Bloggers, users of GNU , Creative Commons (copyleft) and Wikimedia Commons should be aware of the ongoing call for submissions to the 2012 Copyright Review Committee detailed here .
‘Chapter 4 of the Copyright Review Committee’s Consultation Paper considers the position of rights-holders in copyright law in general, and how such rights-holders contribute to the process of innovation in particular. The intersection between copyright and innovation is clear in the case of rights-holders, who benefit from the rights conferred by copyright law in two main ways: they can commercially exploit their works, and they protect the artistic integrity of their works. The central premise from which copyright law has developed is that it is the potential reward provided by copyright that encourages the art, movie, music, programming and writing. In that sense, copyright law fosters and protects innovation. Moreover, copyright provides rights-holders legal protection for the artistic integrity of their works.’ (excerpted from the Cearta blog), linked above here.
I responded to the introductory chapter on rights-holders beneath the original article,and I am now publishing my response in full beneath here,
Arts Practice is in it’s essence is based in creativity, hence the need for the artist to be aware of how copyright works
The ability to set creative commons licences is crucial to artistic activity, I discussed here : http://poethead.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/poetry-and-digitisation-how-derivatives-occur/
Derivatives in poetry include translation, adaptation (including film/theatre/music/ artistic image) Artists have been using gnu/cc *for a generation* based in their awareness that the arts seed ideas, and that the artist /originator retains the moral and intellectual rights to ownership of their work through the setting of permissions.
I appealed to DETI in my first submission (June 2011) for recognition of the arts based in conventions (including Berne) and ongoing manifesto discussions on the issue. The current base of CRC discussion is narrow and not cognisant of how artistic practice would be impinged by a top-down regime of copyright law. The parameters of discussion need be widened to look at the originators of works in how they expect and understand how their work is used by other artists.
In example, I only use cc (by-NC-ND) for original works and I only publish previously published works on my blog, because I cannot afford remedy in law if ripped off- thus a tiny % of my material is online because of self-restriction : balance this against a corporate entity and their resources. there is a disparity inherent in legal remedy based wholly in resource at the moment. Add to that the issue of loss : if DDoS or any other denial of service occurs (incl isp-blocking) I lose three _ to four years of writing _ again my original work, and it is not subject to remedies that are affordable.
Artists need assurances and laws that protect their works and rights, these laws must be cognisant of their right to set permissions and to have confidence in methods of transmission. The base for copyright discussion needs to include and involve those advocates with expertise in the area and this is not confined or should be weighted to business and corporates.
If the base of copyright discussion is not broadened to include arts’ practice it is a creative disservice to Irish arts, and a refusal to recognise creative practice including those mentioned above : translation, adaptation , visual art and film.’ (my quote)
I will add links to how the issue of fair-use and rights-holders are being discussed in the comments section. I hope that people who publish online recognise themselves as stakeholders and desire to contribute their expertise to the CRC2012, because as stated in bold above here, ‘ The base for copyright discussion needs to include and involve those advocacies with expertise in the area and this is not confined or should be weighted to business and corporate entities.’