sorcs @sorcs - Tumblr Blog

hi.

hiya!

i’m parker, twenty-six, oh canada

have several little side blogs: @skywlkerrs, @spideyysenses, @joyboygojo, @thevannuckss, @stevesstranges, & @houseofthecrows,

free gaza / aid links: x 🍉 (lots of families in need, if able think about helping or at least sharing the links with others)

chloemew

Absolutely enamoured with this snail mug I got yesterday....

A snug of snoffee

hottestroadkill

i think chris flemings is one of the only comedians thats going to get into heaven

March

For old times sake is actually such a heartbreaking and beautiful sentiment. Like, let’s do it for the love that used to be here. It is reason enough.

politijohn

Source

pocket-deer-belly

i still get comments on those anti-copyright posts and it's revealing that most people who really really still want copyright to be a thing are people who hold out hope that copyright might benefit them. nevermind that it isn't actually the thing that guarantees pay, the vast majority of artists don't own the work they make. the vast majority of artists aren't self published authors or creators of cartoons or whatever. they don't get to own their own creative ideas, they have to fork over those rights to some company who gets to legally prevent them from making more of that ip. you'd willingly continue fucking over working class artists just because the system might benefit you.

pocket-deer-belly

idk how many more "hi i'm an author and i'd like to continue getting paid" comments i can handle before i start telling them that that sucks and i hope they get better

pocket-deer-belly

temporarily embarrassed ip holders. temporarily embarrassed jk rowlings.

pocket-deer-belly

need i remind you that the mere existence of fan works used to be considered a form of copyright infringement by a lot of authors, and that to this day a ton of fan works legally can not earn money. Sega is considered "chill" about fangames but the people who make them can not make these works for money without risking a massive lawsuit. The creator of Nightmare kart had to shift her entire creative project to be as legally distinct from bloodborne as possible because she operated a patreon account while daring to create a bloodborne fangame which she always intended to release for free. and this is just the works that get made in spite of a complete inability to get funding!

sorcs

Hey, student who’s doing their masters in publishing here! a lot of this post doesn’t fundamentally understand copyright. (I’ll mainly use book references, since that’s what I know, but there are fundamental similarities across mediums)

• “the vast majority of authors don’t own the work they make” - this is just not factual. Authors own their work, that is what copyright is, unless they sign it over. which they don’t. (sources: x, x)

authors grant a publishing house, music label, or film studio (or any other similar entity) permission / license to publish their work in an agreed upon manner.

and yes there are standards, like when you grant a company those rights they get to have a say in marketing, design, and how the work may be distributed (hardcover, paperback, cd, etc etc.) to ensure they get some of their money back.

but those terms are terms you negotiate. in any contract the author and owner of the copyright has protections. Including the right to sell secondary rights (movie rights, audio book rights, international rights, etc, etc. and each additional right gets them more $.) and the assurance that if a publisher (or other entity) doesn’t use their work that they get the right to sell that license to someone else. (sources: x, x)

• “… it ‘might’ benefit them” - copyright is a type of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship as soon as an author fixes the work in a tangible form of expression. it allows them to decide how that work is distributed, copied, adapted, and displayed for a limited time (aka. the time before it before it becomes public domain).

aka. if the author of Winnie the Pooh wants his character to remain a character for children to connect to and learn from, and not murderous blood thirsty monster in a horror movie he gets to do that, because he made Winnie the Pooh.

it protects them from other people stealing and misusing their work in a way that they feel goes against what they intended the work to do. (sources: x, x, x)

• “copyright doesn’t ensure pay” - again it does, because it demands an author be compensated for their work if another person wishes to use it. now, we can talk about how companies like meta are illegally using the works of people to train ai and how that means authors aren’t getting compensating (aka meta profits off of the work of others without having to pay them for said work), but that isn’t a consequence of copyright. It’s a consequence of a lack of copyright protection.

• “they don’t own their own creative ideas” - you do, to the degree in which they are unique. so no you don’t own the idea of an elf but if you make an elf named Jim whose 30 and does x and x and x you do own him. Ideas, concepts, and facts are not copyrightable but how one expresses those ideas, concepts, and facts are. you own the things you make. Again that is the entire concept of copyright. It’s ownership over the things you make. (sources: x, x)

• “they have to fork over their rights to a company that prevents them from making more of that ip” - again, not correct! No one forks over their rights! that is basic contract 101. Now, there is more nuance here! In books it’s 100% the author who owns their ip. A publisher can’t force them to make more of the ip or make it without their consent. This is similar with music, with the exception of owning their masters. In television and movies writers sell an idea (usually in the form of a pitch or a script), and in television a writers room is then hired to continue the idea. When selling an idea contracts can vary, but since you are selling the idea, you are compensated to a different degree. In games you are hired to help develop an idea. So, yes in these cases your ownership of the ideas are different. A studio or company has paid you to create something that they will then own.

• with these last two points we can have a nuanced conversation about the predatory nature of companies across the board: often times they will pray on young artists who don’t understand their own rights, and who will sign over their ownership without realizing it. and yes, a studio or company paying an artist to make art that they will not have ownership over is not entirely fair either. But those aren’t issues caused by copyright. Copyright doesn’t lead to those issues. Those issues blur the lines of copyright intentionally so they don’t have to compensate their artists.

• “you continue to fuck over working class artists so it may benefit you” - simply: no. working class artists need copyright to protect their own work. copyright does benefit them because it protects their expression and gains them compensation for it.

now: I’m with you in saying that companies, like Disney, EA, etc use copyright to their advantage by making sure nobody else can use their work. and I don’t love it. I think it is predatory and ridiculous. an artist at fan expo making and selling pokemon keychains is not malicious. And that is an issue pertaining to copyright.

BUT it’s important to note that the absence of copyright all together is not the solution. That’s why the concept of fair use within copyright law exists. So that individuals can use works to a degree without getting sued.

Sabrina Carpenter isn’t going to track down people who make keychains of her, and Leigh Bardugo doesn’t care if people make stickers of her characters. Copyright infringement has be enforced by the author or owner on a case by case basis. Most simply do not care for the most part. Is Leigh Bardugo going to come for the person who uses their own drawing to sell a $3 sticker. No. She doesn’t have the time.

But what about if someone takes her character and depicts them killing children, or makes graphically them nude in a poster. Then she could stop them from portraying her work in a way that she doesn’t agree with. Which should be her right since it is her art and its connected to her.

Again, do companies abuse this? Hell yes. But the concept of copyright is not the fundamental issue here. It’s greed. And stripping away the protections authors do have to be fairly compensated by the companies that publish their work, and to decide how their work is presented helps no-one. Not the people making keychains or kickstarters or anything else.

Just because you don’t mean any harm doesn’t mean you get free rein over the art of other people. Thats what authors are arguing.

If you read all that, thanks! Please continue to engage with the issue of copyright in a nuanced manner! It’s a complex issue!

wander-wren

it’s fairly clear to me that OP was talking about authors and artists who do work for hire, aka ghostwriting, who famously don’t own their IP and typically don’t have full control over their story (sometimes very little control, in fact). this also extends to artists and writers who do, say, graphic design or copywriting for a company, which some might not consider “real” art but is nonetheless a creative field many end up in to make ends meet. since you don’t think this is where the “vast majority” of working artists fall and also didn’t even think to mention it i assume you don’t think they count. which is rude.

moving on to an opinion question: why does a creator deserve to control what people do with their art post-publishing? if i write a fanfic where kaz brekker kills a child in cold blood, leigh bardugo can’t stop me and she shouldn’t be able to. if i took a commission or paywalled the fic, is it your opinion that she not just can, but should now be able to come after me because i broke fair use? morally, then, you must agree that she should be able to go after fanwork she doesn’t like.

i know you were likely referring to large companies doing these things. but you can’t have a law apply only to a sufficiently large corporation. do you think jk rowling should have the right to hunt down anyone who makes “trans rights” harry potter stickers because it reflects badly on her image? i’m very curious.

sorcs

Regardless of what OP was speaking about, the original post had several common misunderstandings about what copyright is and actually does in the legal sense.

And I am by no stretch a fan of copyright as it stands now. I think there are a lot of areas copyright fails, but we can have a nuanced discussion and advocate for better copyright without saying it shouldn’t exist at all. Because again, OP’s post had several completely incorrect assumptions of how copyright works.

And I’ll answer your points, because I do think a couple of them are fair.

First, another author can decide if they wish to pursue copyright infringement. Bardugo isn’t going to come after you for writing a fanfiction (no matter how graphic) or selling fan stickers or even getting something on commission. Because a) she doesn’t have the time to track down everyone who’s doing so, but b) because she (just like many writers) recognize that a healthy fan culture is better for her works then doing so.

And I agree that an author like JK Rowling should not be able to sue someone for trans Harry Potter stickers (and to be clear - I am trans), but fixing that issue is a matter of refining the law to protect people. You don’t need to abolish any form of copyright to do so.

Because while we focus on how independent people like you and I may break copyright, that’s not actually what the law was intended for. It’s intended for cases like Meta and Open Access stealing trillions of GBs of data so they can turn around and make billions of dollars in profit (or so they hope) without paying a dollar to those who work they used to make that profit.

Are you saying you believe an action like that is just and fair? Copyright is supposed to protect creatives from having their work exploited.

A wood worker makes a cabinet and posts a picture online to sell it? Does doing so mean that now it’s free for anyone to take? You make a cake for your birthday with frogs on it, you tell your neighbour - they come and take your cake and decorate it with dinosaurs? Is that okay?

Like I don’t understand why this idea of “the person who made the thing shouldn’t get to decide what happens with it” only ever gets spoken about in regard to art.

So yes, I think the person who makes the thing should get ownership over it. Artists invite you to take a slice of their work. Artists don’t care if you take a slice and add decorations and repost it on a platform to show people what you did.

Artists care if someone steals their cake, uses that cake to sell tickets to a birthday party and then makes a shit ton of money without compensation.

Which is the whole argument against capitalism in the first place. Exploitation without compensation.

I’m all for communism and socialism but we don’t live in that society yet. Hopefully one day authors won’t need to worry about protecting their work. But right now they do.

My question is why do you all think you’re entitled to someone else’s hard work?

And as a side note: this is written not from the standpoint of purely monetary gain, but rather from the truth that artists put hundreds of hours into their work and they rightly feel protective over how that work may be used. I wouldn’t want some company, because that’s who I’m really worried about, taking that work and watering it down for their profit. I don’t think that’s insane feeling to have.

So, I can advocate for better and nuanced laws that protect the average day folk from being sued by someone like JK Rowling or Disney without saying there should be no protections at all.

cirrusea

I know it's July but they're so fun to draw... Klaus fandom are you alive

rylandsgrace

Frankenstein (2025) dir. Guillermo del Toro

#what recourse do you have but to live #!!!!!!!!!!#frankenstein 2025 #frankenstein spoilers #guillermo del toro #frankenstein

catmask

it is really weird what like. 4 years perspective on something you believed fully to your core will do

catmask

“yeah disappointment and heartbreak when plans or friends or romance doesnt work out hurt me too badly so now i just dont do that stuff or really hope for anything or get invested in anyone/anything anymore that way i can be surprised by nice happy things and bad stuff is just expected”

and my roommate at the time looked horrified and said “thats bad Bee??? thats so sad” and i didnt know what to say because id thought what i said was normal/a positive coping mechanism

catmask

btw this is, in my instance, the result of autistic burnout and childhood neglect. if you get so used to your needs and expectations not being met you learn to not have them because it is your only means of survival.

some people get angry and express their pain and are called ‘difficult’, some people shave themselves away until theres barely anything left and disappear to become ‘easier’. learning that disappearing to be easier on those around me was not kindness but, meaningless self destruction was a core part of learning how not to die.