h a l f b a k e r yWhere life irritates science.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
George H of the Beetles was saying that he had to pay rights to use his own songs.
This is definitely wrong. He and his band made the status of those songs so that the person with the rights could make the money.
I propose that you can sell the rights but can never lose your own rights use the music
or intellectual property you have made.
The symbol for this right would be a dot in a circle (.) and would mean, if your genesis was big, it would not be a reason for you to end destitute and in the gutter.
Shop lefts are different
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shop_right
The gotcha of inventing while working for somebody. [popbottle, Jan 29 2015]
Reggae version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jah_Roots
no groaning please [bhumphrys, Jan 30 2015]
[link]
|
| |
Who did he sell them to that he had to pay for the use of them? |
|
| |
"If I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants." Isaac Newton in a letter to Robert Hooke |
|
| |
The rights to play the music or tinker with the intellectual property without having to pay anyone. If G. H. plays a concert to people all he is doing is helping the sales of those with the rights anyway. He shouldn't be penalized. He wouldn't be able to copy the music and sell it because it's not him playing it. |
|
| |
The difference between copying and generating (hence genesis) |
|
| |
Who are these Beetles of which you speak? Their name seems like a rip-off of another much more popular band. |
|
| |
This might work for individual copyright, but it's going to go
over less well if the original copyright holder is, say Warner
Bros, and they're selling something to Disney. |
|
| |
Or did you mean the right would stay with the animator or
writer who created it specifically under contact? Because
that wouldn't go over much better. |
|
| |
And if this is extended to patents, it blows the entire system
out of the water. |
|
| |
Also, what has this got to do with Genesis? - George Harrison wasn't in Genesis. |
|
| |
//George Harrison wasn't in Genesis// It's easy to
remember, Phil Collins isn't hairy, and George was far more
hirsute. |
|
| |
This brings about the simple mnemonic:
Smooth Phil, invisible touch.
Hairy George, not so much.
|
|
| |
Nice mnemonic! I always found Phil Collins to be a rather unlikely rock star - he had, you might say, become a rock star against the odds, whereas George Harrison looked the part. Again, easy to remember:
Uncool Phil, against all odds;
Gorgeous George, my sweet Lord |
|
| |
//I propose that you can sell the rights but can never lose your own rights use the music or intellectual property you have made |
|
| |
You could put that in the contract if you wanted. |
|
| |
It would be like selling a car and still being able to use it on Saturday afternoons. Nothing wrong with that, as long as the buyer agreed. |
|
| |
//If G. H. plays a concert to people all he is doing is helping the sales of those with the rights anyway. He shouldn't be penalized. |
|
| |
Penalized? He's getting a royalty, isn't he? |
|
| |
My mnemonic:
George Harrison, stabbed
Phil Collins, no such luck |
|
| |
Also, what the porpoise said. |
|
| |
" Who are these Beetles of which you speak? Their name seems like a rip-off of another much more popular band. " |
|
| |
You're probably thinking of the Beat Farmers, a great San Diego band. |
|
| |
[Mech E] has it right, genesis rights reside at the person act level. To colaborate an amount of copying has to be involved and hence a saleable entity. Big companies don't really have genesis rights because they buy all the intricate web of genesis acts for a object that is able to be copied. |
|
| |
You may get problems where one band member has to pay rights to another for their rights but it is still not paying for your own creations. |
|
| |
[the porpoise] No. You have to have made the car. Sellings the rights to copy and make the car doesn't stop you making another for yourself. |
|
| |
//He's getting a royalty// It would depend on the rights sale contract and probably be a fraction. Still wrong in my mind. |
|
| |
But as the originator of a work, you can't have it both ways. At the moment, you can sell the Intellectual Property in your work to someone else, and then, as George found, you have to pay to perform the songs you originally wrote. Let's say that Intellectual Property law is changed so that the originator of a work has some lifetime, residual rights over the work. If this happens then when you want to sell your Intellectual Property, you'll get a lot less for it than you would if you retain no rights. |
|
| |
This boils down to a recognition that you can sell / licence / retain any part of your IP rights that you like. I have seen some crazily detailed slicing of IP rights but this sort of slicing is more prevalent in an academic context (where the exploitation value of the IP is contingent / aspirational) than it is in a commercial context (as would be the case with the works of a member of a popular beet combo) as there, as hippo sez, the whole is worth more than the sum of the parts: a potential purchase of IP rights will want to be sure that they have the benefit of the monopoly and aren't shattering their market with a deal which is generous to the IP-creator. |
|
| |
//popular beet combo// - would you include ABBA in this categorisation, being Swede-ish..? |
|
| |
In most of the world, author rights have two components -
economic and moral.
The idea is that you can sell the economic rights (which are
in any case limited in duration) but the right to be
recognised as the author is permanent and non-
transferrable. |
|
| |
Are Swedes beets? I thought they were a hypertrophied rutabega. |
|
| |
// the right to be recognised as the author is
permanent and non- transferrable // |
|
| |
What about ghost writers? I assumed (possibly
incorrectly) that they typically were not recognized. |
|
| |
Loris is describing the idea, rather than the current US / UK law. I think. |
|
| |
No, I think Loris is describing copyright law as it
stands. |
|
| |
//popular beet combo// - The Wurzels |
|
| |
If a large company patents some IP, do they have to state the originators in the patent? I would have thought that you would have to make a legal declaration that the idea was yours. |
|
| |
I don't condone a promoter company owned by George not paying royalties but a spontaneous jam to a packed restaurant. "Copyright", to me, means the rights to copying. How can an originator copy when they are the source. |
|
| |
//If a large company patents some IP, do they have to state the originators in the patent? |
|
| |
Inventors are always identified on patents for their inventions. |
|
| |
In most (all?) countries, ownership of an invention resides with the inventor until the inventor transfers ownership to an employer or some other thing. |
|
| |
Another type of 'Beet combo'? see link |
|
| |
//Inventors are always identified on patents for their inventions.
In most (all?) countries, ownership of an invention resides with the inventor until the inventor transfers ownership to an employer or some other thing// |
|
| |
The rights to an invention belong to whoever can afford the extortion, they no longer belong the inventor. |
|
| |