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

Dear Spike Lee

juanluisgarcia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 165 posts

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#141

Post by PeterisP »

snowwrestler wrote: post #77
nawitus wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Believing that copyright shouldn't exist or should be limited from it's current status but contracts should be enforced is a completely valid position.

You can't enforce a contract related to creative works without the concept of copyright. Otherwise there is nothing of value upon which to base the contract. That is where copyright came from in the first place.

You definitely can - it's contracts for performing a service, and it doesn't matter if the end result is some copyrightable artifact like a poem, an uncopyrightable artifact like a finding of fact (x % of surveyed people liked your product) or no artifacts at all, as for many services.

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#142

Post by theboss »

Seems to me this guy is going about it all wrong. Why not keep your mouth shut and sue. If he never got paid and never signed anything then it's a clear case of copyright infringement since the images are being used in commerce. Lawyer up and get off the internet.

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#143

Post by majormajor »

icebraining wrote: post #89
majormajor wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a hard time seeing the argument that it should be unilateral. An agreement should be between multiple parties, so if you don't agree to what they're offering, you shouldn't take it. Otherwise it devolves into "I will take it because I can ." Why does that make any more sense for instantly-reproducible, yet still not instantly-creatable, goods than for physical ones? If you want to take it, you probably see som…

Otherwise it devolves into "I will take it because I can." A free society implies that should be the default, with well justified exceptions. I don't see decent justifications for copyright. Why does that make any more sense for instantly-reproducible, yet still not instantly-creatable, goods than for physical ones? The fact that the latter are scarce and rivalrous. Private property is a mechanism to prevent/reduce c…

> Private property is a mechanism to prevent/reduce conflicts.

I don't know that I agree. I'm more inclined to view private property as a mechanism to encourage productive use of land and other scarce resources. And I see creativity/time/inspiration as a scarce resource.

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#144

Post by wpietri »

knice wrote: post #49
herge wrote: post #3

This is why you should always have your contracts reviewed by a lawyer. See Mike Monteiro's Fuck You, Pay Me: http://vimeo.com/22053820

I was thinking the same thing. Always, always, always have a contract in place. I really feel for this guy, but the way this went down, he provided them with his best work on the hope they would then reasonably compensate him. A contract, negotiated up-front, might have prevented the agency from taking advantage of him.

A contract, negotiated up front, is something assholes like this will never do. This guy had no leverage. His options were walk away early, walk away late, or get screwed.

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#145

Post by anigbrowl »

msandford wrote: post #132
anigbrowl wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their job is to suck your soul out, give you peanut shells, and kiss asses to their clients. Correct. And your job as a freelancer is to do the same thing. I feel slightly sorry for this guy, but his failure to get any kind of deal memo or contract in place shows him to be an amateur. EDIT: I extended my original comment as it was so brief as to be potentially confusing. As for ripping off his design for the poster -…

So long as the author/designer didn't have a contract in place to sell his work, then they don't own it and he retains copyright. As a result they're committing criminal copyright infringement and he should be referring this to the FBI for federal prosecution. They will have zero ability to prove that they own the work so I imagine it might go very well for the designer.

Well, no.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#146

Post by haptiK »

bryne wrote: post #53
gkoberger wrote: post #13

Seems weird he mentioned Spike Lee (who did nothing wrong, as far as I can tell) so many times, but didn't name the agency. Seems to hurt the wrong party's reputation. Additionally, he has no apparent way to contact him. EDIT: I really don't want to point fingers with 0 proof, but Spike Lee happens to be CEO of an ad agency named Spike DDB. https://twitter.com/SpikeDDB

I think it's prudent given that while the agency apparently lowballed him, it's not clear whether the agency or Spike Lee's production company (40 Acres And A Mule Filmworks, appearing on the posters in question on his Facebook page) are the party actually responsible for the theft/misappropriation.

"misappropriation".. I had this word in my mind the entire time while reading the open letter. I can't really think of a word to better describe just what seems to be going on here.

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#147

Post by shaneofalltrad »

callmeed wrote: post #69

Seriously, what is it with "Agencies" lately? Who the F--k are these people? I have heard/experienced a dozen similar stories recently. I have a friend who left a huge agency to freelance–only to have another small agency work him to the bone and take advantage of him almost exactly like the story here. YES I ABSOLUTELY GET THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE FREELANCER/SUB TO GET THEIR CONTRACTS IN PLACE ... But, seriously, the…

Sales, SEO and those doing middle work are loaded with "GOALS" that never are enough by the employers. It is sickening what they do. The lack of respect for the true working class is only going to get better if we shut out these type of services.

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#148

Post by kazagistar »

icebraining wrote: post #78
kazagistar wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, all property law is just as fictional. I didn't agree to not trespass or use items that other people claim belong to them. I didn't agree to the papers they hold saying that I cannot go for a joyride in my neighbors' car. The law defines property. Just because IP has different traits then physical property does not make it more real; they are both useful fictions that form the foundation of a functional s…

Scarcity is what sustains private property, as a way to control conflicts when multiple people want to access rivalrous goods. Intellectual property is a collection of disparate concepts, but if we take copyright, there's no similar justification for it. See Against Intellectual Property , by Stephan Kinsella: http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

Right, some kind of solution for scarcity is needed, but any particular property system is merely a possible implementation. And while "scarcity" is not a problem solved by IP, there are other problem that IP does indeed solve.

All property rights, as implemented by our laws, are just as much of a fiction. You just feel that one is more necessary or better then another.

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#149

Post by icebraining »

kazagistar wrote: post #148
icebraining wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scarcity is what sustains private property, as a way to control conflicts when multiple people want to access rivalrous goods. Intellectual property is a collection of disparate concepts, but if we take copyright, there's no similar justification for it. See Against Intellectual Property , by Stephan Kinsella: http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

Right, some kind of solution for scarcity is needed, but any particular property system is merely a possible implementation. And while "scarcity" is not a problem solved by IP, there are other problem that IP does indeed solve. All property rights, as implemented by our laws, are just as much of a fiction. You just feel that one is more necessary or better then another.

All property rights, as implemented by our laws, are just as much of a fiction. You just feel that one is more necessary or better then another.

I'm not sure why you feel I would disagree with that, or why would that contradict my position. I'm not a believer in natural laws.

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#150

Post by mystix24 »

Shinden wrote: post #118

As Richard Pryor once said "don't be messing wit dem Jews if you ain't got no money". Welcome to the world of people who give you praise and acolades but give you nothing in return. They are consumate smoke blowing up your ass thieves. Contract in hand and no matter what you should own all intelectual property rights. The reason they chose you was because they thought you would roll over for a belly rub and instead a…

I don't get the last bit you mentioned.

in the privy of someone who promises 20% of your investment return if you fund a movie they will mention those companies and your will say "OH! so thats who you are!" RUN QUICK!

Why would anyone wants a 20% return? I want 100%+ return on an investment.

Are you trying to say that 80% is to have my company name on that stupid screen?

Post reply on HN