Copyright discussion

[Jeremy Neish]

In the interest of keeping the original Wooden camera thread on topic, I have moved my followup comments about copyright to this thread.

You cannot be serious. My wife's company spent $75,000 on a stock shoot just recently. So after 2-3 years she should just give the images away? Why don't we just give our cars away too when they are two to three years old - the finance is paid off and we've had our money's worth!

And we wonder why the entire industry seems to be in a race to the bottom.

The stock photography/videography business is a rather unique part of the intellectual property industry, in that it relies on low volume, high price sales, where as the majority of the IP industry is based on low cost, high volume. So I can see where you are coming from, but in the end, yes I still think a much shorter term would be more fair for society as a whole. Again, if she's good at what she does, most people are willing to pay, whether the law forces them to or not.

And the comparison of giving your car away after it's paid for is simply a bad analogy. Cars are tangible products and there is only ONE of your car, so no of course you shouldn't be forced to give it away. But IP is non-tangible and infinitely duplicatable without any harm to your original.

 

[Jeremy Neish]

I'm intrigued by your post and find it difficult to understand how you come to this viewpoint, could you answer me this:

1. Did you create your DVD with the view to make a profit, ie to make some money to put food on the table for your children?
2. Was there another motive for giving away the content ie for propaganda, political or just spreading the word?

1 - Yes we did create the DVD with the hope to turn a profit (and we did many times over).
2 - No other motive, other than a pure belief in the inherent unfairness of copyright. At first my partners were a little bit skeptical of the idea, but in the end we all agreed, self distributed + creative commons was the right path for us.

By the way, the day after we released our documentary on bittorrent, our sales quadrupled.

 

[Mark Pavy]

What was the title?

 

[Jeremy Neish]

Done The Impossible

 

[Iain Philpott]

In the interest of keeping the original Wooden camera thread on topic, I have moved my followup comments about copyright to this thread.



The stock photography/videography business is a rather unique part of the intellectual property industry, in that it relies on low volume, high price sales, where as the majority of the IP industry is based on low cost, high volume. So I can see where you are coming from, but in the end, yes I still think a much shorter term would be more fair for society as a whole. Again, if she's good at what she does, most people are willing to pay, whether the law forces them to or not.

And the comparison of giving your car away after it's paid for is simply a bad analogy. Cars are tangible products and there is only ONE of your car, so no of course you shouldn't be forced to give it away. But IP is non-tangible and infinitely duplicatable without any harm to your original.

Clearly we are going to have to agree to differ. I think your argument is fatally flawed. IP is definitely tangible. My images (if I do not sign over 'all rights') are my images - they are a product. The same as if I had built a car. It is a product. Products have value until people no longer wish to buy that product.

If somebody has taken a product that RED has designed and somebody comes along and copies it (they did not think of the product first themselves) why should they then take that business from RED. It's like Lycra. Dupont spent millions and millions developing Lycra and bringing it to market. If you want to use Lycra in your clothing you buy it from Dupont. If the moment Lycra came out and everyone was free to copy it where would that leave Dupont.

IP needs to be protected whether it's images, RED or Lycra.

 

[Jeremy Neish]

Yes, we are going to have to agree to disagree. And, that's okay, I recognize my view is in the extreme minority, but hopefully it made you think a bit.
This is a great presentation from Lawrence Lessig you should watch:
http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/

 

[Iain Philpott]

Yes, we are going to have to agree to disagree. And, that's okay, I recognize my view is in the extreme minority, but hopefully it made you think a bit.
This is a great presentation from Lawrence Lessig you should watch:
http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/

Very interesting article. Thank you for posting. The problem with copyright is we try to take a view that 'one size fits all' and it does not. It's much more complex than that and certainly there needs to be a bit more thinking outside the box.

 

[Tehben Dean]

I kind of agree with you Jeremey

As I understand it patent laws were originally created to encourage innovation, where the creator was protected for 4 years or so and could profit from his efforts but after that everybody could benefit from it and the original guy would be encouraged to invent something new to stay ahead of the game.

Patent laws have gotten so out of hand these days that you can now patent plant varieties and big companies regularly buy up patents to squash competition as was the case with Texaco and the Nickel Metal Hydride battery back in the early 90's. (if I remember correctly)

I also feel that with IP most people will pay for something if they really like and want it. Also seems like it's usually the middle man that gets the most upset with torrented Music/Movies as the artists themselves seem to all to often lose out anyway....

 

[Tehben Dean]

Check out this video on copyright in the fashion industry. Very Interesting...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0

 

[Jon Thomasberg]

Perhaps I am mistaken on the chronology in the matter, and if I am feel free to correct, but wasn't Wooden Camera the same guys that came out with all the accessories that Epic owners were needing when Red was backordered for months on end, and without whom many Epic owners would have been left hanging with incomplete (and in some cases unshootable and/or unrentable) kits until the rest of the bits came off backorder, much less see a CNC machine. I know a handful of owner/ops, including myself, that would have been otherwise screwed or at best have to find some wonky DIY workaround on certain productions were it not for some WC bits for their Epics and Scarlets.

"The customer ultimately has to pay....". true, but each of those customers also have THEIR business to run so they can make money in which to take-on and complete projects to ultimately pay for more gear. Opportunity cost is real, as are its losses if poorly executed. First to market has its rewards, as do other factors like timely responses with real answers, shipping on schedule, and steller customer service. Wooden Camera filled that void when Red couldn't/didn't, yet now they are to be punished for seizing the opportunity to fill a void for making accessories that Red didn't 2 years on? I am glad that Red seem to have sorted those issues now. Nonetheless, I guess I am missing it. My point being, after all that they have really done to supplement and support the DSMC platform and Red's customers....Man, what a kick in the 'nads to WC !

While I have been a self-proclaimed so-called 'Red fanboy', and have a nice view from the 'cheap seats' as I have no horse in this race, aside from Red themselves, I would hazard a guess that Wooden Camera has helped Red to sell more Epics and Scarlets, because of the availability of their products in support of the Red DSMC platform, than almost anyone out here. Now that Red is by-and-large out of backorder and have accessories for sale, now they are filing an IP suit...really? Truly saddening.

 

[Jarred Land]

Jon.. I can appreciate your perspective... but you probably need more info as some of your statements are based on assumptions, and since you asked to be corrected , i will

I can't obviously say much, but I will say that our legal team has been in contact with Wooden camera since last year trying to address these issues, it did not happen overnight as you laid it out in your post, which I think is important to correct and for people to understand.

We are aware that we are going to look like the bad guys here... no way around it. We are sticking up for something we believe passionately about, protection of design and innovation, and unfortunately sometimes it comes down to this.. and nobody really wins. And yes.. sometimes this happens to our friends.. Unfortunately enforcement needs to be done, as if you do not enforce infringement, any patent or trademark you own can be overturned.

 

[Iain Philpott]

Jon.. I can appreciate your perspective... but you probably need more info as some of your statements are based on assumptions, and since you asked to be corrected , i will

I can't obviously say much, but I will say that our legal team has been in contact with Wooden camera since last year trying to address these issues, it did not happen overnight as you laid it out in your post, which I think is important to correct and for people to understand.

We are aware that we are going to look like the bad guys here... no way around it. We are sticking up for something we believe passionately about, protection of design and innovation, and unfortunately sometimes it comes down to this.. and nobody really wins. And yes.. sometimes this happens to our friends.. Unfortunately enforcement needs to be done, as if you do not enforce infringement, any patent or trademark you own can be overturned.

I've used WC products and they are very good. I can copy a Louis Vuitton handbag with a leather master craftsman and it will be fantastic - not a cheap China rip off. It does still not give me any more rights than the rip off one in stealing the designers design.

It's a very sad situation but I have to say lack of availability does not give you the right.

As I have said in earlier posts on this thread lack of protection of copyright just destroys the company fronting the huge sums of money needed to develop something. Had any 3rd party picked up the bill for developing the camera they would be keen to protect all aspects of their designs too. If RED was not making money elsewhere you can be sure the camera would be more expensive.

As much as I love WC products I'm firmly in Jarred's camp on this one. Very sad that WC were not prepared to come to the table and do some kind of license deal?

 

[Erich Ocean]

I can copy a Louis Vuitton handbag with a leather master craftsman and it will be fantastic - not a cheap China rip off. It does still not give me any more rights than the rip off one in stealing the designers design.

You picked an interesting example, since handbags CANNOT be copyrighted, and thus you DO have the right to copy the bag, either personally, as a company, etc.

What you can't copy is the Louis Vuitton logo, or claim that the bag was made by Louis Vuitton, etc.

But you can copy the bag. Virtually everything in fashion is not protected by copyright, and yet, somehow, the industry manages to continue. Amazing.

FWIW I don't agree with the OP. Copyright, patents, etc. protect the WORK that went into the design of a product, not the product itself. That's why they exist.

Frequently, the example is given that "when I copy digital property, the original remains -- nothing is lost". This is also true with learning. A company or inventor may spend ten years and hundreds of millions of dollars to learn something, and then write the final answer, the learning, down in their computer. It's now "digital", and when copied, the "original" remains -- nothing is lost.

So all's fair, right? This is the OP's argument: that its okay to benefit from the time, effort and capital needed to acquire information in the first place, as long as the information isn't removed from the person who spent years and fortunes to create it (because it's "digital").

Which is complete bunk.

Patents exist because it's bunk, and without patents, companies would simply keep the information secret. Society as a whole loses. Instead, society said: look, we want the information to get out there. We want all society to benefit from the learning. So, in exchange for telling everyone (the patent application), we'll give you a limited amount of time where you will have a monopoly on what you've learned. After that, it's fair game -- society "owns" the knowledge at that point.

And, looking around at modern life, it's worked PRETTY FUCKING WELL.

I'm not saying there aren't improvements that could be made to the patent system. But the logic that "it's digital, therefore copying is fair since nothing is 'lost'" is simply not credible when given any kind of analysis.

 

[Iain Philpott]

Erich I'm not sure you are correct on that. Certainly in the UK. British designers spend a great deal of money chasing high st stores who copy their garments from the catwalk. Once upon a time you could claim the garment was not a copy by just moving a button. Not anymore.

 

[Erich Ocean]

Erich I'm not sure you are correct on that. Certainly in the UK. British designers spend a great deal of money chasing high st stores who copy their garments from the catwalk. Once upon a time you could claim the garment was not a copy by just moving a button. Not anymore.

Iain, they're chasing knockoffs that also copy the logo. There's a really good TED talk about this (it may be linked above, I didn't check).

And they should be, the companies are selling fraudulent goods because they are misrepresenting who made the item.

I'll admit I was surprised when I learned about the copyright situation in fashion as well.

Also: perfumes cannot be copyrighted.

 

[Tehben Dean]

Erich good points.

I just looked it up and it appears that patents last aprox 20 years and then go into public domain. I was mixing that up with copyright which is much much longer....

This does encourage innovation albeit slower then if it lasted say only 5 years...


I'm guessing the wooden camera issue is probably about patents not copyright.

The following can be copyrighted:
literary works
musical works, including any accompanying words
dramatic works, including any accompanying music
pantomimes and choreographic works
pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
motion pictures and other audiovisual works
sound recordings
architectural works

The following can be patented:
Process
Machine
Article of manufacture
Composition of matter
Or an improvement of any of the above items. Most patents are for incremental improvements in known technology; the innovation is evolution rather than revolution.

 

[Jon Thomasberg]

Jarred,

Thanks for addressing my post and the correction I am sure there is much more to it that I am not purvey to. I also understand the concept of 'defend it or lose it' in terms of defending your IP from any and all infringement, without exception. That said, business is business--but man, what a bummer it had to come to this.

Best,
Jon

 

[Mike P.]

Honestly, with the case in question, they look fairly different and there are only so many ways you can mount stuff to a RED camera. My defence (and this is why I'm not a lawyer) would be to ask how else the items could be designed so that they don't infringe, whilst still having the same mounting strength and footprint? The options are so limited that I'd argue monopoly based on the camera's design. I know, it's kind of absurd, but we're talking about a metal cage and a metal bracket that need to fall within a certain shape/spec. Alas, I don't know the specifics (if that hasn't shown already); for example, what's the difference between copyright and patent infringement? Is there a difference?

Unlike the Arri thing, there's no 'technology' here to reverse engineer, it's just a matter of lining up with the mounting holes that are fixed on the camera... Can you patent a screw threading? If so, I'm going to patent 1/4-20 and everyone in this industry (cam and accs manufacturers) will owe me a shitload of money.

Conversely, I would rather a WC A mount than RED's Vmount as it's cheaper and has more mounting options... Just seems like a 'if you can't beat 'em, take 'em to court' scenario. Was this thing filed when RED was still in backorder?

 

[Rob Gardner]

It seems a little comical to me —on a forum whose members (for the most part) are or want to be filmmakers—that the basic issue of authorship or creative ownership is a matter of debate. In this case we are talking about the design of camera parts, but certainly many among us have unhappily signed a “work for hire” buyout agreement for our work, watching someone else make money from and take credit from what we do.

Or perhaps, spent heavy money on lawyer’s fees arguing their way through contract negotiations in order to maintain some ownership of our creative work as it goes out into the market place.

It deeply sucks to see somebody else make money out of your ideas and your creative intelligence. Red’s position is no different from my point of view. And I am sure that there are complexities in this story that we can’t know.

The Wooden Camera guys are fine folks and all of that, but I have to give Red the benefit of the doubt here.

 

[Jon Jones]

I still like RED and I still like WOODEN CAMERA, big flippin deal their suing each other. The only people making a big deal out of it are right here in this forum. Afterwards I will still buy from both of them. You all should feel the same way, if you don't then do like Phil Bloom did and send all your gear back. The world has got so many other problems that are so much bigger than this, quit flappin your gums about it and mind your own bidness. nuff said.