Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Copyright - Is it only to protect rich people's profits?
Everytime I think about copyright I can't help but think that it only works for rich people
Let's say you are poor and you sing this amazing song that you "own" in bar.
Next thing you know, a famous singer is singing your song and making millions from your song.
Has this ever happened and the poor person was able to stop the famous singer from using his/her song? Because I doubt it
I doubt any famous singer has ever stolen a song they heard in a bar to begin with, so to then add that a person sued and recovered compensation? Probably not.
However, like I said, I don't know of any case where anyone has even claimed that a famous singer stole their song but they were too poor to protect it.
In reality, most famous singers have enough money and would buy the rights rather than risking a lawsuit.
I think you're making up both a problem and an assumed outcome here.
Any case you can reference where the poor person claimed your scenario happened?
It enriches the owners of the recording companies, the agents, the producers. When they extented the copyright protection from 5 years to 15 years (I forget the actually limits) back in the 90's, those are the people who made out. Same when they said restaurants had to pay to play songs on their jukeboxes. It was the producers and agents who made out.
You're looking at a very limited view of copyright. Copyright is intended to protect the owner of the work, which isn't always some fatcat rich person. If you write a novel or publish research and someone else tries to pass your work off as their own, you now have legal rights and protections for compensation. If you just tell a guy at a bar that you have a great idea for a movie and later that movie gets made, well, you're out of luck.
As a friend to many artists and musicians, and also an artist myself, I have to say that copyright really does protect all kinds of people.
When a somewhat famous vocalist who was a dear friend of mine died earlier this year, it was sickening the number of people who suddenly wanted to make a buck off his name. They stole images (which belong to the photographers) and logos (which belong to the band) and printed shirts, stickers, magnets...and were trying to sell them all over the internet. I helped bring all of these bootlegs to the attention of the band, and their lawyer sent out cease and desist orders. Still, it only works with sellers who a.) respect such legal correspondence, and b.) are in the US. The Chinese bootleggers are still at it, and their garbage is still up for sale. Fortunately most of the fans do respect the rights of the group and know better than to buy it.
If I put my time and effort into a piece of art, and sell it to someone, I don't want to see them making prints and selling them later. I am the only one who should have the right to do that, unless I sign away that right. This matters because I have the ability to control limited edition numbered prints, and make sure that they meet my standards of quality.
Let's say you are poor and you sing this amazing song that you "own" in bar.
Next thing you know, a famous singer is singing your song and making millions from your song.
Original works are instantaneously copyrighted upon creation. The only exception to that is if you are my employee and I'm paying you to create something. For independent contractors like a photographer the copyright remains with photographer unless it's specifically in the contract.
I doubt any famous singer has ever stolen a song they heard in a bar to begin with, so to then add that a person sued and recovered compensation? Probably not. Any case you can reference where the poor person claimed your scenario happened?
Led Zeppelin - don't recall which song it was. I heard the original version done by some 'random' artist. Very very very similar, few words changes, same baseline beat, slower tempo....but if I was a judge, I'd call it infringement.
I don't know how the case went though.
Led Zeppelin - don't recall which song it was. I heard the original version done by some 'random' artist. Very very very similar, few words changes, same baseline beat, slower tempo....but if I was a judge, I'd call it infringement.
I don't know how the case went though.
Copyrights protect the creator of the copyrighted thing...be it a song, idea, book, etc.. It has NOTHING to do with "rich" or "poor"..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
