreement specifies "as written", then the licensee is bound to comply with that directive. Unauthorized changes are specified as a terminating event that renders the license void. So then, a production of the play becomes unauthorized, e. g. Copyright infringement.
Bottom line, if a school (or any producer of a play) doesn't like the content for some reason, it has options. It can choose other material, or, it can request and negotiate for permission to make the change. What it can't do, is impose its will over the creator of the work.
Playwriting is an art. Artists have a right to require that their work not be altered without permission. Doing so changes the art. Sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes more overtly. Either way, it's not OK unless the artist says so.
Would we say that a famous painter shouldn't complain if a museum decided to hang the painting upside down and shine only sickly green light on the work?
In the academic theatre environment, in particular, we should be teaching students the importance of respecting the art and the artist. And sure, there's room for a robust discussion of where the boundaries should be, but deliberate violations should not be tolerated.
>> putting a monetary gain for a mashup really does stifle derivative works.
SOLUTION: create ORIGINAL works, instead of derivative ones. That is what the framers intended to promote when they wrote the constitution... While recognizing that the protections of copyright should exist for limited times.
And yes, we can argue all day about HOW LIMITED those tim frames should be.....
How many of those artists would've produced MORE important works, and maybe lived longer, happier lives if they'd been able to earn a living at their art?
So, do you go to work every day just because you love it, without an expectation of being paid?
Sure some Artists will create art and give it away because they love doing so, but many more will be prevented from doing so by the need to focus instead on making a living.
Do you really believe that producers will put money into films knowing that they're going to be ripped off?
Maybe if torrent distribution could be monetized, there'd be some validity to your arguments, but really... right now it doesn't work. Money for indie films is drying up... really!
Sure, it's nice to get recognition in the form of lots of bittorrent downloads, ranking on imdb, etc, but think about the financial side of things for the film's producers for a moment.
I know of several clients who've made very good independent films in the $1,000,000 budget range, and have obtained theatrical and/or home-video distribution in a handful of territories. These deals typically have covered about one-half of the production cost of the movie. These producers are hustling to sell distribution rights in other territories, but....
Once the DVD is on sale somewhere, somebody rips it, uploads to torrent sites, etc.
Then, somebody else downloads a torrent, burns dvds and sells them (via various online sites) in the territories NOT covered by the existing distribution deals. Price: $5-$8 or less. AND, because they're bootlegged or pirated copies, the filmmakers aren't seeing ANY of that money. So, YES, it IS a lost sale.
NOW, the filmmakers (who've yet to repay their investors) can't sell the distribution rights in those unsold territories, 'cause the film's already available there, at a price that deeply undercuts what the retail price of the film would be.
So, these talented filmmakers have made a popular film, but financially, it's a disaster. Their investors have lost money, so they aren't as likely to invest in future films. So, even if the filmmakers wanted to do another project, they might not be able, since their money source(s) have dried up.
If this happened to you, would you even want make another film? Or, would you be more likely to focus your energies on something where you'll be able to make a living?
Sure, recognition is nice, but it doesn't pay back the investors, and doesn't put food on the table. In this scenario, it's the little guys that get hurt. Most independent films are investor-financed, and depend heavily on the existence of an already shrinking DVD market.
The proliferation of illegal movie download sites isn't good for the business of moviemaking, but it's downright BAD for the ART of film. Since good Artists have reduced incentive to create important works.
This betrays a surprising ignorance as to how music licensing for TV shows is done. The producers of the show COULD HAVE gotten an "all media, in perpetuity" license when they first cleared music for the show, but instead chose to save money by negotiating licenses with more limited scope. Bottom line... the broader grant of rights costs more.
So, the rights originally granted were for TV only, and probably limited to a certain number of airings, and only in certain territories. Any other rights need to be negotiated separately.
So, the publishers and labels/artists who control the songs are entitled to ask for more money for the expanded right the producers are seeking.
Suppose someone wanted to rent out your backyard for a party on Saturday night. You quote them a fee of $1,000.
Then, they decide they want to move the party into the house, and also on the front lawn. Wouldn't you expect to be paid more for the bigger event?
The real bad news here is that the producers of the TV show didn't have the foresight to keep copies of the dialogue tracks without music. They deserve to be in this situation.
The real trouble with crackpots is they can still file lawsuits. Defending such suits can be very costly.
When the editor of a publication says "fair use rights do not apply", she's basically saying, 'if you use anything from our publication, we'll sue.... and it doesn't matter who's right or wrong... it'll cost ya!'
The real trouble with crackpots is they can still file lawsuits. Defending such suits can be very costly.
When the editor of a publication says "fair use rights do not apply", she's basically saying, 'if you use anything from our publication, we'll sue.... and it doesn't matter who's right or wrong... it'll cost ya!'
Definitely enough to make you think... no?
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by Gordon Firemark.
Respectfully disagree.
I must respectfully disagree with your characterization here. There's nothing ridiculous about owners of property specifying how that property may be used. This wasn't just a copyright issue... and the school mischaracteriEs it as such. It's. Matter of contract. When the license agreement specifies "as written", then the licensee is bound to comply with that directive. Unauthorized changes are specified as a terminating event that renders the license void. So then, a production of the play becomes unauthorized, e. g. Copyright infringement. Bottom line, if a school (or any producer of a play) doesn't like the content for some reason, it has options. It can choose other material, or, it can request and negotiate for permission to make the change. What it can't do, is impose its will over the creator of the work. Playwriting is an art. Artists have a right to require that their work not be altered without permission. Doing so changes the art. Sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes more overtly. Either way, it's not OK unless the artist says so. Would we say that a famous painter shouldn't complain if a museum decided to hang the painting upside down and shine only sickly green light on the work? In the academic theatre environment, in particular, we should be teaching students the importance of respecting the art and the artist. And sure, there's room for a robust discussion of where the boundaries should be, but deliberate violations should not be tolerated.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
>> putting a monetary gain for a mashup really does stifle derivative works.
SOLUTION: create ORIGINAL works, instead of derivative ones. That is what the framers intended to promote when they wrote the constitution... While recognizing that the protections of copyright should exist for limited times.
And yes, we can argue all day about HOW LIMITED those tim frames should be.....
Re: Re: on the other hand...
How many of those artists would've produced MORE important works, and maybe lived longer, happier lives if they'd been able to earn a living at their art?
So, do you go to work every day just because you love it, without an expectation of being paid?
Sure some Artists will create art and give it away because they love doing so, but many more will be prevented from doing so by the need to focus instead on making a living.
Do you really believe that producers will put money into films knowing that they're going to be ripped off?
Maybe if torrent distribution could be monetized, there'd be some validity to your arguments, but really... right now it doesn't work. Money for indie films is drying up... really!
on the other hand...
Sure, it's nice to get recognition in the form of lots of bittorrent downloads, ranking on imdb, etc, but think about the financial side of things for the film's producers for a moment.
I know of several clients who've made very good independent films in the $1,000,000 budget range, and have obtained theatrical and/or home-video distribution in a handful of territories. These deals typically have covered about one-half of the production cost of the movie. These producers are hustling to sell distribution rights in other territories, but....
Once the DVD is on sale somewhere, somebody rips it, uploads to torrent sites, etc.
Then, somebody else downloads a torrent, burns dvds and sells them (via various online sites) in the territories NOT covered by the existing distribution deals. Price: $5-$8 or less. AND, because they're bootlegged or pirated copies, the filmmakers aren't seeing ANY of that money. So, YES, it IS a lost sale.
NOW, the filmmakers (who've yet to repay their investors) can't sell the distribution rights in those unsold territories, 'cause the film's already available there, at a price that deeply undercuts what the retail price of the film would be.
So, these talented filmmakers have made a popular film, but financially, it's a disaster. Their investors have lost money, so they aren't as likely to invest in future films. So, even if the filmmakers wanted to do another project, they might not be able, since their money source(s) have dried up.
If this happened to you, would you even want make another film? Or, would you be more likely to focus your energies on something where you'll be able to make a living?
Sure, recognition is nice, but it doesn't pay back the investors, and doesn't put food on the table. In this scenario, it's the little guys that get hurt. Most independent films are investor-financed, and depend heavily on the existence of an already shrinking DVD market.
The proliferation of illegal movie download sites isn't good for the business of moviemaking, but it's downright BAD for the ART of film. Since good Artists have reduced incentive to create important works.
The producers got what they paid for then... now want more.
This betrays a surprising ignorance as to how music licensing for TV shows is done. The producers of the show COULD HAVE gotten an "all media, in perpetuity" license when they first cleared music for the show, but instead chose to save money by negotiating licenses with more limited scope. Bottom line... the broader grant of rights costs more.
So, the rights originally granted were for TV only, and probably limited to a certain number of airings, and only in certain territories. Any other rights need to be negotiated separately.
So, the publishers and labels/artists who control the songs are entitled to ask for more money for the expanded right the producers are seeking.
Suppose someone wanted to rent out your backyard for a party on Saturday night. You quote them a fee of $1,000.
Then, they decide they want to move the party into the house, and also on the front lawn. Wouldn't you expect to be paid more for the bigger event?
The real bad news here is that the producers of the TV show didn't have the foresight to keep copies of the dialogue tracks without music. They deserve to be in this situation.
Chilling effect... regardless whether she's a crac
The real trouble with crackpots is they can still file lawsuits. Defending such suits can be very costly.
When the editor of a publication says "fair use rights do not apply", she's basically saying, 'if you use anything from our publication, we'll sue.... and it doesn't matter who's right or wrong... it'll cost ya!'
Definitely enough to make you think... no?
Chilling effect... regardless whether she's a crac
The real trouble with crackpots is they can still file lawsuits. Defending such suits can be very costly.
When the editor of a publication says "fair use rights do not apply", she's basically saying, 'if you use anything from our publication, we'll sue.... and it doesn't matter who's right or wrong... it'll cost ya!'
Definitely enough to make you think... no?