Barbelith Underground > Head Shop > Creative property, creative theft (and slash?)

Continuing on from two different threads:
Shoplifting graphic novels is probably the best way to go about things, except that a) the environmental cost of producing the graphic novel has already been exacted, so unless you shoplift, pulp and recycle it then that's a permanent entry in the minus column and b) you come up against the categorical imperative. So long as a couple of brave souls have the courage of their convictions and shoplift the things, but the rest of us pay out to get them, then producing graphic novels remains a profitable business. If everybody steals them and nobody buys them, then the shops would probably give up on spending money orderig graphic novels that they are not going to get any cash in exchange for, and the company might quite wisely decide that they are now spending money producing something that nobody is giving them money in exchange for ktl, and stop producing graphic novels.

Likewise, I think it's always dangerous to assume that people think as you do just because they produce products you enjoy. Marvel, who produce New X-Men, certainly don't seem to. And, if I were, say, to set up my own printing press and print out copies of From Hell that I distribute free to my friends, then email Alan Moore to tell him what I have done, I have a feeling he might object. Because comics is not the best-paid field in the world, and he is apparently about to leave it, so probably needs the royalties.

Lending is a slightly different matter. Let's say I lend somebody an album, back in the days when you could not copy and reproduce albums in minutes. They love this album, and want to keep it. However, I want it back, so if they want to carry on enjoying it after having handed it back they will have to get their own copy. They might even decide to check out some of the artist's earlier work, or buy his or her next album. So, without losing anything, the artist has found a new fan. That's where the graphic novel is, basically - they are difficult to reproduce. So, you lend From Hell to a chum, and they love it so much that they get their own copy when the time comes to pass it on, or pick up LOEG - Alan Moore wins. If somebody else reads it and enjoys it, then that is no doubt gratifying to him, but his aim in writing it was not solely for it to be read and enjoyed by as many people as possible. Dude has to eat. Libraries are a good way for poor people to read these things, as is Borders' Café, and lending is another, and in each case there is the possibility that that read will ultimately lead to a happier and financially healthier Alan.

Haus, how do you feel about swapping films online? Or music? I think there is enough excess wealth around to support artists without the the people mediating this relationship being so parasitic. And they aren't even people; they are abstract entities that we've created to service our egos, and they've gotten out of hand.

I don't have the option of starting a printing press of From Hell. However, if a CD with it on was available, i've no doubt I would copy it for friends. If I heard Alan Moore was on the breadline because of it, I would encourage the wealthy readers to donate to help him out, and I'd probably do so myself.

(Note that the first talks about how Alan Moore would feel if his work were being reduplicated endlessly, the second only about feeding him)

The "contributory" or "micropayment" model now exists, thanks to the Interwebnet - most basically, something like Barbelith, where those who can contribute and want to are able to put money towards the server maintenance fund. Or a piece of software might be available for free download, but with an attached request that if the downloader finds it useful they might send a recommended fee along to the originator. The British Museum works on a similar principle - you are invited but not compelled to contribute towards its upkeep if you are using it.

A more sophisticated method is the sort applied by Apple's iTunes system. In effect a file sharing program, but with the added feature of legitimacy, it charges a smaller fee (than, say, a single or album), in order to provide legitimate copies. You get the songs you want, do not have to pay for the added costs of packaging and physical delivery to the shop, and also respect the artist's copyright.

On the other hand, there is also a lot of file copying and sharing going on without official approval over the Interwebnet, as is mentioned above. Is this justifiable? Why? Because the producers of the successful films and songs are wealthy (much wealthier, one imagines, than, say Alan Moore, or Paul Darrow - on whom more later)? Because one cannot really identify a single creative spirit behind a movie or pop single? Or is it not more justifiable, but simply easier to do - see the above example of the printing press to produce copies of "From Hell" over the CD-ROM with the pages stored digitally. Is it our duty to undermine the antiquated concept of copyright, and force creators and/or companies to find new, consensual ways of receiving rewards for their work? And, if the only valid aim of creation is to stay off the breadline, should Alan Moore continue to take the risk or should he become a management consultant instead?

And back, inevitably, to slash, or fanfic in general. Slash, it seems to me, has been practising editing and "file sharing" since long before the technology existed to produce, say, the digitally improved Phantom Menace. And it has faced similar dichotomies about authorial and corporate consent. So, Patrick Stewart might not mind particularly if a fan magazine fills in some of Jean-Luc Picard's early life, but Time Warner AOL (is it TWAOL?) might be upset that "their" character, whose creation and promotion they spent large amounts of time and money on, is being waylaid by some spotty herbert without even a marketing department. Slash further complicates the issue - TWAOL might say that a general acceptance that Picard and Q are at it like knives will dilute the effectiveness of future or current product based on Picard's avowed and canonical heterosexuality. Paul Darrow can object to representations of a character with his face having it filled with bits of a character with Gareth Thomas' face, but Terry Nation is beyond caring, and Chris Boucher must at least be glad of the chance to sell off his scripts to a fan, and fanficcing, community. More widely, one suspects that those with a financial investment in Blakes 7 (ie those who have the rights to produce and sell licensed merchandise) might quietly, in private at least, accept that this thriving fan culture, with attendant naughties, is keeping alive sales of their videos and other memorabilia.

Then you get examples like Potter/Snape, where a general *moral* objection might be raised - as Jack Fear has - that the stories of intergenerational and occasionally underaged sex are being created not just using copyrighted characters but characters whose adventures are sought out by children. At the same time, you also have a massive and massively interested corporate interest that needs the properties to be kept at their most marketable (and also needs to suppress the fact that many Potter fanficcers are far better writers than J.K Rowling). And, at the Alan Moore level, you have J.K Rowling herself, ho might be shocked and horrified a) that some people would rather read a decent novel-length fic than Harry Potter and the Order of the Carlsberg, or whatever it's called, and b) that this novel-length fic might involve Remus and Snape at it like the aforementioned knives.

so, who are the victims? Who are the heroes? Who is oppressing whom? It's another "pick the bones out", I'm afraid...

First up, to avoid confusion, "copyright" is the legal process safeguarding an author's (or by extension a company's) right to be recognised as the creator of a work, and by extension a number of other rights involving distribution, reproduction et al. Copywrite is what a copywriter does, and is entirely unrelated.

Now, let's look at:

An argument can be made that those whose creative product is motivated by capital are doing a disservice to humanity, and it would be a good thing if file-sharing / anti-copywrite movements sent them packing back to the corporate world where they belong.

Briefly, first up it's very dangerous indeed to assume that people believe what we believe just because we like them, or the contrary. Alan Moore has the option to waive copyright on his creator-owned characters, and *chooses* not to. You also seem to be confusing two different antithesis pairing, Gypt - "entertainment/spiritual exploration" and "copyrighted/not copyrighted".

Let's assume for a moment that Alan Moore is producing entertainment product with the aim of facilitating internal and external exploration. This is already a dodgy premise, but it's just an example, so let's not worry too hard about that. Whether or not that product is copyright or not is largely irrelevant, except insofar as it might make it easier or harder to distribute without the permission of Moore or his publisher.

And that publisher. At present Moore writes stories (for money). Artists draw those stories (also for money). The publisher spends more money on typesetting, computer effects, staples, paper, distribution. all of this work is predicated on the assumption that, at the end fo the process, you'll have a product that can be bought for a sum of money greater than the comic shop owner paid for it, which was a sum greater than the cost of creating and distributing it. That's capitalism. We can take capitalism out of the equation if everybody contributes their labour for free, and the comic is sold for preceisly the amount that the costs of physically producing it amount to - paper, ink, staples, petrol.

None of this actually affects the bedrock of the idea of Moore's copyright - his right to be recognised as the author of the work. And, short of reproducing the process, but with a new name on the credits page, it would be very hard to counterfeit this.

So, we have an artistic process at that point that does not rely on capitalism, essentially. But why? Alan Moore and everyone involved in the process is contributing their time and money for nothing, and as such are getting nothing out of it to allow them to buy food or basic necessities.

So, after a month or so of baked beans on toast, Alan and the others get together to discuss this problem, and finally conclude that they are going to have to work out a way to feed themselves if they are to continue producing the comic. So, they add a small premium to the price of each comic, and divvy up the resultant profit. At the other end, people notice that the price has gone up $0.15 per copy. Some decline to purchase it. Others continue so to do. And boom - you've got people putting a value dictated by the market on their labour.

So, at this stage thoroughly pissed off by the tentacular nature of capital, Alan realises that he can get together with his artist, colourist and letterist chums, draw the comic, scan it and make it available on the Internet. That cuts out an awful lot of costs - not least petrol and staples. But in the end you come up against the same problem. So, Alan and chums decide to set up a donations box; when the level of money donated covers the costs of hosting, or electricity, and so on, they will discontinue the donations system until the release of the next issue.

Of course, they are still starving while other people are making money behind the counter ofthe Wal-Mart where they buy their beans, so eventually they decide that they have to ask for donations in excess of the strict costs, in order to give them the means to continue drawing...and you're back into assessing the value of labour based on what the market will tolerate.

This donation-based system *does* have the advantage of being rather like Ronan's planned CD distribution - as long as people know who made the work and how to support it, they can do so if they wish.

Of course, donation-based systems are kind of like the prisoner's dilemma - many people will hope that enough donations are made to keep the comic in production, without having to contribute themselves. But that's another thing.

There are two elements here - practicalities and copyright. Practicality states that a certain amount of cash is goign to be required to keep producing the work, both for costs and to compensate the producers for the contribution of their time (although this can, of course, be waived - a lot of people work for nothing in all sorts of areas, and if the aim is altrustic - to help people to explore themselves, or for the creator to explore hirself, then perhaps unpaid labour is not an incredible idea). Copyright means Moore has the right to be recognised as the creator of the work. So, as long as Ronan is not "passing off", claiming to have created the CD-ROM of downloaded From Hell, or refusing to acknowledge Alan Moore as the creator, copyright is respected, on the most fundamental level.

If, on the other hand, From Hell the CD-ROM is professionally produced and on sale for $15, and Ronan is selling copies for $7.50, that seems dodgier, because ultimately Moore will rely on the profitability of that CD to remain employable, and Ronan is making a $5.00 pure profit, say, on every copy. That seems (to me) to be more questionable. But to posit a golden pre-capitalist era when art was created for the love of it seems a bit tenuous.

Which dovetails into Nick's position on copyright, to an extent - I certainly uphold the right of individuals to be recognised as creators of works. I also acknowledge the entitlement of creators to receive compensation for the use of those works, or the constituent elements therein. If somebody were making profit out of Harry Potter fanfiction, I would expect them to give that profit to the holder of the copyright. Ironically, that *does* set up a system closer to Mystery Gypt's ideal - nobody writes fanfiction for the money.

Where things get more shadowy is in the idea of damaging the value of copyright characters by usage - suggesting in a story that Jean-Luc Picard is shagging Q, for example. Paramount, or whoever holds the copyright, can claim that they have invested significant moneys in developing the character of Jean-Luc Picard and presenting his adventures to the public, and they did that in the expectation that they would get a return on their investment (the polar opposite of the "romantic" model of creation), and that fanfic damages that investment by a) providing a source of material about Jean-Luc Picard that they do not control, and thus potentially damaging sales of those sources that they do control, and b) by suggesting readings of characters that may be detrimental to the sale of those characters (a much stickier wicker - if the producer is not "passing off", i.e. refusing to acknowledge Paramount's right to be recognised as the holder of the copyright, then the status of the material as non-canonical is immediately clear). In some ways that's why trying to fanfic a "live" franchise, like ST:TNG or Buffy the Vampire Slayer, is always going to be more dubious, morally and legally, although as the profitability of the offical franchise expires this may cease to be the case).

But I've wandered.