I noticed a few exemplary works from the forums here posted at a “wallpaper” site.
Here’sthe first one that jumped out at me…
I belive that almost every wallpaper out there is volating someones copyrights.
Unless the don’t sell them I think there’s nothing wrong. But oryginal author should be credited.
Is this website selling them? No. Making bucks on some others people job? No. Claiming that someone else did those pieces of art? No.
Stop to be so sqare about those rights - what are loosing those artists? Because definitely not money - most of people would not pay them for the phone wallpaper anyways. So? Is it just rules youre crying about? Principals? LOL. THEFT? Ow please… that is so ridiculus. And those artists who are using famous actors faces as reference - do they have permission? Did they pay something to have right to use other people faces? Maybe Angelina Jolie do not want all those 3D “Angelinas” that are all around? So if you are so “law concerned” maybe we should browse thru forums and look for “illegal” copies of people faces? In example - sure you can find more of this kind of “thefts” around.
I agree that author should be credited though.
What part of “Copyright” do you not understand? The author CONTROLS (the “right” part) the USE (the “copy” part) of the created art. Duplicates cannot be made, distributed or sold without the author’s permission.
Federal (and probably international) law states the author’s copyright comes into existence immediately after the work is created. No filing forms or making calls.
If this site somehow got permissions from the artists, all’s cool. Somehow I doubt that given the huge banner ad for Napster there. :rolleyes:
FYI- napster is a legitimate business, it’s owned by Best Buy… works like itunes, you pay per track. You make it sound like it’s still the music piracy tool from the late 90’s.
An as for your other point- copyright of this nature is actually a very blurry grey area right now, so there’s a lot that is not ‘understood’. For example- you state that duplicates can not be made, but anytime someone views the image it is cached by the browser. This is a duplicate, and it throws the argument into question.
If the original authors of the images contacted the site and asked them to pull it (yet they still keep it up), I’m sure there would be a problem then… Although something tells me that the artists in question would gladly have their work displayed on as many sites as possible, so long as they remain credited…
I’m not disagreeing that the site shouldn’t be distributing all of these works, I’m just saying that copyrights are not as obvious as you’re claiming.
When I read this kind of BS I wish that Orphan Works law go thru LOL.
The Orphaned Works Act was too vague when it came to defining how “diligent” an effort is required to locate a copyright owner before a work is infringed upon. That’s one of the reasons why it died last year in Congress.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act already covers all those short-term temporary copies networks and browsers make…and a hell of a lot more.
The original web site SpookeeP pointed to seems to care a lot about the issue:
I’m not trying to play lawyer, just agreeing with the original posts.
Regardless if it’s for profit or not, if someone distributes another’s creative work in any fashion without documented permission, they are in the wrong. Any way you cut it, it’s copyright infringement. Even if seems like no big deal to some, it’s illegal and immoral.
It’s all so simple…
IF IT IS NOT YOURS DON’T TOUCH IT AND DON’T MESS WITH IT.
Lemo
and where’s your fancy ideology when you bite into a burger with dead cow on it?. That cow’s ass isn’t yours, so don’t mess with it!
Seriously though - there’s sharks out there and they’re hungry… Be careful folks!
© Splodge
this is just the way the internet and the world is. one solution is to not put your work out there, do it for yourself, otherwise just accept the fact that people somewhere will abuse it.
You gotta’ put you mark on your work or it’s your own fault. Then at the very least it holds up in court. :mad: :idea:
But seriously - what do you care if bunch of kids will end up with downloaded for free, small wallpaper on his phone with that big a$$ art o’yours- naked chick in 3d LOL. Get real.
“Bu bu bu!
They are having my virtual lady on phone! bu bi bu… ” :lol:
It’s not the kids I would be worried about. And It’s not even a worry. It’s more like being rude and deceptive. I could care less myself. After this orphan law gets passed, thats when all art will be free… I cant wait. :td:
What exactly does the orphan law do. I heard about it in cgtalk.
have to agree with miztli here… intellectual property law in general is retarded and heavily favors big business while hindering progress, creativity, community, and the true nature of art
that’s not to say that we should be completely ignorant of these laws, or that it’s acceptable to make money from somebody else’s work and such… if I’m trying to make a living as an artist, and somebody else abuses my work and endangers my livelihood, then I’m forced to defend myself legally…
unfortunately we live in a highly competitive capitalistic wasteland which threatens us with poverty through brute force if we decide to be generous with something which should by every logical and human notion be shared as freely as possible…
see Thomas Jefferson quote below, and tell me what is art but expression of an idea?.. I think the often forgotten purpose at the very core of artistic nature is simply striving to understand one another…
we just have to be as nice as society will allow us to be… which means if there’s no harm done, there’s no need to do harm
“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.”
- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813
To copy right make sure you start with a good image - remember garbage in garbage out.
Then you need to find a reason why you want it in the first place - can I make money out of this dude’s artist that has so kindly made their work public.
Then you need to sell it without any mention if the artworks origin.
Get the cash and be happy with the effort which the free enterprise society makes available.
Then you have copyright successfully - LOL!
Seriously - any of you guys ever tried to sue somebody for a copy right infringement. That is when the real hell breaks lose. By the time you have paid your legal team and collected all your affidavids and witnesses you will have less than what you started out with and spent an inordinant time during which time you could have produced sevberal new masterpeices.
Then you will have to win the case - BIG GOOD LUCK THERE DUDE!
Forget what happens to your work and stop posting high quality - unwatermarked images on the internet -there are sveral ways to make your work unuseable for reproduction and the game is up.
You have an idea for an image whether for school, demo
reel, or you are a “working artist”.
Many hours are spent with the modelling, texturing, etc.
Frustrating time to get it the way you want it.
The software was paid for by you, you bought the books,
listened to the tutorials, spent the time to acquire the
knowledge to produce your work.
One day,it is finished, you submit the work to a forum like
this for discussion, critiques, etc.
A few days later, you go to another site and there is the work
submitted by another artist with responses like “love the image”.
I will pause here.
Put yourself in this position.
Come back and tell me that it is ok,no sweat, it happens,
no big deal, what the hell, that’s life.
Really?
I basically do/did photography.
Three times works by me and one by my better half
were pirated.
In my girl’s case,she took a photo, sent it to her
cousin in Spain. Was used as a calendar photo with no
credit. This is the only one we didn’t bitch about.
Our fault.
To quote an old philosopher:
It’s all so simple…
IF IT IS NOT YOURS DON’T TOUCH IT AND DON’T MESS WITH IT.
Lemo January 1846
Try telling that to the shark that’s about to eat your ass for lunch.