Jump to content

fair use and copyright decision


RedShoesGirl

Recommended Posts

i found this article about a photographer whose work was stolen by another artist to create new work, to be particularly pertinent and important to the geocoin designing community. in essence, fair use does not protect a coin designer from copyright infringement when using a photo that belongs to someone else as the basis of a geocoin. that means out of a book, off of a postcard, a photo found on the web etc.

 

there are a few designs out there that are almost direct copies of photos i found with an easy search on the web. that is a no-no. and finally a court ruling that says so.

 

"Now, looking into the 4 factors that make up fair use:

 

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

 

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

 

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

 

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

 

The judge weighs each one:"

 

right off the bat the first factor is "commercial nature." if you are making a coin for sale that is a commercial nature. making a painting from someone else's photo and then using the painting as the basis of a coin is not allowed!

 

the rest of the judge's explanation make it very clear what is and what isn't allowed.

 

i hope this guy gets taken to the cleaners. he made and stood to make millions off the original works. examples of the originals and the "transformed" paintings and collages are at the bottom of the story.

 

copyright decision

 

finally, photographs are being protected.

Edited by RedShoesGirl
Link to comment

i found this article about a photographer whose work was stolen by another artist to create new work, to be particularly pertinent and important to the geocoin designing community. in essence, fair use does not protect a coin designer from copyright infringement when using a photo that belongs to someone else as the basis of a geocoin. that means out of a book, off of a postcard, a photo found on the web etc.

 

there are a few designs out there that are almost direct copies of photos i found with an easy search on the web. that is a no-no. and finally a court ruling that says so.

 

"Now, looking into the 4 factors that make up fair use:

 

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

 

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

 

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

 

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

 

The judge weighs each one:"

 

right off the bat the first factor is "commercial nature." if you are making a coin for sale that is a commercial nature. making a painting from someone else's photo and then using the painting as the basis of a coin is not allowed!

 

the rest of the judge's explanation make it very clear what is and what isn't allowed.

 

i hope this guy gets taken to the cleaners. he made and stood to make millions off the original works. examples of the originals and the "transformed" paintings and collages are at the bottom of the story.

 

copyright decision

 

finally, photographs are being protected.

 

Just gotta say... Poor little donkey :C That guy is about to break its back.

Link to comment

the whole copyright issue is quite hard to comprehend for most and in particular the "fair use" concept has been open for interpretation

 

stay within what's under a "Creative Commons" licence and you're fine

 

there are actually ways of searching for such work, here's the canadian one

http://creativecommons.ca/index.php?p=getcontent

 

even under a creative commons license there are varying levels. often times commercial use is precluded. each piece of art must be researched thoroughly to see what conditions apply.

Link to comment

Not a surprising ruling to be honest, anyone with a half decent understanding of copyright law should've expected that outcome.

 

To quote Alex Kozinski: "Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Culture is impossible without a rich public domain. Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it's supposed to nurture."

 

yes, my point exactly. folks may think it's only small potatoes, but it is the principal of the thing. stealing artwork is no less a theft than stealing an ipod or anything else.

That's not true, it's a very different thing, both morally and legally. Copyright infringement is not theft, it's copyright infringement.

Link to comment
...

Just gotta say... Poor little donkey :C That guy is about to break its back.

 

trying to crack a joke does not deflect the seriousness and importance of the issue.

 

I'm sorry Lara... it's important to note that, although the thief is a good painter, they are in no way an artist. By definition, an artist is "a person skilled in creative activity". If a person steals an idea to create a new image, then they aren't being very creative.

 

p.s. I was being serious about feeling bad for the donkey.

Link to comment

....

That's not true, it's a very different thing, both morally and legally. Copyright infringement is not theft, it's copyright infringement.

That's a bit like saying coin theft is not theft since the owner clearly left/abandoned their item in the public domaine.

Link to comment

Not a surprising ruling to be honest, anyone with a half decent understanding of copyright law should've expected that outcome.

 

To quote Alex Kozinski: "Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Culture is impossible without a rich public domain. Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it's supposed to nurture."

 

yes, my point exactly. folks may think it's only small potatoes, but it is the principal of the thing. stealing artwork is no less a theft than stealing an ipod or anything else.

That's not true, it's a very different thing, both morally and legally. Copyright infringement is not theft, it's copyright infringement.

 

i think the word left out of the ruling was "plagiarism." the man stole the other man's art to make something under this own name and sold the pieces for millions of dollars. that was theft. by infringing on the work, he stole income from the original artist.

 

when you create something, then talk to me of public domain. nothing i produce as a photographer is public domain and i do not see protecting that intellectual property as "overprotecting."

 

kozinki got it wrong. to say nothing is genuinely new is just another way of saying it's ok to steal because after all, it isn't genuinely new. that's BS. i think the court got it right this time. not overprotecting or underprotecting.

 

rsg

Link to comment
...

Just gotta say... Poor little donkey :C That guy is about to break its back.

 

trying to crack a joke does not deflect the seriousness and importance of the issue.

 

I'm sorry Lara... it's important to note that, although the thief is a good painter, they are in no way an artist. By definition, an artist is "a person skilled in creative activity". If a person steals an idea to create a new image, then they aren't being very creative.

 

p.s. I was being serious about feeling bad for the donkey.

 

got ya. not only are they not being very creative, they are breaking the law.

Link to comment
That's a bit like saying coin theft is not theft since the owner clearly left/abandoned their item in the public domaine.

 

No, it's not like saying that at all. Please read the second section ("Theft") here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

 

It is more like somebody parking a cargo container in your driveway without asking. They haven't stolen your land, but they have certainly impeded your ability to use it. As in the case cited by RSG, the original photographer lost a showing after the defendants staged their own showing with the derivitave works.

Link to comment
i think the word left out of the ruling was "plagiarism." the man stole the other man's art to make something under this own name and sold the pieces for millions of dollars. that was theft. by infringing on the work, he stole income from the original artist.

 

Still wrong, loss of income is yet another, only marginally related issue. If someone causes you to lose income, you can sue them over that, but you can't sue them for stealing something. Theft only applies to things that can be physically taken. You can steal a particular copy of some work (say, a picture), but creating a copy does not remove the original, hence is not theft. Loss of potential income is also not theft, as you can't steal something that's not there (potential - it was never created).

Edited by dfx
Link to comment

I would like to play devils advocate for a sec. How do you all feel about collective conscious? This would be a subconscious collection of thoughts that are either somehow engrained into the genetic code... Or that humans are able to tap into. It's easier to give examples:

 

the mayans pyramids look a lot like the Egyptian pyramids

 

hadrians wall is similar to the great wall

 

arrowheads from ancient America Indians are similar to those of ancient Europeans.

 

What if... There were two pieces of art that looked similar from very different regions of the world.... And the two artists had

never come in contact? I mean I know this is unlikely because o the Internet. But just here me out.

Link to comment

Not a surprising ruling to be honest, anyone with a half decent understanding of copyright law should've expected that outcome.

 

To quote Alex Kozinski: "Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Culture is impossible without a rich public domain. Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it's supposed to nurture."

 

yes, my point exactly. folks may think it's only small potatoes, but it is the principal of the thing. stealing artwork is no less a theft than stealing an ipod or anything else.

That's not true, it's a very different thing, both morally and legally. Copyright infringement is not theft, it's copyright infringement.

 

Not to split hairs or fuel the fire, but how are they different? Wrong is wrong. Illegal is illegal. I don't think that RSG is debating the definition of theft. I think she is trying to educate people to the fact that using the artwork of someone else without permission is copyright infringement, is illegal, and there is now a ruling to prove it.

Link to comment

Not a surprising ruling to be honest, anyone with a half decent understanding of copyright law should've expected that outcome.

 

To quote Alex Kozinski: "Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Culture is impossible without a rich public domain. Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it's supposed to nurture."

 

yes, my point exactly. folks may think it's only small potatoes, but it is the principal of the thing. stealing artwork is no less a theft than stealing an ipod or anything else.

That's not true, it's a very different thing, both morally and legally. Copyright infringement is not theft, it's copyright infringement.

 

Not to split hairs or fuel the fire, but how are they different? Wrong is wrong. Illegal is illegal. I don't think that RSG is debating the definition of theft. I think she is trying to educate people to the fact that using the artwork of someone else without permission is copyright infringement, is illegal, and there is now a ruling to prove it.

 

Exactly. Stealing an orange is the same as stealing an apple, in this case. Wrong is wrong, so everyone should be careful whose artwork they are using without express permission.

Link to comment

the mayans pyramids look a lot like the Egyptian pyramids

hadrians wall is similar to the great wall

arrowheads from ancient America Indians are similar to those of ancient Europeans.

 

Bad examples, none of these are copyrighted and they are not copys of one another... Now if I took a photo of Hadrian's wall, posted it to the internet and someone downloaded it, made it into a post card and sold them... then you would have a case.

 

The case RSG mentions happened because a lot of money was involved. Usually people making geocoins, tags or tokens will fall under the radar. The problem I see is that vendors making the coins allow them get made. In a case they would be co-defendants, which would be extreme. The first someone will see of something will be a letter of cease and desist.

Link to comment
That's a bit like saying coin theft is not theft since the owner clearly left/abandoned their item in the public domaine.

 

No, it's not like saying that at all. Please read the second section ("Theft") here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

 

I read the section and it does distinguish between copyright infringement and theft. However for the average person, who is not a lawyer, I am not sure what the difference would be. If you infringe on someone's copyright, you will be required to pay fines and restitution that could be quite large. Perhaps the difference between copyright infringement and theft is whether jail time would be involved and whether there would be a criminal record. Theft over a certain amount is a felony, but would a copyright infringement valued at 1 million dollars be a felony? I really do not know.

 

Perhaps even more important, I suspect that copyright laws will change.

 

The music industry is quickly finding that it is almost impossible to enforce their copyrights and to some degree they are giving up. It may be the same thing with the printed word. There are now millions of people who own computers and printers meaning that each has the capacity to be a publisher. If copyrights become unenforceable, I expect the laws will be changed in some way.

 

Another question which has plagued me since college has been, what is plagiarism? I remember hearing a quote from an art historian who said, "good artists borrow and great artists steal". This was in reference to the art in galleries, created by the great artists. Art historians will often be able to find their source material and see the many influences. The great artists often employed various forms of copying. What people often do not know is that the camera is much older than people realize. photographic film is pretty recent, but the ability to project an image onto a screen using a lens or a pinhole goes back to 400 BC (see camera obscura). There is evidence that some of the works of art, that we thought came from an artist's imagination, was really traced using a dark room. I am arguing that the originality of art has always been called into question. Now with google image searches and internet text searches, it will be easier for all people to copy. I expect the laws to change, but I cannot guess in what way.

 

To add more to this, In my last job as an engineer, I was required to write technical reports on a regular basis. Other people's names were then put on the reports and I was given little or no credit. I did a lot of thinking about this and I concluded that all artists and authors borrow to such a great extent that it is really hard to know who is the true author. I have expressed ideas in this very forum and then seen them repeated months later. Do the people who repeat these ideas even know that they did not invent them? Closer to home. I was recently getting ready to write an essay on a topic that I had been thinking about for a while. I had many new ideas that had not been previously expressed. I needed to do some research, so I bought several books on the topic and began to read them. I was dismayed to find that all of my "new" ideas had actually been around for decades. I had picked them up elsewhere and then truly believed that they were mine.

 

I am not arguing against copyright and I am not saying that great artists do not exist. I guess that I am echoing an idea from another poster. There does seem to be a common creative source (collective unconscious) that artists and scientists draw from. I believe that artistic and scientific originality exists more on a cultural level than on an individual level. I don't want to take away too much from the genius of Newton, Einstein, and Van Gogh, But their works were created as much by a community as by an individual.

Link to comment

the mayans pyramids look a lot like the Egyptian pyramids

hadrians wall is similar to the great wall

arrowheads from ancient America Indians are similar to those of ancient Europeans.

 

I'm not saying that the pyramids of central America are a case for copyright infringement.... For all I know the Giza pyramids are not copyrighted.... What I was saying is that there are certain ideas that transcend cultural regions.... Cultures that could have never seen one another. In the same way... It is possible that two artists could have almost te same creative idea without seeing each other's artwork. It is a long shot.... but possible.

 

Bad examples, none of these are copyrighted and they are not copys of one another... Now if I took a photo of Hadrian's wall, posted it to the internet and someone downloaded it, made it into a post card and sold them... then you would have a case.

 

The case RSG mentions happened because a lot of money was involved. Usually people making geocoins, tags or tokens will fall under the radar. The problem I see is that vendors making the coins allow them get made. In a case they would be co-defendants, which would be extreme. The first someone will see of something will be a letter of cease and desist.

Link to comment

Dang.... Let's try this again.

 

I'm not

saying that the pyramids of central America are a cAse for

copyright infringement.... For all I know the giza pyramids are not copyrighted. What I am saying is that there are certain ideas that transcend cultures.... Cultures that could have never seen each other. In the same way, it is possible that two artists could produce almost the same exact creative work without ever seeing eachother's artwork. It is a longshot.... But it's possible.

Link to comment
Not to split hairs or fuel the fire, but how are they different? Wrong is wrong. Illegal is illegal. I don't think that RSG is debating the definition of theft. I think she is trying to educate people to the fact that using the artwork of someone else without permission is copyright infringement, is illegal, and there is now a ruling to prove it.

 

Oh absolutely. Like I said above, anyone with at least some understanding of copyright could've told you before that using somebody else's artwork for your own commercial purposes is illegal and can get out into trouble. That's why the outcome of this ruling was completely expected. The fair use clause is nice when it applies, but in this case it clearly didn't. No argument about any of that.

 

But in a legal sense, there's different levels of wrong. You're not equaling theft with murder either, are you? Killing somebody is clearly more wrong than stealing a candy bar from a store. Both are still crimes and wrong of course and can get you punished, but there's a clear difference between the two. Same applies to copyright infringement and theft, two completely different pairs of shoes. It's just the movie and music industry who spend big money on campaigns trying to make everyone think that the two are actually the same, while in reality they aren't. The reason is simple: "Theft" is a very strong word, "copyright infringement" not so much. Hardly anyone would go and steal a car, but a lot of people are ok with illegally downloading or copying movies and music. Telling people that the two are the same is the industry's attempt at making people feel more guily about their actions, but it's all just a big lie. It doesn't mean that copyright infringement is not a crime, or ok to do, or that it should be legal, but lying to people on a large scale like that is also not ok.

 

Sorry if all this is OT, but I cringe every time I see somebody repeating the industry's lie.

 

Another question which has plagued me since college has been, what is plagiarism? I remember hearing a quote from an art historian who said, "good artists borrow and great artists steal".

Copyright is all about the right to make a copy of some piece of work. In this context, a copy is a true, direct copy, something that's in some way identical to the original. E.g. for a text, it would be a word-by-word copy. Plagiarism is related, but it's merely the imitation of somebody else's work, and not a direct copy. Not a word-by-word copy of a text for example, but a newly written text having similar content.

 

I'm not saying that the pyramids of central America are a cAse for

copyright infringement.... For all I know the giza pyramids are not copyrighted. What I am saying is that there are certain ideas that transcend cultures.... Cultures that could have never seen each other. In the same way, it is possible that two artists could produce almost the same exact creative work without ever seeing eachother's artwork. It is a longshot.... But it's possible.

Possible, but extremely unlikely, so unlikely that it's never gonna happen, not within the lifetime of copyright protection anyway. Copyright only covers specific pieces of work, but not generic concepts. The concept of creating a pyramid shaped building isn't unique enough to be protected by copyright. Those are cases for the patent office.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment

On a similar note... if a designer infringes on copyright, and you buy a coin from them... then try to sell it. You are the one who is commercially selling or distributing and it's your problem, not the designers. Learned that one from ebay. <_<

Edited by avroair
Link to comment

My last post was an exercise in thinking out loud, bacause I have not had the chance to get all of this straight in my mind, so here is some more thinking out loud.

 

What we are talking about here is an issue of property rights and who owns what. This copyright issue can be very similar to the battle between socialism and capitalism. Socialism argues that things are basically collectively owned, while capitalism argues that some people are better at doing certain things and thus deserve more ownership than others. I am currently thinking about the new Hobbit Movie and who owns it. There have been many legal battles over who owns what and what sort of compensation should be given. At the end of the movie, the credits will roll and there will be hundreds of people listed who in some way have contributed to the artistic work. Several main beneficiaries will be Peter Jackson and the Tolkien estate. Does Peter Jackson deserve to get so much more than the stage and prop crew? The actors and stage hands in New Zealand felt that their contribution was not being properly recognized. The Tolkien estate felt the same way. What about the financiers? They spent long hours getting the money together, did they deserve to get more or less than Peter Jackson? The people who made up the Tolkien state had almost no part in the creative effort, did they deserve to get any money? Their grandfather wrote the book and not them, should his property rights pass on to them. I recently read an essay in The Economist that argued that copyrights should die with the artist. Getting back to Tolkien, he himself said that his stories came from common European literature. Even the word 'Hobbit' he was not sure that he had invented it. For years the Tolkien estate sent out cease and desist letters to anyone who use the word 'Hobbit', which is why they are called 'halflings' in the game Dungeons and Dragons. In the last decade, Tolkien's source for the word 'Hobbit' was found, which means that the estate does not own it. How much of that book really belonged to Tolkien? Did he borrow other phrases and ideas from unknown sources? How much of that book does his estate deserve to own?

 

A strict socialist would argue that too much of Tolkien's books belong to other people and are thus owned by everyone. A strict capitalist would argue that only Tolkien had the fortitude, discipline, and creativity to put it all together. Probably most of us fall somewhere between those two positions. Copyright law comes from Britain and the original documents still exists so we can know exactly why those laws were written. It was argued that copyright would encourage creativity by rewarding artists. Does current copyright law still do this? Might it now be discouraging creativity? What immediately come to mind is the musical industry. The musician, Prince, stopped writing for a while because he had lost the rights to all of his music. He felt that the laws were hurting him. I am sure that the business people around him would have argued that he was a rich man and that the financiers has also done lots of hard work and deserved their cut. In artistic matters, there always seem to be disgruntled people who feel that they are not being rewarded for their contribution. The people who consume art and are moved by it, just want everyone to get along so that the art continues to be made. Wouldn't it have been a shame if the fighting had gone on and the Hobbit had never been made? Wouldn't it have been a shame if the Anne Frank estate has prevented the Tranquility coins from being made?

 

Thanks for letting me think out loud.

Link to comment
i think the word left out of the ruling was "plagiarism." the man stole the other man's art to make something under this own name and sold the pieces for millions of dollars. that was theft. by infringing on the work, he stole income from the original artist.

 

Still wrong, loss of income is yet another, only marginally related issue. If someone causes you to lose income, you can sue them over that, but you can't sue them for stealing something. Theft only applies to things that can be physically taken. You can steal a particular copy of some work (say, a picture), but creating a copy does not remove the original, hence is not theft. Loss of potential income is also not theft, as you can't steal something that's not there (potential - it was never created).

 

the ruling specifically addressed the issue of lost income due to the infringement. that is also part of copyright law.

Link to comment
...

Copyright is all about the right to make a copy of some piece of work. In this context, a copy is a true, direct copy, something that's in some way identical to the original. E.g. for a text, it would be a word-by-word copy. Plagiarism is related, but it's merely the imitation of somebody else's work, and not a direct copy. Not a word-by-word copy of a text for example, but a newly written text having similar content...

 

no, i am afraid you are wrong about both copyright and plagiarism. we are defining language to be art also and not just the written word.

 

definition: pla·gia·rism   (from wikipedia)

 

^ From the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary:

 

use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work

 

^ From the Oxford English Dictionary:

the wrongful appropriation or purloining and publication as one's own, of the ideas, or the expression of the ideas… of another

 

notice it says unauthorized use OR a close imitation. copyright is much more than a true direct copy. please read the law before making such statements because people might take what you say as truth. in the case i cited there were four aspect of copyright - those are crucial to understanding the law which is way above the mere copying of another's work.

 

and example of plagiarism. i took a photo of a young woman and posted it on my facebook page. i gave her permission to use it on her facebook page.

 

one of her "artist" friends copied the photo, it appeared to be a tracing sketch and then to add insult to injury, he signed the piece with his name! he took my work, and added his name to it. he stole the art and violated my copyright. she couldn't understand why i came unglued when he showed off HIS new piece.

Edited by RedShoesGirl
Link to comment
the ruling specifically addressed the issue of lost income due to the infringement. that is also part of copyright law.

Exactly my point. Loss of income is not part of any laws covering theft or related crimes.

 

no, i am afraid you are wrong about both copyright and plagiarism. we are defining language to be art also and not just the written word.

 

notice it says unauthorized use OR a close imitation. copyright is much more than a true direct copy. please read the law before making such statements because people might take what you say as truth.

Thank you, I did. Honestly I can't follow you and don't know what you're getting at. If I write a book telling a similar story as somebody else's book, that's plagiarism. I didn't violate copyright because I didn't copy anything. Unless the story is so unique that it constitutes a creative work in itself, but that's gonna be hard to defend (of course people still try, and those cases always make interesting lawsuits). Same goes for music, not only actual recordings, but also melodies are creative works and thus copyrighted. However it's easy to slightly modify a melody while leaving other parts the same. Only when it can be proven that a very large part of the melody is in fact taken from somebody else's work, you have a case of copyright violation.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
...Wouldn't it have been a shame if the Anne Frank estate has prevented the Tranquility coins from being made?

 

 

the coins should have never been made without permission to use the quote. the way it looks now is the designer of the coin made up the words herself. it doesn't matter if she gave credit to the original author back when the coins first came out. no one new to tranquility coins knows that. giving credit does not make up for copyright infringement of the words on a commercial enterprise. it doesn't matter how famous the quote. there are no quote marks and no attribution.

 

we are digressing a bit here. the issue is one photographer's work was used by another artist, who by the way has a history of using other people's work and calling it his own.

 

to me it is really simple. don't use a photo in a geocoin without permission from the photographer. and if the object in the photo belongs to someone else, a sculpture shown in a book for example, that object is also protected. the book is protected.

 

am i saying coins need to be original designs and not borrowed from other sources? the answer is yes. that may be an overly restrictive way of thinking, but i can guarantee you, anyone who designs a coin from scratch is going to protect their intellectual property. they would raise a fuss if someone "borrowed" that design for another coin citing inspiration etc.

 

adding a gps unit or ammo can to a drawing of something else and thinking it is OK is wrong and yes, we have seen that happen. geocoins may be flying under the radar but that does not make it ok to copy others' work on a coin.

 

my reason for posting that lawsuit was to show that copyright is not dead, despite the efforts of some to deny that.

Link to comment
Not to split hairs or fuel the fire, but how are they different? Wrong is wrong. Illegal is illegal. I don't think that RSG is debating the definition of theft. I think she is trying to educate people to the fact that using the artwork of someone else without permission is copyright infringement, is illegal, and there is now a ruling to prove it.

 

Oh absolutely. Like I said above, anyone with at least some understanding of copyright could've told you before that using somebody else's artwork for your own commercial purposes is illegal and can get out into trouble. That's why the outcome of this ruling was completely expected. The fair use clause is nice when it applies, but in this case it clearly didn't. No argument about any of that.

 

And RSG was assuming not everyone has that knowledge.

 

But in a legal sense, there's different levels of wrong. You're not equaling theft with murder either, are you? Killing somebody is clearly more wrong than stealing a candy bar from a store. Both are still crimes and wrong of course and can get you punished, but there's a clear difference between the two. Same applies to copyright infringement and theft, two completely different pairs of shoes.

 

You mean lefties and righties? :laughing: No, seriously, the severity of a crime is determined by social and cultural rules, not by law, law determines the punishment. There is NO difference in legal sense. Right vs wrong... there is no gray. Either you commit a crime or you don't, there are no varying degrees. You are innocent or you are guilty, there is no "kinda" guilty. Is stealing a candy bar from the corner store same as killing someone? Yes... it's wrong. I am not saying there are crimes that carry a stiffer or more harsh penalty, all I am saying is a crime is a crime. Remember we used to stone people to death for blaspheming. How sever is that? (Talking about punishment fitting a crime is a whole new can of worms. :ph34r: )

 

Just because society looks at copyright infringement as a "less sever" crime, does not make it right nor legal.

 

It's just the movie and music industry who spend big money on campaigns trying to make everyone think that the two are actually the same, while in reality they aren't. The reason is simple: "Theft" is a very strong word, "copyright infringement" not so much. Hardly anyone would go and steal a car, but a lot of people are ok with illegally downloading or copying movies and music.

 

Again, just because people are "ok" with others illegally obtaining copyrighted material, does make it OK. It's still illegal.

 

Telling people that the two are the same is the industry's attempt at making people feel more guily about their actions, but it's all just a big lie. It doesn't mean that copyright infringement is not a crime, or ok to do, or that it should be legal, but lying to people on a large scale like that is also not ok.

 

Huh? See, this is where you loose me, they are the same. It's a crime, and I say again, just because people are "ok" with it does not make it legal. If you are breaking the law, you deserve to feel guilty. How is that a lie?

 

Copyright is all about the right to make a copy of some piece of work. In this context, a copy is a true, direct copy, something that's in some way identical to the original. E.g. for a text, it would be a word-by-word copy. Plagiarism is related, but it's merely the imitation of somebody else's work, and not a direct copy. Not a word-by-word copy of a text for example, but a newly written text having similar content.

 

"Copyright is a set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. Copyright does not protect ideas, only their expression." According to Wikipedia. Plagiarism is the copying of someones work and calling it your own.

Link to comment
Huh? See, this is where you loose me, they are the same. It's a crime, and I say again, just because people are "ok" with it does not make it legal. If you are breaking the law, you deserve to feel guilty. How is that a lie?

 

The lie is that it's two different crimes. If all you're looking at is crime vs. no crime, then yes, you're right. But that's not why the movie and music industry is rolling out the big campaigns. Everybody knows that illegally downloading a movie or music is a crime (after all, it's called "illegal"). But crime isn't crime. As you say correctly, different crimes come with different punishments. So yeah, there are differences. The industry is trying to tell people that there is no difference, that illegally downloading a movie is the same as stealing a car. That's just not true. It's not about right vs. wrong, it's about the definition of what is what. There's a reason why the industry isn't telling people that downloading a movie is the same as killing your mother. That would sound totally ridiculous right away. But saying that it's the same as stealing kinda sounds plausible. It's still not right though.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment

the severity of a crime is determined by social and cultural rules, not by law, law determines the punishment. There is NO difference in legal sense. Right vs wrong... there is no gray. Either you commit a crime or you don't, there are no varying degrees. You are innocent or you are guilty, there is no "kinda" guilty. Is stealing a candy bar from the corner store same as killing someone? Yes... it's wrong. I am not saying there are crimes that carry a stiffer or more harsh penalty, all I am saying is a crime is a crime. Remember we used to stone people to death for blaspheming. How sever is that? (Talking about punishment fitting a crime is a whole new can of worms. :ph34r: )

 

 

I have to disagree here. What is a crime changes between generations and the law does recognize levels of right and wrong known as mitigating circumstances. There was a time when it was illegal for women to vote there was a time when homosexuality was seen as a mental illness and homosexual behavior was illegal. There was a time when only landowners could vote. There was a time when domestic violence was only between a man and wife and there was a time when a wife could not be raped by her husband. Laws change over time as our concepts of right and wrong change and people often see the current laws as being out of synch with the way things should be.

 

You claim that there is only innocent or guilty. Then how do you explain appeals and pardons? How do you explain mitigating circumstances? How do you explain mistrials? How do you explain constitutional amendments? How do you explain that summary offenses are different than misdemeanors, which are different from felonies?

 

Getting back to copyright laws, there was a time when the concept did not exist. The laws were created to encourage people to write more books. Property ownership laws are changing all of the time and I expect that copyright laws will go through some overhauls because the laws are not keeping up with changes in technology.

Link to comment

Not that these are my beliefs, but what about considering the reasoning behind why the person "stole" the artwork to begin with.

 

Would you think differently about:

 

Case a. A person creates and sells a coin that is very similar to say "Starry Night" by van Gogh in order to help pay for medication for his wife.

 

Case b. A person creates and sells a coin that is very similar to say "Starry Night" by van Gogh in order to help pay for his Oxycontin habit.

 

Again, I am not condoning the process of stealing intellectual property... just throwing a feeler out there. I understand that in both cases the defendant would be guilty, but is one a lesser crime? Does one deserve a lesser punishment? Is one more morally wrong? Sidenote- I am not aware of whether or not Starry Night is copyrighted... and I am just using that as an example assuming that it is copyrighted.

Link to comment

Not that these are my beliefs, but what about considering the reasoning behind why the person "stole" the artwork to begin with.

 

Would you think differently about:

 

Case a. A person creates and sells a coin that is very similar to say "Starry Night" by van Gogh in order to help pay for medication for his wife.

 

Case b. A person creates and sells a coin that is very similar to say "Starry Night" by van Gogh in order to help pay for his Oxycontin habit.

 

Again, I am not condoning the process of stealing intellectual property... just throwing a feeler out there. I understand that in both cases the defendant would be guilty, but is one a lesser crime? Does one deserve a lesser punishment? Is one more morally wrong? Sidenote- I am not aware of whether or not Starry Night is copyrighted... and I am just using that as an example assuming that it is copyrighted.

 

i still think we are missing the concept of plagiarism. to me, using starry night on a coin would constitute plagiarism. i posted the definition above.

 

i think in the extreme examples you gave, Case A person needs to find another way to create a coin to help pay for his wife's medication. there are choices to be made when one does wrong.

Link to comment
Sidenote- I am not aware of whether or not Starry Night is copyrighted... and I am just using that as an example assuming that it is copyrighted.

I think you already know the answers to your questions, so I'm commenting on this point only: the copyright on all of van Gogh's works has long expired and the works have since entered public domain, which makes them free to be used for whatever purpose, commercial or not. Aside of that, I'm fairly sure that back in the day there was no concept of copyright around, since there was no good way of making copies of pictures anyway.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
Sidenote- I am not aware of whether or not Starry Night is copyrighted... and I am just using that as an example assuming that it is copyrighted.

I think you already know the answers to your questions, so I'm commenting on this point only: the copyright on all of van Gogh's works has long expired and the works have since entered public domain, which makes them free to be used for whatever purpose, commercial or not. Aside of that, I'm fairly sure that back in the day there was no concept of copyright around, since there was no good way of making copies of pictures anyway.

 

I already had my opinion yes. Just making conversation :)

Link to comment

The idea of copyright dates back to 1557 in England. The Stationers' Company of London received a Royal Charter giving them a monopoly on publishing, and along with it the task of enforcing their monopoly. In 1603, the Company began labeling those who violated their monopoly 'pirates'. The published material belonged to the publisher (not the author) forever.

 

In 1709 the Statute of Anne changed all this by transferring copy rights to the author and shortening the period to 14 years.

 

BTW, the copyright on Van Gogh's works expired in 1990 since most signatories of the Berne Convention extend copyright 100 years beyond the life of the author.

 

Something else I discovered recently is that the Berne Convention on copyright had to be amended with the advent of the internet so that browsers could legally cache web pages without violating the copyright of the web page author.

Link to comment

Van Gogh died in 1890 at age 37. Since copyright expire 75 years after a person dies, All of Van Gogh's works entered the public domain in 1965. However, plagiarism is about taking credit for someone else's work and is separate from copyright. For instance all of Shakespeare's works are in the public domain, but people still consider it immoral to tell someone that you wrote a poem when it was really Shakespeare. Ann Frank's writings are still probably under copyright protection.

 

I have two issues, who really owns a work? and do copyright laws need to be changed?

 

I used to be a science teacher, and I would sometimes have students from Asia who just didn't understand plagiarism. Their feeling was that when writing a report, they should use the best words available and they felt that their own words were not as good as what they could find in a book. When I first encountered this, I was angry with my Asian students, but my fellow teachers told me that concepts of intellectual property are different in other cultures. The more that I think about it, the less clear cut it is to me.

 

I know that this will make RedShoesGirl angry, but I do not like the idea of someone else having a right to my image. When I go to a studio, I am happy to pay the photographer for the use of their studio and their skill, but I do not think that my image belongs to them. I think that most people agree with me and the studios are beginning to see that they must change. They are now beginning to offer people the copyrights to their portraits because they see that with cheap digital cameras and scanners, people are feeling less need for studios.

 

The music industry is in a similar quandary. First of all, the copyright of music and royalties are new concepts. Stephen Foster, who wrote "Camptown Races" and "Oh Susanna" had money problems all of his life, because of the lack of copyright protection. In those days (mid 1800s), the idea of making money off of music did not exist the way it does now. It was not until electronic recording came along that true wealth could be achieved from writing a song or a particular performance. However, the artists still often did not benefit, because copyrights can be sold and if you are affiliated with a corporation, all of your work belongs to them. For instance, the Beatles did not own their songs. They were fortunate to attain wealth, but many song writers and musicians remained poor even when their songs were hits. The artists were in a weak position to bargain, because only wealthy businessmen could afford the money for studio equipment, promotion, and pressing records. Computers have changes all of that, because now anyone with $1000 can have their own studio, make recordings, and promote themselves to a worldwide audience. The recording industry is dying and I do not regret the loss. At least for now, the artists are benefiting from their own work.

 

In my own case, until recently, I was an engineer who wrote reports. My work belonged to someone else, and my named was frequently scrubbed off to be replaced by someone who did not even understand what I had written. One event that was particularly satisfying for me, was the presentation of a report that I had worked on for a year. I understood the material better than anyone else. As was standard procedure, someone else was listed as the author. I attended the conference where the work was presented. Much to my satisfaction, the person taking the credit gave the presentation and it was obvious that he was in way over his head. The audience was not sympathetic to him and humiliated him during the Q&A session. My experience of seeing my work going to someone else is repeated all of the time.

 

The more important point that I want to make is that in almost all cases, any creative work involves many people. I research and write and I know that so many of my good ideas have been developed by a community over time. Whether a creative work is a painting, a song, an essay, or a scientific theory, many hands went into its making. Songs, for instance, grow up in a certain time. Most of the popular songwriters in the 1940, had a particular style. In the 1950s new new style arose and all of the artists who could flocked to that. Although the individual artists had their very important contribution, much of the art came from the community and larger culture. Artists and scientists always stand on the shoulders of giants. As actors often say at award ceremonies, "I couldn't have done this without the help of all of the 'little people'". The more you investigate who owns an idea or a work of art, the less clear the ownership becomes.

 

I could go on and on and on, but I hope that I have made my point.

 

Getting back to coins, my concern has been with using tengwar on my coins. I know that several popular coins have included tengwar and no one has raised this as an issue. Tengwar was invented by Tolkien and I thought that the writing system might be under copyright since Tolkien died in 1973. I did much investigation, and it turns out that writing systems cannot be copyrighted in the US. An issue of confusion is that the software that makes fonts can be copyrighted, but not the fonts or letters themselves, thus, tengwar runes are in the public domain.

 

I am awaiting the flames.

Link to comment
BTW, the copyright on Van Gogh's works expired in 1990 since most signatories of the Berne Convention extend copyright 100 years beyond the life of the author.

 

This statement made me go back and check. In the US, copyright for individuals continues 70 years after their death, but this is different in other countries. For copyrights owned by corporations, the protection ends 120 years after the work is created, or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter.

Link to comment
BTW, the copyright on Van Gogh's works expired in 1990 since most signatories of the Berne Convention extend copyright 100 years beyond the life of the author.

 

This statement made me go back and check. In the US, copyright for individuals continues 70 years after their death, but this is different in other countries. For copyrights owned by corporations, the protection ends 120 years after the work is created, or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter.

 

i think if you check, copyright can be left to heirs. i am thinking of the weston's work, or ansel adams. that work is definitely not in the public domain.

Link to comment

The more important point that I want to make is that in almost all cases, any creative work involves many people. I research and write and I know that so many of my good ideas have been developed by a community over time. Whether a creative work is a painting, a song, an essay, or a scientific theory, many hands went into its making. Songs, for instance, grow up in a certain time. Most of the popular songwriters in the 1940, had a particular style. In the 1950s new new style arose and all of the artists who could flocked to that. Although the individual artists had their very important contribution, much of the art came from the community and larger culture. Artists and scientists always stand on the shoulders of giants. As actors often say at award ceremonies, "I couldn't have done this without the help of all of the 'little people'". The more you investigate who owns an idea or a work of art, the less clear the ownership becomes.

 

I really like this concept. It is really funny to think that almost EVERYTHING that we "know" was once somebody else's idea. Each individual contributes very few truly creative thoughts in one life time. It is this gradual piling of individual creative thoughts that becomes our knowledge base. For example, Einstein's work on relativity couldn't have been possible without Newton and Liebniz work on Calculus, which wouldn't have been possible without Arabic Algebra, which wouldn't have been possible without first the concept of a number system, which wouldn't have been possible without language. Otherwise, we would be just grunting about derivatives (which often happens even with the ability to use modern language). There is almost an infinite regress when we speak about our ability to create new ideas, in that all new ideas are based upon past principles. I think that I am starting to ramble... so I will make my point before I go to bed. All ideas will in one way or another imitate a past idea... it is the degree in which the idea is imitated that is important. The degree in which the secondary idea replicates the primary is the basis for "theft". What is the line in which an idea is considered the same, or different? I guess a judge is the only one that can decide for us... case by case.

Link to comment

 

i think if you check, copyright can be left to heirs. i am thinking of the weston's work, or ansel adams. that work is definitely not in the public domain.

 

You are most definitely right. I, and others who care about this, question whether that is a good idea. In the case of the Hobbit movie, the Tolkien estate, which is made up of the grandchildren of Tolkien caused serious problems in the movie going forward. Those grandchildren did not create the book and they do not know what their grandfather would have wanted. I think that the copyright should have died with him.

 

Please understand, I support the concept of copyright and I believe that artists should be rewarded for their work. I just think that passing on the copyright after death stifles creativity more than it rewards it.

Link to comment

Case a. A person creates and sells a coin that is very similar to say "Starry Night" by van Gogh in order to help pay for medication for his wife.

 

Case b. A person creates and sells a coin that is very similar to say "Starry Night" by van Gogh in order to help pay for his Oxycontin habit.

 

Not a good example. :lol: I'm not picking on you. But that piece no longer has copyright. Besides trying to enforce a copyright internationally is like trying to find a nano in the sahara with a ski mask on, not gonna happen. :ph34r:

 

But in Case a and Case b... i don't think cause or purpose has anything to do with it legally. It might sway opinion in here and people might not feel bad about it. Unless of course that is also false. (and I have seen times where people have pulled out the medical hardship card in these forums when it wasn't the case).

Link to comment

I know that this will make RedShoesGirl angry, but I do not like the idea of someone else having a right to my image. When I go to a studio, I am happy to pay the photographer for the use of their studio and their skill, but I do not think that my image belongs to them.

 

Regardless of the subject matter, it is the photographer who is producing the photo. Their knowledge and their equipment creates the image which they sell to you. That's their living. If you try to copy that image, your are infringing on their right to make a living from work they have produced.

 

The music industry is in a similar quandary. First of all, the copyright of music and royalties are new concepts.

 

Music and music recordings have been protected by copyright since the first Berne Convention in 1886. The reason artists remained poor is because they sold the rights to their songs to the studios.

 

Getting back to coins, my concern has been with using tengwar on my coins. I know that several popular coins have included tengwar and no one has raised this as an issue. Tengwar was invented by Tolkien and I thought that the writing system might be under copyright since Tolkien died in 1973. I did much investigation, and it turns out that writing systems cannot be copyrighted in the US. An issue of confusion is that the software that makes fonts can be copyrighted, but not the fonts or letters themselves, thus, tengwar runes are in the public domain.

 

I am awaiting the flames.

 

The US is the only signatory to the Berne Convention that does not allow copyrights on fonts. The Tolkien Estate owns the rights to the Tengwar, Quenya, and Sindarin languages and vigorously protects them. If you wish to legally sell any coin using his fonts outside of the US you will have to seek permission from the estate.

Link to comment
The US is the only signatory to the Berne Convention that does not allow copyrights on fonts. The Tolkien Estate owns the rights to the Tengwar, Quenya, and Sindarin languages and vigorously protects them. If you wish to legally sell any coin using his fonts outside of the US you will have to seek permission from the estate.

 

This is why copyrights should die with their owners. I don't think anyone knows what Tolkien would have wanted, but in his books he describes tenwar runes as being universal and used by everyone. The Tolkien estate is going against that sentiment. There are a lot of people who love languages and would like to use them, but the Tolkien estate prevents that. Is their motivation love for their grandfather's work, or love of money? Copyrights intended to protect artists are now causing their art to die and not remain a growing part of the culture.

Link to comment

I know that this will make RedShoesGirl angry, but I do not like the idea of someone else having a right to my image. When I go to a studio, I am happy to pay the photographer for the use of their studio and their skill, but I do not think that my image belongs to them.

 

Regardless of the subject matter, it is the photographer who is producing the photo. Their knowledge and their equipment creates the image which they sell to you. That's their living. If you try to copy that image, your are infringing on their right to make a living from work they have produced.

 

 

That is quickly changing with the new digital cameras. The laws will change to accommodate the new reality. What we always see with new technology is that some people are hurt, but many more people benefit.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...