Copyright Royalties are they Archaic

29 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Wed, 2012-01-25 09:37

I want to ask this question with as little PC confusion as possible, meaning not the why's but the morals of royalties.

If I build and design a car and then sell that car should I get a payment every time the new owner uses it, of course I shouldn't that would be ludicrous. However that is exactly what happens with royalties, a film maker or an author writes a film, or book, if it is published or produced there are handsome payouts made for the script or the manuscript to the author or film maker, ie they have been paid for their work. So why should they be paid every time that work is viewed or purchased again.

They are not printing it or having to write it again, they are not putting further chapters or sequences in it, the work remains the same. They are not supplying any thing further for materials to produce it, that's down to whoever manufactures and distributes it. They are selling an item so deserve a payment for each copy they have to produce, but lets face it once 20 million copies have been pressed of say ET who hasn't seen it once already . So How much is it worth after 20 million people have already seen it, and if produce depreciates in value as time progresses why do not copyrights.

So why should they be paid again and again, it seems to me that this is an archaic way of doing things in this modern day. Do you pay your plumber again every time you use the toilet he fitted, no less a job than say writing or singing. or the maker of your TV set every time you turn it on no less creative a machine than a book.

There is also the question that once you have paid for something, why should it be down to someone else to tell you how you can use it. After all they sold it to you it's yours now, why cant I show it to whoever I like.
Does Piccaso's widow get a payment for each person that has viewed his work on display in the Louve, or Does the Tate pay royalties to all the artist's on view there.

What does the Forum think

Wed, 2012-01-25 10:17

ju B

interesting. you've got me wondering now... i think with art/writing there are so many more misses than hits- i guess it makes up for that a little. there is something going on with art now, i think, which means that artists will benefit from their work being re-sold for more than its original price. also it's the writer's skill that makes a piece popular- & only if it's popular does it keep spinning money. work can be sold lock, stock & barrel can't it? copyright & all. if you design or invent something with original components, that can be patented & that patent leased or sold with various conditions, time frames etc attached. so isn't a copyright similar to a design patent? you can sell it as a one off, or be canny about it. if you were already being paid by a company to design something then i figure they'd own the lot. but can it work that way for writers too? in newspapers, mags, etc?

Wed, 2012-01-25 12:20

well-wisher

J.M. Barries royalties from Peter Pan go to Great Ormond Street hospital. I think that's a pretty good argument for royalties.

Oh look, a link. I wonder where it leads.

JoHn

Wed, 2012-01-25 11:31

maddan

The purpose of copyright (and patents) is to grant the creator a time limited monopoly on his or her creation in which to exploit it. This is to prevent artists starving and thus encourage the creation of good things for the greater good of society. It is time limited for much the same reason, so that society eventually gets the full benefit without having the work stifled by the control-freakery of the artist. The reason for all this is that artists are not typically paid to create. They create (write a play, song, book) on spec and then attempt to exploit it themselves, or sell or licence their right to it to an organisation capable of exploiting it. Car designers and plumbers are paid for their work, so have no need of any such rights. A writer working for a newspaper, for example, does not own copyright on his work. The newspaper does under the terms of his contract of employment. Royalties are a thornier business. A book royalty is a private contract between you and the publisher, to whom you have granted the right to publish your novel. A performance royalty is stranger still, involving collection agencies and a sort of open licence granted to the world at large, this is the reason that singing Happy Birthday in public is a potential civil offence. There are those that say copyright is unenforceable in the age of the internet, and they are probably right. There are also those that say that the internet enables alternative revenue sources for the artist, and hopefully they are also right. There are also those that point out that there was no such thing as copyright in the days of Shakespeare, and though you may think he deserved to be better paid, few could argue that it put him off writing plays. Personally, I think that whatever the problems of the modern world, a lack of artistic endeavour is not one, and the loss of copyright would probably do no great harm to society as a whole (for whose benefit, remember, it exists).

Wed, 2012-01-25 13:04

maddan

Jeffrey Archer's royalties go to Jeffrey Archer. I think that negates the J.M.Barry argument.

Wed, 2012-01-25 13:26

Clive-Pearson

Maddan I thank you for the enlightenment, however if you consider the amount that some are paid for their work then the starving artist cliche is a bit old hat. Also a writer be it commissioned or otherwise, is paid for his manuscript for a JOB it may have a fancy title but never the less it's still a job. A Plumber may be able to turn his hand to writing, unlikely a writer would be able to reciprocate. I disagree that copyright is there to protect society, it is purely to protect the money earning potential of any copyrighted article. I also think the JM Barrie argument is the only one I think I could condone as a viable reason for copyright.

Wed, 2012-01-25 13:58

andrea

'...Do you pay your plumber again every time you use the toilet he fitted...' No, but if he fitted a new toilet every time you wanted to use it, you would :) http://www.ukauthors.com

http://www.ukauthors.com

http://www.ukapress.com

Wed, 2012-01-25 14:21

h jenkins

So far as the copyright to Peter Pan is concerned, it actually ran out in 1987, 50 years after Barrie's death. However, Jim Callaghan sponsored a bill to extend some of the rights in this case though G Ormond St have only partial rights. Even these have incidentally been broken several times in the US most notably by Disney. Ah, poor old Disney - they must be short of a few bob and can't afford to pay even a penny to a children's hospital. Helvigo Jenkins

Helvigo Jenkins

Wed, 2012-01-25 14:31

h jenkins

Also, connecting with another thread, I wonder if the sponsors of SOPA intend that GOSH be able to extradite Disney executives to the UK to answer for their apparent theft of intellectual material. I don't think so, do you? Helvigo Jenkins

Helvigo Jenkins

Wed, 2012-01-25 14:38

#10

maddan

I disagree that copyright is there to protect society I didn't say protect, I said benefit. And it's not a matter of opinion, at least in America where the constitution only grants the right in order "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" linky. I think similar reasoning was used when the British law was introduced. Writers, by which I mean novel writers, are rarely paid for their manuscripts in the same way newspaper men are paid to produce articles. They are given an advance recoupable against earnings. Even if the advance is non-recoupable (a gift, essentially) or the work is commissioned, the matter of royalties is still a private contract between the writer and the publisher. Plumbers, by contrast, rarely turn up unannounced, install a bidet, and then nervously present it to you to buy if you want. As regards starving artists, I believe the vast majority of published authors make less than minimum wage.

Wed, 2012-01-25 15:17

#11

Mangone

In reply to Helvigo's question... Not surprisingly America has an extradition agreement with the UK which is not reciprocal… In other words they can insist we extradite people they want but there is no similar requirement that they extradite people to the UK. But I suppose most countries get off lightly considering the agreement that the US had with Iraq whereby its armed forces and more or less anyone connected with them was subject to American law and not Iraqi law - which is essentially why the US are no longer in Iraq because the Iraq government refused to agree to extend the agreement. Not really a surprise considering the atrocities that the Iraqis were forced to swallow including the one that has just been decided… Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich who was originally charged with murder of 24 unarmed Iraqi men, women and children agreed to accept responsibility for providing negligent verbal instructions to the Marines under his command when he told them to "shoot first and ask questions later" "Six of the eight Marines originally accused in the case had their charges dismissed by military judges, and a seventh was cleared of criminal wrongdoing." The verdict has only very recently been announced - he has been "spared jail time"! As for royalties I met a once very famous band member who was reduced to playing third rate venues while the other members were quite well off... he hadn't been involved in writing any of the songs and the royalties from the records made far less in the end.

Wed, 2012-01-25 15:32

#12

h jenkins

Thanks, Mangone, but it wasn't really a serious question. Helvigo Jenkins

Helvigo Jenkins

Wed, 2012-01-25 20:20

#13

Clive-Pearson

I seem to have stirred the pot with this one. Andrea you should go see a doctor or whoever in your family cracks the pan every time they use it,your plumber must love you lol. "No, but if he fitted a new toilet every time you wanted to use it, you would" Otherwise if you have to call him each time you want to use the Jon, he didn't do it right in the first place and you don't have to pay him zilch. Joking aside If an artist is starving, then he should get another job as his vocation choice seems to be misplaced.

Wed, 2012-01-25 20:29

#14

Clive-Pearson

Mangone we don,t really have to comply with the request if we don't want to, in fact just recently there was a case in the news where an English guy was accused of a crime in the US and our Prosecutor said and I quote " The evidence the Attorney General has produced to the Foreign office and the Director of Public Prosecutions, is flimsy and unworkable and MR ....... will not be extradited unless further evidence can be produced" They dropped the charges but if the guy had been extradited you can bet your life they would have convicted him on the so called evidence. It was later discovered that someone else was responsible for the crime he had been accused of,another example of American justice in operation.

Wed, 2012-01-25 20:42

#15

Clive-Pearson

Or these starving artists could do what our latest upstanding foreign visitor did' they could come to England be given a House an income support payment, and plot the overthrow of the government that is now feeding them by planning bombing campaigns because they have no morals or humanity. Then when the country tries to evict them The European Court of Human rights say's we can't. Tell that to the London Bombings Victims, that the people who planned their Murders seem to have more rights than they did. That seems to put Sopa in the Mundane category doesn't it somewhat, and the penny grabbing antics of a few Hollywood spoiled brats and over power'd News moguls.

Wed, 2012-01-25 21:47

#16

maddan

Thu, 2012-01-26 03:17

#17

Richard L. Prov...

Hello Clive---my understanding is if you buy a car, then the lot no longer owns it; you do. If you sell all rights to your magazine art picture, then Outdoor Life, as an example owns it. If you work for a newspaper, all stories, unless you have a special contract, are work for hire, and they own your work. I believe the copyright law for the written word by authors and writers is to provide a sense of potential security should the work receive opportunities for generating revenue. These are my thoughts. In Canada, I own the copyright for all my written work for up to fifty years after passing on. Then it is in the Public Domain. Also my wife and I are allowing free downloads on our novels, from our website at: www.wsprog.com/rp/. And that includes three "for sale" novels which will be free to any ABCTales member, and of course we have posted many stories and poems we wish to share. However we still own all the copyrights, meaning no one is supposed to use our work to generate revenue, without our permission. In the meantime, if someone enjoys our work, we are happy to share it. Best Regards, and I hope this helps with some insight.

Richard L. Provencher

Thu, 2012-01-26 09:47

#18

Clive-Pearson

Thank you Richard what are your thoughts about SOPA and it's probable far reaching effects, such as email interception and private social network message editing. Do you think, that this maybe taking it a bit too far or is it justified in your opinion. Regards to you both Clive

Thu, 2012-01-26 12:49

(Reply to #18) #19

Richard L. Prov...

Those situations scare me. Google apparently has slotted all of our emails or rants we ever made and those who made them are on a list. It bothers me that anyone has this type of monitoring honed to this perfected state. It means we have to be very careful what we say on the Internet. Cheers, from Richard and Esther.

Richard L. Provencher

Thu, 2012-01-26 13:16

#20

Clive-Pearson

Ha ha ha believe me Richard if they look at people who rant I must be at the top of their list. The day I am careful how I express myself is the day that all freedom and democracy dies in this country, hopefully at my age that's something I will never see. As long as people out there keep ranting it won't let the Bas...rds sneak in quietly, and although we can't call a spade a spade now without some idiot calling it racist. We will still be able to shout our disapproval at our politicians who are caught spinning the truth.

Thu, 2012-01-26 23:23

#21

David Kirtley

Without a royalties system no artists/ writers would get paid anything. Book publishers would get all the income from selling books. So the provision of books for a mass market would dry up and we would all have a lot less to read. If it became impossible to earn any income from writing books, writers would do it only for their own pleasure, but they would have to turn their daily efforts to more normal, and far less exciting work, such as plumbing. They would have insufficient time to produce anything of much length or value because they would have to spend most of their time working in standardised non creative jobs. The world would become a much duller, greyer place, particularly for those with artistic or literary interests!

Fri, 2012-01-27 04:07

#22

Mangone

"Without a royalties system no artists/ writers would get paid anything" Can't say I can understand what you mean with this statement David. How does an artist selling his painting, his book, his song, or even his daily performance rely on royalties? I don't argue that royalties can mean a big bonus but they are not the mainstay of most artists.

Fri, 2012-01-27 09:39

#23

maddan

The vast majority of books written produce no royalties for the simple reason that they are never published. A majority of books published produce no royalties because they never make back their advance. They are still written. The fact that they do not make money has never stopped people writing books.

Fri, 2012-01-27 15:08

#24

andrea

'If it became impossible to earn any income from writing books, writers would do it only for their own pleasure, but they would have to turn their daily efforts to more normal, and far less exciting work, such as plumbing.' Most writers do that anyway. It's only the 1% who make it. The rest of us poor souls have to scrape a living Doing Other Things (like plumbing). http://www.ukauthors.com

http://www.ukauthors.com

http://www.ukapress.com

Fri, 2012-01-27 16:22

#25

Clive-Pearson

I think it's clear from the knowledge displayed on this site that the question of copyright is well understood, however as Andrea points out we also know that only 1% of all writers manage to actually get into print. So this means that 99% of the rest of us, may be having to accept an act that will only benefit the few but affect the many. For the same can be said of films only 1% of manuscripts written, actually mange to make it on to celluloid. So again the few are affecting the many, maybe those making money out of those few are ok with that but not me. SOPA and The Senate IP Act should they be made law, will effectively put an end to many sites on here that won't intentionally infringe it but just might. Mainly because as tcook announced on ABC earlier, not everyone will be able to afford a flotilla of lawyers able to instruct them when they are infringing these laws and when they aren't. Seems to me the only ones this law will be protecting are the ones who make the most cash from other peoples talents . We are talking DVD and CD producers of which there only a few to speak of, and film studios who are unfortunate enough to have their product pirated. The fact that they will have already made many Millions of Dollars or Pounds off a production, is just tantamount to greed and nothing else. They say that it cost's the industry $500 million dollars a year in lost revenue, yet they seem to ignore the fact that it also popularises much of their work, that otherwise would be unheard of. Perhaps they should look at the copying of a cd or film as do the artists themselves when they are mimmicked by some one as a compliment and to the fact they are worth copying a sign they have made it. They may also think about the fact it gives them a free advertisment to the piece, and as we all know their main doctrine in the show business world is any publicity is good publicity. Copyright laws are a fact of life and we all agree are needed in some form or other, but maybe it is archaic that the US Government and many others are prepared to spend more on this than they are on public safety and public health issues. That the punishment does not fit the crime and that they put more importance on the acquisition of wealth than for example the death of a child from a drive by shooting. A situation that could be reduced in it's frequent happening, by the simple instigation of a workable gun law in the US, that does not give every Tom, Dick, or Chuck the right to bare arms. Maybe they should think about stopping those sort of crimes before they spend so much on something as harmless as this .

Fri, 2012-01-27 22:43

#26

andrea

I wouldn't get too steamed up about it, Clive - it won't be the little guys, like ABC and UKA they'll be after, but the likes of Pirate Bay and Megaupload (and the hundreds of other movie/music upload/download sites there are). Besides, as mentioned before, it's not so much about copyright (remember those blank cassettes and CDs?)as control, money and power. And votes. http://www.ukauthors.com

http://www.ukauthors.com

http://www.ukapress.com

Fri, 2012-01-27 23:24

#27

Clive-Pearson

I hope your right Andrea but in my experience once a little power is obtained, it's not long before some bright spark finds a way of abusing it. The big boys will have the money and the solicitors to fight back, the little guys will just have to pay up and shut up fact of life it stinks but that's life.

Sat, 2012-01-28 04:13

#28

Mangone

I am currently working on a piece in which I suggest that there is far more to all the increased anti-piracy activity by the US than simply piracy. http://new.abctales.com/story/mangone/what-real-reason-behind-all-recent... Essentially, I see it as a desperate attempt by companies like Apple to fend off foreign competition while sticking to their propriety ethos which locks Apple users into Apple and does all it can to lock out everybody else. So why the desperation? Because user get sick of all the restrictions that come with such an ethos and I have talked to many people who have come close to throwing their Apple gadget against the wall in sheer frustration. Remember the, almost, worldwide attempt by Apple to prevent the sale of Samsung’s Galaxy? In a way, ironically, it is a war between Apple and Google - and we, are caught in the middle... Support one and you get locked in to getting more or less everything from the hardware supplier but support the other and, it is alleged, lose your online privacy. So what is it to be?

Wed, 2012-02-01 12:35

#29

well-wisher

This thread reminded me of the poet Wendy Cope's outrage over seeing her poems printed on the internet. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/dec/08/featuresreviews.guardianrevi...

Oh look, a link. I wonder where it leads.

JoHn

Topic locked