Art theft

[pinkpuff]

Original artist chiming in here!

First, I'm flattered that someone thinks my art was good enough to put on something.

Second, copying isn't theft. "Intellectual Property" so-called is doing society so much harm right now it's not even funny. Copyright does way more harm than good and I can go into a bazillion reasons why that's the case if need be.

Third, how hypocritical would it be of me to try to accuse them of "stealing" my work without permission when I clearly "stole" in order to create the work to begin with? Rainbow Brite certainly isn't my idea and I have no more right to use her likeness than the ebay person has to use my artwork.

Edit: Thanks for pointing out the DA automatic copyright thing. I figured out how to remove it.

[Treasure_House]

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. So please don't take anything I say wrong..

First off, people all over the globe steal. The bad thing about it, is that 75% of them get away with it. While the others are put through the law and plastered all over the morning news.

Truly it's sad. But think of it this way... For every 10 bad drivers out there, there's bound to be 20 good ones. It's a saying that I'd grown up with. It basically means that no matter what the crime, you're bound to get cought. The best way to avoid getting cought.... Don't do it to begin with... I work at Walmart, and one can just imagine the theft rate. Yet that is just pennies compared to the net.

[pinkpuff]

Well sure, but the point is that people who download or copy artwork, such as the ebay seller in question here, haven't stolen anything.

[IndigoJoy]

Well, they are making money off something they didn't create and that's wrong. That's why sites like CafePress won't let you print, for example, your own Rainbow Brite shirts, because Hallmark would sue.

[Blondine Arc-En-Ciel]

Original artist chiming in here!

First, I'm flattered that someone thinks my art was good enough to put on something.

Second, copying isn't theft. "Intellectual Property" so-called is doing society so much harm right now it's not even funny. Copyright does way more harm than good and I can go into a bazillion reasons why that's the case if need be.

Third, how hypocritical would it be of me to try to accuse them of "stealing" my work without permission when I clearly "stole" in order to create the work to begin with? Rainbow Brite certainly isn't my idea and I have no more right to use her likeness than the ebay person has to use my artwork.

Edit: Thanks for pointing out the DA automatic copyright thing. I figured out how to remove it.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary ... igman.html

The attached link backs your viewpoint in legal terms. I personally see no reason whatsoever why the great-great-great-great grandchildren of the Beatles are going to benefit handsomely from recordings made in the 1960's and 1970's by people that they never knew personally.

Congress extended copyright terms in 1998 because Disney and others made over six million in contributions to politicians. I'm sure that Disney and others will be at it again when the current extension runs out.

[pinkpuff]

Technically it is currently illegal, but it is not wrong. If anything, the laws that enforce this kind of "protection" are wrong.

First of all, what makes it illegal has nothing to do with whether profit or money is involved. What makes it illegal is the act of copying itself. What this means is that anyone visiting a website with copyrighted images is immediately guilty of copyright infringement. Whenever your web browser visits a page, it downloads a copy of all the images and stores them in a cache. It does not care whether the images are copyrighted or not. Thus, anyone visiting this website has downloaded a bunch of copyright infringing avatars (most, almost all, avatars on this forum are copyright infringing), not to mention the main graphic for the forum at the top, which uses the Rainbow Brite logo and characters which I highly doubt anyone got permission from the copyright holders to copy and/or modify. Anyone who sings the Happy Birthday song in a public place is also guilty of copyright infringement unless they get permission from and pay royalties to Warner Music Group. Anyone who has ever written a fanfiction story or drawn a piece of fanart is guilty of copyright infringement. And they are guilty of it whether they made a profit or not.

Copyright laws are very recent, historically speaking, and they are in existence not for the benefit of artists, but for the benefit of distributing companies. The fraction of artists who are able to make a living from copyright royalties alone is miniscule. The distributing companies are the ones who rake in the profits from copyrights. Back when large scale distribution was impossible for regular folks, distributing companies had to exist to distribute the artist's work and they had to make a profit to exist. At that point in time, copyright laws made at least a certain degree of sense. One could consider them a "necessary evil" at the time. Now that everything can be encoded digitally, however, there is no need for distributing companies. Faced with this reality, those companies are doing everything in their power to hold on to their existing business model, including the massive and abhorrent propaganda campaign they are engaging in, trying to fool everyone into thinking that downloading a song is in some way comparable to stealing a jacket from Wal-Mart.

If the distributing companies eventually get their way, and copyright is enforced to a degree that prevents digital downloading, then you can kiss goodbye to the internet as we know it. Every single transaction would have to be monitored. Every website you visit, every private message or email you send might contain copyrighted material so it will have to be inspected.

Preserving copyright in order to prevent distributing companies from going out of business is no different from holding back the invention of the automobile to prevent stagecoach drivers from going out of business. The difference is, unlike stagecoach drivers, distributing companies are already rich and can afford lawyers, not to mention the fact that they basically are the media and thus have a gigantic propaganda machine at their disposal.

Copyrights hurt artists in the long run because of the damage they do to the public domain. Copyright terms keep getting extended further and further, and if distributing companies have their way it will eventually be indefinite. Before long, nothing will enter the public domain ever again; and what is already there will be so worn out people will be sick of it. Furthermore, there are business models for artists in the current digital age that do not rely on copyright and provide far more benefit to the artist than the copyright model.

Edit: Thanks for posting that link, Blondine! That is exactly what I'm talking about.

[Blondine Arc-En-Ciel]

.
OMG, LET'S DANCE???

That was Benny Goodman's sign-on theme song for radio broadcasts and personal appearances in the 1930's and later. That's copyrighted and you can't use that phrase!!!




Yes, that's exactly how stupid I think this is.


I might even be convinced this is a good idea if the period of protection were reasonabally short. Say it expired upon the death of the artists or composer's last surviving child. I think that in many cases there are obsucre recordings, books and movies that are still under copyright where no trace of the performer/composer/writer or their descendants can still be found, so who gets to keep the royalties? How can someone today claim copyright on something that happened when they weren't even alive when the item was first released or in no way related to whoever wrote or played it?

As you may have guessed from my opening remark, I'm a fan of old jazz. My collection starts with the first jazz records from 1917 and goes until 1974, the year that Duke Ellington died. Most of the artists are little remembered today and then mostly by people like myself. Ever heard of Adrian Rollini? Michel Warlop?, Mel Powell?

My favorite case of copyright stupidity comes from the Glenn Miller Army Air Force Band. It was active from 1943 to 1945. The musicians were all soldiers, including Miller himself. The band played to sell war bonds, entice people to join the Air Corps (as it was called back then), entertain the troops, and made propaganda broadcasts. All of these things were their official military duties. Everyone involved received a military paycheck back then, a fraction of what they made before they came in the service. Any time this band's music is reissued, there's always a copyright notice that it can't be copied, broadcast, etc. If anyone owns the copyright on those recordings, it is not the company that issued the CD or LP but the United States Air Force. For all that, I seriously doubt they have made a penny from them. And no, this was not a Sousa-style marching band. They played then-popular music of a very high quality so there's still a certain interest out there for it.

If you're curious about the Glenn Miller Orchestra, go to General Discussions and look for my topic 'And Why Do I See Rainbows...'.

[Wardah]

I too think that the descendants of an artist should not need royalties from their ancestor's work. If the original artist made enough money it should have been properly invested and that should be sufficient to ensure a decent standard of living for future generations. The only time it might be bothersome is if the work was not appreciated in the artist's lifetime because his work was ahead of its time. But even then if they wanted to distribute copies of the original work I don't see why they can't just like anyone else. Of course someone with a conscience would rather benefit the artist's family rather than some Joe Schmoe but leave that up to the consumer not the courts.

[*C9*]

Woah I think we are taking it too far. I too am an artist. I think taking somone's artwork and selling it is illegal and wrong. They are making money off something you drew. The original intention of the art wasn't to make money it was a gesture a being a a fan. If they are selling the fanart it is up to the company to go after these people.

In Japan with all the fanart and doujinshi the author acknowledges this as part of the fandom. While over here it would be very illegal.

Then I see a bootleg artbook selling fanart inside. That is beyond wrong and illegal on many accounts.

If we want to go all law on someone that is another factor, it is just common sense it is wrong.

[Treasure_House]

I fully agree... It's one thing to do up fan work for ones own enjoyment and for expression. It's another to take it and make money...



I copy pictures (example: Rainbow Brite, Chipmunks, ect...) and save em on my hard-drive. Then I use em for my own use. I don't use em for others or for profit. It's the same thing as movies. I copy em onto dvd, then sell the original. The copy, I keep. Why go through the trouble of selling something that isn't yours to begin with? That's just plain dumb....