Archive for copyright

Art Evolution

Posted in Arts (Design & Performance) with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 19, 2014 by Drogo

Everyone is an artist, just some realize it more than others. Art is any natural or artificial creation that is a design, whether intentional or not. Art needs no intention or viewer, and it does not matter what it is called; but the importance is in the contemplation of it, and conclusions it inspires.

To artists of all kinds, remember the folly of Metallica vs Napster and free your mind to flow with the evolution of the arts. Love and sharing should always come before hatred and snobbish stinginess. Relative “Quality” of the art is subjective, and in the arts is mostly opinion as it is not restricted to functionality. A trick of any trade is to be critical of the work of another, in order to make yourself look better. Some go to their grave never learning the lessons of Scrooge. Share your expressions with the World, and let others enjoy what you give or sell as they will. Most of the time you will be rewarded, and if any seek to hurt you despite your kindness, the hurt will fall back on them.

I have such a strong belief in an integrative transcendental theory of music, movies, and art, i am not sure i want to attend conventional shows anymore; to me the evolution of the arts is for people to fully support diverse artists as equals no matter how ‘talented’ or ‘successful’ the artists; and the artists must in turn consider the ‘fans’ as equals that can freely play with them, not just as observing members of their god-head cult who are unworthy to taint their ‘possessions’.

New Age Collaborative Art does require redefining terms, like changing ‘good quality’ to include collaborate improvisational spirit and skill relativism; and realizing that having skill should not be the same thing as being an exclusive snob ‘asshole’ or ‘dick’. It is fine to want to do your own art alone, or to want to make minimalist art solo; but that is very different than indulging egotism and selfishness as a demagogue or dictator. Modern art opened the definition of art to include the finger paintings of a child, mental patient, or even other animals; just as Philip Glass, Einsturzende Neubauten, and Nirvana opened the definition of popular music to include natural sounds, machine sounds, and otherwise ‘bad noises’.

I certainly feel possessive of ideas, things, and people often; but it i recognize it is often a source of social suffering when i do. Anger, hate, and isolation are natural feelings and actions; but we can decide how much we will allow from ourselves and others.

I was told all my life not to pursue a career in Art or Music because they dont make money; even my liberal artsy parents told me that… now after having died a few times and been reborn, i have a few things to say about that common statement. Popularity and Finances are only two aspects of the game called LIFE. First off we should not all strive to be Mega-stars who ‘make it big’ because the very concept is based on the framework of oligarchy and i do not want to encourage plutocracy. Secondly in an equal democracy of citizen artists we have the ability to schedule or freely live our own lives and walk out our doors without getting assaulted by pop-art-artsy (capitalist journalism). Thirdly i would rather live in a nut-house with no bills to pay, than not be able to draw or make noise.

“Copyright is an outdated concept.” – DJ Rainbow Wizard

Advertisements

The Right To Copy Correctly

Posted in Individuals / Members / Monsters / Creative Writing, Legal / Laws with tags , , , , , , , , , , on October 27, 2009 by Drogo

Welcome to the Land of SCOD. Dare to Publish for Free! The only Price is SHARING! Allow other people to copy. If they take without giving credit or respect, they suck. The Right to Copy is here.

Sharing means allowing other people to use something that you ‘created’. Copying means making a duplicate of an original. SCOD defends the concept of infinite amalgams. The ancient Greek philosopher Empedocles once said “There is nothing original anymore, there is only an intermingling of what has already been mingled.”

Original works are inspired by pre-existing influences to various degrees. To make an ‘original’ work, one develops concepts. These concepts come from somewhere, usually from thinking about already existing works. Many times people claim they “just thought of it” independently without any outside influence on their solitary minds. This is denial of the natural laws of inter-connectedness; The Doctrine of Reciprocal Maintenance, Karma, and even laws of Quantum Physics. Nothing exists in isolation, except in archetypal idea; and that idea has just been shared.

While it is human nature to want to share with others and be communal, it is also human nature to be possessive and spiteful. Those that take without giving in a communal society are ostracized. Those that take in a possessive society are sued by lawyers in Courts, and it is excessively expensive and time consuming. Either way, the important lesson learned by human interaction is ultimately: SHARING is good, STEALING is bad.

If we allow others to use our works trusting that they will not hurt us for no good reason, then when our work is ‘copied’ or ‘used’ by someone else it is not stealing. It becomes theft when you are not able to use what you created because it is missing, or your right to use it has been taken away from you.

Many of the logical factors behind legal ‘copyrights’ are satisfied by the mere act of making copies of something, and making it public with a recorded date. Remember the ‘Poor Man’s Copyright’ is a post-marked, unopened letter with your invention inside. The more you put your work out there yourself publicly, the more proof you have of the date of publication. The more you give publicly, the more you get established and self-made.

Copyright Fair Use & Creative Commons

Posted in Individuals / Members / Monsters / Creative Writing with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on October 11, 2009 by Drogo

“The difficulty in claiming fair use is that there is no predictable way to guarantee that your use will actually qualify as a fair use. You may believe that your use qualifies–but, if the copyright owner disagrees, you may have to resolve the dispute in a courtroom. Even if you ultimately persuade the court that your use was in fact a fair use, the expense and time involved in litigation may well outweigh any benefit of using the material in the first place.”

– Stanford Copyright & Fair Use, Online Library 2009

It is for this reason and others, that copyrights do not really benefit average people. Copyright laws benefit large corporations, as they are the only ones that can easily afford the court costs involved in defending copyrights. Poor people cannot afford the time or money it would take to defend their material, if it is stolen by anyone.

The benefits of Fair Use and Creative Commons for civilization, far out-weigh the problems of copyrights for common people. The best way of living is sharing what you create, so that others will share with you. If someone steals your work and uses it in a way you do not like, there is a more natural solution usually than suing. If it is your work, put it out there. Making your work public as soon as possible, is in essence the definition of publishing something. Proof that the work is yours, with a certifiable date, is all one really needs to discredit theft.

If it is a matter of someone else selling your work, and does not want to negotiate, find out how much they are selling it for, and how they are selling it, and then compete with them using free-market Capitalism. If all competition and negotiation fails, call the Press and tell your story to the world. If public opinion does not convince them to pay you what you deserve, and force them to give you control of the product, its not worth pursuing legally anyway.

***

Legal Copyright Information from The United States Copyright Office

Circular 34
Copyright Protection Not Available for Names, Titles, or Short Phrases
Copyright law does not protect names, titles, or short phrases or expressions. Even 
if a name, title, or short phrase is novel or distinctive or lends itself to a play on 
words, it cannot be protected by copyright. The Copyright Office cannot register 
claims to exclusive rights in brief combinations of words such as:
•	 Names of products or services
•	 Names of businesses, organizations, or groups (including the names of
performing groups)
•	 Pseudonyms of individuals (including pen or stage names)
•	 Titles of works
•	 Catchwords, catchphrases, mottoes, slogans, or short advertising expressions
•	 Listings of ingredients, as in recipes, labels, or formulas. When a recipe or
formula is accompanied by an explanation or directions, the text directions 
may be copyrightable, but the recipe or formula itself remains uncopyrightable.
Subject Matter of Copyright
Under section 102 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the U.S. Code), copyright 
protection extends only to “original works of authorship.” The statute states
clearly that ideas and concepts cannot be protected by copyright. To be 
protected by copyright, a work must contain a certain minimum amount
of authorship in the form of original literary, musical, pictorial, or graphic 
expression. Names, titles, and other short phrases do not meet these
requirements.
Copyright Office Records
The titles of registered works appear alphabetically in the indexes and catalogs
of the Copyright Office. But the presence of a title in the Office’s registration 
records does not mean that the title itself is copyrighted or subject to copyright 
protection. Entirely different works can have the same or similar titles.
To search Copyright Office registration records and recordation information 
on monographs, serials, and documents from 1978 forward, visit the Office’s
website at www.copyright.gov.
*
Trademark and Unfair Competition Laws
Some brand names, trade names, slogans, and phrases may 
be entitled to protection under laws relating to unfair 
competition, or they may be entitled to protection and 
registration under the provisions of state or federal trademark
laws. The federal trademark statute covers trademarks and
service marks—words, phrases, symbols, or designs that
distinguish the goods or services of one party from those of 
another. The Copyright Office has no role in these matters.
For information about trademarks, contact
Commissioner for Trademarks
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1451
Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
(800) 786-9199
TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov
www.uspto.gov