![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Everyone and their brother has probably told you this by now, but the new profile of Roger Ebert in Esquire is a definite must-read, especially if, like me, you grew up watching Siskel and Ebert. (They were always the reason Letterman gave for having two guest chairs on his set even though he talked to one guest at a time.)
In the middle of the article they're talking about Gene Siskel, who died of a brain tumor in 1999—well, not talking, as Ebert lost his voice and his ability to eat to cancer, but discussing. Ebert goes to his blog to look up the embedded video of his on-air tribute to Gene the first show after his death and of course, Disney has taken the video down. Ebert has a pretty big fit over this, understandably, saying, "MY TRIBUTE." It's an amazing moment in the middle of the article.
I know in fandom we often play a bit loose with copyright, and that there's an understandable concern among those on my flist who are compensated for cultural work about rights violations cutting into their real paycheck, or making it more difficult for future creators to be offered payment for their work. Ebert's tribute to his friend Siskel was done on a television show for which he had a contract and was duly paid. Disney produced the show and they have the rights to it. End of story.
But we've all seen that rights holders, which more often than not are giant corporations that exist to make money, aren't particularly respectful, especially to the creators of the cultural products. It sucks that the breaking down of paying for content leads to producers getting the squeeze (though that always happens in any economic change, that the little guy feels it first) but I just can't imagine that the way that copyright exists right now is awesome if so many people don't have the rights to the things they have created themselves.
In the middle of the article they're talking about Gene Siskel, who died of a brain tumor in 1999—well, not talking, as Ebert lost his voice and his ability to eat to cancer, but discussing. Ebert goes to his blog to look up the embedded video of his on-air tribute to Gene the first show after his death and of course, Disney has taken the video down. Ebert has a pretty big fit over this, understandably, saying, "MY TRIBUTE." It's an amazing moment in the middle of the article.
I know in fandom we often play a bit loose with copyright, and that there's an understandable concern among those on my flist who are compensated for cultural work about rights violations cutting into their real paycheck, or making it more difficult for future creators to be offered payment for their work. Ebert's tribute to his friend Siskel was done on a television show for which he had a contract and was duly paid. Disney produced the show and they have the rights to it. End of story.
But we've all seen that rights holders, which more often than not are giant corporations that exist to make money, aren't particularly respectful, especially to the creators of the cultural products. It sucks that the breaking down of paying for content leads to producers getting the squeeze (though that always happens in any economic change, that the little guy feels it first) but I just can't imagine that the way that copyright exists right now is awesome if so many people don't have the rights to the things they have created themselves.
