Book People Archive

Re: Redeeming Copyright

Regarding the Conservancy proposal, I would like to refer to the current
system here in England of allowing owners of works of art, or stately
homes to donate them to galleries or transfer them to the National Trust,
in return for exemption from punitive death duties on their estates.
Though morally one could argue that since they (the 'heirs') did not
acquire the art or houses, and in many cases these acquisitions were
the result of Imperialist plunder of other nations, they should donate
them (=free them) anyway, or even return the art to its country of origin,
in practical terms it has resulted in a large mass of works and houses
entering the 'public viewing domain' which might otherwise have ended
in private collection via the markets. This system 'rewards owners for
freeing slaves'. I think I am therefore in favour of the Conservancy
idea from a practical point of view, provided the moral point is not
forgotten. England should I think return the Elgin Marbles to Greece
for example.

I would also like to say that my own focus (and the terms of
availability of my own work) is on free replication and adaptation
for NON-COMMERCIAL purposes. It seems reasonable to me that not only
should a work be in the public domain and freely replicable or
adaptable, but that others should be inhibited from making money out
of it, otherwise the creator and heirs are unreasonably disadvantaged.
Therefore any conservancy should inhibit COMMERCIAL exploitation unless
it is for charitable purposes (definition?) or for the legitimate
furtherance of the Conservancy. In my own case I make my work available
for free replication but retain copyright in the current legal regime
since I can then in theory exercise some control over misuse of my work.
Since I make no money from it anyway then tax breaks are of no value or
interest to me. However promotion of my work (not me) is. A Conservancy
that protected my principles of non-profit and also promoted my work by
placing (links to?) it with other 'free' work on a public-domain site
etc would be of interest to me personally as an author and translator.
I think the idea overall is a good one.

I guess the point I am making is that public domain and free are linked
but also distinct issues. An Art Gallery that charges for entrance in
principle has the works in the public domain (you don't have to buy
them!!!) but in fact makes a profit from access to them. This issue of
charging for entrance to Public Art and other Galleries is still hot in
England where it gets raised by successive Governments. The National
Gallery is still free, but for how long? My own view is that the country
should fund via general taxation free access for all, so that the
cultural heritage is free to all. This is still the principle of many
Galleries and all Public Libraries in England.

Regards.

Tony Kline tonykline@[redacted]

www.tkline.freeserve.co.uk