Other than you came up with a great business model to steal someone elses idea?
I'm an artist. I'm 43. 28 years ago I was 15, and selling art. Apparently, per some of the ideas in this thread, anything I did at that time is worthless and should be freely available since it did not become so famous that it is now public domain (which can't be considered copyrighted/trademarked any longer). Freelance artists don't really get a 401k plan. Copyrights are, in a sense, their 401k. But when yer all enthralled with how easy it is to copy something for free, there isn't much point in worrying about rich peoples big words like 'intellectual property'. They're just made up words.
Ok, let's make the scenarios more similar monetarily. You tell someone an important trade secret. They are about to tell it to someone else. It's worth a whole lot more than your car. You put a gun to their head to prevent them from speaking this secret. Ethical?
Then I would of course assume that you are also ethically opposed to loaning a book to a friend. That friend did not compensate the author for the book that they are reading. Right?
Perhaps I should have used a different word than 'idea' there. Am I to assume you feel that Mickey Mouse is an idea. And that it is perfectly acceptable to draw Mickey Mouse in any fashion, and earn a profit from it? Since Mickey Mouse is an idea, and even if we go so far as to make sure we do not directly copy any individual animation frame, or image of him directly, then creating a 'new' Mickey drawing and selling it is perfectly fine?This is itself a loaded question. You cannot own an idea, so it cannot be stolen. As I stated many pages ago, ideas are not intellectual property that the law protects.
That would depend. If they're mass producing a painting I did, and selling them for profit, how is it any different than stealing my painting directly?It should be though. I still dont see why you are complaining? People cant steal a physical painting. Are you really going to sue someone that creates a similar painting. Creating paintings takes effort.
No. Tiger Woods is a great example here. He has come down hard on copyrights of his image being used. Why? In his view, regardless of the skill required, he contends that the profit is made specifically because it is Tiger Woods being featured in the painting. A painting of myself playing golf would not likely sell as well as one of Tiger Woods playing golf.Say you paint a portrait of my likeness. You don't own the idea of painting my likeness...
That would be for a judge to determine. I am not a lawyer, but in my opinion the painting is a new work. If I look out at the horizon, and paint a work based upon what I see, it is the same as painting what I see in a photograph, requiring the same skill set in both instances. However, when I look out into the horizon, I am discovering a unique image to recreate. When I look at an existing photo, I am finding someone else's unique image to recreate. And that's where a judge comes in.Also, I have a question. Say my sibling takes a picture. They are a pro photographer. I use their picture to create a painting. Is that a derivative work, a new work, am I violating copyright?
That would depend. If they're mass producing a painting I did, and selling them for profit, how is it any different than stealing my painting directly?
Creating paintings does take effort. In fact, a rights agreement must be worked up between an artist and a lithographer when a limited set of prints is created, because the lithography plates are considered a separate and distinct work (requiring skill to create) even though it is a direct copy. This is an example of how rights are used, and protects both the lithographer and the artist.
No. Tiger Woods is a great example here. He has come down hard on copyrights of his image being used. Why? In his view, regardless of the skill required, he contends that the profit is made specifically because it is Tiger Woods being featured in the painting. A painting of myself playing golf would not likely sell as well as one of Tiger Woods playing golf.
But say I paint a picture of you all hippified and holding a picket sign saying 'ban guns' with the INGO title above it. Anti gun advocates begin using the image on every blog, newscast, etc... Should you have no say how your image is being presented? Should INGO not be able to protect it's name and how it is used?
That would be for a judge to determine. I am not a lawyer, but in my opinion the painting is a new work. If I look out at the horizon, and paint a work based upon what I see, it is the same as painting what I see in a photograph, requiring the same skill set in both instances. However, when I look out into the horizon, I am discovering a unique image to recreate. When I look at an existing photo, I am finding someone else's unique image to recreate. And that's where a judge comes in.
Currently I wouldnt care if someone copied my paintings. I might feel different if they started making a bunch of money on it. I might also feel different if I was trying to feed myself with my paintings. Even if I couldnt get a judgment assuming I ever found out about someone stealing my work for profit, it would not cause me to stop painting I hope. Who knows maybe it would but right now I doubt it. I still haven't gotten tired of painting portraits of my family.
Many things fall under public domain in certain contexts. News agencies can use images if it pertains to news being reported (ie mugshots, survelliance cams, etc). Images may also be used in an educational manner. If you are teaching a class on Walt Disney, it is perfectly acceptable to show images of his creations. If you are out in public (ie the person happens to walk by and you paint them) then it is in public domain. This came into play a few years ago with upskirt videos and such. Lawyers can get creative, and some places require admission to attend, which then are considered private.What about pictures of people in the news? Couldn't they claim a copyright to their own image and demand compensation? I thought this has been ruled against. As in if you are out in public and you walk by my easel and I happen to paint you. You don't have any rights over my work of art.
I agree. But copyrights & trademarks aren't always there to insure the creator can profit from it. They also help to protect the creation and how it is used.Even so I would be pretty upset if a picture of my likeness ended up in something like an abortion ad (not that it is likely). Isnt this usually avoid by hiring actors anyway? What about the ad where they use some actress that looked like another more famous actress?
This is all one giant morass.
By your definition, there is no business model profitable if anyone may capitalize on your work the following day. So no creative thought, and everything is honkey dorey.
Is there a legitimate reason why any one should be able to capitalize on the creative work by another person? Other than you came up with a great business model to steal someone elses idea?
As I said before, let the punishment fit the crime. If someone gives away a secret that puts food on your table there is legal recourse you can take. I may have spoke too bluntly, I'm not saying a gun to the head is correct course of action in all situations. Although I do advocate hanging cattle rustlers.
No, you're not mass producing it or making it available for everyone. When someone sells a book they are selling a physical object with the understanding it could end up in a library. The hope for an author is that enough people like his or her work enough to buy their own copy. Giving away someone else's book in mass quantity is still ethically wrong. The key here is copying it or not.
And that is a large issue. Many artists ARE feeding their families... It is a career and not always a hobby (Not that it matters though). And someone copying your work should certainly not be a deterrent or prevent you from continuing painting, creating, etc.
We once had a person come in and apply for a job. Later after the applicant left, my boss came in and showed me his portfolio, asking about one printout in particular. It was a race transporter layout that I had done 3 years prior. Not a copy, but a direct printout of the actual layout I had designed. He'd cropped out our company logo. I welcome anyone to argue this person was NOT a thief. Even though I did not lose any compensation or profit, his 'profit' was attempting to gain employment based on the merit of someone else
lolThe existence of 'careers' that maybe ought not to be careers is not a good argument for government interference, in my opinion.
lol
So Artist should not be a career? Creation of something from ones imagination should not be a career?
Goodbye Artists, Film Makers, Writers, Engineers, and virtually every other occupation that involves creating from thought... except maybe that of truck driver.
Nevermind, I just read through some of you threads.