Lethem on plagiarism, copyright, and collage (Harper's article)

Libbie · Apr 5, 2011

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/02/0081387

A long but very good article about cryptomnesia, collage in art, plagiarism, and copyright by Jonathan Lethem. The article has probably been posted here before, but I couldn't find it and anyway I suppose it's worth revisiting in discussion. If you have the time to read all of it, you really should. It's given me a lot to think about.

I will freely admit that I was once a rabid protector at all costs of copyright. Now that I've read this well-reasoned article, I'm not sure where I fall on the spectrum of respect for culture on the one hand and art/artists' rights on the other.

Frankly, I like to have my mind changed and it's fun to be in opinionflux, so I'm pretty happy about that.

Previously the only arguments I'd heard against copyright were those of Cory Doctorow, which always struck me as silly and poorly presented. Maybe I just gel better with Lethem. Who knows.

Some interesting quotes from the article:

A time is marked not so much by ideas that are argued about as by ideas that are taken for granted. The character of an era hangs upon what needs no defense. In this regard, few of us question the contemporary construction of copyright. It is taken as a law, both in the sense of a universally recognizable moral absolute, like the law against murder, and as naturally inherent in our world, like the law of gravity. In fact, it is neither. Rather, copyright is an ongoing social negotiation, tenuously forged, endlessly revised, and imperfect in its every incarnation.

Thomas Jefferson, for one, considered copyright a necessary evil: he favored providing just enough incentive to create, nothing more, and thereafter allowing ideas to flow freely, as nature intended. His conception of copyright was enshrined in the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” This was a balancing act between creators and society as a whole; second comers might do a much better job than the originator with the original idea.

Phaeal · Apr 5, 2011

If nature intended ideas to flow freely, we'd all be telepaths.

I subscribe to the notion that the creator deserves to be paid as much for his work as the market will stand. Could be millions, could be nothing.

The creator is also free to give his work away, but others should not feel free to steal it.

Chicago Expat · Apr 5, 2011

Phaeal said:
If nature intended ideas to flow freely, we'd all be telepaths.

I subscribe to the notion that the creator deserves to be paid as much for his work as the market will stand. Could be millions, could be nothing.

The creator is also free to give his work away, but others should not feel free to steal it.

There is a difference between creator and copyright holder. They are not always the same person/entity. In fact, there are times when the copyright holder takes actions (or more typically... inaction) that benefits themselves, but is not in the best interest of the creator.
Just sayin'.

Libbie · Apr 5, 2011

Phaeal said:
If nature intended ideas to flow freely, we'd all be telepaths.

I subscribe to the notion that the creator deserves to be paid as much for his work as the market will stand. Could be millions, could be nothing.

The creator is also free to give his work away, but others should not feel free to steal it.

I would agree with that idea, too! What I learned from Lethem's opinion is that the whole issue is unbelievably more complex than even I had suspected, and that it overlaps into all kinds of other realms, such as expression, culture, and the very act of writing itself. It's really a great article, but it is very long and will take some commitment to read. (I am lucky that my job mostly consists of sitting around while an old lady sleeps in her La-Z-Boy with the Food Network playing on the TV -- I have tons of time to read nowadays. If only I could write well with noise distractions, I could finish a novel a week.)

Amadan · Apr 5, 2011

Phaeal said:
If nature intended ideas to flow freely, we'd all be telepaths.

I subscribe to the notion that the creator deserves to be paid as much for his work as the market will stand. Could be millions, could be nothing.

The creator is also free to give his work away, but others should not feel free to steal it.

And yet, you can't copyright ideas.

Even people who are opposed to copyright laws do not think creators shouldn't be paid. The problem is that copyright law does not serve the interests of individual creators; it serves the interests of corporations.

In the days before copyright law, creators still got paid.

blacbird · Apr 5, 2011

Thomas Jefferson, for one, considered copyright a necessary evil: he favored providing just enough incentive to create, nothing more, and thereafter allowing ideas to flow freely, as nature intended.

Amadan beat me to it, but it's worth reiterating: Nothing about copyright protection prevents or restricts ideas from flowing freely. Ideas are not protected by copyright. So I don't understand this point of Lethem's argument.

Deleted member 42 · Apr 5, 2011

Copyright according to the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, Congress it to:

Constitution said:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

1. Authors and inventors--not corporate entities with immortality.

2. Copyright is for "a limited time"

and the primary goal: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.

As it stands now, we're controlling information, especially digital information, in ways that limit poorer countries from "the Progress of Science and useful Arts."

I think creators and publishers should be paid; but I think life plus 25 or so is enough. That's enough for a young child who inherits to grow to maturity.

I'm fine with extending that to a longer reasonable limit, but what we're seeing happening with corporate rights is not right.

IceCreamEmpress · Apr 5, 2011

Amadan said:
Even people who are opposed to copyright laws do not think creators shouldn't be paid. The problem is that copyright law does not serve the interests of individual creators; it serves the interests of corporations.

Isn't it up to the individual creator whether they want their intellectual property to be managed by themselves or by a corporation?

In the days before copyright law, creators still got paid.

This isn't actually true. Sir Walter Scott, for instance, was saved from bankruptcy by a big public fundraiser--despite being the hands-down most popular English-language author of his day, his income was a pittance because his works were so widely pirated. And he is only the most famous example.

blacbird · Apr 5, 2011

Medievalist said:
I think creators and publishers should be paid; but I think life plus 25 or so is enough. That's enough for a young child who inherits to grow to maturity.

This.

But what the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act has taught us is that the big corporations ain't about to release their stranglehold on copyright terms. And we're now bound also by international conventions, notably with the E.U., whose provisions differ presently only in detail, but are equally restrictive. The U.S. statutes are presently designed to evolve in a decade or so into conformance with the E.U. laws, I believe.

The picture isn't promising.

Amadan · Apr 5, 2011

IceCreamEmpress said:
Isn't it up to the individual creator whether they want their intellectual property to be managed by themselves or by a corporation?

I don't understand this question.

This isn't actually true. Sir Walter Scott, for instance, was saved from bankruptcy by a big public fundraiser--despite being the hands-down most popular English-language author of his day, his income was a pittance because his works were so widely pirated. And he is only the most famous example.

That's a very simplified version of the history. Works were (and are) widely pirated and the existence of copyright laws inasmuch as they prevent other people from profiting off of a living creator's work are a good thing, but when Disney has effectively made copyright eternal because they don't want Mickey Mouse to go into public domain, and agricultural companies can copyright genes, copyright is no longer about protecting artists' livelihoods.

IceCreamEmpress · Apr 5, 2011

Amadan said:
I don't understand this question.

I, the creator, can choose either to publish my work myself or to publish it with Random House. Many anti-copyright activists want to keep me from doing the latter, or to thwart my wishes once it happens. (I am not saying you are among that number, mind.)

There is more music available free--at the direction of its creators, or because copyrights have expired--than anyone could listen to in a lifetime. There are more books available free--at the direction of their creators, or because their copyrights have expired--than anyone could read in a lifetime. It's not like copyrights are keeping people from having books or music or art to enjoy; it's just that many people want the specific books or music or art they enjoy to be available free, whether or not that is the wish of the people who created them.

That's a very simplified version of the history.

No, it really isn't. This was one of the topics I researched extensively for a Ph.D dissertation. If you like, I can bore everyone on here with intensive detail garnered from reading court records in both Great Britain (as it was then) and the US.

Works were (and are) widely pirated and the existence of copyright laws inasmuch as they prevent other people from profiting off of a living creator's work are a good thing, but when Disney has effectively made copyright eternal because they don't want Mickey Mouse to go into public domain, and agricultural companies can copyright genes, copyright is no longer about protecting artists' livelihoods.

They're both. I agree that Disney and Monsanto have taken copyright laws to an illogical extreme, and that needs to be addressed. But individual artists still have their livelihoods protected by copyright.

Amadan · Apr 5, 2011

I haven't done PhD research on Sir Walter Scott, so I'll take your word for it. I'm also not aware of anti-copyright activists wanting to forbid commercial publishing. However, I'm okay with copyright law forbidding other people from profiting off of your work. I'm not okay with it guaranteeing that your great-grandchildren will still be able to make a livelihood from it long after you're dead.

Chicago Expat · Apr 5, 2011

IceCreamEmpress said:
I, the creator, can choose either to publish my work myself or to publish it with Random House. Many anti-copyright activists want to keep me from doing the latter, or to thwart my wishes once it happens. (I am not saying you are among that number, mind.)

Could you elaborate on that point? Why are activists trying to keep you separated from Random House?

No, it really isn't. This was one of the topics I researched extensively for a Ph.D dissertation. If you like, I can bore everyone on here with intensive detail garnered from reading court records in both Great Britain (as it was then) and the US.

I wish you would. I assure you, I won't be bored. Copyright is a very misunderstood topic. I think your expertise would be welcome.

muravyets · Apr 5, 2011

Medievalist said:
Copyright according to the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, Congress it to:

1. Authors and inventors--not corporate entities with immortality.

2. Copyright is for "a limited time"

and the primary goal: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.

As it stands now, we're controlling information, especially digital information, in ways that limit poorer countries from "the Progress of Science and useful Arts."

I think creators and publishers should be paid; but I think life plus 25 or so is enough. That's enough for a young child who inherits to grow to maturity.

I'm fine with extending that to a longer reasonable limit, but what we're seeing happening with corporate rights is not right.

This.^^ I also think copyright should not be renewable, and if copyright is transferred (sale of rights, work-for-hire), there should be an even tighter time limit on that. Life + 25 for the creator makes sense as that person put the most work into the product and should have the right to let his/her heirs benefit from it. Maybe 50 years flat for transferred ownership (off the top of my head) would seem reasonable as well. Then it should go into the commons.

I am a collage artist, and I make a point of sticking well within the legal bounds of fair use for appropriated images. But I also respect and rely on copyright and the privileges and powers that come with it. I stand absolutely by the right of a creator to control the use and profit from their own works as they see fit, but for other people to claim and hold that same control long after the creator is dead just seems ridiculous to me. What did they put into it, that they deserve to get so much out of it? I wouldn't do that with my own work. At some point people have to be as free to reference me as I am to reference past creators.

blacbird · Apr 5, 2011

muravyets said:
This.^^ I also think copyright should not be renewable,

As presently constituted, it isn't. The U.S. used to have a 28-year copyright term that could be renewed one time for another 28 years, but that statute has long been superseded by the newer single fixed (and very long) copyright term. The Bono act became necessary, in Disney's view, precisely because they couldn't "renew" their copyright protection, and therefore lobbied for the 20-year extension. That extension runs out in 2018, and you can bet your house, car, kids and pets that they'll be lobbying hard for another legislated extension.

IceCreamEmpress · Apr 5, 2011

Chicago Expat said:
Could you elaborate on that point? Why are activists trying to keep you separated from Random House?

People who want to end copyright protections entirely feel free to infringe on my voluntary contractual relationship with Random House or with anyone. (I am not saying that that is Amadan's position, mind you.)

People who pride themselves on pirating copyrighted content by living creators, and pat themselves on the back pointing to Disney's abuse of the system, are out there--some of them describe themselves as libertarians, even, to which I say "?" Interfering between two parties to a voluntary contract for goods and services seems like the very antithesis of libertarianism in my book.

As for "writers got paid before there were copyright laws," I don't think people working in any other industry would be comfortable with other people making the decision that their industry was going back to the compensation arrangements in place before 1800.

I don't want to go find a patron or plead for a pension, like Voltaire (the best-selling author of his day, who earned almost nothing from his works because of rampant piracy--Voltaire became a rich man because he obtained patronage and government awards, which he parlayed into a real estate empire). I don't want to die in poverty, like William Blake (also a victim of piracy, who didn't have Voltaire's skill in diplomacy or investment).

Surely people who want to make a sudden change in the compensation structures and mechanisms of my profession don't want to turn the clock back 200+ years in their industry, so that they can serve indentured apprenticeships and articles rather than signing voluntary contracts?

IceCreamEmpress · Apr 5, 2011

Amadan said:
I haven't done PhD research on Sir Walter Scott, so I'll take your word for it. I'm also not aware of anti-copyright activists wanting to forbid commercial publishing.

Violating exclusivity agreements between a living author and a commercial publisher isn't respecting individual rights. And yes, there are plenty of "end of copyright" folks out there who want to remove that option for everyone, whether by legislation or by circumventing the law through piracy.

However, I'm okay with copyright law forbidding other people from profiting off of your work. I'm not okay with it guaranteeing that your great-grandchildren will still be able to make a livelihood from it long after you're dead.

I think that's a reasonable point. I am completely against the Sonny Bono law. Lifetime copyright, or lifetime + spousal lifetime, make sense to me.

Amadan · Apr 5, 2011

blacbird said:
As presently constituted, it isn't. The U.S. used to have a 28-year copyright term that could be renewed one time for another 28 years, but that statute has long been superseded by the newer single fixed (and very long) copyright term. The Bono act became necessary, in Disney's view, precisely because they couldn't "renew" their copyright protection, and therefore lobbied for the 20-year extension. That extension runs out in 2018, and you can bet your house, car, kids and pets that they'll be lobbying hard for another legislated extension.

And they'll get it.

People should read Melancholy Elephants by Spider Robinson.

Chicago Expat · Apr 5, 2011

IceCreamEmpress said:
People who want to end copyright protections entirely feel free to infringe on my voluntary contractual relationship with Random House or with anyone. (I am not saying that that is Amadan's position, mind you.)

People who pride themselves on pirating copyrighted content by living creators, and pat themselves on the back pointing to Disney's abuse of the system, are out there--some of them describe themselves as libertarians, even, to which I say "?" Interfering between two parties to a voluntary contract for goods and services seems like the very antithesis of libertarianism in my book.

As for "writers got paid before there were copyright laws," I don't think people working in any other industry would be comfortable with other people making the decision that their industry was going back to the compensation arrangements in place before 1800.

I don't want to go find a patron or plead for a pension, like Voltaire (the best-selling author of his day, who earned almost nothing from his works because of rampant piracy--Voltaire became a rich man because he obtained patronage and government awards, which he parlayed into a real estate empire). I don't want to die in poverty, like William Blake (also a victim of piracy, who didn't have Voltaire's skill in diplomacy or investment).

Surely people who want to make a sudden change in the compensation structures and mechanisms of my profession don't want to turn the clock back 200+ years in their industry, so that they can serve indentured apprenticeships and articles rather than signing voluntary contracts?

Those don't sound like anti-copyright activists you're talking about... those just sound like internet pirates. My experience with people who take issue with current copyright laws are more interested in those works of art where the artist is deceased, the creative piece (ie, an album) is not in print, and the copyright holder (a label, for instance) doesn't reissue it because they see no profit in doing so. Thus, it remains dormant in the copyright holder's vaults potentially forever.

I don't see any evidence of anti-copyright activists trying to stop you from getting published, nor from making a profit off your creativity. They might, however, quibble with whether your great-great-grandchildren should still have exclusive use of your creative rights at the expense of public domain.

I'd be interested to hear you speak to the legal aspects of copyright, especially some of the finer details that perhaps don't get covered typically in the media.

IceCreamEmpress · Apr 5, 2011

Chicago Expat said:
Those don't sound like anti-copyright activists you're talking about... those just sound like internet pirates.

Check out these folks for an example of the kind of perspective I'm talking about.

My experience with people who take issue with current copyright laws are more interested in those works of art where the artist is deceased, the creative piece (ie, an album) is not in print, and the copyright holder (a label, for instance) doesn't reissue it because they see no profit in doing so. Thus, it remains dormant in the copyright holder's vaults potentially forever.

I agree with you that those situations are really frustrating! The thing is that 'END COPYRIGHT NOW!' as a response to those situations fucks over thousands and thousands of living, working artists. Similarly, responding to Disney's shameless rights grab with 'END COPYRIGHT NOW!' does the same.

I'd be interested to hear you speak to the legal aspects of copyright, especially some of the finer details that perhaps don't get covered typically in the media.

I'm not a lawyer, so I can only speak to my own experiences (and to my friends') and about the history I've researched. Perhaps I can take the time to put up a brief summary of Scott's and Dickens's 19th century legal battles, as I understand them--I really do think they are illustrative about the challenges that arise when copyright laws don't acknowledge new technologies.

Amadan, I want to apologize to you for having been so irascible in my tone here. My guess is that you and I probably agree more than we disagree--I just overreacted to particular words that reminded me of run-ins with other people in the past. My apologies.

Libbie · Apr 5, 2011

Amadan said:
copyright is no longer about protecting artists' livelihoods.

...which is ALL it should be about. It's freaky the way corporations have the rights of individuals.

Phaeal · Apr 5, 2011

IceCreamEmpress said:
People who pride themselves on pirating copyrighted content by living creators, and pat themselves on the back pointing to Disney's abuse of the system, are out there--some of them describe themselves as libertarians, even, to which I say "?" Interfering between two parties to a voluntary contract for goods and services seems like the very antithesis of libertarianism in my book.

These are not libertarians, but looters.

On the question of "life plus XX years" copyright. I'm not sure why it's so objectionable for the heirs to make money on intellectual property. Say you leave your heirs a farm. Should they only be allowed to work it for 25 years, and then it's up for grabs?

Libbie · Apr 5, 2011

IceCreamEmpress said:
I agree with you that those situations are really frustrating! The thing is that 'END COPYRIGHT NOW!' as a response to those situations fucks over thousands and thousands of living, working artists. Similarly, responding to Disney's shameless rights grab with 'END COPYRIGHT NOW!' does the same.

Yes. Clearly copyright is needed -- I just never saw a coherent argument against it until this article

And to be fair, Lethem's article deals with copyright because it's relevant to the true central point of his article: that artists are continually influenced by each other, that all forms of art are the product of artists "grazing" among previous works, that in some arts (such as jazz) use of previous works is well known and even encouraged, and that only in writing does there seem to be a fierce denial that "sampling" takes place. The article isn't really about copyright exclusively -- it's about how writers respond to and work with copyright and with other aspects of creative culture.

heza · Apr 5, 2011

Chicago Expat said:
I don't see any evidence of anti-copyright activists trying to stop you from getting published, nor from making a profit off your creativity. They might, however, quibble with whether your great-great-grandchildren should still have exclusive use of your creative rights at the expense of public domain.

So I need to be educated on this. Seriously. I'm not taking an opposing position, but I haven't given copyright a lot of thought beyond what I need to know about quoting things and how it immediately affects me as an author.

So, is the objection to descendants holding the copyright to an ancestor's work simply that potentially important works might go out of print and never be produced again? Would you have objections to great-great grandchildren holding copyright if they were still e-publishing the work and it was still accessible? Or is the objection that the great-great grandchildren would still be making money from an ancestor's creation?

muravyets · Apr 5, 2011

blacbird said:
As presently constituted, it isn't. The U.S. used to have a 28-year copyright term that could be renewed one time for another 28 years, but that statute has long been superseded by the newer single fixed (and very long) copyright term. The Bono act became necessary, in Disney's view, precisely because they couldn't "renew" their copyright protection, and therefore lobbied for the 20-year extension. That extension runs out in 2018, and you can bet your house, car, kids and pets that they'll be lobbying hard for another legislated extension.

You're right. I keep forgetting that it used to be shorter and renewable, and now it's longer and not renewable. But as a basic principle, non-renewability is the right choice, imo, and I think it should be shorter, too.

ETA: And yes, boo! to more extensions. Enough already.

Lethem on plagiarism, copyright, and collage (Harper's article)

Worst song played on ugliest guitar

Whatever I did, I didn't do it.

Distracted

Worst song played on ugliest guitar

Deleted member 42

Hapless Virago

Hapless Virago

Distracted

Old revolutionary

Hapless Virago

Hapless Virago

Distracted

Hapless Virago

Worst song played on ugliest guitar

Whatever I did, I didn't do it.

Worst song played on ugliest guitar

Old revolutionary