Can I steal your image?

[TheOtherBob]

He's "some guy" that has done his homework and makes a lot of sense.

Yeah, generally speaking if you're going to make an argument to authority, you should go with authority that's not far out on the fringe. :er: In any event, everything this guy advocates is normative, not descriptive -- in other words, he has an idea of how he'd like the world to work, but it's out of step with both existing law and good sense (as I think our discussion above adequately demonstrated).

If you want to wish for the world he envisions...feel free. But in the real world, copyright laws apply, are beneficial, have a strong moral basis, and should be followed. People view negatively those who take their works in violation of those laws. That the infringer has a sincere wish that those people would just share their IP for free...well, it somehow doesn't seem to eliminate the view of the artists that their property has been stolen, does it?

(Or, to put it another way, if someone came into my house and took some of my stuff, and then told me that it was ok because they'd just finished reading Peter Kropotkin and no longer believed in "ownership," I'd still shoot them. )

 

[abraxas]

Again, for us in the US.

U.S. Copyright Office

 

[epp_b]

So, TheOtherBob, you're of the belief that copyright law should take priority over freedom in general? I certainly wouldn't be proud to admit that.

 

[TheOtherBob]

So, TheOtherBob, you're of the belief that copyright law should take priority over freedom in general? I certainly wouldn't be proud to admit that.

Yep, that's exactly what I said... Oh, wait, that bears no resemblence to what I, or anyone else said... Don't worry, I always confuse strawmen with reality, too -- hard drugs will do that to you.

Anywho, if by "freedom in general" you mean anarchism...then, yeah dude, that's what I'm saying. Copyright law and ownership should take priority over your desire to misappropriate other people's stuff without paying them. That's not a controversial concept for most people.

 

[epp_b]

The absence of the absurd copyright laws of the western world is not anarchy.

Copyright law and ownership should take priority over your desire to misappropriate

..."To misappropriate" or claim attribution, sure. But that goes beyond copyright. Claiming someone else's work as your own isn't just copyright infringement, it's fraud.

I'm talking about merely copying something and that's it.

 

[Phranquey]

Again, for us in the US.

U.S. Copyright Office

Abraxas, thanks for that link.


epp_b, direct quote from the above link...



"Somebody infringed my copyright. What can I do?"
"A party may seek to protect his or her copyrights against unauthorized use by filing a civil lawsuit in federal district court. If you believe that your copyright has been infringed, consult an attorney. In cases of willful infringement for profit, the U.S. Attorney may initiate a criminal investigation."

Guess what...it's not just civil.

 

[Phranquey]

So the guy emailed me back and is coming by the studio Friday to pick up a 12X16 unmounted Print for $50...

Congrats on the sale. I saw that pic in your other thread...very nice.

I always wondered where to go to get a shot like that everytime I come down the 75/71 hill and see the skyline on a nice day....now I know.

 

[TheOtherBob]

The absence of the absurd copyright laws of the western world is not anarchy.

It's a very specific kind of anarchy -- loss of government recognition and protection of a form of property. Oh, don't worry, people wouldn't end up fighting with Tina Turner in a dome if there were no copyright...but they would lose something necessary and valuable, as we've discussed.

..."To misappropriate" or claim attribution, sure. But that goes beyond copyright. Claiming someone else's work as your own isn't just copyright infringement, it's fraud.

I'm talking about merely copying something and that's it.

"Copying" is no more problematic in the abstract than carrying a television would be problematic in the abstract. The question is why you're carrying the television. If it's because you paid for or have been given the television and are carrying it home...fine. But if you're carrying the television because you're stealing it...that's problematic.

Similarly, you only want to talk about whether it's wrong to copy things...but that's entirely the wrong question. "Copying" is morally neutral. The right question is whether it's wrong to deprive an author of the value of his creation, or to take what doesn't belong to you simply because you want it and don't want to pay for it.

 

[LokiZ]

The right question is whether it's wrong to deprive an author of the value of his creation, or to take what doesn't belong to you simply because you want it and don't want to pay for it.

That is actaully two questions. Separate the deprive author of value and the "take take take" and then you see why there is a need for both laws for physical stealing and copyright infringement.

The point is simply this. The minute put your work on the net you are freely giving it away. (there is a catch of course but still you have given it away like it or not.) If someone strays from your allowed usage rules it is wrong but they have not stolen what you have already given them.

I give your child a ball and say you can have the ball just don't throw it in the house. Your child proceeds to throw the ball in the house anyway. Hmm... has he now stolen the ball? No, but there has been an infringement. I will now ask for the ball back as he has lost his right to use the ball I gave to him freely.

 

[TheOtherBob]

That is actaully two questions.

Picky, picky, picky.

The point is simply this. The minute put your work on the net you are freely giving it away. (there is a catch of course but still you have given it away like it or not.) If someone strays from your allowed usage rules it is wrong but they have not stolen what you have already given them.

Putting something on the internet grants others a right only to view it -- no other rights are granted unless you grant them.

I give your child a ball and say you can have the ball just don't throw it in the house. Your child proceeds to throw the ball in the house anyway. Hmm... has he now stolen the ball? No, but there has been an infringement. I will now ask for the ball back as he has lost his right to use the ball I gave to him freely.

You're talking about something else -- you're talking about violating a license. The kid in your example hasn't committed copyright infringement, but rather has breached your contract. You can still sue him, but it's an entirely different legal area.

Now, you're right that some violations of licenses can also be copyright infringement, and vice versa -- for example, if you violate a one-user license by copying and distributing the software, you have both breached the agreement and infringed on the underlying copyright. But that doesn't mean that the two concepts are interchangeable.

 

[Big Bully]

He's "some guy" that has done his homework and makes a lot of sense.

Oh lookie there.. "Some guy" on the net found some research to back his argument... How original. I could find research all day to back the statement "the world is flat", but that doesn't mean that it is true.

Again, for us in the US.

U.S. Copyright Office

Thank you for that link abraxas!

 

[skieur]

Any Canadians who might want a quick review of Copyright laws here can go to this site

The info. there is not totally correct, but generalizations are necessary, despite the fact that they are not completely accurate.

skieur

 

[rufus5150]

Putting something on the internet grants others a right only to view it -- no other rights are granted unless you grant them.

The point where it gets sticky (and I'm completely on your side on the copyright argument, btw, so this is by no means an attack on that position) is that the only way to view an image on a computer is to make a copy of it. It has to copy the bits to your computer and make an exact replica of what's placed up by the originator in order for you to view it.

The 'everything should be free' crowd sometimes gets hung up on that point a little too much, but those on the pro-copyright side need to understand that nuance in order to counter.

 

[Joves]

So, TheOtherBob, you're of the belief that copyright law should take priority over freedom in general? I certainly wouldn't be proud to admit that.

If it means the absolute free use of someones work without compnesating them then yes. You are then infringing ontheir freedom to profit from their work. It is a double edged sword isnt it.

 

[abraxas]

...

Thank you for that link abraxas!

It's only good if you read it. If it's read, one may understand not only what their rights are, but what rights others have to use your work without your consent.

It explains what it is, not what you want it to be.

There are procedures that one must follow along with costs associated with enforcing your rights.

If one reads it and understands what it says, one may never post on the web again.

And in the end, no matter how much you grunt, groan, hold your breath, or clench your fists, the public owns your work anyhow.