Thursday, February 5, 2009
Jennife Jenkins and Copyright Law
On Monday night Jennifer Jenkins spoke about intellectual property and the laws that went along with it. I found it really interesting to find out about the copyright laws in particular. According to her a copyright is obtained as soon as it is fixed, and lasts 70 years after the death of the owner. This law caused a lot of questions for me. Questions such as how to prove who fixed the object first, and what happens if more than one person wants to claim the item. To bring it back to an ethical dilemma, people could easily steal an item that has a copyright, apply for the license on it, and use it as their own, which now allows that person to make money off of an item that was not theirs. The idea of having an automatic copyright on an item as soon as something is fixed, seems to me to come with a lot of complications. Wouldn’t be easier to require people to apply for a copyright in the first place. I think that requiring a person to register for a copyright would eliminate most problems with establishing or recognizing ownership of the work. What are some thoughts on this topic?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you make a good point, but I have to agree with Jennifer Jenkins that the current copyright system is "kind of brilliant," as she said. It allows people to claim and profit off their work without possessing any extensive knowledge of the law or any cash to cover application fees. It's logical that when a painter makes a painting or a songwriter writes a song, that person owns their work. It's not the government's right or responsibility to issue a formal ruling one way or another. The current system is kind of a "fend for yourself," situation in which copyright disputes arise from inappropriate use of intellectual property, not just because someone forgot to renew their license. Civil suits clear up disagreements and people are left to their own creative devices to profit from their works, or not. The automatic copyright is absolutely essential in the Internet age. If you uploaded a photo to your Facebook page and someone copied it and used it in an ad campaign that they made $100,000 for, you really wouldn't want them to win your suit against them simply because you didn't register every photo you ever took before you uploaded it.
ReplyDeleteThe "fend for yourself" system of copyright is interesting, because you are responsible for keeping track of how people are using your material. Since people automatically have rights to their work, if they find that it is being used inappropriately, they are able to defend those rights. For something like processes, you can determine who came up with it first through patent applications, but for copyright material the timing is usually obvious.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting point. There's advantages to both sides. If you require everyone to apply for copyrights, then it seems that you could use anything unless it's obviously been copyrighted. However, if the application were like most government forms, it'd be convoluted and take way too long. Only people who were truly concerned about making money off their IP would file for copyrights. However, with everyone receiving copyrights, it seems that you either have to assume you can't use anything without permission or you can use it but know that you might get a request to not use the material. Both systems require the copyright owner to take the initiative if they feel that their rights have been violated, but neither seems to provide a system that works efficiently.
ReplyDeleteHaving automatic copyright does form sticky situations. Yet, if we had to file for copyright, wouldn't the bureaucracy be overwhelmed? What about access to applications? Should the public be denied copyright because they do not have the education or resources to apply for copyright?
ReplyDeleteI think one of the most important statements Jennifer Jenkins made during her lecture is that there is an economic philosophy behind the copyright law. The main purpose of this system is the driving philosophy to give artists the incentive to create. While it may seem complicated, I think the most important thing to do is immediately apply for a copyright on whatever it is you are trying to protect, and then use your creation to fulfill either personal goals, or economic success. Jennifer Jenkins was a very captivating and impressive speaker as she was not only eloquent, but sort of stunned her audience of undergraduate students as she blurted out facts like a human dictionary. She would so casually cite articles and clauses of laws as if it were common knowledge. Another thing I found interesting is that with all her knowledge on what is legally right and wrong, she still admitted to being a normal citizen that sometimes “technically” disobeys copyright laws. As she put it, there are rules that the law cares if you break, and rules that can be overlooked if it does not hurt anyone.
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand where you are coming from, the way that the system works now is for the best. There are always going to be more than one person working on the same project. For example, scienctific research is filled with competition to get out the newest papers before the next person. But competition is what fuels creativity. Otherwise, one person or group would have a monopoly over each subject.
ReplyDeleteI actually tend to agree with what you've said - most people wouldn't really care if someone used something they had created, so perhaps it is reasonable that if someone wants the official, legal ownership of that thing, they could request to have it legally protected. A simple letter of request could be all that it takes. And as for not having the knowledge to protect it...seems to me like that would be their own fault.
ReplyDeleteBecause everything is so competitive in our culture I think copy right is crucial and agree with Jennifer Jenkins that the copyright law is a clever one. But with that being said I have to also agree with M. Sartin when she mentioned that more people might not care. How can we make this fair to everyone? If you could simply put in a request and people share things the possibilities of what can be created could be endless and possibly more beneficial then the original idea.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with Tiffany's comment that competition is what fuels creativity and development. If someone were to apply for a copyright on a research finding- is it fair to not allow further researchers to use such findings to initiate further development. Likewise, the idea that every produced material should apply for documented copyright would create substantial problems within bureaucracy. Important findings should apply for copyright and others can seek permission to use such material. Common creations should be available to the general public to further creativity. I also think the regulation of 70 years is a bit excessive- similar to Katelyn's comments, it is impossible to imagine the endless creations established within 70 years.
ReplyDeleteThere are too many sources for copyrights that an application process would be too overwhelming. Emily brings up a good point that it's logical that if an individual creates something, he/she has ownership to this. The application process could create problems. Do you just accept everyone without looking at the source that was applied for copyright, or is there some sort of review to accept/deny applications? If there is some sort of review, what criteria would you establish to deny applications, and why would you deny any applications?
ReplyDeleteI also feel that having to apply for a copyright would be too much of an inconvenient hassle. I think that copyright as it is right now is the best way that it can go at the moment. Imagine if every time you wrote a paper in high school or college or post-graduate, that you had to go through an application process. How many papers have we written in our entire lives??? A million! If someone steals your work, you can most likely prove that you produced the piece first. Trademarks and patents are a different story.
ReplyDelete