Copyright History

"Some commentators try to trace the origins [of copyright] to time immemorial." -Vaver (32)

Copyright is not something original, innate, or natural. The copying of an artist's work was criticized at times by the author, but for most of civilized history the movement of ideas was considered paramount. No law existed in Rome mentioning copyright at all. At the Library of Alexandria in 40 AD researchers traveled across the seas with the sole mandate of retrieving and copying every text for the library.


The idea of limiting the access to certain works was sometimes expressed physically. Expensive books were often locked or chained to the lecterns on which they sat so their pages could not be taken. Even in present day architecture is used to limit access for profit i.e. in movie theaters.

The Beginning of IP
Up until the invention of the printing press in the 1470's, copyright was hardly an issue as all copying had to be done by hand and as a result was time consuming and costly. When printing presses became more common, people began using them to copy and distribute material they liked at rates no one really hadt expected.

People copied history books, novels, religious works and the works. Plagiarism was commited as well as reverse plagiarism in which works were printed under well known names for the pupose of boosting sales.

While this unregulated material was sincerely a problem, the government's response was partly a reaction to the potential for the spread of seditious material.

Both problems were solved by creating a centralized regulator of printed material: a guild named The Company of Stationers. This company was granted the sole power to own and operate printing presses and were even granted the power to destroy those not in their control. In return for this power they were obligated to run material by the crown's censor.

This is how the system ran for 150yrs, until a revolution in 1700.

Copyright formally began in the U.K. with the passing of the Statute of Anne, also known as the Copyright Act of 1709. The act stated it's purpose clearly:

"To promote the Progress of Science..., by securing for limited Times to Authors.... the exclusive Right to their... Writings" and remains the assumed role of the copyright law today.

It was not until the Berne Convention in 1886 that Copyright became recognizable across country boarders. The agreement extended copyright protection to authors in participating sovereign nations.

More recent global copyright measures:

World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WIPO) 1996

Protects computer programs as literary works.

Protects databases.

Makes it illegal to remove rights management from data.

Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) 1994

Standardized global copyright enforcement for Intellectual property.

Administered by the World Trade Organization.

The evolution of Copyright Law

In 1790, the law looked like this:

	Publish	Transform
Commercial	©	Free
Noncommercial	Free	Free

By the end of the 19th century, the law had changed to this:

	Publish	Transform
Commercial	©	©
Noncommercial	Free	Free

Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law—if published, which again, given the economics of publishing at the time, means if offered commercially. But noncommercial publishing and transformation were still essentially free.

In 1909 the law changed to regulate copies, not publishing, and after this change, the scope of the law was tied to technology. As the technology of copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law expanded. Thus by 1975, as photocopying machines became more common, the law began to look like this:

	Publish	Transform
Commercial	©	©
Noncommercial	©/Free	Free

With the emergence of digital technologies, especially in the context of a digital network, the law now looks like this:

	Publish	Transform
Commercial	©	©
Noncommercial	©	©

source: Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture: how big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. New York: Penguin, 2004.

Copyright: Advantages and Disadvantages

Copyright has several key advantages:

Right to Produce/Reproduce - Copyright gives the creator of a piece of intellectual property (This includes Literary, Musical, Dramatic, or Artistic work; not ideas) the sole right to produce and reproduce their work.

Right to Authorize - These rights include the right to authorize others to produce or reproduce your work as well as the right broadcast your work.

Protection - Copyright prevents your work from being stolen or misused by others.

Moral Rights - Copyright allows the holder of the copyright to object to uses of their work that they find morally objectionable.

For a Limited Time only - Copyright only lasts for a limited time in Canada. It is different depending on the country of origin. But in Canada it generally lasts for 50 years after the death of the author, or in the case of cinematographic works 50 years after the date of "publication" or public release. This could be a good thing in that influential work will eventually pass into the public domain and be free for everyone to use.

These are several key disadvantages to Copyright holders:

Inability to Share Work - Copyrights key advantage is also it's primary disadvantage. Copyright does not allow you to openly permit others to use your work or to distribute it, even if they are not doing it for profit. This can mean that your work is disseminated slowly or not at all.

Authorship is not Ownership - You must own the copyright to be able to exercise the rights that it grants, and just being the creator of the work does not always guarantee ownership. In some cases the owner is actually the person who commissioned the work, or the company for whom the work was produced.

No Provision for Parody - Canadian copyright law does not allow for parodying of work without permission. Canada does not have a parody defense to infringement. Furthermore, Canadian copyright law does not make a distinction between using a work for commercial or non-commercial purposes. So a fan fiction author would not be successful in arguing that they wrote their Corner Gas derived story and did not make any money off of it. Any use of those characters would still be an infringement. Some copyright owners may not care if their copyrighted works are being sourced for fan fiction and others might, even if used for non-commercial purposes. (http://creativecommons.ca/index.php?p=scenario1)

Ten copyright myths:

(Bouchoux 129-131)

1: If I attribute the work to the author there can be no infringement.

(coincidentally, posting this list for you to read is copyright infringement)

2: If it`s on the internet it is free for all to use.

3: If i just take a little its ok.

4: If I paraphrase there can be no copyright violation.

5: I can freely play the radio or television at my business for the enjoyment of my customers.

6: Once I own a work I can do anything I want with it.

7: Any nonprofit use is permissible.

8: If its just for me, it`s OK.

9: I didn`t know what I did was wrong, so there can be no violation.

10: I didn`t do it. If something you own is being used to make the copy.


Source: Bouchoux, Deborah E. Protecting Your Company's Intellectual Property. New York, NY: AMACON, 2001.

What is Creative Commons?

Lawrence Lessig founded the Creative Commons in 2001 in response to the shrinking public domain. The Creative Commons is a modified set of free copyright licenses that which allow the copyright holder to share their work while still retaining some control over how it is used.

The idea behind the Creative Commons is to allow people to change their copyright licenses from “all rights reserved” to “some rights reserved.” This is not an alternative to copyright. It is meant to work in conjunction with copyright so that people can remix and share their ideas without fear that they will be exploited for doing so.

**************************************

Their are 4 types of Creative Commons Licenses that can be applied to your work:

1. Attribution. You let people copy, distribute, display, perform, and remix your copyrighted work, as long as they give you credit the way you request. All CC licenses contain this property.
2. NonCommercial. You let people copy, distribute, display, perform, and remix your work for non-commercial purposes only. If they want to use your work for commercial purposes, they must contact you for permission.
3. NoDerivatives. You let people copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of your work — not make derivative works based on it. If they want to alter, transform, build upon, or remix your work, they must contact you for permission.
4. ShareAlike*. You let people create remixes and derivative works based on your creative work, as long as they only distribute them under the same Creative Commons license that your original work was published under.

**************************************

There are three major advantages to using the Creative Commons:

• Protection: Allows you to share work without losing your rights to it.

• Noncommercial: Allows other people to share your work for non-commercial purposes.

• Non Exclusive: Allowing you to have multiple licenses open with multiple parties. Allowing you to share your work with some for free and/or license it for money to others

• ShareAlike* Lock: The ShareAlike license locks derivative works into using the same license.
  

There are several major cons to the Creative Commons licenses:

• Moral Rights: Unlike a standard copyright license creative commons does not allow you to object to the derogatory treatment of your work in derivative works.

• Non-Revocable: While creative commons licenses can be changed at any time, once the work is acquired under a creative commons license it cannot be re-licensed. Although creative commons license cannot be revoked they can be changed to prevent future use.

source: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ

C.C. Case Study: Nina Paley

Official website: http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/



Sita Sings the Blues is a 2008 animated feature film written, directed, and animated by Nina Paley.
The story is about the tragic love story between Sita, an ancient Indian goddess, and her beloved Lord and husband Rama.

****************************************************

Some interesting facts...

Expenses:

• $80,000 Production
• $50,000 License fees
• $20,000 Legal fees
• $120,000 Food/ rent/ living/ personal expenses (3 years)
  

------------
Total: $270,000 *Note: She paid $0 for promotion/ advertising!

Income:

• $23,000 Total donation from people who appreicate her giving out free content
• $19,000 Profits from her online store which sells merchandise and DVDs
• $3,000 (out of total box office tally of $22,350) Theatrical distribution revenues
• $3,000 Additional DVD distribution
• $3,000 Broadcast television distribution
• $4,000 Renvenue from cinemas in Seattle which showed the film

------------
Total: $ 55,000


source: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/11/23/how-to-make-55000-by-giving-away-your-work

Moral Rights

Copyright laws in most jurisdictions around the world grant creators “moral rights” which may provide some redress if a derivative work represents a “derogatory treatment” of the licensor's work. Moral rights give an original author the right to object to “derogatory treatment” of their work; “derogatory treatment” is typically defined as “distortion or mutilation” of the work or treatment that is “prejudicial to the honor, or reputation of the author.” Creative Commons licenses (with the exception of Canada) do not affect any moral rights licensors may have.

source: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ

Survey results...

1) How has copyright affected your creative work?
Person A: I haven't encountered anything yet, I suppose music is always an issue.
Person B: Don't know if this counts as one. but our school apparently has copyright (?) to our projects. I don't know if it will affect me much though.
Person C: I guess it restricts the amount of work i can put in my portfolio. Copyrighted characters are not allowed to be in portfolios.
Person D: Copyright limits creativity, but limited copyright is fine.
Person E: Not a whole lot, since not that many works have been put into actual production.
Person F: I haven't experienced much negative effects of this, but I see more help from it rather than having it affect me in a negative way.
Person G: No
Person H: It hasn't really.
Person I: The copyright issues affect significantly during , for example, the process of designing character and brainstorming storyline through the creation of animated short film. We would have to try to avoid our designs not to look alike from the previous released works.
Person J: Not really, especially since my work has been put on hold for right now due to the lack of finances.
Person K: It doesn't affect the process of making art for me. but maybe now that i've learnt more about CR i tend to be much more cautious when publishing my art in public space (including internet)

2) Has the threat of copyright infringment stopped you from expressing some of your ideas?
Person A: Not yet.
Person B: No.
Person C: No, but i am always wondering if i am copying someone's idea.
Person D: Nothing is new anyway. as long as we are notified and credited.
Person E: No, I will just do it!
Person F: I think in this day and age, if you don't know how to express your ideas fully in a meaningful way without infringing on copyright, then you are better off finding a better way of doing so...it's harsh, but I think if you are creative enough, you should find your own way of doing it.
Person G: No.
Person H: No.
Person I: Though the copyright infringment limits some of the ideas that we would have thought that we own the originality, the threat won't stop us to express the ideas. we might just need to think of how to change and modify in order to express the ideas in a different way.
Person J: No, i just go for it.
Person K: Not really. i usually just do it, THEN worry about all the aftermath haha. (when it comes to art making, i mean)

3) Do you "pirate" media off the internet?
Person A: I'm really good at not doing this. I rent movies and buy them if I want to own them. Usually I will listen to music through you tube say- but I have bought music off of iTunes in the past and I love owning CD's. This is different for short films though- I usually always watch them on the computer if I can. I suppose its harder to find short films besides the internet.
I understand that many people do this because they can't afford to rent or buy media.
Person B: Yes, i download music, movies.
Person C: What do you deem as "pirate"? If it means gathering resources from a resource site, then yes.
Person D: Yes.
Person E: No.
Person F: Yes.
Person G: Not really. I have used some images for teaching purposes but not otherwise. I've never sought to profit from using images obtained from the Internet.
Person H: Yes.
Person I: Yes, but if it is good, i will buy the products. So pirating media is very much like a preview before making purchases.
Person J: Yes, it's bad but yes.
Person K: Unfortunately i do... i'm attempting to stop doing so but it's difficult. first of all you need to triumph all the temptation of "free stuff"...

4) Do you feel artists are properly compensated for their work?
Person A: I suppose it depends on the situation and the 'true' value of the work.
Person B: I am not sure about fine art artists, but i think for the musicians they are not well compensated.
Person C: Some artists choose to be paid lowly. Hence the cycle of poor prices has begun.
Person D: Most of the time, no. but most of them don't really care, I think.
Person E: Not really.
Person F: Yes, because there are systems in place to do so, but NO, because not everyone can effectively take advantage of such systems.
Person G: That's not a copyright question, it's a business question. I suspect much work by artists is undervalued.
Person H: No.
Person I: Yes.
Person J: No, some are, but most artists aren't.
Person K: Some are. however, most of us aren't. i actually heard a story for that matter lately. a friend of mine uploaded her huge oil paintings on fb, and some random surfer saw them and contacted her trying to get some customized paintings done. now when it came to compensation, my friend asked what his budget was, and he simply said "no more than 200 bucks". note that he's actually asking her to paint something as big as 40" x 88". my friend was so upset by it, because 200 was simply too little, even for materials.
you can find a lot of unreasonable requests for artworks on sites such as craigslist. people are trying to bargain and keep their pocket as tight as possible. some will try to "exchange" exposure for $$. which i think is unfair.

5) Where do you engage with new information/ideas most? (i.e. Blogs, Magazines, Newspapers, News sites, Television, Online Videos, Library etc.)
Person A: The news and newspaper for news. And online (usually blogs) for more art related ideas.
Person B: Blogs.
Person C: Blogs, Online Videos, Existing animation.
Person D: All of the above.
Person E: Everywhere!
Person F: Twitter or blogs...wow, my range is so limited!
Person G: News sites, magazines, colleagues.
Person H: Websites, blogs.
Person I: From magazines, movies, Televisions, to books in library.
Person J: Everywhere.
Person K: Blogs mostly. maybe tv and video sites too.

Interview with Martin Rose, Head of the Animation department and Free Lance Producer at the NFB

Interview with Martin Rose
Dec. 2nd 2009

Apologies to Martin Rose I was not able to record our conversation so this is the paraphrased version. Thank you to Martin for agreeing to meet with us and share his insights.

John Oman: What can you tell me about the animation club?

Martin Rose: It was a student club put together by Stephanie Blakey and Chelsea Kerr.

JO: Did it have a positive impact on the students learning?

MR: Recognised that the animation club had a positive impact on the students of ECU and regretted that it had to end. He further explained that the right to copy or reproduce should not confused to the right to exhibit.

JO: Why was the club eventually shut down?

MR: The club was eventually shut down because the school had not purchased the rights to all the films that the club was screening. Martin further noted that just inviting the students to some one's home and screening them there could also be dangerous because there are limits on the amount of people that can view a film in a personal residence. There was news that a similar club in New York was successfully sued and shut down.

JO: In your experience how have copyright laws benefited or impeded the growth of animation in general?

MR: Noted that the school is always expanding it's collection of rights and we now have legal access to screen more films here than ever before. He also noted that current copyright legislation is extremely prohibitive in that it prevents student initiatives such as the animation club.

JO: What is your position at the NFB?

MR: Is a free lance producer.

JO: What can you tell us, if anything, about the NFB's regular distribution agreement?

MR: Noted that the NFB was a publicly funded organization, and therefore has different operational parameters than a private one. The NFB generally does two kinds of productions full and partial. On full productions the NFB acquires all the rights and handles all the distribution, and on co-productions there is a fair division of funds and distribution responsibilities and it is on more of a case for case basis.

JO: Does the artist working with the NFB retain any rights to their own work?

MR: Generally the NFB acquires all rights to the work, this is normally because they are funding the project. He further noted that the NFB is not a granting agency they are a production and distribution agency. They will develop the film with the director.

JO: Has the NFB ever used a creative commons license or would they consider using one in the future?

MR: Although respects the philosophical roots of the creative commons recognized that the NFB as a publicly funded agency must abide by certain legislation and therefore must acquire all the rights to a film.

JO: Any advice for future film makers on copyright and the creative commons?

MR: Although Martin feels that getting ones work out is very important he was very cautionary about how one does it. Always read the contract before signing it.

Martin also noted that there are instances where ECU students have made money on their films through distribution agreements and that immediately putting ones film up on the creative commons is not always the best idea. he suggests saving ones film until after it's 2 year festival life and then putting it up on the creative commons. He also noted that it is important to have a contract in place and to abide by it, as well as making sure your rights are protected.

Martin recommended The Graphic Arts Manuel which is in the library and contains useful information on artist's contracts as well as templates of those contracts.

Interview with Stephanie Blakey, Founder of the Animation Club

Interview with Stephanie
Nov 29, 2009

JOman: We are doing a presentation on copyright, we understand you run the animation club at Emily Carr, is that correct?

Steph: Yes, I ran the club for 2-3 years.

JOman: Did you have any problems with copyright infringment in those 2-3 years?

Steph: No I did not.

JOman: Were you actually infringing on copyright?

Steph: I didn't have any problems with infringment.

JOman: So how did the club eventually come to an end?

Steph: Well it was after the copyright speaker in professional practices. I was speaking to Leslie Bishko and Martin [Rose] appeared and said to shut it down. One of the librarians in the school had seen the poster for Coraline around school and had reported it to martin and said we had to pay a fee.

JOman: That sucks

JOman: So you didn't pay the fee?

Steph: Instead of paying the fee which we didn't know how much it was we just shut everything down.

JOman: Did you actually own the material you had shown?

Steph: Yeah, we had owned the dvd that we were showing.

JOman: So you had payed someone for the dvd?

Steph: That is correct.

JOman: Do you think that this is going to prevent you in the future from showing things?

Steph: Well, I got away with it for a while, so I think I'll need to do more research before I show more so I don't get in trouble.

JOman: So do you think that a whole bunch of people have lost out on the opportunity to see and experience films in general?

Steph: Can you rephrase?

JOman: Would you say this was a positive outcome for the film makers?

Steph: Probably not, I had seen a teacher who was really excited about showing this film to ~20 foreign exchange students, and they missed out. I pretty much had to tell them no, you can't see it.

JOman: Anything you would like to add?

Steph: I hate red tape!