Copyright

"a man is worthy of his hire" a wise lady once said to me.

so it is for the rising number of author's, artists, independents, sole proprieterships
the little guy without "a boss" or "company" above him in his work
there to back he/she up with the big buckeroos

I prefer to take my business there and support regulation that does not harm them.
Did we not have a term in some world . . "free enterprise" before the web of regulation.

That's specifically why I mentioned streaming and freemium. Video games have no other function than to be consumed, unless corporations wanting advertising in the captive market of players did paid ads in the games, just like they do in the movies. Commercial use. Games only means of commercial viability are to be played. Whereas Music and images have other commercial outlets than the consumer. IE commercials, licenses for movies or books, etc. they are both used to help sell products because they help to market to specific cultural groups. Games aren't used to sell products as a marketing tool. I honestly, as a musician, only see recorded music as a marketing tool. The live production is where the real money is. And to a lesser degree, licensing to film, TV and ads. 99% of people with a record deal never make a dime off of their recorded music, the labels make a killing though.

Avalonslight wrote: But those rights still exist and human decency would at least - in my mind - require efforts to be made on everyone's part to preserve those rights.

You're assuming the decency of the greater portion of humanity. A group of animals that is very typically selfish in the majority and has very small instances of any real altruism.

Any normal and generally self centered person, given a situation where they know they will get away with it, will disregard the betterment of another in order to better his own circumstances. The one thing you can always count on is that the general populace with think of themselves first.

its why I like the little 'owned by' iconography in the pictures...

I tracked down the image I use, and it appears to come from, originally, a TV show, which I am sure has it protected...

But I idnt take it from their site, I found it on Pintrest, with the words on it from someone making it a meme...

Oh great law spouters, what say ye on the legalities on this?

Jestor wrote: its why I like the little 'owned by' iconography in the pictures...

I tracked down the image I use, and it appears to come from, originally, a TV show, which I am sure has it protected...

But I idnt take it from their site, I found it on Pintrest, with the words on it from someone making it a meme...

Oh great law spouters, what say ye on the legalities on this?

I wonder if that alone would be enough to consider it a "transformative" work.

Jestor - Someone else's wrong does not make your subsequent wrong right.

6h - Yes, I do assume a common decency. I've seen it exercised too much to not assume it. If that's a crime, then I gladly plead guilty. I'm glad that the standard American/Westernized cynicism haven't quite caught up with me just yet. But this thread is not for that discussion.

Mareeka - Copyright laws were around long before internet regulation was even in the minds of man. The advent and use of the internet does not make those laws any less applicable than they were in their inception. The assumption of such is why so many artists lose money.


We use the internet to promote our work, not to tell everyone else that they can use it without proper credit and compensation. Like I said, you wouldn't go to a farmer and claim his corn as your own without compensation. Nor would you go to a car detailer and take his work without compensation. I should hope you wouldn't walk up to an architect and try to use his blueprints as your own. At least, this is how I hope you guys would treat these other professions.

So again, why would you do these things to an artist? What is it that makes our work any less deserving than the work of any other profession?

That would depend a great deal on whether or not knowing the original work has any relative significance to understanding the new work. It would also depend on how significant the image is to the original work. If the Meme could be said to stand on its own without the original work's reputation, then no, it would not be illegal. If it were required to understand the original work, and there were still significant contributions, it could still be considered a derivative work. And again still not illegal. If the whole idea was built on the ideas of the original work, then there is no significant contribution. THIS would be illegal without consent from the author.

I am not a lawyer, but I am an artist, a Jedi, and consider myself a compassionate human being.

Under these is where my thoughts come from.

As an artist, I poor my being into everything I create. Or it's not worth making. Everything from the chainmaile jewelry and bags, to the embroidered fabric bags, to the tooled leather armor bracers, bracelets, and wallets, to the clothing, the songs I sing, to my drawings and painted art, to the miniatures I enjoy painting, to the stories I write, to the wood crafts I do (such as the TotJO donations). These are the manifestations of who I am, not as a human, but tangible representations of me as a spirit.

Aside from that, there is SO MUCH time involved in making anything artistic. Time and energy spent learning, practicing, and then time and energy spent making. Much less the materials and everything else needed to fuel it.

I respect what goes into the art. I respect the artist. Because I hold such respect I understand the value of it. I take the time and effort to find the artist and give them credit. To ask for approval to use other's art in my own.

I also do this as a Jedi because it's the right thing to do. Just because "everyone else is doing it" doesn't make it right.

Avalonslight wrote: Mareeka - Copyright laws were around long before internet regulation was even in the minds of man. The advent and use of the internet does not make those laws any less applicable than they were in their inception. The assumption of such is why so many artists lose money.

that is what I said .. . I thought? Bout respect and stuff . .
maybe I need another line? dunno :side:

Mareeka wrote:

Avalonslight wrote: Mareeka - Copyright laws were around long before internet regulation was even in the minds of man. The advent and use of the internet does not make those laws any less applicable than they were in their inception. The assumption of such is why so many artists lose money.

that is what I said .. . I thought? Bout respect and stuff . .
maybe I need another line? dunno :side:

I may have misunderstood