So, I found this post a few weeks ago and have had it open in my browser waiting to be exampled on this here blog. It’s Copyright and Wrong: Why the Rules of Copyright Need to Return to Their Roots in The Economist. I found it to be a well-articulated general argument in support of copyright reform and a nod to the 300th anniversary of the Statute of Anne, which was the Parliamentary precursor (1709) to our U.S. Copyright Law. The Economist is a London-based newspaper know to slant on the liberal side of politics and supportive of globalization, open markets, and human rights issues. Half of their circulation is in the U.S.
Okay, and? If you look a little closer, The Economist does not give bylines. According to the About Us page, byline credit is given in very rare instances where a guest journalist or editorial is considered. Otherwise:
It is written anonymously, because it is a paper whose collective voice and personality matter more than the identities of individual journalists.
Funny, that. So, it’s a little Wikipedian in that tone and voice thing, I suppose. (Liberal…except for when it comes to creative work for hire and any kind of claim, whatsoever, to even the attribution of creative and intellectual property….*blink*)
Now, I noticed the “Reprints and Permissions” link on the top right corner of the page. I figured I go on a little quest and see how far I got. The answer is “not very.” I went to get a quote on how much it should be costing me to legally reproduce their article for, oh, I don’t know, a blog or something, as a student. After about the 5th screen of registration, which included a boatload of personal information, my A.D.D. kicked in and I feared that I would have to put my furry babies up as copyright collateral. I bailed.
So, I figured I’d just hork it. They’re liberal, after all.
Interesting post!
The below quote in particular struck me today, as I am stuck on part of my final presentation. I am trying to decide why it feels more like fair use to appropriate the copyrighted work of a Disney-esque corporation rather than the work of one individual. Is there a legal basis for this (ie potential market harm) or is it purely moral/sentimental? This has gotten me thinking!
“The idea of extending copyright also has a moral appeal. Intellectual property can seem very like real property, especially when it is yours, and not some faceless corporation’s. As a result people feel that once they own it—especially if they have made it—they should go on owning it, much as they would a house that they could pass on to their descendants.”