“Intellectual Property” and my copyright stance and policies

I reject the idea that ideas can be owned. They cannot. Intellectual property exists to protect big companies and they do not truly serve to protect the authors and artists of this world. Think I’m wrong?  Did William Shakespeare suffer any financial losses despite the lack of IP (Intellectual Property) laws? It would appear not!

First, my two cents on what I publish:

I’m anti-copyright, copyleft, copyheart, even creative commons.  Feel free to take what I’ve done and expand on it. As a matter of courtesy I would appreciate a link back to me, sourcing it properly (as anticopyright is NOT blatant plagiarism). I do the same for what I post if I’m expanding on or republishing someone else’s work. We work hard and our thoughts are most definitely unique, even if the view of the topic is the same – we have artistic views and express ourselves differently. That is the beauty of writing, singing, dancing, painting, drawing and photography. We are afforded the unique opportunity to view the world with a different shade of glasses every time we experience someone else’s hard work. Show appreciation and respect and you will receive the same.

Now that I’ve cleared up my ‘policy’ (if it is a policy), some resources for you to check out to better understand my stance.

Nina Paley was not the first exposure I had to the idea of how bogus IP laws are but she was the one that drove the last nail in the coffin, so to speak.

My very first exposure to anti-copyright was my good friend, activist and author Tarrin P. Lupo. He has published several books successfully and doesn’t only preach liberty and freedom, he lives it!


Creative Commons – CC is a comfortable jumping board (IMO) for getting away from the stifling world of copyright laws.  You can better control how your work is shared and it is legit in the eyes of the law.  I know several people that publish using one or more of the licenses offered by CC.

Having a  hard time putting this in perspective? Well, many a fan have found themselves out of luck when their favorite show or book is finished or comes to an end. I LOVE Firefly and Serenity and many Browncoats (the common name for fans of the show and movie) feel the frustration with FOX canceling the show and retaining the copyright so that no one else can pick it up. Why?!? Where is the benefit in that? FOX isn’t earning money off of it and neither are the creator, writers, actors and everyone else involved. Why not let those that are willing and able to continue it, run with it? It benefits no one! I see a ton of fan fictions, comics that continue it, and even a fan movie and screenings worldwide. But they are all profit-for-charity, which is AWESOME! I’m glad that it’s been allowed but really, if the people want to continue it, let them. They are not stealing potential profits from FOX at all!

Another example of intellectual property laws gone awry is Monsanto. If you are not familiar with them – GET FAMILIAR! They are a company that modifies plants on a genetic level to resist other products they make, namely herbicides and pesticides. The idea is to have more yield with large scale agriculture. I won’t delve into the evil that Monsanto truly is because it would divert from my main topic here; however, they are still relevant. They do not allow farmers planting their seeds to save the seeds for future crops. The farmers have to buy new seed with every planting season!  They have effectively shut down an entire industry of people that go from farm to farm, getting seeds from harvests so the farmers can replant in the future. An entire industry is wiped out! Gone! Monsanto will sue farmers that save seeds and those that do it contractually, even if the contractor didn’t know it was Monsanto crops.  Another disaster with IP and Monsanto is that farms that do NOT use their tainted seeds are having their own crops contaminated via pollination – something humans cannot control – and it spells disaster. Monsanto will accuse the farmer and have the crops tested for the genetic modifications. When it comes up the crop has been tainted, Monsanto sues and takes over that farm – and this includes crops that once were organic for not using GMO (genitically modified organisms).

For those that are authors, actors, photographers, etc, in the end, when you produce something, it’s up to you to decide how to distribute and share it. I can comfortably tell you from experience that anti-copyright does not mean you will loose money or loose credit for your hard work. So consider publishing under one of these alternatives and see how it works out for you. You may find that it frees  you up and indeed, makes you free!

Copy heart logo to use instead of the copyright logo:

Anti-copyright logos:

Logo I came up with for Tarrin's pirate novel. He now uses this for all his books.

Creative Commons logo – but visit site for license specific logos:

Creative Commons has a number of logos. Go to their site to find the one for you.

Copyleft logo – copyleft is anything but copyright, so it envelopes those listed above:

Please check out my fan blog that is driven by current events at:  Shiny… Let’s be bad guys…