#Copyright Society

[worldipday]

WOMEN TRAILBLAZERS CREATING SUCCESS THROUGH COPYRIGHT.

The Copyright Alliance, in collaboration with the U.S. Copyright Office, the Copyright Society, the Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC), the U.S. Intellectual Property Alliance, and numerous Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts (VLA) organizations across the country, will host a World Intellectual Property Day (WIPD) 2023 event titled Women Trailblazers Creating Success Through Copyright on Wednesday, April 26 from 2-3:30 p.m. ET. This virtual panel is in keeping with the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) 2023 theme, Women and IP: Accelerating Innovation and Creativity. Join us to hear from inspiring women who will discuss how copyright has helped them to advance their careers and protect and distribute their and others’ creative works. Attendees will also learn the steps they can take to forge their own career path by protecting their creativities as well as their livelihoods. Our panel moderator is Karyn A. Temple, Former Register of Copyrights and SEVP & Global General Counsel at the Motion Picture Association; and our panelists are Jayda Imanlihen, Founder of the Black Girl Film School; Alicia Calzada, Deputy General Counsel for the National Press Photographers Association; Tristen Norman, Director, Creative Insights, Getty Images; and Miriam Lord, Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of Public Information and Education at the U.S. Copyright Office. Don’t miss this unique opportunity to gain insights and advice from leading women in the creative and copyright industries. VLA Cohosts: California Lawyers for the Arts Carolina Lawyers for the Arts & Entertainment Chicago Lawyers for the Creative Arts Colorado Attorneys for the Arts Georgia Lawyers for the Arts Maryland Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts New York Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts Oregon Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts St. Louis Volunteer Lawyers and Accountants for the Arts Texas Accountants and Lawyers for the Arts The Ella Project Washington Area Lawyers for the Arts.

[scribblersobia]

POETRY. 🌙

Defying the darkness of the new moon,

the crescent was born,

among the endless starry sky,

the silver arc shone,

his guardian is the Aphrodite,

she sings him a lullaby every night,

the whole universe is tranquil,

and every fragment of nature,

is mesmerized by the beauty of the crescent,

basking in the afterglow of the twilight.

@scribblersobia ©️

[busterkeatonsociety]

This Day in Buster…July 21, 1927

William Pittenger’s widow files a case against Buster Keaton’s studio for ‘lifting’ the plot of “The General” from her late husband’s book.  Buster’s response & the state of litigation when it comes to copyright makes a fascinating read.

[fond-illusion]

I bear the weight of unspoken words - ones that desperately needed to be heard, but never found their voice. I am perpetually consumed by thoughts of you. So much so, I’ve deluded myself into believing that this collection might resolve any lingering anguish. If I am honest with myself, which you always urged me to be, I foolishly cling to the hope that these pages, instilled with memories, might one day reach you.

No, that is not entirely accurate.

Ultimately, I cannot bear the thought of forgetting. Father always told me these moments are few and precious, slipping through our fingers if we are not careful. Thus, I want to remember everything - the delicate dusting of freckles across the bridge of your nose, a tiny constellation only I have memorized; the small mole on your left shoulder, a mark I have traced countless times; even the veins that snake across your calloused hands, which I know better than my own. I wish to recall your entirety for as long as I can; not just fleeting moments that surface when something or another reminds me of you. Until the inevitable day when my tongue can no longer string together the syllables of your name. 

Please, too, remember me always.

copyright © 2024 by fond illusion.

[chewwytwee]

People reallllly fell for the whole meritocracy lie. Having skill will not earn you wealth because wealth is not a function of skill.

[darkerthanblack-666]

Silent Library Suomi with Lost Society

recorded by @fangirlinglikealoon 💖

[yuriartillery]

reading the thoughts of those IP defenders is interesting. a lot of them will argue "we should just reform copyright such that it can no longer be used by big corporations exploitatively". it's completely idealistic. any attempt to "reform" copyright in that way would be completely at odds with the material interests of the people currently propping up the current system, and they would correctly identify any of those efforts at massive sweeping reform as tantamount to copyright abolition and oppose it just as staunchly! but even if it wasn't, those enfranchised parties are directly incentivized to never give an inch! you're not reforming your way out of this one, girl!!!

[marynia-here]

𓇢

Shut your ears, Close your mouth, Never ever break the glass, Hold the secrets, make them last, Living thru our parents past.

[dragonsorphan]

Murgeon

What if

We never rid ourselves

Of the scents of others

Buried in our hands

Their cells

The dregs and whispers

Of dying moments of existence

Of skin we have held

Our fingers dirty

Steeped in filthy mementos

Never coming clean

[jolikmc-thoughts]

Few things make me come unglued. This? Yeah, this made me come un-fucking-glued.

I don't give a shit if the SESAC and Alphabet, Inc. are having a lover's tat. Don't block my videos that use shitty covers of your unstable record labels' songs. It's especially fucked up that a fucking AdLib Visual Composer cover of one of Rush's shitty songs somehow got entangled in this mess. It's literally just a beeps-and-boops version of the song, you fuck-nuts!!

Fuck you, Alphabet, Inc. And Google. And YouTube. And especially you, Society of European Stage Authors and Composers.

[soullessjack]

I love how the costume designers on spn will have this intricate shirt meta with different outfits or patterns or color choices and then when it came to jacks first ever outfit they just threw a shirt on him that says “fuck around and find out”

[thoughtportal]

As the maker of small things I found this manifesto to be incredibly inspiring and hopeful.

small technology, small economy, small community

[mysterylovergurl]

I'm tired of people and their stupid promises. I'm tired of caring and feeling all my emotions too deeply. I just need someone to hold me , offer their shoulder to cry on till I lose my mind and forget that my tender emotions ever existed.

[livvyofthelake]

the trouble i went through in the past 30 minutes to be able to fucking make this post. just so i could attempt to make even one person understand what i mean when i say this shit sounds so goddamn similar. is ridiculous. the similarities have been bugging me for MONTHS and frankly it's driving me out of my mind. someone validate me and tell me this shit sounds the same so i don't completely lose my fucking marbles...

[bobzora]

i <3 copyrighted material being put into new contexts to create something entirely new and different

[anneangel]

A (lengthy, and probably therefore not read) note on Tolkien as a person, Tolkien's work, classics, societies, copyright, capitalism and the public domain.

Tolkien himself demonstrates that those who keep the work in the popular imagination are those who consume it, that is, the public. Who determined the existence of LotR was The Hobbit, whose attachment of readers required new content that addressed more about hobbits.

I amazed in a Tolkien letter claiming to have nothing more to write about them (hobbits) and that their inspiration for what would become LotR was limited. Still, by their own inspiration and to satisfy readers' desire to consume more "hobbits stories", Tolkien wrote LotR as a result of setting aside the "stories of ancient days" he wanted to write so much (which he never launch/publish in life, all being posthumous works).

And so, at the expense of leaving his interest in the first era aside, LotR was finished and became a success, determining the events of the third age of his fantasy world.

The public determined that the work "started from the end, so to speak", after all it is the public that consumes, so also has a word in what will be produced. So Tolkien's publisher slammed the gavel, in the final decision to fund "more hobbit stories" (money is needed to finance projects, and a publisher will pay for what seems most favorable in terms of profit).

Later, Tolkien himself ceded the rights to The Hobbit and LotR. Money still rules, even if Tolkien wanted to unite the useful with the pleasant (ie, write what you like and still earn money for it). so, there is the money that regulates what will be produced and the public that consumes it, authors have to balance themselves on that scale, Tolkien was no exception.

But what is a classic works? It's are loved, studied and re-read for the way it impacted the respective genre and the culture around it, especially as such work spoke and still talks with themes of its century and centuries to come. A classic is a classic because it addresses themes that don't become obsolete. However, the way in which it will be approached can be relative, as the centuries change, the vision about such themes too.

Allied to this, it is not surprising that, in a world where money is the ultimate language, that companies produce what will bring them the most profit.

Warner produced The Hobbit with the intention of making a profit, but produced something that current audiences could identify with and consume. We're talking about a generation that has its own trends, so the film followed trends of the time in relation to "action & adventure" films and put "a little bit of everything", action, romance, RPG (...) with the original work.

Obviously readers would argue that the adaptation should exist to satisfy fans of the original work, but that's in the "perfect world". By way of understanding, the rule has always been for the company to buy the rights and define for itself what it will do with the content, even if it does no go what the author intended (this not only with Tolkien, it is not exclusive to this Fandom). In theory, the adaptation should cater to the fans. But the rule of money is clear: what they think will generate the most profit will be produced.

In The Hobbit, this caused three films and the inclusion of themes/scenes that did not exist in the original, and the statistic is obvious in pointing out that the amount of audience that followed such a trilogy in the cinema decreased according to the releases. Still, Warner made a lot of money (as well as Tolkien Estate, or who do you think selling books with prints/jackets of the film, favors?). The Hobbit movies made the list of those that raised more than 1 billion at Warner. And the sale of products from both The Hobbit and LotR became more visible to the general public, making money for all investors and stakeholders.

And even if the films do not cater to literary fans, who are unhappy with the changes, they have been serving a lot of children and young people (and adults) who watch them, as they are in line with what they currently consume in other media and platforms for games and movies.

You see, the fan is both the important link, in his place as a consumer of the content, as well as the lowest link, for only consuming and not being part of the profits. Furthermore, the fan is plural, since there is not only the "book fan" but also the "adaptations fan". And as the rule of good coexistence dictates: everyone needs to be respected without anyone being ridiculed or poorly evaluated and segregated based on their personal tastes.

Now, in business terms, for Warner or for Amazon, who have spoken good or bad about their productions, it only serves as marketing, the important thing for them is that they consume what they produce. That's how it is for content producers, correct? The ideal would be to speak fine, but speaking badly is not so bad as long as there is profit. It is a capitalist world.

In fact: Classic works remain classic because of their relevance. Still, as the term Adaptation suggests that it can be reproduced outside its initial scope. The difference is that while the content of the classic remains due to its timeless theme (understandable regardless of the century in which it is read), the adaptations may become less relevant because they (possibly) meet more changing demands and agendas in the social fabric, which can no longer make sense and/or be of little relevance in the near future (but only time will tell, in all).

For the rest, I believe that fans "upset with the adaptation that did not come out as they wanted or did not meet their expectations" are entitled to complain. An adaptation that meets current guidelines and modifies the original content disappoints the reader who is more focused on "because that work is the classic that it is", but it is also fans nostalgic and lacks flexibility in accepting that societies change, as well as the vision it will make of that content, depending on the changing guidelines addressed in our century.

Honestly? Both the original work and the adaptation talk about different places in society. While one is registered in the timeless, the other in the elements and guidelines of a certain time. But BOTH can be studied as long as the society that generates and consumes them is analyzed.

You see, for someone who specializes in "Tolkien" such adaptations are "aberration". For a sociologist? Study material. Saying then that the adaptations are "bad", depends on the point of view of who speaks and/or studies, is relative.

Getting here we have: As well as the public will mediate what it will consume (without judgment of what is "good" or "bad", just meeting its own will to consume certain media/content) and money will mediate what is produced. It will not be produced if there is no public. Such books and adaptations were produced because there was someone to consume them, so there was someone to pay for them.

The maximum rule is not moral, it is "it doesn't matter who produces or what is produced, it matters more to whom the content is intended" (in general, especially if that recipient pays for it, after all it is a capitalist society).

Tolkien wrote "more about hobbits" because the recipient wanted it. And companies produce adaptations that deviate from the original because the recipient wants it. Companies printed and distributed Tolkien's books because there were buyers (but buyers interested in Hobbits), as well as Warner and Amazon producing adaptations with current agendas because it's a trend in the market.

No, dear Tolkien fans, it's not an issue with you, it's not with your sole and exclusive purpose, it's not meant to just annoy you, it's not an attempt to misrepresent "values". To think like this is to reduce the theme, it is almost narcissistic. Unfortunately, things don't revolve around your navel. To understand movements of change it is necessary to study such changes from century to century. Since the 19th century, at least. And not just in the fantasy world, but with social movements in general.

I don't see it as misrepresentation because changes between centuries are notable, and sometimes necessary, just as we are not the same society as in the XIV century, we are not the same as in the twentieth century (in which Tolkien lived). Society is changeable because the people in it are. Wanting her to stagnate is retrograde.

When studying societies, their malleability content is perceived, perhaps that is why the endless interest in ancient societies is so intrinsic to us, whether in academia or in popular culture (why study them if really was exactly as we are today? But It no is). So, I don't see the guidelines of this century as "distortion of values", only as a change of paradigms, common from century to century (and often necessary).

Returning to the subject, understand the recipient not as a fan, but as a general public attached to an idea (if such an idea will become timeless or just a product of its time, only centuries will tell).

Honestly, I find the social study of works and their diverse and plural impacts on the cultural milieu that surrounds them to be very interesting, and not necessarily about the work itself. Because to reduce the work in itself is to deny the existence of the public that consumes it and that it has a different understanding of the same material and how it should be used.

And that is who Tolkien himself said about Allegories and Applicability. This idea talks about the annulment of the author as a producer of allegorical images predetermined by him and inserted in the work, in favor of the public applying their own understanding and repertoire of allegories and ideas to the read content, based on their own experiences.

That's it. This is the author limiting himself and recognizing the recipient who consumes his content as one of the determining elements in the creation process, as well as the acceptance of such a reality in the popular imagination, which will always be plural given that no one is obliged to see the content with "the same eyes".

This is so real that it is why the Public Domain exists, which is nothing more when a work is no longer under the domain of who created it (or heirs of Copyright), but in the domain of who consumes it, the public.

Tolkien's work is under the control of whoever owns the Copyright, which currently is who has enough money to have bought it, and the other half is under the ownership of the heirs, who also need money, well, look, capitalist society, I already said.

This does not mean that the public does not have their own opinion about the work and adaptations, whether these opinions are positive or negative. But they are nothing more than that: plural and diverse opinions of the public that consumes, commonly known what really matters!

Returning to the subject of Allegory vs Applicability, one of the things I found most interesting when reading Tolkien and Lewis was precisely that while Lewis makes a fantastic allegorical parody based on themes of Christian origin, Tolkien (albeit extremely Catholic) refused to alienate the reader from your own world view. I've always understood that it's as if Tolkien said that, if there was religious inspiration in his work, he didn't do it that way with the intention of inducing the reader to such a perception. Therefore, the reader is free to understand the work in his own way and apply it to his own knowledge.

So that there are several religious and Christian/Catholic contents that link with his work are making use of APPLICABILITY. However, this does not mean that everyone has to see the work in the same way.

It is curious that many fans ignore Tolkien's entire speech about Allegory and Applicability. To say that Tolkien's work is summarily Christian/Catholic is to make a mere allegory. Since Tolkien himself says that his work is not allegorical, he may be religious, but he tried not to force his readers to see his work that way. When talking about it, he opted for the freedom of the reader to see the work as us wished.

Obviously, while alive, Tolkien was proud of his work (and rightly so) after all, he was very dedicated to it and its details, there was never a fantasy author like him. But fans need to separate the work from the author.

It is curious that Tolkien was able to do this, for although he proudly loved his Work, in the essay/thesis on "Allegory vs Applicability" he relinquished control. He, as few authors could, realized that he owns what he does/says/writes BUT he doesn't own how the other will understand, he doesn't own how the reader will look at and understand the work. And he realized that and STILL accepted it and was in favor of the reader's freedom to understand the work and apply it to whatever they want, based on their own personal experiences.

It's as if he turned around and said: look, I thought like this while I was writing, but if you want to look at it that other way then okay, you're free.

That is, you liked the book, great! Did you like the movie? Excellent. All are being produced for the enjoyment of the public, and for the profit of the investors involved.

You are the consumer, your individual opinion matters. Now, if you want to conform to the discourse of the "Team books" or the "Team adaptations" and repudiate everything that is said to the contrary, it's completely your choice.

Now, what's the point of becoming so extremist to the point of not being able to list "positive and negative" points about the same content? Where is the good sense? And the basic rules of good coexistence and respect for other people's ideas, even if this idea is different from ours???

I recommend the same good sense that Tolkien had in giving up control (of an "absolute rule meaning" about his work), giving freedom to those who consume (to idealize the meaning of what it seems to be). Recognizing the consumer with plurality of opinions.

Tolkien DONT tryed to master them all us with an idea. Lmao!

So, NO try too! Please abandon the idea of "One Ring(Idea) to rule them all, One Ring (Idea) to find them, One Ring(Idea) to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them"

Lmao!!