Very interesting. I am a stickler for not violating copywrites on things like movies and music. The people who created them deserve to benefit financially from their ideas. But I can see how it can stifle creativity. Look at the Vanilla Ice vs. David Bowie/Queen issue where VI copied that tiny little riff from "Under Pressure". The two songs were vastly different but VI still ended up having to pay to continue to use that riff. The fashion industry knows that their clients will pay for the cache of the name and authentic product. Those of us who don't normally buy their products aren't going to suddenly look at their $8000 couture skirt in a magazine and start saving up our money. No, we are probably going to go to Target or JCPenneys and look for something similar. Or, if we sew, make our own. It is all very interesting.
fascinating . much food for thought .the whole copyright thing really has to be hashed out to become fair and coherent in this digital age . im all for protection when its fair and gives to the original designer / author / musician but how is it fair that i cannot sell or give away digital products ? after all had i purchased a physical book/ dress/ cd ,it then belongs to me i have fulfilled my contract with the originator and it is mine to do with as i please . digital products though i own them offers no such option without infringing copyright. there definitely needs to be a shift to some sort of middle ground that protects the producers but not at the expense of consumers
I was unaware of this. As I listened to and watched this video, I was remembering something someone ranted about on the internet: a person researched historic clothing before designing a costume to wear to a faire-event and someone tried file a lawsuit against her for a perceived copyright infringement. I now understand why the mean person lost the lawsuit against the nice costumed researcher.
In giving away a physical book, you are transferring ownership of one copy, the result being that you no longer own it unless you engage in a laborious process like scanning or photocopy it first. Giving away digital products, on the other hand, easily allows the copying and transferring of unlimited duplicates of that product, all the while enabling the original purchaser to keep possession of said product. This of course cheats the author, songwriter or designer of the opportunity to sell his work to all those who received free digital copies from you. While the transfer of a single physical book also robs a copy write holder of potential sales, the very self limiting nature of this method of transfer protects the copy write holder from being globally defrauded. There's a big difference.
It would seem to me, in my uneducated opinion, that the financial aspect of the fashion industry is very much based on branding. Nike is a mainstream example that is known globally. You make an interesting point about open collaboration being a direct result of a lack of copyright protection on articles of clothing.
The same thing goes for type design (aka fonts). I've heard complaints about this in the past from type designers. Not sure what the stance is these days.
13 comments:
wish they had made those same decisions for the seed industry
Very interesting. I am a stickler for not violating copywrites on things like movies and music. The people who created them deserve to benefit financially from their ideas. But I can see how it can stifle creativity. Look at the Vanilla Ice vs. David Bowie/Queen issue where VI copied that tiny little riff from "Under Pressure". The two songs were vastly different but VI still ended up having to pay to continue to use that riff. The fashion industry knows that their clients will pay for the cache of the name and authentic product. Those of us who don't normally buy their products aren't going to suddenly look at their $8000 couture skirt in a magazine and start saving up our money. No, we are probably going to go to Target or JCPenneys and look for something similar. Or, if we sew, make our own.
It is all very interesting.
fascinating . much food for thought .the whole copyright thing really has to be hashed out to become fair and coherent in this digital age . im all for protection when its fair and gives to the original designer / author / musician but how is it fair that i cannot sell or give away digital products ? after all had i purchased a physical book/ dress/ cd ,it then belongs to me i have fulfilled my contract with the originator and it is mine to do with as i please . digital products though i own them offers no such option without infringing copyright.
there definitely needs to be a shift to some sort of middle ground that protects the producers but not at the expense of consumers
I was unaware of this. As I listened to and watched this video, I was remembering something someone ranted about on the internet: a person researched historic clothing before designing a costume to wear to a faire-event and someone tried file a lawsuit against her for a perceived copyright infringement. I now understand why the mean person lost the lawsuit against the nice costumed researcher.
In giving away a physical book, you are transferring ownership of one copy, the result being that you no longer own it unless you engage in a laborious process like scanning or photocopy it first. Giving away digital products, on the other hand, easily allows the copying and transferring of unlimited duplicates of that product, all the while enabling the original purchaser to keep possession of said product. This of course cheats the author, songwriter or designer of the opportunity to sell his work to all those who received free digital copies from you. While the transfer of a single physical book also robs a copy write holder of potential sales, the very self limiting nature of this method of transfer protects the copy write holder from being globally defrauded. There's a big difference.
I looking liked your post as it is very interesting to read thank you
Thanx for sharing informative post, LOve you for your dedication.
It would seem to me, in my uneducated opinion, that the financial aspect of the fashion industry is very much based on branding. Nike is a mainstream example that is known globally. You make an interesting point about open collaboration being a direct result of a lack of copyright protection on articles of clothing.
Please visit My Webblog
The same thing goes for type design (aka fonts). I've heard complaints about this in the past from type designers. Not sure what the stance is these days.
Thoroughly this presentation as it brings to light some ideas I haven't though about before. Thank you for sharing it!
Fantastic article post. Want more.
Really appreciate you sharing this blog article. Want more
Enjoyed every bit of your blog article. Keep writing.
Post a Comment