D
DannyOH
Guest
My (eventual) two-part question is predicated on your understanding of what is my understanding.
(Apologies for the length, but we are in a deep area here.)
The establishment of copyright dates back to (at least) the famous 6th century Irish 'Judgement of Diarmuid', in which (later, 'Saint') Finian prosecuted the renown (and incorrigible) plagiarist, Columbcille (later, Saint Columba) in the court of Diarmuid -which led to the famouse 'Judgement of Diarmuid'. i.e.: 'As to every cow its calf, so to every book its copy.'
This groundbreaking decision however left the question of any 'time limit' unaddressed -which oversight was later addressed, in the modern era, and established internationally agreed time limitations.
The fundamental reason for a time limit was founded on the treaty-makers' broad recognition that 'copyright':
a) should indeed, not last 'forever', but should last
b) for such period of time as would allow the artist/author some reasonable potential for appropriate reward in respect of the copyrighted material.
It was further agreed that:
c) this period should extend to a specified term of years after the death of the author, after which
d) the material would pass into the 'public domain' -i.e., it would then--and forever--be freely available -to anyone.
I would argue that the way in which both national and international copyright law has been subsequently employed and ammended makes an absolute mockery of these founding principles -that what is claimed to be 'copyright' is not an actual manifestation of these principles at all, but is rather, something else -something more akin to a 'charge for services rendered' in respect of said copies -i.e., the principle that:
'Whereas I may well--possess--a copy of the relevant public domain material, I am nevertheless not inclined to make it available to anyone to themselves further copy without some recompense to me for my labours -i.e., with regard to maintainence and cataloguing, etc, of the material.'
In short, the concept of reward owing to an 'originator' of material for his or her--artistic--labours is and as was clearly intended in the original judgement, wholly and completly separate from the concept of any reward being owed to a person or persons in respect of any subsequent mere possession and maintenance, etc, of the original material.
That, moreover, is (at least sufficiently) different in concept again, from the concept of any person seeking reward for said possession and maintenance, etc, of a copy -of a copy, of a copy, etc, etc,. especially, and in terms both of time and the individuals concerned, ad infinitum.
Even further, it is in my view inherently unfair for such persons as may be on down this endless 'tree of rights' to claim fees in essence equal in an amount commensurate with their being the original artist.
Fees for the mere making available of what are, in accordqance with the Judgement of Diamuid and later treaties, clearly intended to have been earlier rendered public domain material, should be very modest by comparison, indeed!
Let me explain, using Da Vinci's Mona Lisa as the example.
Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa in (c.) 1505. As he died in 1519, the copyright should have passed into the public domain--both legally and practicably speaking--and in modern legislative terms in (about) 1589. And yet, even now -more than four centuries years later, the 'unauthorized' copying of the Mona Lisa is STILL regarded as a breach of 'copyright' the present (so-called) 'copyright' holders demanding fees which would appear appropriate in scale to DaVinci himself.
Clearly this is a both ridiculous and unjust position -ripe, I would hazard, for a challenge in court. Through it, and given that there is--in theory as well as in practice--multiple copies of virtually everthing in existence in circulation and in the concomitant possession of their various possessors -each with the ability under the current interpretation of the law, each possessor has the ability to claim 'copyright' over their copy -even if the possession of that copy cannot be certified as having been a fully and properly authorized copy, of a copy, of a copy, etc, etc, right back to the original . In short, and possession being nine tenths of the law, a person in actual possesion of a several times over illegal copy can claim 'copyright' over its copy in turn!
Owing to this, it becomes fundamentally impossible for anything to ever fall out of copyright -which in my view virtually completely negates the age-old principle. This is, in my view, a heinous wrong. More, even than that and to the point of utter absurdity, is the question of the Internet.
Take as an example, any reasonably well known work of art, and you will find innumerable unauthorized copies of it on the internet. Given that I, first, copy one of these onto my computer, and secondly, copy that onto paper and for purposes of a proposed publication, then -the 'legal' copyright holder aside, exactly whom amongst the hoarde of illegal copy-holders have I offended? Given that I did not record the details of which of the multitude of sites I copied from, who can possibly claim that I copied the image from their site in particular?
Which leads me to my two main questions:
A book, published in, say, 1830, is on the shelves of a university archive. In the book is an illustration -being itself a copy of an illustration penned, say, during the French Revolution.
Suppose I was to borrow this book and proceed to copy the French Revolutionary illustration for use in a book of my own (possibly even 'computer enhanced' as necesssary).
QUESTION 1:
On the basis that the university (or any other library for that matter) own but that one of what must still be numerous copies of that particular book around the world -must I seek the library's authorization to copy the illustration, and if so, what makes them, as possessors of that particular copy of the book so special as to seek 'copyright' fees (as opposed to something resembling a mere 'maintenance' fee)?
QUESTION 2:
Broadly, and given all the above, just when IS 'public domain' - public domain?
D. O'Hanlon
New York
(Apologies for the length, but we are in a deep area here.)
The establishment of copyright dates back to (at least) the famous 6th century Irish 'Judgement of Diarmuid', in which (later, 'Saint') Finian prosecuted the renown (and incorrigible) plagiarist, Columbcille (later, Saint Columba) in the court of Diarmuid -which led to the famouse 'Judgement of Diarmuid'. i.e.: 'As to every cow its calf, so to every book its copy.'
This groundbreaking decision however left the question of any 'time limit' unaddressed -which oversight was later addressed, in the modern era, and established internationally agreed time limitations.
The fundamental reason for a time limit was founded on the treaty-makers' broad recognition that 'copyright':
a) should indeed, not last 'forever', but should last
b) for such period of time as would allow the artist/author some reasonable potential for appropriate reward in respect of the copyrighted material.
It was further agreed that:
c) this period should extend to a specified term of years after the death of the author, after which
d) the material would pass into the 'public domain' -i.e., it would then--and forever--be freely available -to anyone.
I would argue that the way in which both national and international copyright law has been subsequently employed and ammended makes an absolute mockery of these founding principles -that what is claimed to be 'copyright' is not an actual manifestation of these principles at all, but is rather, something else -something more akin to a 'charge for services rendered' in respect of said copies -i.e., the principle that:
'Whereas I may well--possess--a copy of the relevant public domain material, I am nevertheless not inclined to make it available to anyone to themselves further copy without some recompense to me for my labours -i.e., with regard to maintainence and cataloguing, etc, of the material.'
In short, the concept of reward owing to an 'originator' of material for his or her--artistic--labours is and as was clearly intended in the original judgement, wholly and completly separate from the concept of any reward being owed to a person or persons in respect of any subsequent mere possession and maintenance, etc, of the original material.
That, moreover, is (at least sufficiently) different in concept again, from the concept of any person seeking reward for said possession and maintenance, etc, of a copy -of a copy, of a copy, etc, etc,. especially, and in terms both of time and the individuals concerned, ad infinitum.
Even further, it is in my view inherently unfair for such persons as may be on down this endless 'tree of rights' to claim fees in essence equal in an amount commensurate with their being the original artist.
Fees for the mere making available of what are, in accordqance with the Judgement of Diamuid and later treaties, clearly intended to have been earlier rendered public domain material, should be very modest by comparison, indeed!
Let me explain, using Da Vinci's Mona Lisa as the example.
Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa in (c.) 1505. As he died in 1519, the copyright should have passed into the public domain--both legally and practicably speaking--and in modern legislative terms in (about) 1589. And yet, even now -more than four centuries years later, the 'unauthorized' copying of the Mona Lisa is STILL regarded as a breach of 'copyright' the present (so-called) 'copyright' holders demanding fees which would appear appropriate in scale to DaVinci himself.
Clearly this is a both ridiculous and unjust position -ripe, I would hazard, for a challenge in court. Through it, and given that there is--in theory as well as in practice--multiple copies of virtually everthing in existence in circulation and in the concomitant possession of their various possessors -each with the ability under the current interpretation of the law, each possessor has the ability to claim 'copyright' over their copy -even if the possession of that copy cannot be certified as having been a fully and properly authorized copy, of a copy, of a copy, etc, etc, right back to the original . In short, and possession being nine tenths of the law, a person in actual possesion of a several times over illegal copy can claim 'copyright' over its copy in turn!
Owing to this, it becomes fundamentally impossible for anything to ever fall out of copyright -which in my view virtually completely negates the age-old principle. This is, in my view, a heinous wrong. More, even than that and to the point of utter absurdity, is the question of the Internet.
Take as an example, any reasonably well known work of art, and you will find innumerable unauthorized copies of it on the internet. Given that I, first, copy one of these onto my computer, and secondly, copy that onto paper and for purposes of a proposed publication, then -the 'legal' copyright holder aside, exactly whom amongst the hoarde of illegal copy-holders have I offended? Given that I did not record the details of which of the multitude of sites I copied from, who can possibly claim that I copied the image from their site in particular?
Which leads me to my two main questions:
A book, published in, say, 1830, is on the shelves of a university archive. In the book is an illustration -being itself a copy of an illustration penned, say, during the French Revolution.
Suppose I was to borrow this book and proceed to copy the French Revolutionary illustration for use in a book of my own (possibly even 'computer enhanced' as necesssary).
QUESTION 1:
On the basis that the university (or any other library for that matter) own but that one of what must still be numerous copies of that particular book around the world -must I seek the library's authorization to copy the illustration, and if so, what makes them, as possessors of that particular copy of the book so special as to seek 'copyright' fees (as opposed to something resembling a mere 'maintenance' fee)?
QUESTION 2:
Broadly, and given all the above, just when IS 'public domain' - public domain?
D. O'Hanlon
New York