|
 There
is an ongoing dialogue concerning the use and meaning of copyright. It
is often nasty and certainly acerbic. The dialogue is usually in the
form of an argument between those who do and those who do not, between
those who can and those who cannot. The following will be part of that
conversation.
I mean to distinguish between those who gain a copyright for their
creative work and those who want to use someone else’s creative
efforts for their own gain without paying for it. Those who believe
they own someone else’s, anyone else’s creation are wrong. They do not
deserve to manipulate another person’s work to foster a personal
vision. In other words, it is not okay to use what I created as a
jumping off point for your creation. Usually the younger generation
through sites like YouTube, MySpace, Facebook and others, and the many
more coming online seemingly daily, are used to getting most of their
entertainment for free or for very little money. These people are the
biggest transgressors when it comes to abusing copyright.
In this new world of social networking nothing is sacred, especially
ownership of something created by an individual or a team. Problem is
that everyone wants to be auteur. Few want to apprentice. There are
also fewer reliable critics around to opine what is good, bad, or
otherwise. If everyone believes he or she is equal, no one can step to
the front with something that others feel is unique. Also, some
critics pander to the new for the sake of the new, and so lose their
ability to be critical. Again, new does not mean something is
valuable. Today, new often means nothing less than something shiny --
a trinket -- rather than a work of lasting value.
I believe in copyright. I try to make a living from what I create,
whether a film or a book. If I make money, it could be the difference
between the dole or not. If I own a copyright that I might have worked
for years to achieve, what gives someone who does nothing the right to
use my creative effort for his or her own gain? It is hard for me to
understand why someone would want to deny the rights to that work to
my heirs and me. Why is it wrong for me to will that copyright to my
heirs if I create something that might have value? My heirs carry my
genes. My heirs are part of me. One reason why I work hard is for
their benefit. Giving my children and grandchildren the rights to my
work, thus a part of me, is one of the many things that drive me to
create. Maybe what I create will inspire my heirs also to create
something that will have value in the marketplace. I know they will
honor the gift I pass along to them. Someone else sitting at a
computer or editing system, if copyright disappeared, might profit
from my work or someone else’s work by only lifting a mindless finger
to change, or in my view, desecrate what may have taken me years to
achieve.
Why is it difficult to understand for the anti-copyright advocates
that I want to put bread on the table through my creativity, or gift?
If you want to use what I create, compensate me for my effort. In some
cases, I might give you permission to use what I made as long as you
credit me properly. If you want to copy my work without crediting me
or paying me, I say no. That would be stealing, one of the Ten
Commandants.
I say this -- on your own, try to write a book or play, compose or
paint, make a film, or sculpt and see how hard it is. Then you might
understand why those of us who believe in copyright are against
pirates. Some want to change the law to limit creative ownership. The
opponents of copyright believe that each creative work fosters other
creative work when that work is free in the marketplace. I strongly
oppose changing the law. I want to keep it the way it is or even
extend it beyond where it now stands.
The idea that someone should feel entitled to use my material because
in his or her words, he or she will create something new does not
wash. New does not translate into something significant. Do not
believe for a second that because I own a copyright that my material
is significant, but it is mine and I should have the inalienable right
to do as I wish with it. I am not interested in seeing my work as a
mash up, a remix, a cut and paste job. Those terms are a profound
insult to my creativity and to me. Those concepts are in disregard of
my intellectual property rights. I am not interested in content
generated from my creation by freeloading users on a participatory Web
site. I am not interested in interactive sharing. Do not try to
improve on my work. If it is not good for you, I would rather it died
a natural death than to have an amateur come along and fix it to his
or her satisfaction. Hands off and we can get along. Your hands on
means you are not capable of creating something original on your own.
There is a stop sign in front of my creations. That should tell anyone
interested in “playing with it” for his or her own gain to stay away
from my intellectual property. Read it, view it, and enjoy it or not.
Tell me you like it or not. Do not use it for your own gain. If you
want to use what I own, pay me. Call me a Philistine, if you wish.
That is your right. Culture is free, but a movement to make everything
in culture free is a foolish dream.
........................................................................................................................
At NBC News for 35 years, Ron Steinman was bureau chief
in Saigon, Hong Kong and London, was a senior producer on Today and wrote
and produced for Sunday Today. At ABC News Productions, he produced
and wrote documentaries for A&E, TLC, Discovery, Lifetime and the
History Channel. He has a Peabody, a National Headliner award, a
National Press Club award, a International Documentary Festival Gold
Camera Award, two American Women in Radio & Television awards and
has been nominated for five Emmy's. He is a partner in
Douglas/Steinman Productions, whose latest documentary, "Luboml: My
Heart Remembers," aired on PBS' WLIW/21 and the History Channel in
Israel, April 29, 2003. He is the author of, "The Soldiers 'Story",
"Women in Vietnam," and most recently, "Inside Television's First
War: A Saigon Journal," University of Missouri Press, 2002. |
