Copyright discussion

"^ You don't mess with a (c) marking.  Not only is it illegal, it's a slap in the face to the work's owner."

+1

"Own personal use" If I don't want to look at her name I edit it off my desktop.

Now, if I used it publicly, or claimed it as my own, or swapped her name for mine... Different.

~

If they share it... It's not owned.

Removing a label from clothes does not alter the manufacturer. Changing the label is different.

Or maybe every picture and every theme and every line of code should have a © on it? Oh, Microsoft.

No, we share. I put a mark on a graphic and someone edits it? That's sharing, that's evolution, that's progress.

If someone claims it as theirs and I asked them not to... different.

~~

EDIT addendum for blackbinary who posted at the same time as me. Yes I agree mostly with you. But the version on my desktop bleeds off the top of the monitor (widescreen) so is not shown. So not edited. Although I still stand that I may edit shared work. The image of my desktop is my desktop - altered and therefore mine.

EDIT2 to avoid a ridiculous argument I will say no more but what if a window or conky obscured the artists name? Can I use an image with an artists name but never ever obscure their name?

Who needs police when we can't even share a link without being jumped by the mob?

Last edited by tawan (2010-02-15 06:30:11)

I feel that this is somehow my fault for asking for the wallpaper

Okay, here's how I see it. (It's my profession, so I think I have the right to my 2 cents, at the very least)

If you put it up on a site like DeviantArt and offer downloads (under the category of desktop wallpapers, no less) then you should expect people to do whatever they want with the image and edit it to suit their needs/wants. (copyrighted or not)

There's a "buy this print" option on the site, so basically it means people who like the artist's work enough to part with their hard earned/stolen/pillaged money for it, can do so if they desire.

Having said that, I never put up my most exclusive work anywhere online (I'm fortunate that I have a small but loyal list of the rich and tasteless who visit my exhibitions or commission prints on a somewhat regular basis )... I used to have a website for my editioned stuff some years ago, but found out some dude in China or Hong Kong was making small prints of my stuff and selling them, and learned through my lawyer that bringing up the case with their respective copyright agencies/legislators/whatevers would just prove to be a waste of money and time.

Personally, as an artist (I hate using that term on myself, by the way... sound so naff... ugh) , I prefer to believe that the quality of your work will sell itself, and providing as much "free for public consumption" stuff will only  serve to increase your exposure and benefit  you in the long run (the RIAA would disagree with me here, I'm sure) .... it might sound a naive utopian idea, but we use Linux, which started out like that, so......

*runs for cover*

Last edited by gutterslob (2010-02-15 08:41:14)

+1

IMO, the entire IP/copyright issue is getting really out of hand. While I agree that the creator of 'a work' should be recognized as the creator, the way things work now is just a disgrace and the ones really benefitting from it are mostly not the creators of 'the work'

+1, at the end of the day if anyone has the right to choose how a work is released and distributed, its the creator of that work, although the individual also has an equal right to do what they want to their personal copy. 

hasn't that always been the case though, the record companies have always been the richest parties in the music business, i don't think you could argue though that musicians get a raw deal, arguably now they have more power than ever, they can reach a world wide audience with out needing a recording contract or masses of money.

In tawans defence, the wallpaper linked here still has the artists copyright, and im not sure that a screen shot with a certain wallpaper in it would constitute copyright infringement.

It would be nice if people were more honest though and things like the originator of something (whether it be art, a document, whatever) could just be embedded in the meta-data. Then you wouldn't have to worry about the artwork being marred by copyright info.

not a real solution but I wish.

And the problem also comes in that some people really dont care, no matter how cool the image, nor how appropriate it is to give credit. They just want mario on the raptor killing the gorilla with a lazor, no matter who made it, who care who made it, theres lazors! Really, for the internet to be free, and understanding the many types of people on the internet...this is just one of the cons that go with the pros, methinks.

Um; are you SURE that this isn't a viable solution? Any thoughts on how to accomplish this?

i think the concept is definitely a good idea, although i would question why you need to 'lock in' the copyright info.

on the basis that theres two types of 'copyright notice removers' those who want to pass off the work as their own, and those that don't want the notice spoiling their desktop, as you yourself said you aren't going to stop someone determined to remove the copyright notice, so youre basically aiming it at users who don't want copyright notices intruding on their desktop, some kind of plain meta data would do that, perhaps jpegs can already do this ?

sounds link you need to heed the teachings of master foo

^ You mean like the "Cat's in the Cradle" mp3's attributing the recordings to Cat Stevens and Guns n' Roses instead of Harry Chapin and Ugly Kid Joe, respectively?  I was actually thinking of these earlier today, as well as the cover of "Gin and Juice" by The Gourds, which is circulating tagged as Phish.  Sure, I can retag the copies that I have (and eventually track down & pay for legal copies ) but there isn't much we can do to control the copies out in the wild.

Last edited by pvsage (2010-02-16 03:15:23)