I do not recognize the copyright laws in their current state. All expressions are at the same time original and derivative. The Idiosyntactix Incidentalist Manifestos is clear about it.
It is not his song only, the music itself and words do not belong to him but are public domain. If anything, it is God's property, all ART. He is an idiot ego out of touch with reality.
We are talking about copyright as in the right to copy, where the original recording, performance, painting, artwork is owned by the artist(s), since it is limited and involves actual artist(s), which we can sell, however the right to make a copy, and build upon it,: remix it, use it is the right of the public domain, since all expressions are both original and derivative, therefore to claim solemn ownership of any expression is a fraud.
I own my originals which I sell for thousands, the images themselves are public domain, so are colours, shapes, techniques, even if new, we are standing on the shoulders of the giants, i.e. the contemporary and previous generations.
In Canada the private copyright is automatically attributed to the prior art artist, so to actually realease the artwork to the public domain requires stating what public license is being used, there are many options.
I was using Creative Commons Share Alike 3, and since that we, the Idiosyntactix Strategic Arts & Sciences Alliance, have created our own Peer Production License, I am using it now.
The original purpose of the copyright law itself, the Statute of Anne, was to secure the passage of the manuscripts from the perpetual ownership by the private printing houses to the public domain, and hence the Crown, and to protect the intellectual property of the public domain, where the first reference to it as such is.
When it comes to Trump using the song at his rallies, it is protected under the fair use. Then the whole action of broadcasting, making public, has its own consequences in the scope of the intellectual property rights, as was recently ruled in the photographer's right to take a picture.
Anyway, as I already have stated, and will clarify a bit further, I do not recognize the copyright in its current form, however I do recognize the trademark (the source) and the patent (the method), albeit these too need updating.
You can't sell and broadcast your music all over the place and retain full ownership of it. I sell my original paintings and limited edition prints, stemped, numbered, and signed, however the images themselves are public domain and anyone can photograph my art and make copies, even sell them, however they can't claim to be the artist, that would be a lie and infringement on my trademark. It is unreasonable to expect to be paid for and/or control all copies of my art.
If I do not want my art to be photographed or copied then I will keep it to myself. When I release something to the world, I too release my full control of the artwork. You can't have it all and not share back with the world that inspired you to create art in the first place.
I do not necessarily agree that artists should be paid every time their art is being used by others, that would be circumstantial to particulars of each situation. Also I do not agree that the ART itself should be commodified and artist rewarded monetarily for something the artist had perdonal inspirational reasons to create. Making art has nothing to do with making a living, if they do, it is a bonus not the prerequisite.
Artists make art for the selfish reasons of self expressions, and then they want to be paid by the rest of society for entertaining themselves with their God given talents every time someone happen to stumble their creations!? That is ego out of control. Keep your stinky art to yourselves then.
A bread baker has to make new bread every time to get paid, which is a hard essential work, so why is it then some few musicians selected by their labels for success have to be paid every time their commercial for most part non essential to life creation is played? The baker sells his bread and you, once bought it, can resell it, eat it, give ut away because it is your property now. The baker is not selling the idea of a bread and does not gets paid for every time someone mentions his bread or resells it to someone else. The playing field should be more equal.
I think the courts will decide, however corrupt they are, who has the right for what, that is why we pay them the big bucks, that said, the rights are a tricky business and laws not always reflect it correctly, or need to get updated or changed or abolished for the actual rights to become apparent and protected by law. As a high priest I deal with all sort of human rights not always on books or enforced properly.
Much rhetoric but little substance when it comes to the complex subjects of personal vs public domain, intellectual property rights, free speach, and self expression freedoms. Just because some greedy bureaucrats made a "law" does not mean that I will approve it. I have my own laws and reason.
If I display my paintings to the world, the world has the right to take a copy of my art, it is only fair, since the world is inspiring and sharing with me and in turn I inspire and share with the world, in true art, the fine art, there is no artist, no ego, only a conduit of the Divine Love, Truth, and Peace for the sole purpose of ART. Harmony in beauty and reason. The Zen zone.
The art as soul's expression vs the outsider ego's use of art for whatever reasons, who want to own everything even though they know nothing about it!
