*ducks*
The last two are not mutually exclusive
No. Let’s take Harry Potter.
I acknowledge JK Rowling’s role as creator of the franchise as well as her current devolvement into this transphobe asshole that she is. The material itself is to my knowledge not transphobe (it doesn’t mention transitioning or trans persons itself, and could maybe even be viewed as pro-trans with the whole polyjuice stuff).
So I know the source of this work and can thus be cautious about potential transphobe parts
Her work is (ignoring her) a very popular piece of culture and we as a community should thus be able to extend it further, thus making it a community effort and slowly releasing it from the grasp of Rowling.
So both can work together.
I will not go into more detail about HP or JKR to save us all time.
Second this, especially considering how the mix of public concepts that directly inspired Rowling create a world that is actually very queer suited regardless of her ability to recognise so.
I hope we can one day walk away from her copyright and build a proper public domain magical universe but for now we have to deal with the copyrighted version as the only one that is given a budget for large media formats.
We can also celebrate the input of individual artists working on this media that extends the creators vision beyond her input that we must remain skeptical about.
i like the idea of remembering who came up with stuff…
but yes, copyright bad, i want to draw legal MLP comics.
Agreed, attribution should be a must
I’m confused where copyright comes into this.
We could certainly have a society that doesn’t allow private ownership of ideas but still protects accurate attribution and faithful replication of ideas.
It’s kinda funny. For a while, it looked like the digital age had solved those problems for good.
At the time of the Statute of Anne, Western (Anglo) society was suffering from epistemic chaos caused by bootleg printers producing sloppy incomplete reproductions and obscuring the original author’s message and identity.
But computers are good at making exact copies and preserving sources.
Or at least they were…
Anyway, we should be able to legislate prosocial norms without having to sneak them in through financial instruments. To think otherwise is to uncritically accept the neoliberal frame.
Excellent point!
Point of order, shouldn’t the images in this meme be reversed for this community? (Monocle Poo looking pretty bourgeois…)
I was actually considering that lol, but I thought it might create context confusion for which perspective was being framed as the most “enlightened”
yesyes the tux pooh would have to be sad and bored while regular pooh would be happy to be a bear <3
My personal suggestion would be that anything invented or created that we consider intellectual property now can only be owned by living individuals, whom can exploit their creation for 5 years as they do now, fully dictating who and how gets to use it. This is to maintain the material incentive of being creative.
After those 5 years the IP goes into the public domain, allowing full and free personal and commercial use for anyone.
There is some leg room for a possible fixed percentage going to the inventor or the public after those 5 years as well, but generally the idea is that yes, being smart and making something great should also reward you with first dibs on any commercial opportunity deriving from it, but ONLY you and not some patent farming conglomerate, and only for a fixed time.
Atill owned, still laws. Will be used to abuse. Why pretend justice can exist in capital?
- True: so attribution is a must
- True: so attribution is a must
- True: and attribution is part of how we maintain the social-cultural fabric of what the stock characters we create mean to the people creating new stories with them, or vernacular music, or anything else
