Raise the Hammer

How can the work of a Master sculptor who has created a single object over 6 months using learned hand-skills acquired over a period of 30 years EQUAL a digital photographer who shoots 200 pics in an afternoon, uploads & modifies them with a variety of different softwares thru his computer & then sends them to a stock agency by dawn? These two 'artistic' activities are just not EQUAL.

Likewise, how can the work of an academic scholar who spends 2-3 years of solitary world-gathering research EQUAL the writing of software developer who builds on the back of readily available existing code to create a new app?

Alternatively, how can the work of a composer of 2 hour orchestral work that involves performance skills & years of musical education EQUAL a 2 minute 'mesh up' pop song that heavily 'borrows' from OTHER creators and is synthesized thru computer software?

It is high time that the DEFINITION of 'creator' be re-examined.

It has been my suggestion within the Copyright Forum that those who MAKE 'stand-alone' objects that are not 'replicated' by DATA technology ought to have their Copy Rights entrenched & strengthened during their lifetime (including the 50 term after their death). Conversely, digital 'creators' who are DEPENDENT on that actual DATA of someone else's software to manifest either 'photos' and/or 'code' be 're-assigned' a very limited term 'protection' that better reflects the instantaneous replicating properties of data.

Also, 'Fair Use' should MEAN that. FAIR use, not 'exploitive' or 'transformative' that deliberately modifies the efforts of someone else WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION. If anyone uses someone else's WORK for their own COMMERCIAL use they ought to PAY for it, whether in the 'name' of 'parody' or not. Consider if YOU were the one that someone else USED to PROFIT OFF.

As an example, right now Diane Thorneycroft is 'showing' at the McMicheal Gallery. She's set up plastic dolls and trinkets in front of the works of many of the Group of 7, taken photos of them, and now CLAIMS the 'images' as her own. That's not 'fair use', that's called 'rip off'. Would she DO THIS if any of those artists were LIVING? This isn't 'creative art', it's just sophmoric expropriation.

Note: she got $80G from the Canada Council to do this. Unfortunately, that kind of federal government 'sanction' severely undercuts the GENUINE nature of 'Fair Use'. It emboldens 'pirates' & 'copyists' to TAKE MORE that does NOT 'belong' to them. Be vigilant about this. UNDERSTAND & USE 'fair use' appropriately. Please don't WRECK IT for everyone else so that the Law MUST become more severe and restrictive to PROTECT the works of original 'creators'.