Pirate policies. Are government funded artists willing to give up their rights to the work? [With poll]

Truthiness said :

I have previously been a full time artist, but even relative success was insufficient to sustain a family.

And now we finally hear the truth.

If I can’t be a success, then everyone else must be held back from been a success to.

In answer to your questions, my sizeable throbbing capitalist paycheck goes almost entirely toward becoming self sufficient and not having to work so much, if another way could be found to achieve this goal, I would gladly forgo my excessive wealth. I want my kids to not have to put up with the same unsustainable and exploitative lifestyle I have been forced into.

Without being too specific, I am an EL2 level IT contractor in the public service, the work I do is almost exclusively using open source technologies, and my work is recontributed to the relevant projects where possible. I also run a small business to do with open source software and hardware.

I have previously been a full time artist, but even relative success was insufficient to sustain a family. Several years ago I made the choice to open source all my work, I haven’t seen a cent from my own art since, but my work has now been remixed tens of thousands of times into movies and games, songs and images. I consider the collective cultural impact of those works to be more important than any meager capital I may have eeked out of the market.

Personally I would like to see government and corporate sponsorship for prolific open source contributors to popular projects, a kind of scholarship for contribution to humanity’s collective benefit. Such a scheme could be incredibly productive and low cost, In the long term I could see such a scheme even potentially employing the majority of our populace and out competing capitalism.

Truthiness said :

Is this where we compare economic penises to determine social hierarchy? I put it to you that the merits of an idea can be determined without reverting to the relative authority of the speakers.

That’s your straw man, not mine. Asking what you are prepared to sacrifice for the principles you are so keen to impose on others has nothing to do with hierarchy and everything to do with determining the hypocrisy of your stance.

Truthiness said :

Surprising as it may seem, it is possible to be a “functional member” of society while still being highly critical of the entire rigged economic paradigm. Indeed I put my criticisms of the system precisely down to my familiarity with economic history.

So in other words as a ‘functional member’ of a rigged economic paradigm, you would like that rigged economic paradigm to remain unchanged in regards to your personal situation but you would like to see it undermined on behalf of other people who rely on it?

Is this where we compare economic penises to determine social hierarchy? I put it to you that the merits of an idea can be determined without reverting to the relative authority of the speakers.

Surprising as it may seem, it is possible to be a “functional member” of society while still being highly critical of the entire rigged economic paradigm. Indeed I put my criticisms of the system precisely down to my familiarity with economic history.

So you’re willing to forego your capitalist paycheck, then, and consider your work to be part of our collective cultural legacy? Come work for me, and instead of paying a wage I’ll stick your name on a banner and hang it outside, and everyone can share in your work for free.

I want to know what all you proponents of freeloading are planning to sacrifice here? You’re keen as mustard to sacrifice other people’s incomes on the alter of your principles, so I want to know what you create for money, and how you are sharing it with society?

Making artist compete for capital, just to eat and live, is like making economists sing for their supper, arbitrary and unnecessary. We have more than enough to go around.

We are all freeloaders on our cultural inheritance, whether your a “self made man” or a “dole bludger”, we are all resting on the laurels of history. There are no unique ideas, no original inspiration, every action we take is a remix of existing ideas.

The history of innovation can not be split into individual unconnected ideas, it is an unbroken line of indivisible interrelationships. No man is an island, no idea truly his, our collective cultural inheritance is the foundation upon which each successive generation builds. We do not pluck ideas from the virgin ether, we only remix the ideas of those who came before.

The more we partition ideas into walled gardens, the lower the foundation of freely available common thought we leave for future generations. If we allow this intellectual protectionism to continue, we risk placing ourselves in a situation where no progress can be made without buying access to current knowledge.

Copying is not theft, it is an essential part of cultural distribution, observing and copying is the foundation of all discovery. Remixing is not merely derivative imitation, it is the process from which all ideas spring. These acts are the constituent parts from which all progress is made, outlawing our most basic creative processes is totally counter productive.

Intellectual protectionism is advocated by those more interested in short term selfish market capitalisation than the long term well being of our collective cultural legacy.

The only people guilty of “theft of intellectual property” are those who selfishly keep works from entering the public domain.

Competing for capital in a rigged market is an individualistic and deluded pursuit which guarantees a disproportionate amount of capital accumulates to those who began with the most. Forcing an artist with only minimal knowledge of financial markets to compete in an area so far outside their field, to justify their mere survival, is like throwing them to the lions.

We are all recipients of a cultural inheritance, our lives are so good, not because of our individual actions in the market, but because our ancestors were brutal empire builders. Now we have so much, more land and food and resources than we can even use, and we can maintain this lifestyle with only a fraction of the population.

There really is no need to demand our citizens compete individually. I mean they can if that’s their thing, but we certainly don’t need every person competing in a game we’ve already collectively won.

We’re incredibly rich, we do not need to all work all the time. We are collectively pulling down massive over time and earning far more than we actually need, for what? Our own conspicuous consumption? Or is it because we are all hoping to not work some day?

We need to stop vilifying those who aren’t fully employed, I don’t know about you, but I’m actually jealous of them.

It was only a matter of time before you brought up Wikipedia and encyclopaedias.

Wikipedia has indeed been a transformative force. However three things are apparent:

1. It has driven traditional encyclopaedia publishers and some online competitors out of business

2. Wikipedia is built on free labour, exploited cleverly by a small group who make considerably personal gain from the efforts of the many.

3. Wikipedia has made information more available, but what is the quality of the information and it’s contribution to society? Countless articles to which respected and authoritative contributors have made additions have had those additions rejected because Wikipedia is driven by a mixture of consensus, populism, and group think.

In addition, Wikipedia has been exploited, and in turn has exploited other sources. You will now frequently see Wikipedia used as sources in journalism, with comical results when the Wikipedia article is wrong. And in turn many copyrighted sources are ripped off on Wikipedia.

So you’re saying that an example that has driven many people out of work, businesses out of business, and has diminished the quality of knowledge in favour of broad, consensus driven information is a reason for making the arts open source. Another own goal I would say.

As for Linus Torvald, or more broadly Linux. Another own goal.
Linux distros are generally well behind the commercial operating systems developed under copyright.

The exception is those commercialised versions of Linux, which surprise surprise are protected by intellectual property laws. In the case of Red Hat Enterprise, use of trademark registrations to ensure they retain control over the versions they make.

They still release source code in line with open source principles, but they use trademarks to protect their ideas.

c_c: you don’t seem to have a grasp of the difference between the concept of free (gratis) and free (freedom), and what the latter means for society.

I think most would agree that the most successful creative commons endeavour would be Wikipedia. Wikipedia has transformed the way people seek information, and the benefit to the world at an economic level is many multiples of the money spent on it.
Do you call people who look up Wikipedia freeloaders?
Would the world be better off if Wikipedia charged a licensing fee?
Pre-Wikipedia Encyclopedias were very expensive to produce, very expensive to buy, and very quickly became out of date.
Wikipedia, via Creative Commons, has made collecting knowledge cheaper, quicker and more useful, with more topics in more depth than ever possible under the old business model.

Similarly, when Linus Torvalds uploaded his pet project to the internet back in 1991, he never imagined that in 21 years time a derivative of his software would end up touching on the lives of almost everyone on the planet. The Linux kernel powers so many things from supercomputers running climate simulations, to Android phones, websites, Google, routers, media players etc.
None of this would have been possible had he sought to commercially license his software, even cheaply.

It is probably not likely that an arts grant in Canberra will change the world like the above two examples did, but perhaps they will morph into something greater than itself? We won’t know unless we let it.

Glen Takkenberg
Pirate Party ACT

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

C_C, It doesn’t seem like you know much about how the interwebs work. If something is in data form, there is no way to stop it being passed around.

Nor was their any way to prevent CDs, DVDs, video cassettes, 8-tracks, vinyls, cassettes, silver-halide prints, books, newspapers etc… being passed around and copied.

You’d have to be more than a little silly to think the internet was the first medium to permit both the sharing of and theft of intellectual property.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

If a artist is being funded by my taxes, I should have legal acces to anything that comes of it.

No doubt the tax I pay is going to you in some form: Family Tax Benefit, Education Rebate. So I’m going to drop by your hours and pick up the laptop and school uniforms I helped pay for.

I’m going to try the same logic on my doctor next time. If my taxes helped pay for his medical degree (and by today’s figures the taxpayer contributes around $20,000 per semester course for a medical student, so easily $160,000 a year for their degree), then I should be able to see him for free. He already drives an Audi so he won’t be put out if I do.

And how will that access work for a physical, one of a kind piece if every taxpayer has legal access to it? Sculptures, oil on canvas, how exactly will we divide the ownership over that between all 23m taxpayers.
I know, we can require that it be put on display… wait, that’s already part of the grants process.

This is such Mickey Mouse logic its pathetic.

Truthiness said :

Artists should not be forced to compete in a market for capital like gladiators. Artists should be free to create and imagine in their own time and space without being scorned for not ceaselessly working toward endless capital gain.

Good artists can sell their work (and do quite well). Those who can’t need to find other means of support (such as a 9-5 job).

C_C, It doesn’t seem like you know much about how the interwebs work. If something is in data form, there is no way to stop it being passed around.

If a artist is being funded by my taxes, I should have legal acces to anything that comes of it.

c_c said :

DrKoresh said :

Damn. I’m… not sure what to think. I kind of love the idea and I kind of hate it. I definitely think C_C spat the dummy when he said

c_c said :

And Glen, you and the Pirate Party are free-loading leeches on society.

Arguing that your policy will be good for artists because it will enable them better exposure and allow others to make derivative works shows that you have neither an understanding of the arts, nor a respect for artists. You treat the arts sector with disdain, dressed up as care in a manner most disingenuous.

Copyright is the law, copyright is what fuels innovation. And best of all, copyright is automatic under Commonwealth law and international treaties and cannot be displaced by Creative Commons.

I don’t know how he can accuse you of essentially being anathema to the arts sector, seems to me he’s either not involved in it himself or he is and has a very high opinion of his own work.

I love the idea of there being more modern and quality ideas in the public domain, and I can see it creating interest in making art where perhaps there was none before. ‘

You’re not getting my vote, not this time around, if you’ve got yourselves together enough next time around to register as a proper party I’ll definitely reconsider though. Good luck.

Dr Koresh,

I am very involved in the arts and also read a significant amount about what is happening both in Australia and overseas in several areas of the visual arts. So I speak with a fair amount of insight and research to back up what I say.

Luckily I don’t derive much income from the arts, nor have I ever had the intention of making it a career, so this wouldn’t affect me. It would however affect a lot of people, and the industry as a whole over time.

What I am saying is quite simple, public money going into the arts should be seen as an investment, the product of which is the artist’s work.

Most grants already contain requirements for the work being displayed and distributed when complete. This includes ArtsACT grants, so that’s one of Pirate Party’s argument’s negated.

Many grants contain strict controls on what the money can be used for, so it must go into materials, not capital expenses or living expenses. This is also the case with ArtsACT.

Now if we want to give the public something else back from the investment in arts, let’s make a requirement that any return generated by the artist on their work is to be returned in part to ArtsACT for reinvestment in other grants and programs.
And rather than give it away for free under CC, licence it for a nominal fee so the taxpayer generates a return that can be reinvested in the arts. All without negating the artist’s rights.

It’s fairer for the artist, protects the arts sector, and benefits the taxpayer and community.

What the Pirate Party is proposing benefits no one, except those wishing to use the work of others for free, rather than compensate them or produce their own. It doesn’t benefit the arts, it doesn’t benefit tax payers, it doesn’t support the arts community and it ultimately threatens it.

What the Pirate Party proposes is unfair and punitive – it will only target those artists funded by ArtsACT who create non-physical works. Those who create physical art forms wouldn’t be affected.

This isn’t surprising because if you read the Pirate Party’s policies, they believe intellectual property is inferior to physical property and isn’t real.

Or to quote them:
Real property is something that you can touch. In simple terms, if one person possesses it, another person cannot possess it at the same time. Intellectual property is information. If a person makes a copy of a song, the person who owns the original is not deprived of the song.

The Pirate Party even goes so far as to argue along the lines of natural law, that copyright and ownership of ideas is a manufactured concept, and isn’t valid. Their argument is essentially along the lines of socialism and anarchy.

I obviously haven’t considered this issue in as much detail as you have. I withdraw my comments and offer an apology, you’ve put forth a very well-reasoned argument against what the pirate party is proposing. I mistook it as a push to get more quality and modern works in the public domain, but as you pointed out that is not the only issue with this proposal. And thinking through further, enriching the public domain can be done in a way that doesn’t have to be achieved at the cost of an artist’s integrity or potential to earn from a piece, or at the cost of arts funding.

c_c said :

Takes a stupid and naive person to consider the internet an uncontrolled place.
(And I’ve got the results from issuing DCMA take-down notices to prove it.)

P2P, bittorrents, darknets, IRC, open FTPs and hard drive sharing don’t respond to DMCA take-downs. Even Usenet can’t effect a DMCA take-down once the data has propagated.
Perhaps it would be worth investigating the myriad methods of data transfer people use before invoking the DMCA as the solution.

c_c said :

As I said before, Pirate Party are not advocates for artists rights, they’re advocates for freeloading.

Advocates for take all and pay nothing.

Advocates for selfishness and instant gratification for those who want, while diminishing the rights of those who do.

Advocates for an artist in this case doing 99% of the work, then allowing someone to come along and exploit it, adding their own 1% and gaining benefit from it. It’s exploitation, it’s unfair, and it’s self defeating in the long run.

Those are precisely what we don’t advocate. We believe in supporting artists, supporting community, and growing our cultural capital.
We also recognise the change in economic modelling that a zero marginal cost of production requires.
We can see when attempting to legislate a problem away becomes a lost cause, and laws need to change to make the most of the new opportunities and market dynamics technology creates.

Our current copyright system simply doesn’t work any more. If it did, copyright infringement wouldn’t exist. Hence our push for reforms.

Stuart Biggs
Pirate Party ACT

I speak of freedom for all and you call me selfish?

Artists should not be forced to compete in a market for capital like gladiators. Artists should be free to create and imagine in their own time and space without being scorned for not ceaselessly working toward endless capital gain.

Artists and scientists should be free to remix and discover without being punished for thinking with other peoples “thought property”.

We all need to sustain our basic needs, but that need not mean excessive work. If people are given the means to support themselves and the freedom to create, you’d be amazed what they come up with. Truly great discoveries rarely come out of expensive corporate think tanks, usually they come out of backyard sheds.

Truthiness said :

If cavemen had patent lawyers, we wouldn’t have fire.

And if we didn’t have patent lawyers, we’d still be in caves.

Truthiness said :

The statists rant in fear and anger, they know their capitalistic selfishness can be out competed by open source.

haha, Socialist Alternative, I knew they would jump on this.

Obviously didn’t see the story on Lateline last year about the true plight of artists. Visual and performing artists who earn well below minimum wage, or need to work two or three jobs.

But you don’t want to pay for their work.

Again, selfishness dressed up as concern for their fellow men and women. Very dishonest.

The statists rant in fear and anger, they know their capitalistic selfishness can be out competed by open source.

Already it comes, most of the servers in the world run open source software, government departments are shifting to open source en mass, corporations too, right across the planet. at the Australian Bureau of Statistics they already release most of their art and content under open source licensing, and they are not the only ones by far.

it has been done already, at scales small and large, open source software and art can empower whole communities to remix and value add, by enlarging the scope of the public domain.

Open source hardware is coming, and the capitalists fear it more than anything. They are battling the intellectual property wars so hard right now because if they don’t, they will lose the coming physical property battles.

For the first time in history our community can print our own belongings and buildings, that changes everything. We can print low-cost self sufficient “contour crafted” houses, create community gardens using open source ecology, and have public 3d printing libraries. Everything we need to survive and thrive can be made free and self sustaining. We have the technology, and it is open source.

Every invention in history was either a discovery of a pre-existing property of existence, or a remix of those properties.

self-centered intellectual protectionism is not beneficial to our species, only to the 1% who currently control our collective knowledge.

If cavemen had patent lawyers, we wouldn’t have fire.

Takes a stupid and naive person to consider the internet an uncontrolled place.
(And I’ve got the results from issuing DCMA take-down notices to prove it.)

As I said before, Pirate Party are not advocates for artists rights, they’re advocates for freeloading.

Advocates for take all and pay nothing.

Advocates for selfishness and instant gratification for those who want, while diminishing the rights of those who do.

Advocates for an artist in this case doing 99% of the work, then allowing someone to come along and exploit it, adding their own 1% and gaining benefit from it. It’s exploitation, it’s unfair, and it’s self defeating in the long run.

c_c said :

Dr Koresh,

I am very involved in the arts and also read a significant amount about what is happening both in Australia and overseas in several areas of the visual arts. So I speak with a fair amount of insight and research to back up what I say.

Luckily I don’t derive much income from the arts, nor have I ever had the intention of making it a career, so this wouldn’t affect me. It would however affect a lot of people, and the industry as a whole over time.

What I am saying is quite simple, public money going into the arts should be seen as an investment, the product of which is the artist’s work.

Alternatively, it could be seen that a Creative Commons license preferred grant is commissioned work and taxpayer funded cultural enrichment, and the artist is free to choose whether or not to apply for that particular grant.

c_c said :

Most grants already contain requirements for the work being displayed and distributed when complete. This includes ArtsACT grants, so that’s one of Pirate Party’s argument’s negated.

Negated or supported?

c_c said :

Many grants contain strict controls on what the money can be used for, so it must go into materials, not capital expenses or living expenses. This is also the case with ArtsACT.

Now if we want to give the public something else back from the investment in arts, let’s make a requirement that any return generated by the artist on their work is to be returned in part to ArtsACT for reinvestment in other grants and programs.
And rather than give it away for free under CC, licence it for a nominal fee so the taxpayer generates a return that can be reinvested in the arts. All without negating the artist’s rights.

It’s fairer for the artist, protects the arts sector, and benefits the taxpayer and community.

That would prevent the creation of derivative works without negotiating copyrights. The purpose of the policy is to provide other artists with a greater pool of material to work with, without increasing the headaches involved with negotiating copyright.
Increasing beaurocratic overhead in the arts sector takes money away from where it should be going.

c_c said :

What the Pirate Party is proposing benefits no one, except those wishing to use the work of others for free, rather than compensate them or produce their own. It doesn’t benefit the arts, it doesn’t benefit tax payers, it doesn’t support the arts community and it ultimately threatens it.

Rather than creating rent-seeking behaviour, it forces the market to recognise the immediate value of the artist’s work. People recognise and pay for work they appreciate.
Look up Humble Indie Bundle, Amanda Palmer, Radiohead, Louis CK, The Oatmeal and Kickstarter for a quick dose.

c_c said :

What the Pirate Party proposes is unfair and punitive – it will only target those artists funded by ArtsACT who create non-physical works. Those who create physical art forms wouldn’t be affected.

The policy does not suggest exclusively offering all grants to artists who choose to release under Creative Commons, but would involve some grants that consider Creative Commons works to be preferred. By no means does the policy advocate complete removal of all grants and replacement with Creative Commons only grants.

I would like to refer you to the discussion on Amanda Palmer’s Blog, as this is a very similar debate.

http://www.amandapalmer.net/blog/20120821/
WANTED: HORN-Y AND STRING-Y VOLUNTEERS FOR THE GRAND THEFT ORCHESTRA TOUR!!!!

and

http://www.amandapalmer.net/blog/20120914/
An open letter in response to amy, re: musicians, volunteering, and the freedom to choose.

c_c said :

This isn’t surprising because if you read the Pirate Party’s policies, they believe intellectual property is inferior to physical property and isn’t real.

That’s quite the straw man there.
Recognition of the difference between physical property and intellectual property does not imply one is inferior. It simply highlights that the economic mechanism of exchange of both must differ, as they are fundamentally different. Historically, intellectual property has been contrained by physical media, so markets could apply traditional exchange mechanisms. With the advent of the digital (identical) copy, this no longer holds true.

c_c said :

Or to quote them:
Real property is something that you can touch. In simple terms, if one person possesses it, another person cannot possess it at the same time. Intellectual property is information. If a person makes a copy of a song, the person who owns the original is not deprived of the song.

The Pirate Party even goes so far as to argue along the lines of natural law, that copyright and ownership of ideas is a manufactured concept, and isn’t valid. Their argument is essentially along the lines of socialism and anarchy.

Actually the argument is along the lines of ‘people share things, and you can’t stop them.’ The easier it is to share something, the more likely somebody WILL share it.

Society functions on the ability for people to communicate and share. Labelling recognition of this as ‘socialism’ because a sanctioned financial transaction doesn’t take place belittles both society and the concept of socialism.
As the internet has demonstrated admirably, the distribution channel for digital art is now uncontrolled. Pandora’s box is open.
Recognising this and advocating adaptation of legislation to promote artist’s survival is a far cry from declaring open slather, or attempting to criminalise the all too human reaction to share things you like so others can enjoy them too.

Stuart Biggs
Pirate Party ACT

I find myself agreeing with c_c on this. Copyright should not be viewed as something undesirable, stifling artistic creation.

I fail to see how Creative Commons licensing could benefit anyone apart from businesses who can profit from artistic works, without having to pay for it. As for the question of access, I’d be very surprised if as a taxpayer, I couldn’t access any creative work produced by an artist for the Government – whether that is viewing their sculpture, reading their words, viewing their art, or listening to their music. Yes, I want to have access to works I’ve helped to pay for – but I don’t believe that means I should be able to take that work and use it in whichever way I see fit.

I’m a photographer, and this reminds me of plenty of stories I’ve read from people willing to let magazines and online sites use their photographs, with the promise of photographic credits. The reality ends up being a small print credit, that 99.9% of people ignore, while the magazine profits from the photographer’s work. Would you be willing to go and work for a company for a week, free of charge, just so you could include that on your resume? I consider the ‘get access to a wider audience and have your work seen!’ argument to be similar.

Besides, who really wants to see a derivative work based on the Belco Owl? I shudder to think…

I trust the Pirate Party will be advocating that ALL private enterprises that receive government funds or grants are expected to surrender IP rights to their work, such as patents?

colourful sydney racing identity said :

housebound said :

When the rest of us sign any standard short or long-form contract with government, there is a clause that assigns some form of copyright over to the government. Usually it is “all copyright”, sometimes it is “all copyright”, but agrees to attach the creator’s name to the work – effectively granting moral copyright.

Moral copyright is what artists and creators of other works should fight tooth and nail to retain.

Contrary to what some on this forum claim, you can sign your copyright away. And contrary to what the Pirates seem to think, it is often the case that government contracts force people to sign some or all rights away. That said, I haven’t seen any contracts for the public art we have had inflicted on us.

Really, the whole policy seems a bit odd when you look at it like this. I’d like to see some further explanation from the Pirates, because I don’t believe they want to strip moral copyright for a minute.

Huh?

When I have produced work for the government, it has always been very clear that what I produce is wholehearted their property. 100%, no ifs, buts or maybes. But then I have never produced anything artistic. I have, however, contracted graphic designers to do work for a department, and again, the product they have produced belonged to the customer.

The art world is different in this respect to almost everything else. I imagine that it is the way the unique abilities if artistic people have been recognized over the development of the current status quo.

Would be interested to see more detail about how the pirates actually see this working. Will it mean the government will have the right to on-sell miniatures or any future phallic owl purchases?

DrKoresh said :

Damn. I’m… not sure what to think. I kind of love the idea and I kind of hate it. I definitely think C_C spat the dummy when he said

c_c said :

And Glen, you and the Pirate Party are free-loading leeches on society.

Arguing that your policy will be good for artists because it will enable them better exposure and allow others to make derivative works shows that you have neither an understanding of the arts, nor a respect for artists. You treat the arts sector with disdain, dressed up as care in a manner most disingenuous.

Copyright is the law, copyright is what fuels innovation. And best of all, copyright is automatic under Commonwealth law and international treaties and cannot be displaced by Creative Commons.

I don’t know how he can accuse you of essentially being anathema to the arts sector, seems to me he’s either not involved in it himself or he is and has a very high opinion of his own work.

I love the idea of there being more modern and quality ideas in the public domain, and I can see it creating interest in making art where perhaps there was none before. ‘

You’re not getting my vote, not this time around, if you’ve got yourselves together enough next time around to register as a proper party I’ll definitely reconsider though. Good luck.

Dr Koresh,

I am very involved in the arts and also read a significant amount about what is happening both in Australia and overseas in several areas of the visual arts. So I speak with a fair amount of insight and research to back up what I say.

Luckily I don’t derive much income from the arts, nor have I ever had the intention of making it a career, so this wouldn’t affect me. It would however affect a lot of people, and the industry as a whole over time.

What I am saying is quite simple, public money going into the arts should be seen as an investment, the product of which is the artist’s work.

Most grants already contain requirements for the work being displayed and distributed when complete. This includes ArtsACT grants, so that’s one of Pirate Party’s argument’s negated.

Many grants contain strict controls on what the money can be used for, so it must go into materials, not capital expenses or living expenses. This is also the case with ArtsACT.

Now if we want to give the public something else back from the investment in arts, let’s make a requirement that any return generated by the artist on their work is to be returned in part to ArtsACT for reinvestment in other grants and programs.
And rather than give it away for free under CC, licence it for a nominal fee so the taxpayer generates a return that can be reinvested in the arts. All without negating the artist’s rights.

It’s fairer for the artist, protects the arts sector, and benefits the taxpayer and community.

What the Pirate Party is proposing benefits no one, except those wishing to use the work of others for free, rather than compensate them or produce their own. It doesn’t benefit the arts, it doesn’t benefit tax payers, it doesn’t support the arts community and it ultimately threatens it.

What the Pirate Party proposes is unfair and punitive – it will only target those artists funded by ArtsACT who create non-physical works. Those who create physical art forms wouldn’t be affected.

This isn’t surprising because if you read the Pirate Party’s policies, they believe intellectual property is inferior to physical property and isn’t real.

Or to quote them:
Real property is something that you can touch. In simple terms, if one person possesses it, another person cannot possess it at the same time. Intellectual property is information. If a person makes a copy of a song, the person who owns the original is not deprived of the song.

The Pirate Party even goes so far as to argue along the lines of natural law, that copyright and ownership of ideas is a manufactured concept, and isn’t valid. Their argument is essentially along the lines of socialism and anarchy.

Damn. I’m… not sure what to think. I kind of love the idea and I kind of hate it. I definitely think C_C spat the dummy when he said

c_c said :

And Glen, you and the Pirate Party are free-loading leeches on society.

Arguing that your policy will be good for artists because it will enable them better exposure and allow others to make derivative works shows that you have neither an understanding of the arts, nor a respect for artists. You treat the arts sector with disdain, dressed up as care in a manner most disingenuous.

Copyright is the law, copyright is what fuels innovation. And best of all, copyright is automatic under Commonwealth law and international treaties and cannot be displaced by Creative Commons.

I don’t know how he can accuse you of essentially being anathema to the arts sector, seems to me he’s either not involved in it himself or he is and has a very high opinion of his own work. I love the idea of there being more modern and quality ideas in the public domain, and I can see it creating interest in making art where perhaps there was none before. ‘

You’re not getting my vote, not this time around, if you’ve got yourselves together enough next time around to register as a proper party I’ll definitely reconsider though. Good luck.

housebound said :

When the rest of us sign any standard short or long-form contract with government, there is a clause that assigns some form of copyright over to the government. Usually it is “all copyright”, sometimes it is “all copyright”, but agrees to attach the creator’s name to the work – effectively granting moral copyright.

Moral copyright is what artists and creators of other works should fight tooth and nail to retain.

Contrary to what some on this forum claim, you can sign your copyright away. And contrary to what the Pirates seem to think, it is often the case that government contracts force people to sign some or all rights away. That said, I haven’t seen any contracts for the public art we have had inflicted on us.

Really, the whole policy seems a bit odd when you look at it like this. I’d like to see some further explanation from the Pirates, because I don’t believe they want to strip moral copyright for a minute.

Huh?

housebound said :

When the rest of us sign any standard short or long-form contract with government, there is a clause that assigns some form of copyright over to the government. Usually it is “all copyright”, sometimes it is “all copyright”, but agrees to attach the creator’s name to the work – effectively granting moral copyright.

What contracts contain such clauses?

When the rest of us sign any standard short or long-form contract with government, there is a clause that assigns some form of copyright over to the government. Usually it is “all copyright”, sometimes it is “all copyright”, but agrees to attach the creator’s name to the work – effectively granting moral copyright.

Moral copyright is what artists and creators of other works should fight tooth and nail to retain.

Contrary to what some on this forum claim, you can sign your copyright away. And contrary to what the Pirates seem to think, it is often the case that government contracts force people to sign some or all rights away. That said, I haven’t seen any contracts for the public art we have had inflicted on us.

Really, the whole policy seems a bit odd when you look at it like this. I’d like to see some further explanation from the Pirates, because I don’t believe they want to strip moral copyright for a minute.

I think this is a good idea. I would like to know what kind of a “proportion” they are thinking. I certainly can’t see the harm in trialing it.

If the government is going to fund something like art, I think the public should have the greatest possible access to it (beyond standing and staring at it). This isn’t a suggestion to force all artists to give up their rights – we are talking about *some* grants, and only those artists who agree with the CC licensing need to apply for them. If artists don’t like the idea, then they won’t apply for the grants and the idea can be scrapped.

What better day to release their policies?

Arrrrrrr, me hearties!

And I support Creative Commons licensing 100%.

harvyk1 said :

…obviously a grant would not permit gov’t co to have access to your entire back catalog or any future works.

Well, obviously. Not sure where that idea came from?

harvyk1 said :

A creative commons license can prevent companies from using an artists work for free to make large profits without having to attribute the artist (and / or without having to actually pay the artist).

So does copyright. The difference is with copyright alone, companies need to ask artists, they can’t just take.

Look at any magazine, newspaper, or their electronic equivalents, and you’ll see images attributed to artists under creative commons, usually in very tiny print. Not all CC works allow commercial use, but a lot do.

Every time you see that, an artist has given away their work for free while a company has made a profit. And the more that happens, the fewer artists, designers and photographers media companies will keep on staff or choose to hire.

Ultimately, what Pirate Party is advocating has nothing to do with supporting artists, or supporting the community. It has nothing to do with ensuring work is seen or shared because copyright as it stands now doesn’t inhibit any of that.

What they’re advocating is freeloading. The right to take what they want, when they want, for free and to do with it as they please.

It’s self serving. And because of how they’ve chosen to dress it up, it’s also very dishonest.

harvyk1 said :

Second of all, technically if an artist has been given funding for a project, it would not be too much of a stretch of the imagination (or law) to think of the gov’t as the client, and therefore any work produced by the artist to actually belong to the client (in this case the ACT gov’t), and in that case it would be up to the client to decide what sort of usage rights are attached to that work.

I should probably clarify this, any work done as part of the grant, obviously a grant would not permit gov’t co to have access to your entire back catalog or any future works.

Also whilst I think about it, even in open licensing arrangements, there are degrees of open licensing as well, from the “this is free, and if you even think about using my work, anything you produce must be as free as well.”, to the “this is free, you may use this and reference this as you like, but you can not change it or remove my name from it”. To the “this is free, use this in any way you like, you are not bound by any terms”.

It should be mentioned, Creative Commons is not the removal of all licensing, it is simply a licensing structure which allows re-use for certain predefined purposes, under certain conditions without needing to obtain permission from the original author. A creative commons license can prevent companies from using an artists work for free to make large profits without having to attribute the artist (and / or without having to actually pay the artist).

harvyk1 said :

c_c, it appears you have no real concept of copyright.

First thing, copyright can be cancelled out by creative commons. If I create something I can easily say “I no longer want rights to this piece of work, anyone may use it” and automatically copyright goes right out the window.

Oh dear, someone telling someone they don’t understand something while demonstrating they do not understand it themselves. Own goal for the win.

Creative Commons does not cancel copyright. Nothing does, short of releasing the work into the public domain, in which case Creative Commons doesn’t need to apply because the work no longer has an IP owner.

Creative Commons is a ‘licence’ – necessarily it can only exist along side copyright, in addition to it, but never usurping or replacing it, because ironically, it is only with copyright protection that creative commons can exist and the CC licence can be granted.

harvyk1 said :

Second of all, technically if an artist has been given funding for a project, it would not be too much of a stretch of the imagination (or law) to think of the gov’t as the client, and therefore any work produced by the artist to actually belong to the client (in this case the ACT gov’t), and in that case it would be up to the client to decide what sort of usage rights are attached to that work.

Very rare for the client to attain copyright, it’s certainly not automatic, for under law it resides with the automatically resides with the original creator.

But as the ACT Government is the ‘client’ and ACT taxpayers the investor, I would expect a portion of any return the artist makes to be returned to the community. And that is why I would rather see the artist be contractually bound to return a portion of any commercial return made on the work to ArtsACT.

As for not having a duty to feed artists, let’s go after the welfare bludgers blowing Cenrelink cheques on booze and smokes, popping out kids they can’t afford first. Then we can talk about what artists do and don’t deserve.

c_c, it appears you have no real concept of copyright.

First thing, copyright can be cancelled out by creative commons. If I create something I can easily say “I no longer want rights to this piece of work, anyone may use it” and automatically copyright goes right out the window.

Second of all, technically if an artist has been given funding for a project, it would not be too much of a stretch of the imagination (or law) to think of the gov’t as the client, and therefore any work produced by the artist to actually belong to the client (in this case the ACT gov’t), and in that case it would be up to the client to decide what sort of usage rights are attached to that work.

Third, the world does not owe artists a living. Don’t get me wrong, I love a good piece of art work as much as the next person, and I have no qualms in gov’ts giving money to arts projects. But an attitude of “it’s not fair it’s not fair, won’t somebody please think of the artists” does not fly with me. I know it’s more than possible for someone to make a living from their art alone (my sister for example), and she didn’t do it by sitting there waiting for a handout, she got off her arse and did things about it.

And Glen, you and the Pirate Party are free-loading leeches on society.

Arguing that your policy will be good for artists because it will enable them better exposure and allow others to make derivative works shows that you have neither an understanding of the arts, nor a respect for artists. You treat the arts sector with disdain, dressed up as care in a manner most disingenuous.

Copyright is the law, copyright is what fuels innovation. And best of all, copyright is automatic under Commonwealth law and international treaties and cannot be displaced by Creative Commons.

Can’t believe so many people support this, judging by the poll result so far.

I would have thought taxpayers would more smartly see government support of the arts as a financial investment. In which case the smart thing for tax payers to want is an undertaking from artist who receive funding that they will return a percentage of any commercial return they make on the work to ArtsACT, which in turn can support other artists.

What Creative Commons does is actually damage copyright law, undermine the entire arts sector and the livelihood of artists, and let artists be exploited.

It’s not smart for artists, it’s not smart for taxpayers.

95% in favour of the policy so far, I’m glad so many people share our view 🙂

Creative Commons licensing will give artists the best chance at having their works seen and/or heard, and encourage other local artists to remix and enhance the work.
If we are publicly funding works, don’t we want to have access to it?

Lets make Canberra into a cultural hub.

Glen Takkenberg
Pirate Party ACT