It’s one thing that copyright/IP is such a matter of debate in the creative world, but a whole new layer is added onto that when people say that it only matters for a certain amount of time. You may have read all those articles a few months ago, the same ones telling us about how Mickey Mouse (technically Steamboat Willy) is now up for grabs 95 years after his creation.

There are those who say “as long as it’s popular it shouldn’t be pirated”, those who say “as long as the creator is around”, those who don’t apply a set frame, etc. I’ve even seen people say they wouldn’t dare redistribute paleolithic paintings because it was their spark on the world. What philosophy of statutes of limitation make the most sense to you when it comes to creative work?

  • adam_y@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m telling you this as someone that works in the arts, that’s just not true.

    You can pirate digital material and repackage it. I see illustrators getting their designs ripped off by large scale clothing manufacturers all the time.

    Similarly, I know some acts that have heard their music on adverts and films and haven’t been paid. It seems like it is being stolen if you ask me.

    There needs to be protection or the creation of art becomes a luxury for those that can afford to not make money from it.

    • BitSound@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I respect that you work in the arts. However, I think too many people worried about copyright think that things would look similar to the way they are today, but the situation would be radically different without copyright. For example, Disney wouldn’t exist. You wouldn’t have large corporations taking and not giving back, because those large corporations wouldn’t exist like they do now in the first place.