- ... It can no doubt stifle SOME KINDS of art (namely, derivative art), but I for one find the BEST art to be non-derivative (at least, non- derivative in theMessage 1 of 46 , Jun 29, 2005View SourceOn Jun 29, 2005, at 5:00 PM, domendur wrote:
> I think copyrights held too long can stifle artIt can no doubt stifle SOME KINDS of art (namely, derivative art),
but I for one find the BEST art to be non-derivative (at least, non-
derivative in the copyright sense) and some of the WORST "art" to be
entirely derivative (in the same sense).
> while protecting the money of the deceased creator's heirs.Yes, it does do that. In such cases as Disney, it also protects the
money of untold thousands of artists and employees who make their
money directly or indirectly because Disney can derive profit from
their intellectual property.
Given the choice between seeking to enable more bad "art" and
protecting the livelihood of many, many thousands of people, I'm
rather more inclined to favor the latter.
In any event, let's not talk only of (perceived) negatives of
copyright without also at least noting and considering the positives.
- ... because they re major sources in Old Norse, a ... where the ... Of course, I had momentarily forgotten... ! :) ... Ahhh... Although those are precisly theMessage 46 of 46 , Aug 1, 2005View Source--- In email@example.com, David Bratman <dbratman@e...> wrote:
> At 01:52 AM 7/20/2005 +0000, Lezlie wrote:because they're major sources in Old Norse, a
> language he taught, and because he used them as sources (they'rewhere the
> dwarf-names came from).Of course, I had momentarily forgotten... ! :)
> >I also disagree that "all fiction is fan fiction". There is a deeper,Ahhh... Although those are precisly the qualities we seek in reading
> >more complex conversation going in between authors, readers and later
> >generation writers than what seems to be the norm in "fan-fic."
> Totally apart from questions of quality and subtlety,
and in crafting our fiction. Whether a piece has literary quality or
not, BTW, was beside my point.
there is also a
> difference between crafting a work in response to an earlier workand being
> inspired by it, and actually borrowing its concrete setting orretelling it
> openly. This is a difference in kind, not necessarily a difference inAlso beside my point. What I was talking about is something different--
> literary value.
BTW: Have you read Stallybrass & White on this subject? Very
interesting stuff and a killer title: "The Politics and Poetics of
Transgression" - Lezlie