Electronic Frontier Foundation: A new front has opened in publishers' global war on the public domain. Lawmakers of Argentina's ruling party are proposing a vast extension of copyright terms on photography—from 20 years after publication to 70 years after the photographer's death. That means that the term of restriction of photographic works would be extended by an average 120 years.
8 comments:
This article on the copyright dilemma is only a drop in the wider ocean of legal debates surrounding media in all countries, including the United States, as mentioned by the author. What makes this topic so significant is the newly acquired digital nature of photography, meaning that photos that were once only physically copied are now flooding the internet, and the proposal by the Argentinian government would severely impact the amount of information that is available through mediums such as Wikipedia, a major hub of general information on a topic, but cultural institutions such as libraries and museums whose societal function is to securely store and provide access to a variety of cultural materials that are essential to a country's historical legacy. What this debate raises is the question of who actually profits from this legislation, and the nature of a medium such a photography--should it be exclusive to those who have the monetary means to view it, or should society have unrestricted access to these materials?
It's sort of ridiculous that there are still governments that try to control copyright over the Internet and other media databases. Of course you want to give credit where credit is due -- if I produced a piece of photography that I was proud of, I would feel cheated or upset if people used my image and didn't say that I made it. But for famous photographers who have been dead for sixty years and already have very wealthy families, it's a bit ridiculous. Actually, a lot ridiculous. Photographs are meant to be seen, and if students like us don't have the resources to look at them then we won't get the proper information and education that we need to pull together a full and proper design. I do wonder why Argentina is now coming up with this legislation to combat copyright, because it seems like the U.S. and Russia have the most problems with copyright in the news, or at least on my radar. It'll be a disservice to the Argentinian people if this legislature passes, especially those who do not have the resources to go to the photographs specifically, or buy the prints themselves.
I find this really interesting. I do not necessarily believe that extending the life of a copyright is a bad idea if the research shows it is necessary; however, retroactively applying this kind of law seems not only silly but also downright impossible. The US has extended copyright renewals twice, but in both cases, if the work was already in public domain, there was no going back. I do not see how the government would even patrol that sort of activity, especially for works that had been in public domain for some time. From internet sources to reproduced prints, it is an insurmountable amount of work that would create a huge financial burden on the government that does not seem worth it, despite how sad that may be for the artists and estates that have already lost the rights to their works. I think that if they decide that the copyright duration needs to be changed that it should be a situation in which they have learned that the current duration does not work and move on from past mistakes.
I have never understood the need to extend copyright on something. Especially extending it for 120 years. I’m all about the sharing of art and especially all about the artist getting the credit he or she deserves, but after the artist has been dead for 70 years, their great-great grandchildren are the only ones benefiting from any royalties or anything like that. At that point, is there even a point besides greed? It’s even more frustrating because they want places like Wikipedia to take down all the photos or be prosecuted. I personally love seeing relevant pictures on wiki because it adds some extra history to whatever I’m reading, and it’s an incredible source of information especially research photos. Who exactly is going to be fighting to take down the newly copywrited pictures? I really wish this article (or maybe its more the fault of the lawmakers) would tell us what happened that prompted this extension and who are the people who are fighting for it or would fight for the copyright should it pass.
Haha! I think my favorite line in this is “ including Wikipedia, may have to be erased from the Internet or else they could face civil, or even criminal prosecution failing to do so.”
Like Arengtina could criminally Prosecute Wikipedia. That would be one for the books.
Okay, but seriously, let’s talk about this. Legally speaking, how enforceable would an Argentinian copyright be outside of argentina? My guess is not very, since US copyright law is barely enforceable in the US.
I guess copyright is a sensitive issue in this particular instance. We have artists who would like the credit and right to use and sell their work without it getting stolen, but we also have to create a drive for artists to go out and create new work.
Lastly, why is Argentina, of all places, looking for extended copyright protection. That seems pretty strange for a country not really known for it’s photography.
Isn't the law in the U.S. the lifetime of the author plus seventy years? And for this new law, were photographs originally not included in the law and now are being added?
I don't understand why they would make the law retroactive. That seems like a huge waste of effort - the government is now going to have to spend a lot of money enforcing this very arbitrary law. You know the only reason this is happening is because some lawmakers grandfather took a nice photo and the copyright finally expired, so now he wants to make some bank on it.
You know, this really is one of those topics where not only do I think there is no right answer, I honestly couldn't tell anyone what position I actually fall on in this debate. On the one hand, I do think that artists and their families should be compensated for creative work that becomes popular. And to a certain degree I feel that that compensation should carry down at least a couple generations, so that I become wildly successful creatively, then I can have a certain degree of confirmation that my children will be taken care of financially. On the other hand, I do agree with the EFF that overly long Copyright Laws lock up culture and open the way for even more restrictive laws. Also, the retroactive clause in this proposed law is purely ridiculous. You shouldn't be able to go back in time and redefine what is covered under copyright and what is not.
At any rate surely there must be some sort of compromise between those that seek extended copyright and those that seek no copyright.
Copyright laws are always a complex issue. On the one hand, it is important to have copyright laws as the encourage the creation of new content/ art. On the other hand, people draw on other people’s work for inspiration, so limiting that past a reasonable point isn’t helpful. To me the problem with this law wouldn’t be the copyright extension, though I’m not sure what I think about that, but the retroactive re-copyrighting of photos that already entered the public domain. To me that is just absurd. You can’t punish people for breaking a rule that didn’t exist when they broke it. Also, even if there were a way to get something permanently off the internet, it isn’t fair to expect people to get rid of perfectly valid work they did. Though I can understand the logic behind extending the copyright, I don’t see how trying to undo the fact they were in public domain can be seen as reasonable. To be fair, it will be hard to prosecute use of the re-copyrighted images as it might not always be clear if they were initially used before or after the copyright was reinstated, so I think it probably makes the most sense to extend the copyright only on images who are not yet in public domain. The photographers who took those photos knew what the copyright would be when they took the image, so it doesn’t seem unfair to them. I’m sure there are other reasonable solutions, but retroactive re-copyrighting just isn’t one of them.
Post a Comment