Stop legalized copyright theft

[Lew Stringer]

I hope it's ok to post this here. I made reference to it in the Reference Section but I think more people follow the General threads, and this is important.

There's new legislation on its way that will affect all creatives and give corporations and copyright thieves more flexibility to profit from images they find on the net. Basically it kind of puts everything in public domain unless the creators take more measures to protect their work.

Now pirates and "filesharers" might think this is great. They would. They're selfish and can't think beyond their own pleasures. But morally, this legislation is repugnant. Comic artist/writer Tim Perkins explains it better over on his blog:

http://www.wizards-keep.blogspot.co.uk/ ... ghted.html

If, like everyone I've spoken to in comics about this, you oppose this legislation there's a petition you can sign here. Over 22,000 signatures so far:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49422

Thanks for your time.

[AndyB]

I agree (and it's completely relevant to comics!) I tweeted it when I read Tim's blog the other day, and although the one person who responded referred to http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... -copyright which states that the Intellectual Property Office would collect a commercial fee and hold it until claimed, I'm not convinced.

Firstly, what does everyone else make of the comments in Wired?

Secondly, my first reaction: what if the owner doesn't want to licence it?

[Lew Stringer]

I agree (and it's completely relevant to comics!) I tweeted it when I read Tim's blog the other day, and although the one person who responded referred to http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... -copyright which states that the Intellectual Property Office would collect a commercial fee and hold it until claimed, I'm not convinced.

Firstly, what does everyone else make of the comments in Wired?

Secondly, my first reaction: what if the owner doesn't want to licence it?

There are some people rebutting it, either through vested interests or because they're not thinking it through. From what I've seen, the people opposing the legislation are on the right track. Yes, of course the government would say otherwise. That's what they do.

[Digifiend]

And what about stuff that's already online? They can't expect people to retroactively add a copyright watermark, and in a lot of cases they can't, because it's already been copied to the Wayback Machine Internet Archive, or it was on a Geocities site and ended up on website rescue mirrors Oocities and Reocities. This legislation would be disastrous for anyone who uses visual media to publish work.

As for the pirates, even when measures are taken, often, all they have to do is crop the image. So the protection would need to take the form of a massive watermark which would often ruin the image.

[Lew Stringer]

And what about stuff that's already online? They can't expect people to retroactively add a copyright watermark, and in a lot of cases they can't, because it's already been copied to the Wayback Machine Internet Archive, or it was on a Geocities site and ended up on website rescue mirrors Oocities and Reocities. This legislation would be disastrous for anyone who uses visual media to publish work.

That's right, which is why photographers are also angry about this.

In the case of comic strips it apparently means that every panel has to be registered as an illustration, or someone could take them out of context for their own gain. It's ludicrous.

It reminds me of something that happened in my town. Cyclists were zooming along footpaths, no bell, no thought of pedestrians, so people complained. The council reacted by painting a white line down the footpath making one side for bicycles only. Instead of enforcing an existing law to protect pedestrians they made it legal for the cyclists to bomb along footpaths, endangering pedestrians even more.

This is the same sort of thing. Copyright law already protected the creator if pirates or corporations took images without consent for their own financial gain. All this legislation does is give freedom to the thieves, creating more work and expense for the original artists to protect work that should automatically be theirs (unless they sign it away) anyway.

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

There's a site that specializes in selling mass-produced comics collections on dvds [I won't provide links or even name them, but I think they come from the USA. It's not really UK comics for sale, at least not in the main] I have no idea why this site is allowed to continue, as they are shamelessly flogging all manner of counterfeit goods. Maybe it's a legal loophole being exploited, I have no idea......

I have never downloaded a comic or a film [legally or otherwise] and it's an area I would rather avoid....like downloading music, it's just too alien a concept to provide much enjoyment from where I see it.

[Lew Stringer]

There's a site that specializes in selling mass-produced comics collections on dvds [I won't provide links or even name them, but I think they come from the USA. It's not really UK comics for sale, at least not in the main] I have no idea why this site is allowed to continue, as they are shamelessly flogging all manner of counterfeit goods. Maybe it's a legal loophole being exploited, I have no idea......

The DVDs I saw advertised were from a UK seller, and some are also sold at marts in the UK. Why don't publishers stop them? I'm not sure. Perhaps they consider the pirates to be small fry that would cost more than it's worth legally to stop them, but those discs are on the increase so there must be an expanding market out there. Perhaps publishers are watching those sites and totting up the sales and when they have enough evidence of how well the pirates are profiting, they'll pounce. Marvel got the FBI on to a pirate in the states. It'll happen again.

Although I did mention piracy in my first post on this topic the main concern of this legislation is that it will allow anyone, from pirates to big corporations, to exploit the work of individuals. The legislation won't make things any different for pirates because they've been acting out of self interest for years anyway.

[AndyB]

That's an excellent point. Time this photographer took down the entire contents of his photo albums on Flickr and reuploaded them with watermarks. Should only take a few weeks.

[philcom55]

Visting the Tate's Roy Lichtenstein retrospective yesterday I was pleased to see that they did at least have a copy of All American men of War no.89 on display, along with a credit for Irv Novick's original drawing upon which the painting 'Whaam!' was based. Unfortunately there's no mention of the sources for Lichtenstein's other canvases - nor the lowly 'hacks' like Jack Kirby and Russ Heath who turned them out!

It kind of makes you wonder whether Lichtenstein or the Tate ever stopped to consider whether they had an obligation (moral or legal) to pass on a percentage of their profits to Novick himself while he was still alive!

- Phil R.

[Marionette]

Visting the Tate's Roy Lichtenstein retrospective yesterday I was pleased to see that they did at least have a copy of All American men of War no.89 on display, along with a credit for Irv Novick's original drawing upon which the painting 'Whaam!' was based. Unfortunately there's no mention of the sources for Lichtenstein's other canvases - nor the lowly 'hacks' like Jack Kirby and Russ Heath who turned them out!

It kind of makes you wonder whether Lichtenstein or the Tate ever stopped to consider whether they had an obligation (moral or legal) to pass on a percentage of their profits to Novick himself while he was still alive!

- Phil R.

At one point I had a notion to print up T-shirts with Lichtenstein designs to sell, since it would be only following his own philosophy, if making a whole lot less money, but then I saw how poor his copies were, compared to the original art he'd stolen it from, and it put me off.

[Marionette]

The DVDs I saw advertised were from a UK seller, and some are also sold at marts in the UK. Why don't publishers stop them?

As far as UK publishers are concerned, it's not actually impinging on their sales because so few of them bother to sell stuff from their back catalogue.

I've tried reporting people who sell discs on ebay but I see the same sellers still there months later, so they don't seem bothered either.

[Stuart V]

I've tried reporting people who sell discs on ebay but I see the same sellers still there months later, so they don't seem bothered either.

I've reported such sellers to e-bay too, and they continue unabated, so I guess e-bay doesn't care so long as they get their cut of the illegal sales.

[Lew Stringer]

I've tried reporting people who sell discs on ebay but I see the same sellers still there months later, so they don't seem bothered either.

I've reported such sellers to e-bay too, and they continue unabated, so I guess e-bay doesn't care so long as they get their cut of the illegal sales.

Same here, so that's at least three people reporting them. I won't bother again though. It's up to the publishers really.

[Digifiend]

I'm not surprised you've given up. If they're not going to act on your complaints, why bother?

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

Some of the dodgy DVDs on e-bay do get stopped, there was some SPIRIT [Will Eisner] comics on disc but they disappeared and never resurfaced. Maybe specific rights-holders bring in the lawyers......

There isn't a lot of DC Thomson stuff available, presumably because everyone knows they are pretty stringent regarding copyright......there is stacks of defunct IPC comics---why doesn't Egmont [or whoever] shut them down?

The 50s EAGLE is never 'out of print' on illegal disc...which seems very odd, especially regarding the banning of the Dan Dare-related imagery on this very forum.