Chess Pieces and Copyright
September 9, 2015 8:31 AM Subscribe
Marcel Duchamp designed an Art Deco chess set which was available on the web as a 3D printable design. Now the makers have removed it from the internet because French copyright law protects it though it's in the public domain in the US, with implications for the future of shareable things. (The chess set design previously on Metafilter.)
Seriously. Can anyone point to an heir to an unearned copyright windfall that hasn't been a gigantic shit about it?
posted by tocts at 8:54 AM on September 9, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by tocts at 8:54 AM on September 9, 2015 [11 favorites]
Looks like the solution is to add a mustache!
posted by sammyo at 8:56 AM on September 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by sammyo at 8:56 AM on September 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
So, it comes down to moral copyright, and what it means. You have the two poles represented here - on one hand, France has extensive moral copyright laws, on the other, the US refuses to recognize the idea at all. And I don't think the argument is as cut an dry as some make it out to be - I see the argument that moral copyright can interfere with legitimate discussion and analysis; but at the same time, stories like this one are routine and illustrate the frustration of artists having their work attached to ideas and people the artists find repellent.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:58 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:58 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is a fine article, well written, etc. but I am getting tired of reading the same article over and over. "Technological advances are going to force us to rethink copyright law!" Well DUH! Seriously, this is not a new thing, and yet copyright law continues to stagnate or, at the instigation of industry lobbying groups, become more tangled. For goodness sake, no less an authority than William Patry (who was a copyright lawyer for Congress in the 90s) wrote The Failure of the American Copyright System: Protecting the Idle Rich almost 20 years ago! See also his 2012 book How to Fix Copyright. Smart qualified people have articulated and analyzed these problems for years. When do I get to read articles about how they're being fixed?
posted by Wretch729 at 9:05 AM on September 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Wretch729 at 9:05 AM on September 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
NoxAeternum, doesn't the fact that no currently copyrighted work will expire before its author does short-circuit that idea, though? We're talking exclusively about the moral rights of the author's heirs -- more than likely only the heirs' heirs under a life-plus-70 model unless the author died young.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:07 AM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:07 AM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
That is an amazing chess set.
posted by persona au gratin at 9:09 AM on September 9, 2015
posted by persona au gratin at 9:09 AM on September 9, 2015
Seriously, fuck America and its assumption that its laws apply all over the world.
posted by Hogshead at 9:16 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Hogshead at 9:16 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
MetaFilter: Seriously, fuck America
posted by theodolite at 9:18 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by theodolite at 9:18 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
the US refuses to recognize the idea at all
That's not entirely true. The US has the Visual Artists Rights Act, grudgingly passed as a result of the Berne Convention. Notably the US version of moral rights only extends to the life of the author.
Seriously, fuck America and its assumption that its laws apply all over the world.
What? This is about French copyright law.
posted by jedicus at 9:19 AM on September 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
That's not entirely true. The US has the Visual Artists Rights Act, grudgingly passed as a result of the Berne Convention. Notably the US version of moral rights only extends to the life of the author.
Seriously, fuck America and its assumption that its laws apply all over the world.
What? This is about French copyright law.
posted by jedicus at 9:19 AM on September 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
As I understand it (and I could be wrong), part of the moral rights assigned to heirs has to do with reputation and image. Does this use damage the integrity of the original work such that as custodians of the estate we would want to prevent it? Moral rights differ from property rights and profit, at least academically, although preserving the former tends to lock in the latter.
There was a lot of brouhaha over this with associated intellectual property rightss (but not COPYRIGHT) when it became possible to seamlessly and realistically use old footage of people like Marilyn Monroe and John Wayne and make them seem to be actually interacting with a modern person or product in an endorsement which may or have been anathema to the person when he or she was alive or offensive to the estate.
It's fascinating and a dense forest of considerations, now that use, re-use, distribution, replicating and jurisdictional intersection are so far beyond the possibilities at the time intellectual property rights were conceived. It's way beyond me, but so interesting.
posted by crush-onastick at 9:20 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
There was a lot of brouhaha over this with associated intellectual property rightss (but not COPYRIGHT) when it became possible to seamlessly and realistically use old footage of people like Marilyn Monroe and John Wayne and make them seem to be actually interacting with a modern person or product in an endorsement which may or have been anathema to the person when he or she was alive or offensive to the estate.
It's fascinating and a dense forest of considerations, now that use, re-use, distribution, replicating and jurisdictional intersection are so far beyond the possibilities at the time intellectual property rights were conceived. It's way beyond me, but so interesting.
posted by crush-onastick at 9:20 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Doesn't the fact that no currently copyrighted work will expire before its author does short-circuit that idea, though? We're talking exclusively about the moral rights of the author's heirs -- more than likely only the heirs' heirs under a life-plus-70 model unless the author died young.
Not really? I'm sorry, but I tend to be skeptical of a lot of the assertions about how copyright is destroying creativity, especially considering the monied interests that are involved. I don't see how we can make the blanket statement that said heirs would be poor stewards of the legacies they manage.
By the way, it's also worth pointing out that Patry was a staff lawyer at Google, who has a number of vested interests in weakening copyright law. So he's not exactly an impartial voice there.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:21 AM on September 9, 2015
Not really? I'm sorry, but I tend to be skeptical of a lot of the assertions about how copyright is destroying creativity, especially considering the monied interests that are involved. I don't see how we can make the blanket statement that said heirs would be poor stewards of the legacies they manage.
By the way, it's also worth pointing out that Patry was a staff lawyer at Google, who has a number of vested interests in weakening copyright law. So he's not exactly an impartial voice there.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:21 AM on September 9, 2015
Seriously, fuck America and its assumption that its laws apply all over the world.
Your knee jerked so hard you kicked yourself in the face!
posted by Justinian at 9:25 AM on September 9, 2015 [12 favorites]
Your knee jerked so hard you kicked yourself in the face!
posted by Justinian at 9:25 AM on September 9, 2015 [12 favorites]
Seriously, fuck America France and its assumption that its laws apply all over the world.
This is fun!
posted by Sys Rq at 9:27 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is fun!
posted by Sys Rq at 9:27 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I hope the Duchamp heirs don't find out about urinals.
posted by TedW at 9:42 AM on September 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by TedW at 9:42 AM on September 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
I'm sorry, but I tend to be skeptical of a lot of the assertions about how copyright is destroying creativity, especially considering the monied interests that are involved.
Can you elaborate? This, at least, looks like a clear-cut case of monied interests (Duchamp's heirs' heirs) censoring a creative work (3D printable chess set) on copyright grounds.
I'm certainly in favor of property rights, but only for things like physical chess sets and factories, where a person can coherently claim exclusive control over them. There is no natural control that the Duchamps have over their grandfather's art—it's an abstract creation, and "information wants to be free" in the sense that people can download it and riff on it without depriving each other of it.
So-called moral rights are so artificial that the French government has to step in to enforce them. Compare that with property rights to, say, a farm, where even without any government a farmer could fence off their land and defend it with a shotgun. When they get a legal title to that land, they're just asking the police and army to do more efficiently what they could do for themselves. But no artist could feasibly monitor the whole world for derivatives of their ideas and control how they're used.
posted by Rangi at 9:46 AM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Can you elaborate? This, at least, looks like a clear-cut case of monied interests (Duchamp's heirs' heirs) censoring a creative work (3D printable chess set) on copyright grounds.
I'm certainly in favor of property rights, but only for things like physical chess sets and factories, where a person can coherently claim exclusive control over them. There is no natural control that the Duchamps have over their grandfather's art—it's an abstract creation, and "information wants to be free" in the sense that people can download it and riff on it without depriving each other of it.
So-called moral rights are so artificial that the French government has to step in to enforce them. Compare that with property rights to, say, a farm, where even without any government a farmer could fence off their land and defend it with a shotgun. When they get a legal title to that land, they're just asking the police and army to do more efficiently what they could do for themselves. But no artist could feasibly monitor the whole world for derivatives of their ideas and control how they're used.
posted by Rangi at 9:46 AM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't see how we can make the blanket statement that said heirs would be poor stewards of the legacies they manage.
I'm questioning at what point we stop giving legal weight to the author's legacy. Under U.S. copyright law it's literally impossible for the author to be outraged by a third party's use of his/her material with no legal recourse, unless the work in question was deliberately committed to the public domain. So we're talking about the outrage of their children's children. At what point can they be committed to history, with the heir(s) as one voice in the discussion rather than holders of a court-enforced veto over it?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:48 AM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm questioning at what point we stop giving legal weight to the author's legacy. Under U.S. copyright law it's literally impossible for the author to be outraged by a third party's use of his/her material with no legal recourse, unless the work in question was deliberately committed to the public domain. So we're talking about the outrage of their children's children. At what point can they be committed to history, with the heir(s) as one voice in the discussion rather than holders of a court-enforced veto over it?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:48 AM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
So-called moral rights are so artificial that the French government has to step in to enforce them. Compare that with property rights to, say, a farm, where even without any government a farmer could fence off their land and defend it with a shotgun.
Unless the other party brings more guns, at which point the farmer is fucked. Which illustrates the point that all property, be it tangible or intellectual, is ultimately a legal fiction.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:53 AM on September 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Unless the other party brings more guns, at which point the farmer is fucked. Which illustrates the point that all property, be it tangible or intellectual, is ultimately a legal fiction.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:53 AM on September 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
It is my hope that, every time something like this happens, some 3D modellers in America or a similarly more liberal jurisdiction would Streisand the hell out of it, volunteering to recreate the replica and put it online, because fuck those greedy dogs in the manger. Just the urge to do justice and not let greed triumph should be enough to get more talent and attention focussed at producing a superlative set of 3D models of the object in question than before, and more publicity on its eventual existence.
posted by acb at 9:55 AM on September 9, 2015
posted by acb at 9:55 AM on September 9, 2015
Yes, because "fuck the law when it doesn't do what I want it to do" is a mentality that can't blow up in our faces.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:15 AM on September 9, 2015
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:15 AM on September 9, 2015
"Last year artists Scott Kildall and Bryan Cera collaborated on a project called “Readymake: Duchamp Chess Pieces,” which reconstructed a chess set designed by Marcel Duchamp with a 3D printer."
Man, was he ahead of his time...
posted by Devonian at 10:20 AM on September 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Man, was he ahead of his time...
posted by Devonian at 10:20 AM on September 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'm not entirely sure I believe this, but I do think one could argue that reproducing a one of kind object (or set of objects) and branding it as someone's work isn't entirely accurate. Calling the 3-D printed pieces doesn't necessarily make it Duchamp's creation if part of his intention was to create a one of kind set of objects.
I think this is compatible with the idea of a piece of art being the set of instructions themselves, a la Sol LeWitt because artist intention is crucial.
That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with reproductions. I just sympathize with an estate that wants to keep an artist's work out of the age of mass reproduction because it could cede control from part of that artist's intention in creating it.
posted by lownote at 10:21 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think this is compatible with the idea of a piece of art being the set of instructions themselves, a la Sol LeWitt because artist intention is crucial.
That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with reproductions. I just sympathize with an estate that wants to keep an artist's work out of the age of mass reproduction because it could cede control from part of that artist's intention in creating it.
posted by lownote at 10:21 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Speaking of copying. I copied this from the earlier thread and hope Mitheral (or his/her heirs) may forgive me for my sacrilege but it's funny:
I've never wanted a 3d printer so much before.
posted by Mitheral at 15:17 on December 24, 2014
At first, I didn't notice I was in the wrong tab after closing the original article, which was also funny (ymmv).
There was a semi-recent article in the New Yorker, which tried to shine some light on the copyright rules within the US, but the author lost me here:
"Either way, when you’re reading a linked page, you may still be “at” awesomestuff.com, as clicking the back button on your browser can instantly confirm. Effectively, awesomestuff.com has stolen content from newyorker.com, just as the compiler of “Most Thoughtful Essays” stole content from me."
According to this we are all thieves.
posted by KMB at 10:27 AM on September 9, 2015
I've never wanted a 3d printer so much before.
posted by Mitheral at 15:17 on December 24, 2014
At first, I didn't notice I was in the wrong tab after closing the original article, which was also funny (ymmv).
There was a semi-recent article in the New Yorker, which tried to shine some light on the copyright rules within the US, but the author lost me here:
"Either way, when you’re reading a linked page, you may still be “at” awesomestuff.com, as clicking the back button on your browser can instantly confirm. Effectively, awesomestuff.com has stolen content from newyorker.com, just as the compiler of “Most Thoughtful Essays” stole content from me."
According to this we are all thieves.
posted by KMB at 10:27 AM on September 9, 2015
Here's a longer write up from Bryan Cera.
posted by gingerbeer at 10:33 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by gingerbeer at 10:33 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
That is an amazing chess set.
I was thinking of how great it looked in black-and-white photos because it reminds me of the design used in a lot of 50's black-and-white sci-fi movies. Then I saw that Duchamp made it in 1918.
posted by straight at 10:45 AM on September 9, 2015
I was thinking of how great it looked in black-and-white photos because it reminds me of the design used in a lot of 50's black-and-white sci-fi movies. Then I saw that Duchamp made it in 1918.
posted by straight at 10:45 AM on September 9, 2015
Kildall and Cera went about this the wrong way. Had they displayed the 3D- printed peices in a gallery or displayed a Makerbot in the process of printing the peices then it would have been its own work of art protected by copyright law much like Litchenstein's Portrait Of Mrs. Cezanne.
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:59 AM on September 9, 2015
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:59 AM on September 9, 2015
Everyone went about this the wrong way. The estate should have paired up with these two and gone into business. Win-win-urinal.
posted by IndigoJones at 11:38 AM on September 9, 2015
posted by IndigoJones at 11:38 AM on September 9, 2015
Now the makers have removed it from the internet ensured it will be distributed far and wide for as long as people play chess.
KMB: "I copied this from the earlier thread and hope Mitheral (or his/her heirs) may forgive me for my sacrilege but it's funny:
"
No problem.
posted by Mitheral at 11:46 AM on September 9, 2015
KMB: "I copied this from the earlier thread and hope Mitheral (or his/her heirs) may forgive me for my sacrilege but it's funny:
"
No problem.
posted by Mitheral at 11:46 AM on September 9, 2015
So-called moral rights are so artificial that the French government has to step in to enforce them. Compare that with property rights to, say, a farm, where even without any government a farmer could fence off their land and defend it with a shotgun.
Unless the other party brings more guns, at which point the farmer is fucked. Which illustrates the point that all property, be it tangible or intellectual, is ultimately a legal fiction.
It's amazing how many of the people who grew up watching Bonanza and other westerns managed to completely miss the plot of almost every single episode and movie.
posted by srboisvert at 11:49 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Unless the other party brings more guns, at which point the farmer is fucked. Which illustrates the point that all property, be it tangible or intellectual, is ultimately a legal fiction.
It's amazing how many of the people who grew up watching Bonanza and other westerns managed to completely miss the plot of almost every single episode and movie.
posted by srboisvert at 11:49 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
How are people supposed to be incentivized to create designs if their heirs can't profit on them 90+ years after they were created, long after they are dead.
posted by el io at 12:44 PM on September 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by el io at 12:44 PM on September 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
Unless the other party brings more guns, at which point the farmer is fucked. Which illustrates the point that all property, be it tangible or intellectual, is ultimately a legal fiction.
Yes, even physical property isn't a natural law like gravity—it's a social convention that can be broken with sufficient force. But you do see the difference between it and intellectual "property," right? If one family is living in a house, taking up space, another can't move in without denying them full use of their house; but if somebody has an intangible idea, it can spread indefinitely. There's also a difference in who has power: physical property is relatively easy to secure by the owner and hard to steal for anyone else, but intellectual "property" requires the "thief" to just memorize the abstract information, which is basically impossible to prevent. And with technology like printing presses, 3D printers, and the internet, reproducing this information costs almost nothing. I was just picking the example to show why "weaken or abolish copyright" isn't a slippery slope to "expropriate your rich neighbor's stuff." (Much easier to press Ctrl+S on a computer, than to organize a mob to out-gun somebody.)
posted by Rangi at 1:24 PM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes, even physical property isn't a natural law like gravity—it's a social convention that can be broken with sufficient force. But you do see the difference between it and intellectual "property," right? If one family is living in a house, taking up space, another can't move in without denying them full use of their house; but if somebody has an intangible idea, it can spread indefinitely. There's also a difference in who has power: physical property is relatively easy to secure by the owner and hard to steal for anyone else, but intellectual "property" requires the "thief" to just memorize the abstract information, which is basically impossible to prevent. And with technology like printing presses, 3D printers, and the internet, reproducing this information costs almost nothing. I was just picking the example to show why "weaken or abolish copyright" isn't a slippery slope to "expropriate your rich neighbor's stuff." (Much easier to press Ctrl+S on a computer, than to organize a mob to out-gun somebody.)
posted by Rangi at 1:24 PM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
See, I find the trend of devaluing labor, whether it be intellectual or physical, to be one that is ultimately unhealthy for not only others, but myself as well. As I've commented before, it's interesting how many people here are happy to be cavalier with the products of the labor of others, yet would scream bloody murder if their own labor was stolen.
As for the Jeffersonian ideal of an idea, do remember that this was a man whose life was supported by the forcibly extracted labor of others, and whose house was an edifice designed to conceal that reality.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:52 PM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
As for the Jeffersonian ideal of an idea, do remember that this was a man whose life was supported by the forcibly extracted labor of others, and whose house was an edifice designed to conceal that reality.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:52 PM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
See, I find the trend of devaluing labor, whether it be intellectual or physical, to be one that is ultimately unhealthy for not only others, but myself as well. As I've commented before, it's interesting how many people here are happy to be cavalier with the products of the labor of others, yet would scream bloody murder if their own labor was stolen.
Whose labour is being treated cavalierly in this case?
Being born an heir is not the same as doing work. Besides, as far as I can tell, there's no particularly strong evidence Duchamp even had anything to do with the design or manufacture of the original chess set in the first place; what there is is contradictory apocrypha.
(And, hell, it's Duchamp. He's not exactly known for doing everything from scratch. Indeed, if there's anyone to blame for giving birth to mashup culture, it's him.)
posted by Sys Rq at 2:52 PM on September 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Whose labour is being treated cavalierly in this case?
Being born an heir is not the same as doing work. Besides, as far as I can tell, there's no particularly strong evidence Duchamp even had anything to do with the design or manufacture of the original chess set in the first place; what there is is contradictory apocrypha.
(And, hell, it's Duchamp. He's not exactly known for doing everything from scratch. Indeed, if there's anyone to blame for giving birth to mashup culture, it's him.)
posted by Sys Rq at 2:52 PM on September 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
I see the argument that moral copyright can interfere with legitimate discussion and analysis; but at the same time, stories like this one are routine and illustrate the frustration of artists having their work attached to ideas and people the artists find repellent.
Some artists should just be grateful anyone cares anymore.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:13 PM on September 9, 2015
Some artists should just be grateful anyone cares anymore.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:13 PM on September 9, 2015
If we didn't have limited copyright terms, heirs somewhere down the line would sell their copyright to very large companies which would eventually control all of civilization's creative output. The prospect of this really gets some people excited.
Also, Peter Jackson's The Hobbit is a great argument for letting things fall into the public domain.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:22 PM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Also, Peter Jackson's The Hobbit is a great argument for letting things fall into the public domain.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:22 PM on September 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Does anyone really think Marcel Duchamp’s labor or moral rights are devalued by someone reproducing and transforming his creation 98 years later? If so, what do they think of Duchamp's own L.H.O.O.Q.? Clearly Duchamp himself believed in freely building on the works of artists who came before him.
The article mentions that under current French law, droit d’auteur expires 70 years after the author’s death, which means Duchamp’s heirs will control his work until the year 2038 (or longer if the term is extended again). But it doesn't mention that at the time Duchamp was alive, French droit d’auteur lasted only for the author’s life plus 50 years. Under that original term, the rights to Duchamp’s work would have expired in France just three years and one month from now.
I don’t see labor being devalued. I see copyright terms being endlessly lengthened, and the public domain being devalued, to the detriment of artists who, like Duchamp, build on the past and transform it.
posted by mbrubeck at 7:45 AM on September 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
The article mentions that under current French law, droit d’auteur expires 70 years after the author’s death, which means Duchamp’s heirs will control his work until the year 2038 (or longer if the term is extended again). But it doesn't mention that at the time Duchamp was alive, French droit d’auteur lasted only for the author’s life plus 50 years. Under that original term, the rights to Duchamp’s work would have expired in France just three years and one month from now.
I don’t see labor being devalued. I see copyright terms being endlessly lengthened, and the public domain being devalued, to the detriment of artists who, like Duchamp, build on the past and transform it.
posted by mbrubeck at 7:45 AM on September 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
« Older The High Burden of Low Wages | This is why more people don't follow their dreams: Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by srboisvert at 8:48 AM on September 9, 2015 [10 favorites]