I cant believe this. Intellectual property frivolty (1 Viewer)

[John Watson]

Perhaps they shouldn't have mentioned Cage's name. If they hadn't, then this (paying his estate, some corporation that "owns' his work, etc) truly would have been an absurd contention.

Frankly, even if Cage is "credited" with some achievement, there should be some point after which it becomes public domain. Its well said that there is nothing new under the sun, and giving financial rewards to the genetic offspring of some one who did something once, or to the types who acquire others "work" with legal and accounting techniques can be surreal. It could condemn posterity to the chaotic world of say, Bill Gates?

There's a good thread on Public Domain in the SOFTWARE section right now..

 

[MickeS]

Actually, now that you mention it, I think there is a point, IIRC it's 50 years after the death of the creator of the work, or something like that...

 

[ThomasC]

you can read up on public domain here:
http://www.nyls.edu/samuels/copyrigh...es/public.html
you're right, it is 50 years beyond the life of the artist when they work becomes public domain...at least i think so. i'm not too keen on reading technical lawyer mumbo jumbo.

 

[BrianB]

Perhaps they shouldn't have mentioned Cage's name. If they hadn't, then this (paying his estate, some corporation that "owns' his work, etc) truly would have been an absurd contention.

Indeed. Unfortunately, Batt /did/ credit Cage originally.

 

[brentl]

I guess we are trying to settle the "if a tree falls in the forest" argument.

Lets title a song ... "A tree fell in the forest and nobody was there" and have 5 minutes if silence.

It's just as silly.

Brent

 

[BrianB]

I guess we are trying to settle the "if a tree falls in the forest" argument.

Nope, because you've fallen for the red herring. The fact that the track appears to be silence is completely & utterly irrelevant. Batt credited John Cage on a track on his album. When it came to dispensing royalties, Batt tried to get around it.

 

[Leo Hinze]

Even though it isn't exaclty what the case is about, copyrighting a specific performance of which silence is a major part is neither silly or ridiculous. It is no more ridiculous or silly than going to an art gallery and seeing a piece of art that is simply a blank white canvas stretched over a frame.

If you find those things ridiculous, you might want to try seeing things from another point of view. Whether or not you or I actually like the art or even consider it art is not the point. The artist considered it art, and created it, so therefore it is art and copyrighted.

 

[Michael Reuben]

There is a mistaken assumption running through this thread.

Something does not have to be a work of art or an artistic expression to be eligible for copyright. It only has to be an original expression in a tangible form. For example, this message could be copyrighted.

To illustrate how utterly absurd this is, I'm going to copyright the following intellectual work titled, "Blank space in an HTF posting." Here, now, is my presentation:

You have arguably created a copyrightable work, but the real issues lie elsewhere. The first is whether you could demonstrate that someone else who left a blank space in an HTF message has infringed on your copyright. Under normal circumstances, you probably couldn't establish that your blank contained sufficient originality of expression to prove infringement. However, if someone left a blank space and added the notation, "I copied this from Ryan Wright", you'd have a decent claim.

The second issue is whether there's enough at stake to make the whole exercise worthwhile. In this hypothetical, there obviously wouldn't be. In the Batt/Cage situation, there obviously was.

M.

 

[Ryan Wright]

Under normal circumstances, you probably couldn't establish that your blank contained sufficient originality of expression to prove infringement

Good call, Michael. This makes sense. I suppose, if Bratt credited Cage, then he admitted to taking his inspiration from him and thus owes him some share of the $0 in profit he "made" from the track. This would also mean that, should I decide to create a song of silence, nobody can do a damn thing about it because it isn't "sufficient originality of expression."