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 4 of 5 | |
|
|---|
Lecrayon
Reply #62 Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:08 AM
Reply #62 Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:08 AM
seems to me a Jafo question..Jafo? can you help? 
paxx
Reply #63 Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:12 AM
Reply #63 Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:12 AM
Lecrayon, you don't even have to put a (C). You own everything that you create, and it's by default copyrighted to you. Theoretically, even the emails you send are. ANYTHING that you create is.
If you want to make it public domain, and allow everybody to use, modify and distribute it, then you can write a notice defining it so.
Most web sites place a copyright notice because most people imagine that if the (C) isn't there, then there are no right. But legally, the (C) doesn't have to be there.
If you want to make it public domain, and allow everybody to use, modify and distribute it, then you can write a notice defining it so.
Most web sites place a copyright notice because most people imagine that if the (C) isn't there, then there are no right. But legally, the (C) doesn't have to be there.
Lecrayon
Reply #64 Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:16 AM
Reply #64 Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:16 AM
Now, that is strange...can you show me where that is legally said? Default copyright? Is it Us law, or international law?
jark
Reply #65 Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:34 AM
Reply #65 Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:34 AM
i never once mentioned distribution of derivative work. do not attempt to mangle my words in to something that they are not, in an attempt to further your cause.
think about it bakerstreet. ANYONE can create derivative works of something. you could do it to ANYTHING without permission at all. do you realize how absurd it would be if one had to obtain permission each and every time they wanted to merely create a derivative work of something?
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.
the first sentence is a little misleading due to its wording. it is meant in the context for the claim of copyright not in the context of creating a derivative work. anyone is free to create derivative works for personal use without every worrying about contacting the owner for permission.
so when you say, "You cannot, cannot, cannot! make a work based on other people's without permission, regardless of how much you change it," that is completely untrue. You can can can so long as it is for personal use and/or not distributed.
to answer lecrayon: anything you create is copyrighted. you dont need the (c) for it to be copyrighted and do not need to register with the copyright office either. all registration with the copyright office does is afford one the ability to utilize legal tactics in order to reclaim any "damage" done by a copyright violator.
...time for sleep for me.
think about it bakerstreet. ANYONE can create derivative works of something. you could do it to ANYTHING without permission at all. do you realize how absurd it would be if one had to obtain permission each and every time they wanted to merely create a derivative work of something?
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.
the first sentence is a little misleading due to its wording. it is meant in the context for the claim of copyright not in the context of creating a derivative work. anyone is free to create derivative works for personal use without every worrying about contacting the owner for permission.
so when you say, "You cannot, cannot, cannot! make a work based on other people's without permission, regardless of how much you change it," that is completely untrue. You can can can so long as it is for personal use and/or not distributed.
to answer lecrayon: anything you create is copyrighted. you dont need the (c) for it to be copyrighted and do not need to register with the copyright office either. all registration with the copyright office does is afford one the ability to utilize legal tactics in order to reclaim any "damage" done by a copyright violator.
...time for sleep for me.
paxx
Reply #67 Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:39 AM
Reply #67 Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:39 AM
It's somewhat international, under the Berne Convention. It's only applicable to the countries that signed the convention. The convention states that any creation is copyrighted. The convention does not mention anything about writting a copyright notice for it to be protected:
Article 2, paragraph 1:
"The expression "literary and artistic works" shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramatico-musical works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb show; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography; photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; works of applied art; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science."
If you want, you can read the convention yourself: http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html
BTW, members of the Union that signed the Berne convention are (may be incomplete, new countries sign the treaty regularely):
Albania
Algeria
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Estonia
Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Holy See
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Monaco
Mongolia
Morocco
Namibia
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Republic of Korea
Republic of Moldova
Romania
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Senegal
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Tajikistan
Thailand
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United Republic of Tanzania
United States of America
Uruguay
Venezuela
Yugoslavia
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Article 2, paragraph 1:
"The expression "literary and artistic works" shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramatico-musical works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb show; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography; photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; works of applied art; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science."
If you want, you can read the convention yourself: http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html
BTW, members of the Union that signed the Berne convention are (may be incomplete, new countries sign the treaty regularely):
Albania
Algeria
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Estonia
Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Holy See
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Monaco
Mongolia
Morocco
Namibia
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Republic of Korea
Republic of Moldova
Romania
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Senegal
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Tajikistan
Thailand
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United Republic of Tanzania
United States of America
Uruguay
Venezuela
Yugoslavia
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Lecrayon
Reply #68 Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:46 AM
Reply #68 Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:46 AM
Much appreciated, thanks Paxx 
Comparing this with our law from 1912 
which is renewed in 2000 and still find old dutch writing 
Comparing this with our law from 1912 
which is renewed in 2000 and still find old dutch writing 
craeonics
Reply #69 Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:13 AM
Reply #69 Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:13 AM
No need to compare. They're right. One of the few things I learned in school. The only reason to have your copyright registered is so that you have some ind of proof that you made it. But an alternative method is to send it to yourself via mail (or more specifically, in Dutch it's called 'aangetekende post').
Lecrayon
Reply #70 Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:19 AM
Reply #70 Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:19 AM
yes, thats what I was talking about. I always thought you had to proof it's your work. Whether you register it or otherwise. Never thought it was by default. Gosh...Thanks crae, the eyes and mind got boggled after chapter 3
Jafo
Reply #72 Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:41 AM
Reply #72 Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:41 AM
Sorry, Lecrayon....'real life'[tm] got in the way....but paxx answered you...
The word 'copyright', often mis-quoted as 'copywrite' encompasses a quite simple concept.....
The 'right' of 'copy'...that is, who has or retains the right to 'copy' something.
Now, fortunately for us all, and for the rest of the world, 'fair use' allows for our personal enjoyment of a copyrighted object [something created by another person], so yes, jark, we are all free to manipulate, plagiarise, modify, alter, filter-puke, whatever in the privacy of our own home, where there is no public redistribution of this 'altered' object under another's name, with, or without permission.
The proverbial hits the fan when this private 'modification' goes public via being published or broadcast via sites such as ours/yours.
What frustrates me the most is that I spent a heck of a lot of time and energy specifically at DA in a 'news item' about copyright theft and ripping....but so many people obviously took no heed at all, preferring to follow the 'interpretation' of the Law that most suited their site's existence.
I even uploaded a 'manipulation' to exemplify the whole issue...it was a clear graphic done by another...it was clearly altered...it was uploaded in 'educational 'fair-use'...AND it was reasonably 'obscured' to prevent unintentional/unlawful download [distribution] of another's property.
But to many the point was lost...
Put me in a position of responsibility for upload/content, and I see a 'Britney' wall and it's gone...no questions asked. If [and it's a BIG 'IF'] the 'artist' comes back complaining that he's Britney's brother so that's how he got the pic, whatever, then maybe it 'might' be accepted.
I see no harm in this tactic....it's exactly what every skin/wall artist here at Wincustomize would expect from his/her site admins.....dilligent protection of THEIR property rights.
I have a WinAMP skin I'd love to upload...but cannot....why?...because I am yet to receive permission for the few bitmaps that were 'extracted' from another's wall, even though I do have permission from that same artist, same wall, different 'skin'.
This is just me, protecting an artist's rights....because I am one, too, and expect/demand the same from my peers.
I think a few people would do well to read that old news item...it's the one that 'started' the whole copyright-issue-thing at DA....and lose that Lawyer...they are always preoccupied with what's 'between' the lines to actually heed what's said IN them...
The word 'copyright', often mis-quoted as 'copywrite' encompasses a quite simple concept.....
The 'right' of 'copy'...that is, who has or retains the right to 'copy' something.
Now, fortunately for us all, and for the rest of the world, 'fair use' allows for our personal enjoyment of a copyrighted object [something created by another person], so yes, jark, we are all free to manipulate, plagiarise, modify, alter, filter-puke, whatever in the privacy of our own home, where there is no public redistribution of this 'altered' object under another's name, with, or without permission.
The proverbial hits the fan when this private 'modification' goes public via being published or broadcast via sites such as ours/yours.
What frustrates me the most is that I spent a heck of a lot of time and energy specifically at DA in a 'news item' about copyright theft and ripping....but so many people obviously took no heed at all, preferring to follow the 'interpretation' of the Law that most suited their site's existence.
I even uploaded a 'manipulation' to exemplify the whole issue...it was a clear graphic done by another...it was clearly altered...it was uploaded in 'educational 'fair-use'...AND it was reasonably 'obscured' to prevent unintentional/unlawful download [distribution] of another's property.
But to many the point was lost...
Put me in a position of responsibility for upload/content, and I see a 'Britney' wall and it's gone...no questions asked. If [and it's a BIG 'IF'] the 'artist' comes back complaining that he's Britney's brother so that's how he got the pic, whatever, then maybe it 'might' be accepted.
I see no harm in this tactic....it's exactly what every skin/wall artist here at Wincustomize would expect from his/her site admins.....dilligent protection of THEIR property rights.
I have a WinAMP skin I'd love to upload...but cannot....why?...because I am yet to receive permission for the few bitmaps that were 'extracted' from another's wall, even though I do have permission from that same artist, same wall, different 'skin'.
This is just me, protecting an artist's rights....because I am one, too, and expect/demand the same from my peers.
I think a few people would do well to read that old news item...it's the one that 'started' the whole copyright-issue-thing at DA....and lose that Lawyer...they are always preoccupied with what's 'between' the lines to actually heed what's said IN them...
wombat_1
Reply #74 Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:12 PM
Reply #74 Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:12 PM
Just for the record, 'copyright' is often confused with 'licensing'(or izzat licencing?).
Copyright protects an individual's work.
Both seem to benefit the so-called 'legal profession' in the long run.
Copyright protects an individual's work.
Both seem to benefit the so-called 'legal profession' in the long run.
migellito
Reply #75 Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:22 PM
Reply #75 Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:22 PM
a lot of people say a lot of bad things about lawyers, and i'm sure they're right. however, if it wasn't for our lawyer, we would have been stuck in the crackhouse apartment we were in. and we would have been sued into oblivion when we moved out.
sorry, off-topic...
sorry, off-topic...
Kinrik
Reply #76 Thursday, September 19, 2002 1:49 PM
Reply #76 Thursday, September 19, 2002 1:49 PM
"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.
by bakerstreet - 9/19/2002 5:26:01 AM "
Baker...you are friggin awesome! I don't see eye to eye with everything you have said in the past, but we seem to think a lot alike (my opinion...might offend ye )
by bakerstreet - 9/19/2002 5:26:01 AM "
Baker...you are friggin awesome! I don't see eye to eye with everything you have said in the past, but we seem to think a lot alike (my opinion...might offend ye
)
Kinrik
Reply #77 Thursday, September 19, 2002 2:09 PM
Reply #77 Thursday, September 19, 2002 2:09 PM
you know...a site as big as devart infers it has a bit of jink, right? i wonder if britny could use a little extra spending cash by sikkin' her lawyers on the site owner(s) for copyright violation just to shut this conversation up?
hmm...wonder what her email addy is...
Kinrik goes to sign up at the fan club...pauses to shoot himself in the left eyeball, and turns around with the temptation and yearning rushing out of him like diarrhea...
hmm...wonder what her email addy is...
Kinrik goes to sign up at the fan club...pauses to shoot himself in the left eyeball, and turns around with the temptation and yearning rushing out of him like diarrhea...
bakerstreet
Reply #78 Thursday, September 19, 2002 2:39 PM
Reply #78 Thursday, September 19, 2002 2:39 PM
Jark: I find it really, really hard to believe that you argued this for hours under the impression that we were all talking about making something for personal use. We all have stuff that could be termed 'derivative' that we use and don't distribute. I'm using an anime wallpaper right now that I took from a screenshot. I would never distribute it, though. Did you really think I was saying that it wasn't physically possible for someone to make a derivative work? That "can't, can't, can't!" meant that the hand of God would stop you or something?
No, I was talking about making *and* uploading; I had been since my first post on this thread, and it was obvious to anyone.
Someone comes on this string and says "Hey, can I legally make a DesktopX object with an image I don't own?" and you argue that they can for three hours without bothering to say, "Oh, but you can't upload it"? AM I the only one that sounds completely insane to?
If I had the energy to argue I'd accuse you of finding a loophole in your argument so that you could back out without admitting you were wrong, but that would take hours too, and I am tired, pissy, and honestly beyond caring. I have thrown as much time down this particular as I can stand.
I'll just say it one more time on the way out: You can't have a database full of 'illegally derivative', (somehow non-copyrighted) work, and expect to get by saying you are doing "all you can". Stop being 'fair' and delete it. If there is a legit Britney pic on your site, and you delete it, the photographer will happily cough up a contract or a model release to prove his ownership. The same could be said for any stolen subject. If the subject is a commercial enterprise of any sort, a commercial artist will have *some* shred of evidence he had the right to do it. Guilty until proven innocent for this kind of thing would harm no one. If you end up being wrong, they can reupload it, and if you were right *everyone* concerned benefits.
No, I was talking about making *and* uploading; I had been since my first post on this thread, and it was obvious to anyone.
Someone comes on this string and says "Hey, can I legally make a DesktopX object with an image I don't own?" and you argue that they can for three hours without bothering to say, "Oh, but you can't upload it"? AM I the only one that sounds completely insane to?
If I had the energy to argue I'd accuse you of finding a loophole in your argument so that you could back out without admitting you were wrong, but that would take hours too, and I am tired, pissy, and honestly beyond caring. I have thrown as much time down this particular as I can stand.
I'll just say it one more time on the way out: You can't have a database full of 'illegally derivative'
, (somehow non-copyrighted) work, and expect to get by saying you are doing "all you can". Stop being 'fair' and delete it. If there is a legit Britney pic on your site, and you delete it, the photographer will happily cough up a contract or a model release to prove his ownership. The same could be said for any stolen subject. If the subject is a commercial enterprise of any sort, a commercial artist will have *some* shred of evidence he had the right to do it. Guilty until proven innocent for this kind of thing would harm no one. If you end up being wrong, they can reupload it, and if you were right *everyone* concerned benefits.
Lecrayon
Reply #79 Thursday, September 19, 2002 3:32 PM
Reply #79 Thursday, September 19, 2002 3:32 PM
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek. Cant we stop this? Different point of view, different sites. Copyright is there to protect the maker from unauthorized distribution. Why? Because of potential loss of income. That's the basic thought. Thats why the law was made in the first place.
craeonics
Reply #80 Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:04 PM
Reply #80 Thursday, September 19, 2002 4:04 PM
Oh no, this has been going on like forever. It comes up here, at DevArt and at many other sites, on a regular basis.
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 4 of 5 | |
|
|---|
Reply #61 Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:07 AM