[A2k] Question for Paris Accord, regarding uses of music
performances and films in other works
Seth Johnson
seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org
Sun Jun 11 08:27:01 2006
I believe that if the ubiquity of computing, connectivity and
coding is successfully cancelled by WIPO and others, then we may
return to a world in which juxtaposing someone's work with
someone else's will seem a violation to those who have a sense of
that.
But it isn't that it's some youngster lipsyncing on a video that
makes it seem not such a big deal; it's really that everyone has
the capacity.
In the Hollywood world, having your song on a big time movie
soundtrack was a signal to everyone that you had "arrived." In a
world of movie production to which there's limited access to the
means for delivering strong production values, being selected for
combination in this way was something that everybody knew
everybody would take seriously.
So if a work was combined in this way, either: 1) because it was
a "major motion picture" the sense of implicit endorsement was
strong, in that the selected work was being taken seriously by
the "arrived" world and the selected work's artist was likely
taking the "major motion picture" seriously enough to allow
themselves to be exposed that way; or 2) the sense of trying to
latch onto someone else's success was strong because it was an
independent production selecting someone's work for greater
"cred" -- in a world of "major motion pictures."
In a world of ubiquitous computing, connectivity and coding, that
goes out the window. Motion pictures become conversation,
presentations no more "serious" than that they are prepared in
advance for an occasion or for posterity, and increasingly
similar to alluding to lines of a poet, whether in a composition
or conversation.
The other reason why this "moral right" notion seems to me to be
of less and less import is that I believe more and more people
will have a greater sense of the construction and artifice of
juxtaposition -- so more and more people will have a greater
sense of the "trick" of playing a song in the background.
I do think there will always be privileged venues that make
people feel like there's something at stake. But I also think
that the sense that some people seem to have, of something at
stake, will decrease, while that sense will also become more and
more a matter of context -- i.e., in this town where they have a
club that everybody goes to, they keep playing my song in such
and such a context that I don't like. And when it comes to that,
some people will think it matters, and some won't. I think the
people who think it doesn't matter will gain ground, because
people will just say "all they're doing is playing your song in
such and such a way, and everybody knows that's what they're
doing."
Seth
Volker Grassmuck wrote:
>
> Jamie, I agree that the question you raise is crucial. It figured
> prominently in a resent symposium by documentary film makers who were
> talking about mind-boggeling experiences with official archives of
> Nazi footage blocking usage in documentaries.
>
> The traditional answer to it is the quotation exception. And that's a
> pretty strong one. As Ricketson has pointed out it's the only
> mandatory exception in Bern, therefore much stronger than any other
> exception. From which he draws the quite revolutionary conclusion
> that it should be made enforceabel against DRM. And since it does not
> have a specific beneficiary but everyone can make use of this
> exception, mandating that DRMs should routinely allow digital
> excerpting would blow DRM out the window. So let's include that,
> referencing it to Ricketson's WIPO Study. Look for the last two
> pages:
>
> Sam Ricketson, WIPO Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright
> and Related Rights in the Digital Environment (WIPO SCCR/9/7),
> Geneva, June 2003,
> http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/2003/sccr/pdf/sccr_9_7.pdf
>
> A quotation to my understanding can not interfere with the moral
> rights you mention. But then again, a kid hopping up and down in her
> bedroom singing along to her favorite popsong and uploading the video
> recording to youtube would probably not be considered a musical
> quotation.
>
> Volker
>
> On 10 Jun 2006 at 11:23, James Love wrote:
>
> > Today there are huge problems in addressing copyright clearances for
> > using music in new musical works, music if films, films in films,
> > etc....
> >
> > Article 27.2 of the Declaration of Human rights says that authors can
> > protect their moral and material interests in certain works. To
> > what extent should the Accord address the ability of creative
> > communities to use create works of others, to make new creative works?
> >
> > To me, this is quite important to address.
> >
> > In my view, authors and performers of music should have some say over
> > the use of their works in commercials selling products (candidates?),
> > but when works are used in new creative works, their interests are
> > narrower..... I don't think they should expect to be paid when works
> > are used in strictly non-commercial ways, but they would have some
> > expectation to benefit economically when works are used in some
> > commerical ventures. But here, I don't find the exclusive rights
> > model as interesting as one of compensatory liability..... where you
> > can use works, so long as a certain percentage of your revenue stream
> > is shared with the persons whose works you have used, without
> > permission.
> >
> > If you look at youtube, myspace, google video, etc.... (works created
> > by amateurs, but hosted by firms that that sell ads), it would seem
> > that copyright owners might want to share in the revenue stream from
> > the site, but not restrict the ability of the amateurs to create the
> > works and share them.
> >
> > Addressing also the problems facing documentaries, commentary, etc,
> > are quite important, in terms of making sure that works can be used,
> > without these absolute requires to clear rights of works used in new
> > works.
> >
> > Jamie
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org / mailto:james.love@cptech.org /
> > tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040
> >
> > "If everyone thinks the same: No one thinks." Bill Walton
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > A2k mailing list
> > A2k@lists.essential.org
> > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>
> --
> WOS 4. Information Freedom Rules
> 14-16 Sept. 2006, Berlin, http://wizards-of-os.org
> iRights http://iRights.info
> copy = right http://privatkopie.net
> home: http://waste.informatik.hu-berlin.de/Grassmuck
>
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
--
RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P!
http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc
DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders!
New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org
[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc
I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication.
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.