this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
1162 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

66465 readers
4549 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 54 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Copyright has not, was not intended to, and does not currently, pay artists.

You are correct, copyright is ownership, not income. I own the copyright for all my work (but not work for hire) and what I do with it is my discretion.

What is income, is the content I sell for the price acceptable to the buyer. Copyright (as originally conceived) is my protection so someone doesn't take my work and use it to undermine my skillset. One of the reasons why penalties for copyright infringement don't need actual damages and why Facebook (and other AI companies) are starting to sweat bullets and hire lawyers.

That said, as a creative who relied on artistic income and pays other creatives appropriately, modern copyright law is far, far overreaching and in need of major overhaul. Gatekeeping was never the intent of early copyright and can fuck right off; if I paid for it, they don't get to say no.

[–] Arcka@midwest.social 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Copyright does not give the holder control over every "use", especially something as vague as "using it to undermine their skillset".

Copyright gives the rights holder a limited monopoly on three activities: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly.

Not all uses involve making a copy, derivative, or performance.

[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 0 points 1 day ago

Bingo. I was being more general in my response, but that is the more technical way of putting it.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

modern copyright law is far, far overreaching and in need of major overhaul.

https://rufuspollock.com/papers/optimal_copyright_term.pdf

This research paper from Rufus Pollock in 2009 suggests that the optimal timeframe for copyright is 15 years. I've been referencing this for, well, 16 years now, a year longer than the optimum copyright range. If I recall correctly I first saw this referenced by Mike Masnick of techdirt.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Gatekeeping absolutely was the intention of copyright, not to provide artists with income.

[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

By gatekeeping I mean the use of digital methods to verify or restrict use of purchased copyright material after a sale such as Digital rights management, encryption such as CSS/AACS/HDCP, or obfuscation.

The whole "you didn't buy a copy, you bought a license" BS undermines what copyright was supposed to be IMO.