Friday, September 5, 2008

Copy...right on!

This isn't the Cubs logo. It's the copyright symbol.
Copyright is defined as "The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work."
Anyone can copyright their work; there is no need to file any type of legal document to do so. Simply including the copyright symbol on your work means that you own the rights to said work, and it is your decision as to how your work shall be used. You'll notice that I have included a copyright symbol in my journal description. I have no problem with anyone who wants to quote me and attribute the quote to me, but copying what I write and using it as your own writing is not cool with me. As far as I know, I've never used a picture that was copyrighted, but if the artist or photographer is mentioned, I will make sure that I include their name in the picture.
Artists have every right to control how their works are used. Whether it's art, literature, or music, the artists own the rights to their creative output, and if they have diametrically opposed views to someone who is using their work without their permission, they have the absolute right to stop such use. Even if the artist completely agrees with the user's viewpoints and opinions, they still have the absolute right to refuse the use of their work.
Exercising such rights is not censorship; it is simply the control of the words, music, or art that the individual or artist has created.
A hypothetical question for you. Most of you who read this blog also write a blog. How would you react if someone quoted your writing, word for word, and posted it on another site? How would you feel if they used your words--perhaps with some creative editing so that your meaning was twisted--on a site that you found abhorrent, such as a neo-Nazi site, or Lynchings-R-Us? You would object, right? So would I. So would anyone who has created any type of artistic effort and watched as it was used without their permission, especially on a site that they found morally reprehensible.
Censorship, to me, is more like someone attempting to remove words, lyrics, or art that they deem offensive from public forums and institutions such as newspapers, museums, movie theaters, etc.; stopping someone from the right to express their own opinions; trying to ban a radio or TV program; or trying to ban books from the local library because they find the words contained in those books offensive.
Copyright infringement can in no way be equated to censorship.


buckoclown said...

My first thoughts, as you know, were "Cubs".  :o)

I agree that people must ask permission before they use our work.  Good entry!

nightmaremom said...

good entry...   when I started my tags/graphics most artists didn't care... most do now.  They ask that you purchase a license to use their work and include their info.  For my tags it is not expensive but could add up.. yet I do follow that rule.  There are a ton of folks out there who don't.  I don't care it's not my art and I do what I think is right.  Other folks, well I will not be the one to blow them in or to tell them the rules, they know them.  What I do mind tho, is when they take my personal pictures that do include my copyright and use them elsewhere... and no most don't ask.  Some even take my tags and rip off my sig line and add theirs using my license.  NOW THAT PISSES ME OFF!  I paid for the right.....   anyway good entry.

slapinions said...

Howdy -

I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that much of this entry was aimed at my previous comment. Just FYI, I enjoy your blog and was/is in no way angry/upset/etc - our opinions differ and I see no reason not to civiliy (sp?) express that :) Like one of your previous commentors I may choose to back away from commenting on your political posts if it threatens a rift in our online friendship. Let me know.

Regarding this: the issue is not copyright infringement. An artist has every right, under the *law*, to dictate who should use their work. My complaint is an ethical one. We are not talking about a group of Nazi's, or the Klan, or Al Queda or any one of a number of foul entities; although you disagree politically with the GOP I imagine you do not equate millions upon millions of Americans with hate groups.

Their decision to exclude their work from being available to purchase by the GOP, when it is otherwise distributed to any number of ridiculous outlets, from karaoke bars to  morning radio shows, to compilation discs, etc is an obvious shot across the bow.

What they are saying is that the people who fall to the right of what they believe are so abhorrent to them as to be denied access to their music when all others have ample opportunities. (I phrased that piss-poorly; it flowed better in the previous comment).

I do not think the use of the song would indicate to the world a bond between Heart and the GOP. With true respect to the band (I own a few of their albums) very few people nowadays would even have 'Heart' spring to mind when they heard it. It is 30 years old.

The GOP should have been allowed to pay for the use of the song. When denied - again foolishly to my mind - they should not have used the tune. I agree.

I do wonder however wonder if there is a back story, some permission granted by the music publisher w/out Hearts knowledge and therefore creating this mess. Eh, who knows.

Dan said...

Hey Bethster!  
I tend to agree with you.  Obviously, artists want people who enjoy their music to buy it.  They want to sell albums.  But it enters another arena when those tunes go from being enjoyed by the purchaser to being used by businesses to hawk merchandise or used as a tag by politicians to promote their views.  

rdautumnsage said...

Wow....been there....When I first started journaling i wrote a piece titled "I will not...". Imagine my surprise when someone sent that same piece word for word to me in an email and said author unknown. I was livid! I wrote the originally sender back, gave her a link to the entry on my journal and said remove  this email send something with my name attatched or I report her.

My gut was twisted to see someone so blantantly use something I had written for herself. At the time she had sent it to another email address I had she had no way of knowing it was me. I should put something on my journal to that effect that my words are mine.....

This isn't what this is about though...I'm assuming your talking about the Heart Song. When someone has expressly stated do NOT use in this manner, on something that they still hold the rights to, they have every right to say NO under no circumstances can it be used. (Hugs)Indigo

frankandmary said...

I had this dicussion recently with a friend about note cards I'd purchased to use as invites for a  fundraiser.  They were original artworks(reworked a bit) someone had printed & sold; just an "at home" thing. She balked at using them because of that, & she was right. We purchased museum copyrighted invites instead.

markonit said...

... you and the Wilson sister's both ..!

... I don't worry about someone passing whatever rambling I say off as their own ... some of it isn't even mine ..!  I always imagine someone using a line, only to have someone say, that is from a song by Bananarama ..!

... good times ..!

dbp2000 said...

Good points.  Thanks for the thoughts.


chat2missie said...

I actually have my blog registerd CopyScape, a copywrite internet site.  If anyone writes the exact words that on my blog on their blog, the company picks it up, and informs me.  It's pretty cool, but I don't know who would want to copy what I write! LOL

queeniemart said...

A few "nice" chicks from J Land HAVE taken my entire entries and went to blogger or some other place and made a whole blog bashing me. In case they read this, i deleted the link and can not and will not read their garbage now. So, it happens and probably more than we know. Often when a person goes to copy a legitiment article from AP or another website you have no idea if you are allowed to do that even if you leave who wrote it intact.
I am so glad HEART stood up for themselves.

wwfbison said...

I was just reading an article in one of my photography magazines about copyrights and the internet regarding photography.  It was very interesting and there is currently a big lawsuit going on with a photographer against some kids who used her pics without her consent.  They are arguing there is no protection of photos on the internet regardless of copyright.  I am interested to see how this plays out.  There is a huge difference between censorship (which I disagree with 10000%) and copyright.