DeviantArt Going Down the Toilet? (Opinion)
Tuesday, September 17, 2002 by geekboy2000 | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Apparently, if you can digitize it and upload it, it's allowable on DA. It may have always been that way, and I just didn't notice it, but I think things have gotten worse. Over a period of weeks or months, you'll see "art" that embraces a hate group mentality, "artwork" consisting of someone sitting on the couch, and probably a terabyte of other useless crap. Oh, and maybe a few nice wallpapers or skins. But, yes, I must remember the name of the site is Deviant*ART*, so I guess that explains the "art" consisting of some guy's car parked in his driveway. IMO, visiting the site is a total waste of time these days. I'm sorry if this is an inappropriate rant, but after all this *is* a message, and it's on the "message" board section. If this were DA, I could post a video clip here, and that would be just fine.
 |
|
Page 3 of 5 | |
|
|---|
joetheblow
Reply #42 Thursday, September 19, 2002 3:48 AM
Reply #42 Thursday, September 19, 2002 3:48 AM
But I like her so much 
I just wanted to show how much I liked her and I can't seem to get the right permission.
Thanks bakerstreet, I was wondering about that. The people I have been talking o get permission just seemed so like "Go ahead just do it." And I was wondering if they were right.
I just wanted to show how much I liked her and I can't seem to get the right permission.
Thanks bakerstreet, I was wondering about that. The people I have been talking o get permission just seemed so like "Go ahead just do it." And I was wondering if they were right.
jark
Reply #43 Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:05 AM
Reply #43 Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:05 AM
bakerstreet: actually, you are completely incorrect on your assumptions regarding copyright.
jark
Reply #44 Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:14 AM
Reply #44 Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:14 AM
>Dead artists have estates, and publicity images are owned by their
>entertainment company until they pass into the public domain. Aaliyah
>publicity images won't be public domain in your lifetime, you can bet
>on it. You might find other images of Aaliyah, taken by fans, press,
>etc., that the owner might let you use.
you really ought to read the page that you linked to before you speak about something that you obviously have only half a clue about.
this is from the copyright page (by my pasting this, according to you, would constitute a copyright violation, heh):
Q. How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
A. Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentages of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See Circular 21 and FL 102.
Q. How much do I have to change in my own work to make a new claim of copyright?
A. You may make a new claim in your work if the changes are substantial and creative -- something more than just editorial changes or minor changes. This would qualify as a new derivative work. For instance, simply making spelling corrections throughout a work does not warrant a new registration -- adding an additional chapter would. See Circular 14 for further information.
>entertainment company until they pass into the public domain. Aaliyah
>publicity images won't be public domain in your lifetime, you can bet
>on it. You might find other images of Aaliyah, taken by fans, press,
>etc., that the owner might let you use.
you really ought to read the page that you linked to before you speak about something that you obviously have only half a clue about.
this is from the copyright page (by my pasting this, according to you, would constitute a copyright violation, heh):
Q. How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
A. Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentages of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See Circular 21 and FL 102.
Q. How much do I have to change in my own work to make a new claim of copyright?
A. You may make a new claim in your work if the changes are substantial and creative -- something more than just editorial changes or minor changes. This would qualify as a new derivative work. For instance, simply making spelling corrections throughout a work does not warrant a new registration -- adding an additional chapter would. See Circular 14 for further information.
bakerstreet
Reply #45 Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:28 AM
Reply #45 Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:28 AM
LMAO...
Jark, you are the biggest ass... I wasn't even talking to you, but since you stick your neck out... joe is talking about making DesktopX objects with images of an artist.
your first point:
____________________________________________________________________________________
The referenced Circular 21 is "Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians", and according to FL 102:
"...U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.” "
So, quoting me would be considered ... that's why I didn't smack your ass.
but
making desktopX objects from pictures of a recording artist would not be 'fair use' unless you are stretching the definition of 'parody', thus my mention of it to Joe.
as to your second quote,
_______________________________________________________________________________________
quoting circular 14:
"WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to pre-
pare,or to authorize someone else to create,a new version
of that work.The owner is generally the author or someone
who has obtained rights from the author.Anyone interested
in a work who does not know the owner of copyright may
search the records of the Copyright Office.Or,the Office will
conduct a search at a fee of $75 *per hour.For further infor-
mation,request Circular 22,“How to Investigate the Copy-
right Status of a Work.""
Did I mention that I had nothing else to say to you?
Jark, you are the biggest ass... I wasn't even talking to you, but since you stick your neck out... joe is talking about making DesktopX objects with images of an artist.
your first point:
____________________________________________________________________________________
The referenced Circular 21 is "Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians", and according to FL 102:
"...U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.” "
So, quoting me would be considered ... that's why I didn't smack your ass.
but
making desktopX objects from pictures of a recording artist would not be 'fair use' unless you are stretching the definition of 'parody', thus my mention of it to Joe.
as to your second quote,
_______________________________________________________________________________________
quoting circular 14:
"WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to pre-
pare,or to authorize someone else to create,a new version
of that work.The owner is generally the author or someone
who has obtained rights from the author.Anyone interested
in a work who does not know the owner of copyright may
search the records of the Copyright Office.Or,the Office will
conduct a search at a fee of $75 *per hour.For further infor-
mation,request Circular 22,“How to Investigate the Copy-
right Status of a Work.""
Did I mention that I had nothing else to say to you?
bakerstreet
Reply #46 Thursday, September 19, 2002 5:01 AM
Reply #46 Thursday, September 19, 2002 5:01 AM
Now that I look at the second Q&A in your argument, Jark, i think you misread it.
"
Q. How much do I have to change in my own work to make a new claim of copyright?
A. You may make a new claim in your work if the changes are substantial and creative...
"
that is talking about an artist getting a second copyright on a work of their own that they have substantially changed, not a third party mixing and matching someone else's work...
"
Q. How much do I have to change in my own work to make a new claim of copyright?
A. You may make a new claim in your work if the changes are substantial and creative...
"
that is talking about an artist getting a second copyright on a work of their own that they have substantially changed, not a third party mixing and matching someone else's work...
craeonics
Reply #47 Thursday, September 19, 2002 5:10 AM
Reply #47 Thursday, September 19, 2002 5:10 AM
Small note: copyright remains active for about 70 (something like that) years after the holder's death. Estate or not.
bakerstreet
Reply #48 Thursday, September 19, 2002 5:26 AM
Reply #48 Thursday, September 19, 2002 5:26 AM
Anyway, if Jark had read the next question in the FAQ he quoted, he would have seen my point, but he didn't.
"
Q:How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?
A:Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. See Circular 14.
"
And no doubt he won't come back now and admit that I wasn't "completely incorrect on your assumptions regarding copyright".
All that temptation and yearning to be a part of Deviantart has rushed out of me like diarrhea. Thanks Jark, you helped me dodge a bullet on that one. I'm going to bed.
"
Q:How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?
A:Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. See Circular 14.
"
And no doubt he won't come back now and admit that I wasn't "completely incorrect on your assumptions regarding copyright".
All that temptation and yearning to be a part of Deviantart has rushed out of me like diarrhea. Thanks Jark, you helped me dodge a bullet on that one. I'm going to bed.
Snowman
Reply #49 Thursday, September 19, 2002 6:54 AM
Reply #49 Thursday, September 19, 2002 6:54 AM
My 2 cent:
DA is too big for it's own good!
enuff said!
DA is too big for it's own good!
enuff said!
jark
Reply #50 Thursday, September 19, 2002 7:10 AM
Reply #50 Thursday, September 19, 2002 7:10 AM
now i must laugh. not once have i called you a name or been rude. i've merely been engaging in a healthy debate with you. now all of a sudden, with your back to the wall, you resort to petty name calling? you say that you dont like the DA message boards because of this very thing that you just did here. tsk tsk tsk. hypocritical, wouldn't you say?
anyhow...i never referred to anything regarding claiming copyright of a work. in fact, most of the individuals submitting to deviantart, who use copyrighted images in photo manipulations, are not creating for the purpose of copyrighting their work. they are merely creating derivative works. therefore, people are authorized to use images according to this document.
"There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentages of a work."
bakerstreet stated the following: "You can't even redraw an image, even if you do it entirely by hand. It is the right of the copyright holder to say who can and can't recreate their work in any form, whether that be cut-and-paste, or repainting the image in oils on canvas."
bakerstreet also said the following: "And no doubt he won't come back now and admit that I wasn't "completely incorrect on your assumptions regarding copyright."
you are absolutely correct that i wont come back and admit it simply because you are FLAT OUT WRONG WITH YOUR ASSUMPTIONS in the former paragraph.
bakerstreet said this as well: "All that temptation and yearning to be a part of Deviantart has rushed out of me like diarrhea. Thanks Jark, you helped me dodge a bullet on that one. I'm going to bed."
you've never really participated in the site anyhow. you never gave it a chance and you merely complained rather than attempted to *help* with the reconciliation of some of the outstanding issues the site has. personally, in all honesty, if anyone has lost anything here it is you. you decided to "leave deviantart" (as if one can actually *leave a website*) before this conversation and now that i've debated with you on various issues you take the easy way out and attempt to place the blame on me? heh...
snowman: mmhmm. what do you know anyways?
anyhow...i never referred to anything regarding claiming copyright of a work. in fact, most of the individuals submitting to deviantart, who use copyrighted images in photo manipulations, are not creating for the purpose of copyrighting their work. they are merely creating derivative works. therefore, people are authorized to use images according to this document.
"There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentages of a work."
bakerstreet stated the following: "You can't even redraw an image, even if you do it entirely by hand. It is the right of the copyright holder to say who can and can't recreate their work in any form, whether that be cut-and-paste, or repainting the image in oils on canvas."
bakerstreet also said the following: "And no doubt he won't come back now and admit that I wasn't "completely incorrect on your assumptions regarding copyright."
you are absolutely correct that i wont come back and admit it simply because you are FLAT OUT WRONG WITH YOUR ASSUMPTIONS in the former paragraph.
bakerstreet said this as well: "All that temptation and yearning to be a part of Deviantart has rushed out of me like diarrhea. Thanks Jark, you helped me dodge a bullet on that one. I'm going to bed."
you've never really participated in the site anyhow. you never gave it a chance and you merely complained rather than attempted to *help* with the reconciliation of some of the outstanding issues the site has. personally, in all honesty, if anyone has lost anything here it is you. you decided to "leave deviantart" (as if one can actually *leave a website*) before this conversation and now that i've debated with you on various issues you take the easy way out and attempt to place the blame on me? heh...
snowman: mmhmm. what do you know anyways?
bakerstreet
Reply #51 Thursday, September 19, 2002 7:30 AM
Reply #51 Thursday, September 19, 2002 7:30 AM
"anyhow...i never referred to anything regarding claiming copyright of a work. in fact, most of the individuals submitting to deviantart, who use copyrighted images in photo manipulations, are not creating for the purpose of copyrighting their work. they are merely creating derivative works. therefore, people are authorized to use images according to this document.
"
Then why does Devart slap a copyright statment under them?
Damn, Jark, can you not read?
United States Copyright Office's FAQ, states that:
"
Q:How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?
A:Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. See Circular 14.
"
You cannot, cannot, cannot! make a work based on other people's without permission, regardless of how much you change it.
The fact was, someone asked a serious, sincere question about whether or not he should take an image of Aaliyah to make a DestopX object. I told him the truth, that he is not allowed to. You butted-in, quickly made a couple of quotes about 'fair-use' and 'derivative works', and wandered off. I'm offended, and frankly dismayed that you are responsible for a site the size of Devart with as little understanding as you showed in that situation, both of copyright law and how to deal with people.
Had you read the next Q&A in the FAQ you would have seen that what you quoted was referring secondary copyrights on one's own work. Had you read the linked circular, you would have seen that your reference to 'fair use' isn't valid, because 'skins' fall well outside any existing definition of it. They are not scholarly work, or journalism, or incidental inclusion, or even parody.
You can say that I have only have 'half a clue', but you are wrong, and it was utterly irresponsible to wing-it when someone was sincerely trying to decide whether or not to break the law. I called you an ass because you were being an ass. It is no wonder you take such a soft stance on what you think are 'derivative works' at Devart.
"
Then why does Devart slap a copyright statment under them?
Damn, Jark, can you not read?
United States Copyright Office's FAQ, states that:
"
Q:How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?
A:Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. See Circular 14.
"
You cannot, cannot, cannot! make a work based on other people's without permission, regardless of how much you change it.
The fact was, someone asked a serious, sincere question about whether or not he should take an image of Aaliyah to make a DestopX object. I told him the truth, that he is not allowed to. You butted-in, quickly made a couple of quotes about 'fair-use' and 'derivative works', and wandered off. I'm offended, and frankly dismayed that you are responsible for a site the size of Devart with as little understanding as you showed in that situation, both of copyright law and how to deal with people.
Had you read the next Q&A in the FAQ you would have seen that what you quoted was referring secondary copyrights on one's own work. Had you read the linked circular, you would have seen that your reference to 'fair use' isn't valid, because 'skins' fall well outside any existing definition of it. They are not scholarly work, or journalism, or incidental inclusion, or even parody.
You can say that I have only have 'half a clue', but you are wrong, and it was utterly irresponsible to wing-it when someone was sincerely trying to decide whether or not to break the law. I called you an ass because you were being an ass. It is no wonder you take such a soft stance on what you think are 'derivative works' at Devart.
Lecrayon
Reply #52 Thursday, September 19, 2002 7:44 AM
Reply #52 Thursday, September 19, 2002 7:44 AM
aaaaaaaah it's about copyright again....are these international rules or US copywrite rules? It's a pity it all comes down to this issue. About money...We should enjoy all that is made, whether it is a home, car, airplane, painting, skin, humans....
jark
Reply #53 Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:03 AM
Reply #53 Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:03 AM
bakerstreet: deviantART places a copyright statement underneath each deviation simply because that is a small form of protection. granted, people that do not care will not bother with it and still rip regardless of the "(c) 2002 blah" being there or not. the fact is that we did that in an attempt to help thwart ripping. merely because we add that there does not mean that the image is in fact, legally speaking, copyright to that individual. copyright law obviously takes precedence over our simple brandishing.
and damn you, yes i can read. is that not obvious yet? heh. stop with the petty insignificants please!
"You cannot, cannot, cannot! make a work based on other people's without permission, regardless of how much you change it."
yes you can can can! the quote that you have merely states that you are not authorized to claim copyright of the derivative work unless the original author(s) have granted permission.
i read it all otherwise i would not have commented. heh. do you not understand that much?
i was not being an ass. i was merely debating with you. do not attempt to lable me as having a soft stance on derivative works when that is far from the case. realizing that we have had a lawyer well versed in copyright law guide us on our policies i think it is fair to say that we are well covered.
...and for god sakes, stop taking punk ass pot shots and keep to the discussion at hand with at least an ounce of decency please.
and damn you, yes i can read. is that not obvious yet? heh. stop with the petty insignificants please!
"You cannot, cannot, cannot! make a work based on other people's without permission, regardless of how much you change it."
yes you can can can! the quote that you have merely states that you are not authorized to claim copyright of the derivative work unless the original author(s) have granted permission.
i read it all otherwise i would not have commented. heh. do you not understand that much?
i was not being an ass. i was merely debating with you. do not attempt to lable me as having a soft stance on derivative works when that is far from the case. realizing that we have had a lawyer well versed in copyright law guide us on our policies i think it is fair to say that we are well covered.
...and for god sakes, stop taking punk ass pot shots and keep to the discussion at hand with at least an ounce of decency please.
bakerstreet
Reply #54 Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:04 AM
Reply #54 Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:04 AM
If I understand Jark correctly, he is saying that if someone else's work is modified heavily enough, and if you don't claim a copyright on it yourself, you can distribute it as "derivative" to your heart's content.
That doesn't explain this quote from the US Copyright circular 14:
"WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to pre-
pare,or to authorize someone else to create,a new version
of that work."
I mentioned it earlier in the thread in response to his argument, but he is ignoring it. I dunno why. What he is referring to as "photo manipulations" are simply people stealing other people's work.
Anyhoo, it doesn't matter how much you change something, or whether or not you claim it is yours, you simply cannot give other people's stuff away. No matter how hard you try and believe it, you can't make laws up off the top of your head.
That doesn't explain this quote from the US Copyright circular 14:
"WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to pre-
pare,or to authorize someone else to create,a new version
of that work."
I mentioned it earlier in the thread in response to his argument, but he is ignoring it. I dunno why. What he is referring to as "photo manipulations" are simply people stealing other people's work.
Anyhoo, it doesn't matter how much you change something, or whether or not you claim it is yours, you simply cannot give other people's stuff away. No matter how hard you try and believe it, you can't make laws up off the top of your head.
bakerstreet
Reply #55 Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:11 AM
Reply #55 Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:11 AM
Fine, I apologize for being personal about it, but you broke in on a conversation and told someone basically that I was wrong, and they could take images they didn't own and make DX objects out of them. You were wrong, are wrong, and sadly, unrepentantly wrong.
Anyhoo, If I hit below the belt, I take it back, I certainly didn't need to.
Anyhoo, If I hit below the belt, I take it back, I certainly didn't need to.
Lecrayon
Reply #56 Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:12 AM
Reply #56 Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:12 AM
I thought that copyright was only given if the maker has presented it as an item for copyright? So whatever you will put underneath, C or no C, if you can't present the the copyright granted paper you have no copyright. Or is that wrong?
migellito
Reply #57 Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:34 AM
Reply #57 Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:34 AM
it's not about money lecrayon. copyright is about someone else taking credit for my work. or your work. or davinci's work. it's been around a long time. copying art used to be called forgery. it was illegal then, hundreds of years ago, and it's illegal now.
people have forged picassos and rembrandts and been put in jail for it. jim morrison took parts of a kinks song and made another hit - and ray davies sued him and won.
man, even in high school art classes copying something gets no respect. taking something of someone else's and modifying it a bit here and there is only slightly more respectable. i just can't believe this. have things changed so much? we didn't even get to concerns like 'is it legal' because everybody just thought it was lame.
i remember so many times when somebody would offer up something 'based on an album cover' or on some poster. it got laughed out. celebrity images? sure, i remember one guy who did a full size head sculpture of gene simmons in full makeup - it was awesome. he did it from 'scratch.' if anybody thought he'd copied it from somewhere, it would have been ridiculed and discounted.
it just boggles my mind why this is so tough. if you copied it, it's lame. period. the only thing i can think of is that people are so desperate to be 'talented' that they want to try to defend a little skill with copy/paste and image retouching as artistic talent. give me a break. if you can create, awesome, go for it. if you don't think you're any good, practice. if you can't get anywhere with art, then just enjoy it. simple.
people have forged picassos and rembrandts and been put in jail for it. jim morrison took parts of a kinks song and made another hit - and ray davies sued him and won.
man, even in high school art classes copying something gets no respect. taking something of someone else's and modifying it a bit here and there is only slightly more respectable. i just can't believe this. have things changed so much? we didn't even get to concerns like 'is it legal' because everybody just thought it was lame.
i remember so many times when somebody would offer up something 'based on an album cover' or on some poster. it got laughed out. celebrity images? sure, i remember one guy who did a full size head sculpture of gene simmons in full makeup - it was awesome. he did it from 'scratch.' if anybody thought he'd copied it from somewhere, it would have been ridiculed and discounted.
it just boggles my mind why this is so tough. if you copied it, it's lame. period. the only thing i can think of is that people are so desperate to be 'talented' that they want to try to defend a little skill with copy/paste and image retouching as artistic talent. give me a break. if you can create, awesome, go for it. if you don't think you're any good, practice. if you can't get anywhere with art, then just enjoy it. simple.
migellito
Reply #58 Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:38 AM
Reply #58 Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:38 AM
lecrayon - you don't have to present it to anybody. if you made it, it's yours, and no one can legally mess with it. it's a lot different than a patent
Lecrayon
Reply #59 Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:42 AM
Reply #59 Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:42 AM
Is that so? So if I put a "C" underneath my work it is copyrighted?
bakerstreet
Reply #60 Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:54 AM
Reply #60 Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:54 AM
To sum up the last few hours:
bakerstreet's point:
"You cannot, cannot, cannot! make a work based on other people's without permission, regardless of how much you change it. United States Copyright Office's FAQ, states that:
"Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. See Circular 14."
"
jark's point:
"yes you can can can! the quote that you have merely states that you are not authorized to claim copyright of the derivative work unless the original author(s) have granted permission."
bakerstreet's rebuttal:
"US Copyright circular 14:
"WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to pre-
pare,or to authorize someone else to create,a new version
of that work."
If I don't get some sleep my eyeballs are going to roll out of my head... bbl if i can summon up the self-loathing...
bakerstreet's point:
"You cannot, cannot, cannot! make a work based on other people's without permission, regardless of how much you change it. United States Copyright Office's FAQ, states that:
"Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. See Circular 14."
"
jark's point:
"yes you can can can! the quote that you have merely states that you are not authorized to claim copyright of the derivative work unless the original author(s) have granted permission."
bakerstreet's rebuttal:
"US Copyright circular 14:
"WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to pre-
pare,or to authorize someone else to create,a new version
of that work."
If I don't get some sleep my eyeballs are going to roll out of my head... bbl if i can summon up the self-loathing...
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 3 of 5 | |
|
|---|
Reply #41 Thursday, September 19, 2002 3:11 AM
You can't even redraw an image, even if you do it entirely by hand. It is the right of the copyright holder to say who can and can't recreate their work in any form, whether that be cut-and-paste, or repainting the image in oils on canvas.
http://www.copyright.gov/faq.html ---that is a good link for any questions you might have.