Our path to better working conditions lies through organizing and striking, not through helping our bosses sue other giant mulitnational corporations for the right to bleed us out.

  • zogwarg@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    The Berne Convention (Which the US only joined in 1989) is from 1886 and more concerned with author’s rights than the typical american flavor, and was kickstarted by successful writers such as Victor Hugo, it’s fundamentally commercial in nature but was at least partially sold/incepted has protecting a writer’s labour:

    « La loi protège la terre; elle protège la maison du prolétaire qui a sué; elle confisque l’ouvrage du poète qui a pensé(…)14. » — Honoré de Balzac, in a 1834 “Letter addressed to the French writers of the XIX century” advocating for author’s rights.

    Translated: “The law protects land, it protects the house of the proletarian who has sweat; it confiscates the work of the poet who has thought (…)”

    From the body of the convention, in some regards it does place the author higher than the publisher:

    Article 11

    In order that the authors of works protected by the present Convention shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be considered as such, and be consequently admitted to institute proceedings against pirates before the courts of the various countries of the Union, it will be sufficient that their name be indicated on the work in the accustomed manner.

    For anonymous or pseudonymous works, the publisher whose name is indicated on the work shall be entitled to protect the rights belonging to the author.

    He shall be, without other proof, deemed to be the lawful representative of the anonymous or pseudonymous author. It is, nevertheless, agreed that the courts may, if necessary, require the production of a certificate from the competent authority to the effect that the formalities prescribed by law in the country of origin have been accomplished, as contemplated in Article 2.

    EDIT:

    And contains from 1886 already the spirit of fair use.

    Article 10

    The following shall be specially included amongst the illicit reproductions to which the present Convention applies: unauthorized indirect appropriations of a literary or artistic work, of various kinds, such as adaptations, musical arrangements, etc., when they are only the reproduction of a particular work, in the same form, or in another form, without essential alterations, additions, or abridgments, so as not to present the character of a new original work.

    Article 7

    Articles from newspapers or periodicals published in any of the countries of the Union may be reproduced in original or in translation in the other countries of the Union, unless the authors or publishers have expressly forbidden it. For periodicals it shall be sufficient if the prohibition is indicated in general terms at the beginning of each number of the periodical. This prohibition cannot in any case apply to articles of political discussion, or to the reproduction of news of the day or miscellaneous information.

    Article 8

    As regards the liberty of extracting portions from literary or artistic works for use in publications destined for educational or scientific purposes, or for chrestomathies, the effect of the legislation of the countries of the Union, and of special arrangements existing or to be concluded between them, is not affected by the present Convention.

      • zogwarg@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Agreed, earliest stuff is definetly exclusive royal grant of printing overall to a particular person/guild/company. But some author protection is baked into the first international treaties about copyright, and those treaties are old.

        • 200fifty@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          The copyright clause in the US constitution (1789) also frames it in terms of granting rights to authors to “promote the progress of … useful arts”. Strictly speaking author protection is not the origin of copyright but also I was snarkily responding to a person who was arguing in favor of AI-training-as-fair-use and implying copyright was 120 years old, not trying to do a detailed explication of the origins of copyright law

      • 200fifty@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’m sorry for my imprecise wording, I was feeling flippant and I know what I said isn’t totally accurate. not a big history person here honestly. I’ll try and stick to joke-commenting next time. but also can you just say what you mean instead of darkly hinting.

        iirc even though strictly speaking the origin of copyright is not really about author protection, part of the broad-strokes motivation for its existence involved “we need to keep production of new works viable in a world where new copies can be easily produced and undercut the original,” which was what I was trying to get at. maybe they picked a bad way to do that idk I’m not here to make excuses for the decisions of 16th-century monarchs

        also again I’m not a copyright fan/defender. in particular copyright as currently constituted massively and obviously sucks. I just don’t think copyright-in-the-abstract is like the Greatest Moral Evil either, bc I’m not a libertarian. sorry ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯