last fifteen years, as has been increasing bandwidth, the Internet has gradually changed the landscape of the artistic, affecting the music first, then to movies and video games and more recently the world of books. Internet has proved to be a road parallel to the traditional, with enormous potential, to the point of distorting the market because of its unlimited capacity for dissemination.
Internet is forcing the arts industry to change, is removing all its foundations. For example, does not seem to get request for the purchase of a movie on line the same as for the purchase of physical material, as many brokerage costs and production disappear. On the other hand, most of the prices of music records and movies, and other materials, is excessive.
At the same time can not accept a world in which the authors and intermediaries, making it possible to arrive to our knowledge of the early works, not charged a euro. The writers, cameramen, actors, sound technicians, translators, etc., Etc., Not air live. They have their fair remuneration, and so we have to understand, because it can not be otherwise. It is not viable an art world where everybody works for free download. At least not with writers, musicians and professional filmmakers.
The text that I want to comment offers a controversial view on copyright and copyright. That is not the same. The former refers to the moral aspects of the author (recognition of authorship, which is not likely to alter their work unless express permission of the author, etc.).. The second (also called rights) relate to economic aspects, linked directly to the work (reproduction, public communication, distribution, manufacturing). To these must be added the related rights, to remunerate the creative intervention of actors, broadcasters, etc.
This essential distinction begins the article. Then we talk about the options for authors to defend their rights: on the one hand collecting (through membership of a managing body of copyright), on the other hand, the self-management . In both cases, it requires proof of authorship , which shows who really are the author of the work that you claim as your own.
From its genesis, any work is subject to copyright. But that is better protected from illegal use, the best proof of authorship is the inscription a record of intellectual property , often dependent on the governments of each country or its laws.
As featured in the article, many intellectual property records (for Spain) allow online registration, but have limitations, such as the impossibility of automatic registration of hanging pictures on sites like Flickr, or Where they do not want to reserve all rights.
Another way to make our proof of authorship is getting a Creative Commons license . They are widely known (even view), by Most people who move through the Internet. They are characterized by determining that not all rights are reserved, but a few. There are different licenses that allow us to note that the authorship must be recognized, or should not be commercial use of the work.
In principle, these licenses are ideal to facilitate the free dissemination of information and culture, especially for posts, photos, etc..
But as the authors explain, these licenses have some important drawbacks. Although designed to be compatible with copyright and copyright transfer free of certain rights involving the CC licenses, has no place in the collective management.
In addition, holders of rights are very difficult to establish how they want to receive a financial reward based on the use made of their works.
addition, the CC licenses grant rights in perpetuity, until they are changed copyright of a work. So if there is a subsequent amendment, will be difficult to prove that a person has made an unlawful use of force. As well as that person will be difficult to show that distributed (for instance use) the work before the amendment of the copyright.
As you can see, these licenses have many drawbacks in the area of \u200b\u200blegal uncertainty of the rights holder.
Another way to register is copyright by Creative Safe, which uses digital signature techniques and is supported by the Ministry of Industry (MITT). Appears to be a good choice, although not without problems. It offers different templates to determine the type of license you want for our work (including CC and GNU), even allows you to put your own text or riders (for what they really have to know very well what we).
offers an API for third parties access to Safe Creative services from your own application.
Finally, it is incompatible with the collective management if you choose a CC license or GNU. If all rights reserved, there is no problem with collective management.
addition, there are specialized portals such as YouLicense (for music) and Getty Images (for pictures), where license our works establish a fee for their use and even receive offers from individuals or companies involved. The licenses obtained in these sites are not inconsistent with collective management.
Subsequently, the authors propose what should be the blueprint for a licensing platform. Be summarized as follows:
-Existence of digitally signed XML (which becomes the digital signature).
That the portal is also a marketing point. To ensure coverage of different models business intends to use the rights defined in the MPEG-21 Media value chain ontology (MVCO).
-Convenience for users and potential buyers registered in the system.
-The system should allow the rights holder to make an offer to limited groups of users (such as special offers to customers).
In this wave, two prototypes have been made of the recording and marketing of content made by the research group DMAG (Distribuited Multimedia Applications Group) Department of Computer Architecture at the Polytechnic University of Catalonia.
Musiteca It is (for music content) and IPOD-DS (which is not limited to a particular content type.) Both platforms are not inconsistent with the collective management, even allow communication with them when they traded some work to manage.
You see, copyright is a very complicated subject and text that have brought us here today illustrates the difficulty even more on the internet. Of course, this is only a summary and invite you to consult the original article, which is of great interest.
0 comments:
Post a Comment