If you publish something in public for all the world to see, don't expect random strangers to just hand you money for the privilege of seeing it.
But if someone tells you they will pay you for your work, and then when you spend two months working on it, they refuse to pay and furthermore pass the work off as their own, that's fucked up no matter what the copyright laws are in your country.
Not that I'm firmly in the camp of 'everything should be free', but in this case the agency promised the designer "There's no money now, but since you hold the copyright on the work, if we decide to distribute it, we'll have to pay you later. So work for peanuts, okay?"
If there were not copyright at all, then the agency wouldn't have had the promise of future revenue to lure the designer into the deal in the first place.
If everyone knew up front that once the work was done it would be free to the world, there would have been no misunderstanding, and the designer would have had an easier time insisting on getting paid properly up front.
Believing that copyright shouldn't exist or should be limited from it's current status but contracts should be enforced is a completely valid position.
You can't enforce a contract related to creative works without the concept of copyright. Otherwise there is nothing of value upon which to base the contract. That is where copyright came from in the first place.
>You can't enforce a contract related to creative works without the concept of copyright.
Yes you can. The value is in the time and creative process that went into creating the creative work.
A contract that says I will pay you $1000 to create a piece of open source software, is still a valid and enforceable contract, even though I won't own the software in the end.
You definitely can - it's contracts for performing a service, and it doesn't matter if the end result is some copyrightable artifact like a poem, an uncopyrightable artifact like a finding of fact (x % of surveyed people liked your product) or no artifacts at all, as for many services.
Sophomoric semantic rationalization. Two different settings for copyright violation, but sure, just use synonyms and related concepts to make one seem bad and the other OK; gullible message board nerds ravenous for validation for pirating movies, music, and software will lap it up.
The difference is the implicit agreement between the author and the agency, without which the former wouldn't have spent two months making those works.
This has little to do with IP law, and everything to do with contract law and negotiation. A position like "short copyright period and no software patents" is trivial reconciled with "don't do work without contracts, and have the law enforce contracts."
Sorry, it was a failed attempt at being funny. I was implying bananacurve was referring to a strawman ("internet hippies saying everything should be free").
This has nothing to do with that.
If you publish something in public for all the world to see, don't expect random strangers to just hand you money for the privilege of seeing it.
But if someone tells you they will pay you for your work, and then when you spend two months working on it, they refuse to pay and furthermore pass the work off as their own, that's fucked up no matter what the copyright laws are in your country.
Not that I'm firmly in the camp of 'everything should be free', but in this case the agency promised the designer "There's no money now, but since you hold the copyright on the work, if we decide to distribute it, we'll have to pay you later. So work for peanuts, okay?"
If there were not copyright at all, then the agency wouldn't have had the promise of future revenue to lure the designer into the deal in the first place.
If everyone knew up front that once the work was done it would be free to the world, there would have been no misunderstanding, and the designer would have had an easier time insisting on getting paid properly up front.
Believing that copyright shouldn't exist or should be limited from it's current status but contracts should be enforced is a completely valid position.
Only there weren't any contracts here. How about: "work should be conpensated" and "give it for free and make up in volume/exposure is BS"?
You can't enforce a contract related to creative works without the concept of copyright. Otherwise there is nothing of value upon which to base the contract. That is where copyright came from in the first place.
>You can't enforce a contract related to creative works without the concept of copyright.
Yes you can. The value is in the time and creative process that went into creating the creative work.
A contract that says I will pay you $1000 to create a piece of open source software, is still a valid and enforceable contract, even though I won't own the software in the end.
You definitely can - it's contracts for performing a service, and it doesn't matter if the end result is some copyrightable artifact like a poem, an uncopyrightable artifact like a finding of fact (x % of surveyed people liked your product) or no artifacts at all, as for many services.
My question as well. I'd love to hear from the advocates of "It's digital, there is no cost to the content producer for others to make copies."
Even if they believe that, it doesn't make plagiarism and breech of contract okay.
Sophomoric semantic rationalization. Two different settings for copyright violation, but sure, just use synonyms and related concepts to make one seem bad and the other OK; gullible message board nerds ravenous for validation for pirating movies, music, and software will lap it up.
2 replies →
The difference is the implicit agreement between the author and the agency, without which the former wouldn't have spent two months making those works.
There is also an agreement between you and artists that if you want to watch a movie or listen to a music cd you also pay for it.
31 replies →
They are using his work to aid in selling their product. He should get a cut of that. It's not much related to Little Bobby downloading a movie.
> Where are the internet hippies saying everything should be free?
Are you trolling?
Even the extreme open source advocates would agree that, if you commission a guy to do some work for you for an agreed price, you should pay him.
Plagiarism != Piracy
This has little to do with IP law, and everything to do with contract law and negotiation. A position like "short copyright period and no software patents" is trivial reconciled with "don't do work without contracts, and have the law enforce contracts."
Good question. They seem to be nowhere to be found when it's the little guy asserting copyright.
Everyone thinks plagiarism is wrong.
Corn fields, I suppose.
Try as you may, there's no inconsistency here. Everyone thinks plagiarism is wrong.
Sorry, it was a failed attempt at being funny. I was implying bananacurve was referring to a strawman ("internet hippies saying everything should be free").
There is no inconsistency here. Everyone thinks plagiarism is wrong.