Bad copies, forgeries, and photograph reproductions.
Sunday, September 29, 2002 by UBoB | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
I am still not clear on when copying becomes stealing. I ran into a situation at my work just last week.
A client came in wanting to put together a brochure. The brochure was to contain a picture that the client found on a well known online photograhy database, but the client did not want to pay the royalties to use the picture. At first, the client suggested using the .jpg sample from the site, but the resolution was to large that reproducing it in print would have had it looking all 'blocky' and 'pixelated'. So the client suggested another idea.
The client's next idea was to reproduce the photograph. The client suggested that they hire look-alike models, find a similar setting, and then pose the models in the setting and snap a photograph of their own. The client then proceeded to do this. The result was very close to the original photograph from the online photography database. Anyone looking closely would be able to see small differences, but for the most part, it was identical.
So, we used the new photograph in the brochure.
This situation got me to thinking. Often, we hear on this site how there are only so many variations on skin design that are possible, and thus, we are going to see more and more skins that bare a resemblence to others. Bad, second-rate copies of skins that were originally created by Masters are cropping up all over the site. They are allowed in because they are not direct bitmap-by-bitmap pasting of the Master's original. It does not seem to matter that they are copies, (albiet bad copies) of the Master's original.
If forgery of great art masterpieces is a crime then why isn't forgery of our local artistic works a crime? How come I can make something look like an existing skin, done by a Master, and as long as I haven't actually cut and pasted the Master's bitmaps into my new skin, but instead redrawn each bitmap, then it's not a crime? Even if it is a bad copy, bad forgery, or even a badly restaged photograph, why is allowed?
A client came in wanting to put together a brochure. The brochure was to contain a picture that the client found on a well known online photograhy database, but the client did not want to pay the royalties to use the picture. At first, the client suggested using the .jpg sample from the site, but the resolution was to large that reproducing it in print would have had it looking all 'blocky' and 'pixelated'. So the client suggested another idea.
The client's next idea was to reproduce the photograph. The client suggested that they hire look-alike models, find a similar setting, and then pose the models in the setting and snap a photograph of their own. The client then proceeded to do this. The result was very close to the original photograph from the online photography database. Anyone looking closely would be able to see small differences, but for the most part, it was identical.
So, we used the new photograph in the brochure.
This situation got me to thinking. Often, we hear on this site how there are only so many variations on skin design that are possible, and thus, we are going to see more and more skins that bare a resemblence to others. Bad, second-rate copies of skins that were originally created by Masters are cropping up all over the site. They are allowed in because they are not direct bitmap-by-bitmap pasting of the Master's original. It does not seem to matter that they are copies, (albiet bad copies) of the Master's original.
If forgery of great art masterpieces is a crime then why isn't forgery of our local artistic works a crime? How come I can make something look like an existing skin, done by a Master, and as long as I haven't actually cut and pasted the Master's bitmaps into my new skin, but instead redrawn each bitmap, then it's not a crime? Even if it is a bad copy, bad forgery, or even a badly restaged photograph, why is allowed?
 |
|
Page 3 of 3 | |
|
|---|
bakerstreet
Reply #42 Wednesday, October 2, 2002 8:26 AM
Reply #42 Wednesday, October 2, 2002 8:26 AM
If the content of the image has any bearing at all, then you are deriving your work from theirs. If the image has no relevance to the piece I'm not sure why it would need to be a car.
I agree that a lot of this is hair-splitting, but remember that this isn't just protecting you from weenies like us. If tomorrow Microsoft, or Apple, or a Open-Source Linux developer saw one of your skins and decided to hack it up a lot and use it, you'd have the legal tools to make it an issue. Stranger things have happened.
As you your twin idea, the cloning thing has spawned a huge debate on whether genetics are patentable. IF cloning were ever perfected, and someone could snatch a bit of your DNA and make a test-tube son or daughter, what rights would you have? Now, "genetic material" *cough* has to be volunteered through intercourse, but later, what happens if you can get it from a decent tissue sample, tooth root, or hair follicle? You could get a good amount going through people's trash, and that would be considered free-use at that point, lol.
How many sick people would love to have a genetically-manufactured spawn of Tom Cruise or Natalie Portman to exploit for the 'name' or whatever other sad reason? I can honestly see how it could become an issue. Today the argument is over genetically modified produce, but it could be people next. scary.
I agree that a lot of this is hair-splitting, but remember that this isn't just protecting you from weenies like us. If tomorrow Microsoft, or Apple, or a Open-Source Linux developer saw one of your skins and decided to hack it up a lot and use it, you'd have the legal tools to make it an issue. Stranger things have happened.
As you your twin idea, the cloning thing has spawned a huge debate on whether genetics are patentable. IF cloning were ever perfected, and someone could snatch a bit of your DNA and make a test-tube son or daughter, what rights would you have? Now, "genetic material" *cough* has to be volunteered through intercourse, but later, what happens if you can get it from a decent tissue sample, tooth root, or hair follicle? You could get a good amount going through people's trash, and that would be considered free-use at that point, lol.
How many sick people would love to have a genetically-manufactured spawn of Tom Cruise or Natalie Portman to exploit for the 'name' or whatever other sad reason? I can honestly see how it could become an issue. Today the argument is over genetically modified produce, but it could be people next. scary.
KarmaGirl
Reply #43 Wednesday, October 2, 2002 2:52 PM
Reply #43 Wednesday, October 2, 2002 2:52 PM
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html (copyright office)
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html (copyright laws)
it's different than you think.....
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html (copyright laws)
it's different than you think.....
bakerstreet
Reply #44 Wednesday, October 2, 2002 3:41 PM
Reply #44 Wednesday, October 2, 2002 3:41 PM
KarmaGirl: hmm?
I have referred people to the Copyright office's site fairly often, even here, as little as a couple of weeks ago. Here's my interpretation.
A copyright holder has the *exclusive* right to display his work, reproduce his work, and derive other works from that work. Anyone who does any of those things without securing permission has violated copyright law. The only exception is limited amounts of works reproduced for 'fair use', which applies to educational material, news reporting, parody, etc.; and incedental inclusion, like a logo appearing behind someone in a video news report.
i.e.:
-If you quote a newspaper in a paper for school, or a news story, it is fair use.
-If you make a statue of wadded up newspapers, any copyrighted content would be incedental, and therefore fair use (if 'use' at all).
If, however, you a make a collage featuring images cut from newspapers, you have violated the copyright. Lecrayon's question, as I understood it, was, how much would you have to cut the image up in a collage if you didn't own the copyright on it or have permission? My answer was, enough that the image involved would be unrecognizable and at most incedental to the new work. That is why I said that it shouldn't matter if it was a car; if you can see it well enough to recognize it, it would impact the work and is no longer incedental.
In my opinion, any recognizable reproduction of someone else's work outside the definition of 'fair use' would be a violation of copyright.
Where am I off? Please, point it out for me, because this is a never-ending debate here.
I have referred people to the Copyright office's site fairly often, even here, as little as a couple of weeks ago. Here's my interpretation.
A copyright holder has the *exclusive* right to display his work, reproduce his work, and derive other works from that work. Anyone who does any of those things without securing permission has violated copyright law. The only exception is limited amounts of works reproduced for 'fair use', which applies to educational material, news reporting, parody, etc.; and incedental inclusion, like a logo appearing behind someone in a video news report.
i.e.:
-If you quote a newspaper in a paper for school, or a news story, it is fair use.
-If you make a statue of wadded up newspapers, any copyrighted content would be incedental, and therefore fair use (if 'use' at all).
If, however, you a make a collage featuring images cut from newspapers, you have violated the copyright. Lecrayon's question, as I understood it, was, how much would you have to cut the image up in a collage if you didn't own the copyright on it or have permission? My answer was, enough that the image involved would be unrecognizable and at most incedental to the new work. That is why I said that it shouldn't matter if it was a car; if you can see it well enough to recognize it, it would impact the work and is no longer incedental.
In my opinion, any recognizable reproduction of someone else's work outside the definition of 'fair use' would be a violation of copyright.
Where am I off? Please, point it out for me, because this is a never-ending debate here.
Lecrayon
Reply #45 Wednesday, October 2, 2002 4:39 PM
Reply #45 Wednesday, October 2, 2002 4:39 PM
I am interested too. 
What I think:
As far as Motion's new picture: Idea's of choregraphics aren't copyrighted. He is entitled to take a photograph based on that idea. He can't however, copy and(re)distribute the photograph of Comstock without permission.
He may try a painstakenly effort to reproduce a Van Gogh painting and sign it with his own name. It only is a forgery if he signs it with Van Gogh's name. But then he has to use the same canvas and the same paint Van Gogh used, otherwise discovery is quick.
As far as the collage: You can use the material (newspaper/magazines and content) and tear it up or cut it up in such a way you can't speak of reproducing/copying one image. It looks like the copyright law speaks of compilations instead of collages.
The car image, for instance, can be used to tear up the side windows and use it as eyelids on a portrait.
Bakerstreet, I totally would agree with your view/policy when it comes to online databases of images. You can never be cautious enough. To control all the works that are originally made and compare it with uploads you get seems impossible.
What I think:
As far as Motion's new picture: Idea's of choregraphics aren't copyrighted. He is entitled to take a photograph based on that idea. He can't however, copy and(re)distribute the photograph of Comstock without permission.
He may try a painstakenly effort to reproduce a Van Gogh painting and sign it with his own name. It only is a forgery if he signs it with Van Gogh's name. But then he has to use the same canvas and the same paint Van Gogh used, otherwise discovery is quick.
As far as the collage: You can use the material (newspaper/magazines and content) and tear it up or cut it up in such a way you can't speak of reproducing/copying one image. It looks like the copyright law speaks of compilations instead of collages.
The car image, for instance, can be used to tear up the side windows and use it as eyelids on a portrait.
Bakerstreet, I totally would agree with your view/policy when it comes to online databases of images. You can never be cautious enough. To control all the works that are originally made and compare it with uploads you get seems impossible.
DavidK
Reply #46 Thursday, October 3, 2002 3:45 AM
Reply #46 Thursday, October 3, 2002 3:45 AM
As far as how this all relates to wincustomize... the rules here are simple: you upload only your own work. If it's not created by you then you must include written permission from the original artist. We can't catch every violation but we try. The help we get from the members here is greatly appreciated too.
It amazes me how many times we get logon screens that have photos from a car advertisement or a movie website with a border around it and the uploader thinks he did the piece because he made the border and placed the photos just so...
A good example is a recent upload, it was a 'tribute' to the incident that the movie 'Black Hawk Down' was about. It was made with stills from the movie. When I emailed the uploader he replied "where else am i going to get images from black hawk down".
exactly... you don't "get" images and upload them here. You "make" images and upload them here. If you are inspired to do a tribute to an event you draw your tribute or create a photograph. Or, as in the above case, he is going to ask permission from the movie studio.
If you don't feel good about your ability to create artwork - practice, study and learn. Eventually you'll be able to express yourself without having to plagarize someone else's work. Until you can create your own stuff, just download the creations here and enjoy what other people have posted for your enjoyment.
and keep practicing... amazing what that will do for your skills...
It amazes me how many times we get logon screens that have photos from a car advertisement or a movie website with a border around it and the uploader thinks he did the piece because he made the border and placed the photos just so...
A good example is a recent upload, it was a 'tribute' to the incident that the movie 'Black Hawk Down' was about. It was made with stills from the movie. When I emailed the uploader he replied "where else am i going to get images from black hawk down".
exactly... you don't "get" images and upload them here. You "make" images and upload them here. If you are inspired to do a tribute to an event you draw your tribute or create a photograph. Or, as in the above case, he is going to ask permission from the movie studio.
If you don't feel good about your ability to create artwork - practice, study and learn. Eventually you'll be able to express yourself without having to plagarize someone else's work. Until you can create your own stuff, just download the creations here and enjoy what other people have posted for your enjoyment.
and keep practicing... amazing what that will do for your skills...
DavidK
Reply #47 Thursday, October 3, 2002 3:51 AM
Reply #47 Thursday, October 3, 2002 3:51 AM
oh, btw - I agree completely with what bakerstreet said...
KarmaGirl
Reply #48 Thursday, October 3, 2002 9:55 AM
Reply #48 Thursday, October 3, 2002 9:55 AM
bakerstreet, those links weren't directed at you. I meant that, in general, copyright law is a bit different than people think. What you think of it is pretty much dead on (as is with Lecrayon ). First, it has to fit in a catagory that the copyright office recognizes. Which is:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.
But, (and this is where all this pertains to what motion did) "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."
So, unless you copy it (and I mean literally) then the picture is not a copyright violation. Motion used the "idea" in the picture, and probably used the same processes and methods, but the picture was a new picture with different subjects in it.
It gets a bit hazey when you get into the digital realm of things, and the laws are still not decided on what to do. First, the basic rule of first use in copyrighted art: "fixed in any tangible medium of expression" becomes tricky. Is that when you create the file, or the first time it was uploaded someplace? There are not enough precedent cases to deem what will be permissable in the digital world. How much of a digital image can be used before it is a violation? How is it measured? Those are questions that are still being figured out.
I think that people need to take a step back and follow ethical rules versus actual law. Everyone knows that you shouldn't copy other peoples work. If you question if what you are doing is right or wrong, just assume it is wrong.
No matter what, all laws can be interpreted by a judge. They also change with the times.
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.
But, (and this is where all this pertains to what motion did) "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."
So, unless you copy it (and I mean literally) then the picture is not a copyright violation. Motion used the "idea" in the picture, and probably used the same processes and methods, but the picture was a new picture with different subjects in it.
It gets a bit hazey when you get into the digital realm of things, and the laws are still not decided on what to do. First, the basic rule of first use in copyrighted art: "fixed in any tangible medium of expression" becomes tricky. Is that when you create the file, or the first time it was uploaded someplace? There are not enough precedent cases to deem what will be permissable in the digital world. How much of a digital image can be used before it is a violation? How is it measured? Those are questions that are still being figured out.
I think that people need to take a step back and follow ethical rules versus actual law. Everyone knows that you shouldn't copy other peoples work. If you question if what you are doing is right or wrong, just assume it is wrong.
No matter what, all laws can be interpreted by a judge. They also change with the times.
bakerstreet
Reply #49 Thursday, October 3, 2002 10:36 AM
Reply #49 Thursday, October 3, 2002 10:36 AM
Karmagirl: thanks. I have spent waaaay too much time grumping about this online, and it is refreshing to see someone with more than my own 'lay-person' know-how wander through. I think it will all sink-in gradually. This community was started by people who generally customized for themselves, or at most their friends, and as it grew that mentality remained. We now cater to millions of people, so the 'rules' suddenly apply, lol. Thanks again.
Lecrayon
Reply #50 Thursday, October 3, 2002 11:42 AM
Reply #50 Thursday, October 3, 2002 11:42 AM
Thank you KarmaGirl, I appreciate your time and explanations on this matter
KarmaGirl
Reply #51 Thursday, October 3, 2002 11:44 AM
Reply #51 Thursday, October 3, 2002 11:44 AM
No problem. It's a confusing, ever changing subject.
DavidK
Reply #52 Thursday, October 3, 2002 3:28 PM
Reply #52 Thursday, October 3, 2002 3:28 PM
That was a good explanation KarmaGirl. I think your last statement says it the best - "I think that people need to take a step back and follow ethical rules versus actual law. Everyone knows that you shouldn't copy other peoples work. If you question if what you are doing is right or wrong, just assume it is wrong."
The whole issue of what is legal or not isn't a problem here because we have rules for the site. Our rules prohibit unauthorized use of anyone's work so it's fairly easy to resolve questions here.
The whole issue of what is legal or not isn't a problem here because we have rules for the site. Our rules prohibit unauthorized use of anyone's work so it's fairly easy to resolve questions here.
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 3 | |
|
|---|
Reply #41 Wednesday, October 2, 2002 7:34 AM