5 ms·

As an artist by trade, you're damn right I want my kids & grandkids to profit from my IP (though I'm no Walt Disney), whether 20 or 100 years later. Art is diff

As an artist by trade, you're damn right I want my kids & grandkids to profit from my IP (though I'm no Walt Disney), whether 20 or 100 years later. Art is different my friend. I'm not piecing together code from StackOverflow. Why should my heirlooms be sold to the highest bidder outside of my family due to copyright legal loopholes?

slyall 4y ago
Well I assume you are happy with a portion of you and your work's income for the next 100 years going to your teachers ( art and other subjects ) without who you could not have created the work. Also any medical people who treated you or your parents. Teaching and Medicine are skilled jobs that took years to learn. It is hardly fair that you and your heirs get to profit from some teacher's or Doctor's work without them getting a share.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
Family heirlooms? Your art is not a heirloom. It's just information, transferred from your mind into your medium of preference. Information is just bits, nothing but a unique number whose discovery you feel entitled to. You think yourself superior to people who "piece together code from StackOverflow"? You're not. They will prove it to you with machine learning AI.
- pwython 4y ago
  > "Your art is not a heirloom.... you're not entitled to..." What? An heirloom by definition is something passed down in a family for generations. If I created Mickey Mouse for example, why does my future offspring have to give away its rights, perhaps to someone that may use the character in nefarious ways for profit? I fail to see the logic of having a free-for-all on an artist's work just because they're potentially deceased and therefore let someone else receive profits instead of the original creator's family?
  - BeFlatXIII 4y ago
    The family can produce their own works if they want control.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    > What? An heirloom by definition is something passed down in a family for generations. Maybe if you paint a picture on a canvas you could call that physical canvas a heirloom. The copyrights associated with it have nothing to do with that. Anyone can produce a copy. > If I created Mickey Mouse for example, why does my future offspring have to give away its rights > I fail to see the logic of having a free-for-all on an artist's work It's called our public domain rights. Our culture is ours and it belongs to everyone. That's the natural way of things. Public domain is the default. We willingly chose to pretend that we can't copy and distribute your art infinitely at negligble cost so you could make some money and be rewarded for your efforts. We sure as hell didn't do that so you could have functionally infinite rent seeking all the way down to your grand children. It's clear that you're not keeping up your public domain side of the bargain. Why should we keep up our end? We can just stop pretending that your art is artificially scarce. Suddenly, it ceases to be. Just like that.
    - pwython 4y ago
      > "It's clear that you're not keeping up your public domain side of the bargain." Again, my argument doesn't retain to anything related to engineering and the like (eg. aviation software or an entire aircraft). I'm talking about stylized artwork for the sake of art... I'm saying very specific characters and such that would only be [legally] bought in the future purely as an investment, not to iterate or improve upon because the new owners are so passionate about any sort of paintings/drawings/etc.
      - matheusmoreira 4y ago
        > I'm saying very specific characters and such Like the many characters Disney based their works on? https://nyunews.com/opinion/2019/10/01/disney-public-domain-copyright/ https://nyunews.com/opinion/2019/10/01/disney-public-domain-... Those also belong in the public domain after enough time passes. Maybe one day a corporation will make billions off of the characters you created too.
oblio 4y ago
The entire concept that you're financial responsible for more than you direct descendants is frankly absurd. Plus on average you're so far removed from about... the 3rd generation of descendants that it doesn't really matter. Nobody should leave their descendants that much wealth that: 1. they don't need to be productive themselves 2. that the initial wealth has a higher than 1% chance to pass to grandkids Each generation needs to earn their bread. Baby boomers kind of didn't and look at what people are saying now.
BeFlatXIII 4y ago
Perhaps you should have bred smarter heirs who can independently produce their own creative bestsellers.
- pwython 4y ago
  Funny quip, but my children aren't going into creative fields, the topic at hand. And for what it's worth, they're both graduating high school early to pursue medicine.
  - BeFlatXIII 4y ago
    Then it sounds like they are set up for a path of future financial prosperity without needing to ape their father’s creative legacy.

slyall 4y ago

Well I assume you are happy with a portion of you and your work's income for the next 100 years going to your teachers ( art and other subjects ) without who you could not have created the work. Also any medical people who treated you or your parents. Teaching and Medicine are skilled jobs that took years to learn. It is hardly fair that you and your heirs get to profit from some teacher's or Doctor's work without them getting a share.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

Family heirlooms? Your art is not a heirloom. It's just information, transferred from your mind into your medium of preference. Information is just bits, nothing but a unique number whose discovery you feel entitled to. You think yourself superior to people who "piece together code from StackOverflow"? You're not. They will prove it to you with machine learning AI.

pwython 4y ago
> "Your art is not a heirloom.... you're not entitled to..." What? An heirloom by definition is something passed down in a family for generations. If I created Mickey Mouse for example, why does my future offspring have to give away its rights, perhaps to someone that may use the character in nefarious ways for profit? I fail to see the logic of having a free-for-all on an artist's work just because they're potentially deceased and therefore let someone else receive profits instead of the original creator's family?
- BeFlatXIII 4y ago
  The family can produce their own works if they want control.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  > What? An heirloom by definition is something passed down in a family for generations. Maybe if you paint a picture on a canvas you could call that physical canvas a heirloom. The copyrights associated with it have nothing to do with that. Anyone can produce a copy. > If I created Mickey Mouse for example, why does my future offspring have to give away its rights > I fail to see the logic of having a free-for-all on an artist's work It's called our public domain rights. Our culture is ours and it belongs to everyone. That's the natural way of things. Public domain is the default. We willingly chose to pretend that we can't copy and distribute your art infinitely at negligble cost so you could make some money and be rewarded for your efforts. We sure as hell didn't do that so you could have functionally infinite rent seeking all the way down to your grand children. It's clear that you're not keeping up your public domain side of the bargain. Why should we keep up our end? We can just stop pretending that your art is artificially scarce. Suddenly, it ceases to be. Just like that.
  - pwython 4y ago
    > "It's clear that you're not keeping up your public domain side of the bargain." Again, my argument doesn't retain to anything related to engineering and the like (eg. aviation software or an entire aircraft). I'm talking about stylized artwork for the sake of art... I'm saying very specific characters and such that would only be [legally] bought in the future purely as an investment, not to iterate or improve upon because the new owners are so passionate about any sort of paintings/drawings/etc.
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
      > I'm saying very specific characters and such Like the many characters Disney based their works on? https://nyunews.com/opinion/2019/10/01/disney-public-domain-copyright/ https://nyunews.com/opinion/2019/10/01/disney-public-domain-... Those also belong in the public domain after enough time passes. Maybe one day a corporation will make billions off of the characters you created too.

oblio 4y ago

The entire concept that you're financial responsible for more than you direct descendants is frankly absurd. Plus on average you're so far removed from about... the 3rd generation of descendants that it doesn't really matter. Nobody should leave their descendants that much wealth that: 1. they don't need to be productive themselves 2. that the initial wealth has a higher than 1% chance to pass to grandkids Each generation needs to earn their bread. Baby boomers kind of didn't and look at what people are saying now.

BeFlatXIII 4y ago

Perhaps you should have bred smarter heirs who can independently produce their own creative bestsellers.

pwython 4y ago
Funny quip, but my children aren't going into creative fields, the topic at hand. And for what it's worth, they're both graduating high school early to pursue medicine.
- BeFlatXIII 4y ago
  Then it sounds like they are set up for a path of future financial prosperity without needing to ape their father’s creative legacy.