Scuze me coming late to the party, I've been terribly busy. I just couldn't
let it lie.
On Monday 14 August 2006 04:26, Patrick Shirkey was like:
> Hartmut Noack wrote:
> >> Why else would I want to protect my IP other than making as much money
> >> as possible from it?
> >
> > Because i want to keep my personal expressions linked to my name.
>
> That shouldn't be a reason to stop people from using your work and
> incorporating it into their own art.
Patrick, I'm finding your POV utterly outrageous.
When one has worked hard to make a very precise artistic statement, it becomes
apparent how easily it could be changed, to either weaken or completely
change the sentiment. I have written several ambient instrumental or acapella
vocal pieces that I don't EVER want to hear some f*wit put a beat to. I have
listeners who would think I had totally lost my integrity as an artist if I
allowed that to happen. If I _was_ into the idea I would release the piece as
CC-BY-SA. We have to assume that anyone who has NOT freely licensed their
music has NOT given that permission.
> Art transforms over time through the application of skills and knowledge
> learnt. If we get precious about other artists incorporating our work
> then we are just trying to stop a natural process of evolution. From my
> POV that is absolutely 100% pointless.
As an artist I love Dinosaurs and Dragons. I don't want them to evolve into
techno-lizards. If I did, I'd write Sci-Fi.
> However, if you want to make money from your art and you want make sure
> that others who make money from using your art are forced to share
> their profit with you it makes sense to license your work with very
> strict conditions.
It certainly does.
> That way you can sue if the money is worth it and keep another industry
> ticking over too. Plus you get all the other benefits like being able to
> say your suing "XXX" for theft of your art work while your rubbing
> shoulders with lesser mortals at the next society event. And if you are
> really lucky the person you are suing will be there too and you can get
> really artistic and have a drunken fight or break something... I mean if
> you are going to have the airs of being and important artist you might
> as well revel in it... Right?
Actually, most of the people on this list couldn't afford to start proceedings
in most cases. This is a bogus argument. I have had the experience of having
my work re-used, the title changed and my name not mentioned, taking legal
action would have achieved nothing, there was never any money in the
equation. Oh, possibly I could have used the situation to get some publicity
for myself, but it would not have resolved my self-indulgent sense of honour
and artistic integrity, which is what keeps me going as an artist. This is
probably all a bit touchy-feely for a hard nosed ideas pirate to understand.
Those of us who do spend our lives coming up with original tunes, words and
arrangements get quite used to watching other people make money from our
endeavours - The Security staff, PA and lighting crew always get paid, the
agents, distributors, venues and promoters usually take their cut and we walk
away with a bit of pocket money if we're lucky. I'm not talking about
abstract mythical music-biz scenarios that only take place in the big money
hype-driven media world, please consider the issue as it would apply to other
people on this list.
Let me put it this way:
Please don't ever remix my tunes unless I have explicitly licensed the piece
in a way that allows it.
Because I'd be hurt and confused - if you don't respect an artists integrity
why would you WANT to use their work?
Just a little bit. Uh huh. Just a little bit. ;)
-- cheers, tim hall http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim We are the people We've been waiting for.Received on Wed Aug 23 20:15:01 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 23 2006 - 20:15:04 EEST