At 08:11 AM 7/3/99 +0200, Nicola (Dj Batman) Battista
wrote:
>>"..reproduce, modify, adapt, publish,
>> and create derivative works..."
>>
>>interestingly, this new wording reads a bit like the kind of >>agreement
one of us culture recyclers might write, in a >>different context...
>yup, Steev... the only trouble is that they won't be doing >anything
"creative" with our pages... they're just gonna make >money out of some
crappy cd-r collection...
Exactly, Nicole. What amazes me is the usual double standard that the
corporate world applies to itself, but not to the artists and creative
people who actually produce everything -- including the great works of art
in our society: Appropriating, plagiarizing and creating works of a
derivative nature are OK for us (in the name of Profit), but not OK for you
artists (in the name of Art). When artists stand up for their rights and
say what's good for the goose is good for the gander, the corporate
congloms cry Copyright Violation and throw the high-priced attorneys at us.
As a former free-lance magazine and newspaper writer, as well as artist,
I've been monitoring and speaking out about the copyright battles between
freelance writers and corporate congloms who want to stake claim to
everything writers create the minute pen hits paper. I've refused to sign
contracts that editors asked me to sign that demands for the publisher "the
nonexclusive right to exercise, by itself or through third parties, the
rights granted herein in any form in which the Work may be published,
reproduced, distributed, performed, displayed or transmitted (including,
but not limited to, electronic and optical versions and in any other media
now existing or hereafter developed) in whole or in part, whether or not
combined with works of others, in perpetuity throughout the universe...."
These types of contracts have mostly gone unchallenged by the unaware
writerly hordes except for a handful of groups such as the American Society
for Authors and Journalists (www.asja.org), and have been for the most part
difficult for writers to fight (see Tasini vs. The New York Times --
Ruling: Case dismissed. Publishers win. Writers lose.)
Yahoo et al are now applying these types of strong-arm tactics to
homesteaders and other online creators who may not realize they are signing
away all rights to their works at the click of a submit button agreeing to
all-inclusive terms of service.
As recombinant artists, we should in turn claim "the nonexclusive right to
exercise, by itself or through third parties, the rights granted herein in
any form in which Works may be published, reproduced, distributed,
performed, displayed or transmitted (including, but not limited to,
electronic and optical versions and in any other media now existing or
hereafter developed) in whole or in part, whether or not combined with
works of others, in perpetuity throughout the universe...."
Think we could get away with it for a minute -- much less in perpetuity
throughout the universe?
Angela Genusa
agenusaATmindspring.com
----------------------------------------------------
"The last word in stolentelling!"
— James Joyce, Finnegan's Wake
----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori list archives & other information are at
http://detritus.net/contact/rumori
----------------------------------------------------
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.