Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Legal art forgery, for the sake of movies (2014)

vanityfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 37 posts

Re: Legal art forgery, for the sake of movies (2014)

#11

Post by Retric »

nntwozz wrote: post #10
chrismcb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally think copyright tend are to long. But at the moment it is essentially death plus 70 years, which means Picasso's work will enjoy another 17 years of protection, unless they were works for hire. As far as a watermark I'm guessing that works be between the new artist and the original artist/estate

Where did that seemingly arbitrary 70 number come from? I don't get the reasoning behind it, why not make it 10 for example?

Companies didn’t want to lose copyright on previously created works, most notably Steam Boat Willy.

US constitution says copyright duration needs to be finite, but it kept being extended in little increments. Nobody has succeeded in pushing for more than 70 years yet so slowly a few works have been entering the public domain every year including just recently Steamboat Willie.

Re: Legal art forgery, for the sake of movies (2014)

#12

Post by matheusmoreira »

nntwozz wrote: post #10
chrismcb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally think copyright tend are to long. But at the moment it is essentially death plus 70 years, which means Picasso's work will enjoy another 17 years of protection, unless they were works for hire. As far as a watermark I'm guessing that works be between the new artist and the original artist/estate

Where did that seemingly arbitrary 70 number come from? I don't get the reasoning behind it, why not make it 10 for example?

Greed. When you're a trillion dollar industry and your monopolies are about to expire, you lobby the government to get them extended.

Re: Legal art forgery, for the sake of movies (2014)

#13

Post by matheusmoreira »

colechristensen wrote: post #3

>Why This Movie Perfectly Re-Created a Picasso, Destroyed It, and Mailed the Evidence to Picasso’s Estate Pablo Picasso died more than fifty years ago at the age on 91. Four of his children are dead and the one remaining alive is 76. It's really stupid that people have to go all of this trouble for work done so long ago. Intellectual property laws should not protect your work for the benefit of your middle-aged grand…

Stupid doesn't quite do it justice. Even Mark Twain who once argued for perpetual copyright compromised at the grandchildren: "let them take care of themselves". And yet here we are, watching an "estate" defend its state granted monopoly on the works of the dead for the benefit of grandchildren.

Macaulay is eerily prescient on the matter.

https://www.thepublicdomain.org/2014/07/24/macaulay-on-copyr...

> even if I believed in a natural right of property, independent of utility and anterior to legislation, I should still deny that this right could survive the original proprietor

> even those who hold that there is a natural right of property must admit that rules prescribing the manner in which the effects of deceased persons shall be distributed are purely arbitrary, and originate altogether in the will of the legislature

> It is good that authors should be remunerated; and the least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is an evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil; but the evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of securing the good.

> the evil effects of the monopoly are proportioned to the length of its duration. But the good effects for the sake of which we bear with the evil effects are by no means proportioned to the length of its duration.

> We all know how faintly we are affected by the prospect of very distant advantages, even when they are advantages which we may reasonably hope that we shall ourselves enjoy. But an advantage that is to be enjoyed more than half a century after we are dead, by somebody, we know not by whom, perhaps by somebody unborn, by somebody utterly unconnected with us, is really no motive at all to action.

> At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. [...] Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end.

> On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as “Robinson Crusoe” or the “Pilgrim’s Progress” shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller

Re: Legal art forgery, for the sake of movies (2014)

#14

Post by bee_rider »

nntwozz wrote: post #10
chrismcb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally think copyright tend are to long. But at the moment it is essentially death plus 70 years, which means Picasso's work will enjoy another 17 years of protection, unless they were works for hire. As far as a watermark I'm guessing that works be between the new artist and the original artist/estate

Where did that seemingly arbitrary 70 number come from? I don't get the reasoning behind it, why not make it 10 for example?

IIRC it was bumped up whenever the Mickey Mouse got near the line.

Re: Legal art forgery, for the sake of movies (2014)

#15

Post by adastra22 »

dfxm12 wrote: post #8
colechristensen wrote: post #3

>Why This Movie Perfectly Re-Created a Picasso, Destroyed It, and Mailed the Evidence to Picasso’s Estate Pablo Picasso died more than fifty years ago at the age on 91. Four of his children are dead and the one remaining alive is 76. It's really stupid that people have to go all of this trouble for work done so long ago. Intellectual property laws should not protect your work for the benefit of your middle-aged grand…

That wasn't the point. It seems like the the people making the film were happy to work with the foundation, for whom this was their first such request. Even if they had an adversarial posture towards the foundation, the alternative would probably involve a court of law sorting this out, with all the costs of time and money that entails. Even if they were certain they were in their rights to just add a watermark, any…

The explanation is simpler than that. Generational copyright is to the movie studio’s direct financial benefit.

Re: Legal art forgery, for the sake of movies (2014)

#16

Post by ronsor »

felbane wrote: post #9
ryandrake wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, as the argument goes, nobody would ever make art without the guarantee of royalties going to the artist's next 3 or 4 generations of kin. They would just... never take up painting, composing, acting, and so on.

I can't tell if you're being hyperbolic. Plenty of people make art to express themselves, not for the potential profit of it.

He is, but the idiocy of other people has made you question that fact.

Re: Legal art forgery, for the sake of movies (2014)

#17

Post by analog31 »

When my mom was an art student in the 1950s, duplicating a famous painting was a training exercise. In fact, the museum would let you bring in your easel and set it up in the exhibit hall. I remember seeing this done when I was a kid. Maybe they've gotten too prickly about security, or copyrights, because I don't see this being done any more.

Re: Legal art forgery, for the sake of movies (2014)

#18

Post by argomo »

dfxm12 wrote: post #8
colechristensen wrote: post #3

>Why This Movie Perfectly Re-Created a Picasso, Destroyed It, and Mailed the Evidence to Picasso’s Estate Pablo Picasso died more than fifty years ago at the age on 91. Four of his children are dead and the one remaining alive is 76. It's really stupid that people have to go all of this trouble for work done so long ago. Intellectual property laws should not protect your work for the benefit of your middle-aged grand…

That wasn't the point. It seems like the the people making the film were happy to work with the foundation, for whom this was their first such request. Even if they had an adversarial posture towards the foundation, the alternative would probably involve a court of law sorting this out, with all the costs of time and money that entails. Even if they were certain they were in their rights to just add a watermark, any…

Still pretty stupid that we as a society have created such a system. We rob the authors and artist of today to pay the estates of those long dead.

Re: Legal art forgery, for the sake of movies (2014)

#19

Post by sn0n »

colechristensen wrote: post #3

>Why This Movie Perfectly Re-Created a Picasso, Destroyed It, and Mailed the Evidence to Picasso’s Estate Pablo Picasso died more than fifty years ago at the age on 91. Four of his children are dead and the one remaining alive is 76. It's really stupid that people have to go all of this trouble for work done so long ago. Intellectual property laws should not protect your work for the benefit of your middle-aged grand…

What's really stupid is the 12 monkeys lawsuit .

Re: Legal art forgery, for the sake of movies (2014)

#20

Post by waste_monk »

bee_rider wrote: post #14
nntwozz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did that seemingly arbitrary 70 number come from? I don't get the reasoning behind it, why not make it 10 for example?

IIRC it was bumped up whenever the Mickey Mouse got near the line.

Surprised Disney haven't managed to get it changed to death of the copyright holder + 70 years, rather than the artist. That is not dead which can eternal lie, / And with strange aeons even death may die.
Post reply on HN