"Authorship is Censorship" - Shia LeBeouf

[el_bryanto]

For those who don't know, Shia LeBeouf recently did a short film, the script of which he ripped off from Comic Book creator Dan Clowes. He neither purchased the rights to the work, now did he initially acknowledge his plagiarism. He has done a frankly bizarre interview with Bleeding Cool, in which he positions himself as an artist and therefore allowed to take whatever he wants and make anything he wants out of it.

The word law is against my principles.
The problem begins with the legal fact that authorship is inextricably
bound up in the idea of ownership and the idea of language as
Intellectual property. Language and ideas flow freely between people
Despite the law. It’s not plagiarism in the digital age – it’s repurposing.

Anyway if you have any interest in this story, worth checking out.

Bryant

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. This is a fairly common argument among Free Culture types

At least at first. Then they discover "balance" (the principle of balancing the rights of individual creators against the common benefit of culture - the initial and guiding principles of copyright and similar provisions).

Of course, the copyright people have also completely abandoned "balance", seeking to extend the copyright indefinitely into the future, and suing over previously fair uses of material (previously allowed because they benefit the commonwealth and culture more generally). So there ya go. Radicalism on one side generated radicalism on the other. Nothing wrong with that, either, as the transformation in media (from print/analog to digital) probably does require fairly serious rethinking of the legal/ethical principles, which were rooted, for better or worse, in the form (of media) that cultural creativity took.

[el_bryanto]

2. It does go back and forth; you are right there

That said Shai LeBeouf isn't the best spokesman for the Cultural Commons as he is someone who has benefited enormously from the current set up. There is something unsettling about someone who makes as much money as LeBeouf ripping of someone who makes a pretty moderate living like Clowes.

Bryant

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. No doubt...if the same case was being made by a "Poor Remix Artists Collective" or some such

We'd be less inclined to point and laugh.

LeBeouf has access to plenty of capital to pay Clowes for the rights to his story. That he's positioning himself as a "Commons" person must make Lessig and others cringe a bit, especially since he's not grasping the nuance in their arguments.

[Katashi_itto]

6. agree, when your as loaded as LeBouf, you haven't got much of an argument.

[Orrex]

3. Indiana Jones 4 disqualifies LeBeouf from issuing statements regarding the nature of art

If he'd done any work worth stealing, I'm sure he'd be upset about someone stealing it.

[bemildred]

4. Not everyone agrees that copyright is a good thing.

Some people don't like any kind of property at all.

But it's interesting to see someone who is theoretically an artist going on about it. I have heard those arguments before.

[el_bryanto]

7. If we live in a capitalist society you have to figure out a way to reward the artist for creating

Copyright may not be the best solution to that problem; but you need something.

Of course in another society you have to then determine which art gets support and which art doesn't.

Bryant

[bemildred]

11. I like public funding for the arts myself.

For thousands of years artists were dependent on the wealthy, or working for free, and they produced a lot of high-quality work. Now it's just another job, with tools like Laboeuf pontificating about it. Look at TV. Is that art?

And public funding for the arts in this country worked pretty well when we had it too.

But the real problems here began when big-money got involved and started pushing the limits. When the arts became about the big bucks, quality was bound to decline and fraud, theft, and abuse were bound to increase.

[el_bryanto]

12. I think a mixed approach works best

I mean I think the market does a pretty good job of making movies, television, and computer games; Music and literature is more mixed, and of course painting and sculpting do better with public funding.

Bryant

[frazzled]

15. It's not (just) about retaining financial interest ...

in a work an artist has created. It is largely (and primarily) about retaining the rights to how one's work may be used.

Think of it this way: Say I'm a visual artist--should Ted Cruz be able to take my image and use it on one of his campaign flyers ? Should a crappy vodka company be able to lift it and use it for a bottle label? Should an "appropriation" artist such as Sherrie Levine or Richard Prince be able to use it in their work? Should a museum be able to reproduce it in one of their catalogues? The answer to the first two questions, in my case (your mileage may vary) would probably be no; the answer to the last two would probably be yes.

That is why artists subscribe to ARS (Artist's Rights Society) and VAGA, to field such requests. Sometimes (say, you're okay with the vodka bottle), a fee is charged; sometimes (say, for the museum catalogue) no fee is charged, according to the artist's wishes. The creative output of an artist is like their children: you can't just take their children without asking. The artist has a right to protect his or her reputation.

It's why the government passed the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) in 1990. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act

ON EDIT: the comic would not fall under VARA protection, since the law protects only "paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, still photographic images produced for exhibition only, and existing in single copies or in limited editions of 200 or fewer copies, signed and numbered by the artist."

[bemildred]

18. I understand the arguments quite well.

Not taking sides. I think the error lies in not making a distinction between art which is artisanal, and "art" which is reproduced by the millions. The difference in scale matters, distribution matters.

I fully understand a desire to control the commercial use of ones commercial product, and I support that. I would want to control what happened commercially to the products of my work too.

We need to get clearer about what we want to accomplish here, I'm pretty sure it's not to make media corporations richer, but to encourage artists in their efforts. We need to figure out how to make more money go to the creative artists and less to the media gatekeepers.

[frazzled]

22. Agreed; however ...

as in all such formulations, it's difficult to know where to draw the line. Take films or recordings, which are by definition communal undertakings: besides the director, screenwriter, crew, and a host of other workers (and creators), there are distribution and business personnel. Sometimes these are all rolled into the guise of an individual, or a very small (and often nonprofit) set of individuals, and sometimes these become medium or behemoth size endeavors. I'm not sure where you draw the line in deciding copyright issues. It's one for both the legal and artistic communities to determine, alongside legislators.

[Johonny]

8. In 20 years they are going to be able to animate Shia LeBeouf

and then have no need to hire him as an actor. I wonder how he will feel about that...

[Romulox]

9. If I were the author of this plagiarized work, I'd hope LeBeouf does very well with this script.

100% of the proceeds will belong to the original author of whatever was "repurposed".

Ask the Verve about that!

[el_bryanto]

10. Yeah that's an example - that was a very odd situation. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Shia has earned many millions from his involvment in heavily protected intellectual

properties created for the sole purpose of generating those millions. Under the laws of several other countries, actors in film are seen as collaborating authors and that authorship status generates other income streams which for the likes of Shia would be what most folks would call 'a good living' in and of themselves.
So if Shia actually meant what he is yapping about, he'd have many very tangible ways to express his dislike of the fruits of authorship and participation as a principle in the most purely commercial of cinematic products. He could refuse the money he makes and give it away, he could also simply not participate in products that are just deals constructed to generate ongoing profits. Of course what he really does is demand larger shares and stakes for Shia, collects the risiduals, royalties and percentages of the box office his staff of lawyers has gotten for him, for which he pays them dearly.
Really, Shia is likely to thow his back out twisting his own reality that much.

[Tanuki]

17. +1

[Lex]

20. Great point.

Shia is well known, it seems, to be quite a jerk and not too bright.

[JustAnotherGen]

14. In the entertainment forums/blogs/groups

He's known for his douchery.

[mainer]

16. Someone needs to "repurpose" his short film

without paying him, and see how he feels about it.

[Baitball Blogger]

19. Not much different than anarchy, Libertarianism, soverign rule, and extreme property rights.

He would feel differently about this if he were the victim.

[El_Johns]

21. So if you title yourself "artist" you can steal things wholesale?

[joeybee12]

23. What a little shithead...

Thsoe weren't his ideas or his creation...he simply is a lazy SOB who wants people to think he has talent but rips off others.