What’s the difference between “community standards” and censorship? How do we determine what books to include and exclude from libraries? Why does the Dr. Seuss estate get to decide what Dr. Seuss books stay in print? Is copyright censorship, as Nina asserts? What’s the difference between plagiarism and copyright violation? In an uncharacteristically focused and coherent conversation, Nina and Corinna discuss these questions and more. Then, Jesse and Katie chip in with some ideas on how to close each episode.
The Surprising History of Copyright and The Promise of a Post-Copyright World by Karl Fogel: https://questioncopyright.org/promise
The Internet Archive vs the Authors Guild: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200330/18125844202/publishers-authors-misguided-freakout-over-internet-archives-decision-to-enable-more-digital-book-checkouts-during-pandemic.shtml
For 30 Years, I’ve Tried to Become a Woman. Here’s What I Learned Along the Way by Nina Paley: https://quillette.com/2020/06/22/for-30-years-ive-tried-to-become-a-woman-heres-what-i-learned-along-the-way/
Copyright is Brain Damage, a 2015 talk by Nina: https://youtu.be/XO9FKQAxWZc
2 thoughts on “Episode 7: (C)ommunity $tandards”
Regarding the argument for estates controlling copyright, as cited by Nina as the opportunity for an artist to pass his “property” to his children.
The argument I’ve heard, which I find slightly more convincing, is this: the artist may have had a family who sacrificed to support his career. For example, his wife may have put her own career on hold to follow him to California or New York where creative opportunities flourish, and maybe his kids were yanked in and out of schools and missed out on normal things, and thus they should benefit from their support of this family breadwinner and their involvement in the hardships that perhaps brought the artist’s success to fruition.
I am somewhat sympathetic to this because it is women who so often get screwed financially in the service of supporting their spouse. This is an argument against the patriarchal institution of marriage and other cultural factors that inhibit women’s survival, but that’s another topic.
It’s also not a very good argument for allowing “estates” who may have had no role in supporting the artist to control the property. And none of this is to say that I’m unsympathetic to the copyright abolitionist stance, I just wanted to add that bit of data to the conversation.
This web site theme appears to strip line breaks out of comments, by the way, at least in preview mode before moderation.
Comments are closed.