It's not common sense, it's propaganda.
Give me one reason why it is wrong. How have they harmed me in any way? What did I have before they did this that I do not have now?
Art theft
Art theft
I'm talking about art theft in general to be used for profit is wrong. They are making money off art that is meant to be just that, art. Let's say an art piece took a very long time to make and yet someone sells it on a t-shirt that took all of five second? How is that fair? It is wrong to take something someone spent time and even money to make for enjoyment, to be turned around for profit.
propaganda? errr okay then...
stealing something someone made is wrong quite simple
propaganda? errr okay then...
stealing something someone made is wrong quite simple
Art theft
I would agree that stealing is wrong, whether for profit or not, but downloading/copying someone's artwork is not stealing.
The idea of property only exists as a mechanism for managing scarcity. Scarcity is the condition of there only being a limited amount of something and it being difficult to make more. Real physical objects (most of them) are in a condition of scarcity. If I steal your bicycle, you no longer have it, and there is still only one bicycle. You have lost something. I have hurt you in some way in that situation. I also could not simply reproduce many bicycles trivially and for free.
On the other hand, ideas, including art, and anything else that is considered "intellectual property", are not subject to scarcity. At least not anymore, and this is what the world is having trouble adjusting to. If you come up with an idea, or if you create a song or a piece of artwork, and I click "copy" or "download", you have lost nothing. Whatever work or effort you had put into the artwork is the same regardless of how many people see it, how many pepole copy it or download it, or print it out onto a tote bag and try to sell the tote bag. You still have the idea, but now everyone else has it too and the world is better off for it.
Did you invent everything you sell to someone? If not, you're making money off someone else's idea. Is that wrong? Is that theft? That ebay seller is making as much (maybe more) off the idea of a tote bag as they are off my particular piece of artwork. Even if they made the tote bag from scratch using their own materials, they're still making money off the idea of a tote bag, an idea they did not come up with.
Notice, for that matter, that it is indeed a bag they are selling (a physical object) and not just a copy of the digital artwork that I put up on DA. Why? Because they realize that it would be impossible to just sell the image, as why would someone pay money for something someone else is giving away for free? The bag has actual scarcity and thus is worth actual money. The effort to put the image onto the tote bag is also something that is not trivial that not just anyone can do (I certainly would not have the first clue how to go about it) and that needs to be done for each bag made.
Occasionally an artist may want to create a piece of art simply for their own private expression, practice, etc, and not show anyone. That's fine, they don't have to put it online or in a place where anybody in the world can see it and trivially make copies of it. But usually, artists create art to express themselves to others and/or to communicate an idea. In both those situations, more people being exposed to the artwork is better (note that this is the reason distributing companies, and hence copyright laws, came into existence in the first place; it was not to ensure that artists make money from their art or that no one else does). If you create a piece of artwork on DA, would you rather it get 12 hits or 12,000 hits? Or 12,000,000 hits? By using DA's service, you're allowing DA to profit from your artwork without paying you, but in exchange you get more visibility. A lot more people will see your artwork if it is on DA than if it is on some random website you made yourself. When the ebay seller prints my artwork onto a tote bag, something similar is happening. No additional effort is expended on my part in getting the art onto the bag, but I benefit from it since there may be people who browse ebay who do not browse DA and will see my artwork whereas otherwise they wouldn't have. Likewise whoever buys the bag will essentially be a walking ad for people who would not have otherwise seen it. I see no reason why this person should be required by law (or even morally) to be forced to give me a cut of the profits, as I'm already benefiting from it.
The idea of property only exists as a mechanism for managing scarcity. Scarcity is the condition of there only being a limited amount of something and it being difficult to make more. Real physical objects (most of them) are in a condition of scarcity. If I steal your bicycle, you no longer have it, and there is still only one bicycle. You have lost something. I have hurt you in some way in that situation. I also could not simply reproduce many bicycles trivially and for free.
On the other hand, ideas, including art, and anything else that is considered "intellectual property", are not subject to scarcity. At least not anymore, and this is what the world is having trouble adjusting to. If you come up with an idea, or if you create a song or a piece of artwork, and I click "copy" or "download", you have lost nothing. Whatever work or effort you had put into the artwork is the same regardless of how many people see it, how many pepole copy it or download it, or print it out onto a tote bag and try to sell the tote bag. You still have the idea, but now everyone else has it too and the world is better off for it.
Did you invent everything you sell to someone? If not, you're making money off someone else's idea. Is that wrong? Is that theft? That ebay seller is making as much (maybe more) off the idea of a tote bag as they are off my particular piece of artwork. Even if they made the tote bag from scratch using their own materials, they're still making money off the idea of a tote bag, an idea they did not come up with.
Notice, for that matter, that it is indeed a bag they are selling (a physical object) and not just a copy of the digital artwork that I put up on DA. Why? Because they realize that it would be impossible to just sell the image, as why would someone pay money for something someone else is giving away for free? The bag has actual scarcity and thus is worth actual money. The effort to put the image onto the tote bag is also something that is not trivial that not just anyone can do (I certainly would not have the first clue how to go about it) and that needs to be done for each bag made.
Occasionally an artist may want to create a piece of art simply for their own private expression, practice, etc, and not show anyone. That's fine, they don't have to put it online or in a place where anybody in the world can see it and trivially make copies of it. But usually, artists create art to express themselves to others and/or to communicate an idea. In both those situations, more people being exposed to the artwork is better (note that this is the reason distributing companies, and hence copyright laws, came into existence in the first place; it was not to ensure that artists make money from their art or that no one else does). If you create a piece of artwork on DA, would you rather it get 12 hits or 12,000 hits? Or 12,000,000 hits? By using DA's service, you're allowing DA to profit from your artwork without paying you, but in exchange you get more visibility. A lot more people will see your artwork if it is on DA than if it is on some random website you made yourself. When the ebay seller prints my artwork onto a tote bag, something similar is happening. No additional effort is expended on my part in getting the art onto the bag, but I benefit from it since there may be people who browse ebay who do not browse DA and will see my artwork whereas otherwise they wouldn't have. Likewise whoever buys the bag will essentially be a walking ad for people who would not have otherwise seen it. I see no reason why this person should be required by law (or even morally) to be forced to give me a cut of the profits, as I'm already benefiting from it.
Art theft
If I wanted to make stickers of your art, for example, I would at least ask you first and I would make sure to put a URL for your art on there. This seller has not even acknowledged where the art came from. A buyer could think they are getting official Rainbow Brite art done by Hallmark. They should at least mention where they got the art from. It is no different than someone taking your art and putting it in their DA gallery and saying they drew it. Copyright was meant IMHO so that someone else couldn't steal the glory from someone else but money has muddied it up.
-
Treasure_House
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:08 am
- Location: Alaska
- Contact:
Art theft
Well that is one good point... Say you were the one that made the art peice but could care less who takes and sells it.. Whereas with say you made the art peice, saw someone selling it without asking (say you posted that you wanted permission first), and then you sueing the life out them for grand theft. Yes copywritting was put in play for a reason. However; it gets over loooked on most cases and major companies would rather just go about their business instead of sitting in a court room. If it's something you're comfortable with then by all means do it. Which ever you feel. No one here is telling you otherwise..
Art theft
Ok, let's not get copyright mixed up with trademark. Those are two very different things. Breach of trademark (attributing a work to someone who did not have a hand in creating it) is essentially lying/fraud.Wardah wrote:A buyer could think they are getting official Rainbow Brite art done by Hallmark. They should at least mention where they got the art from. It is no different than someone taking your art and putting it in their DA gallery and saying they drew it.
An example of the difference would be quoting someone as opposed to taking credit for the words they spoke. Another example would be, you can download and freely distribute a song from the public domain, and that is fine, but if you claim to have written the song yourself, that is a lie.
This ebay seller is not claiming to have created the artwork. If they were, then I might have a problem with that. But as far as I can tell they have made no claims as to the art's origin, and it should be pretty obvious that it's not official Hallmark artwork.
Well, the history of copyright is well-documented, and has nothing to do with glory and everything to do with money. It was only ever about money (specifically monopoly, which has huge societal costs) and censorship. The difference is, historically it could be justified by the overall societal benefits outweighing the societal costs; now, that is no longer the case and thus it is high time for copyright laws to be phased out.Wardah wrote:Copyright was meant IMHO so that someone else couldn't steal the glory from someone else but money has muddied it up.
-
Blondine Arc-En-Ciel
- Posts: 1305
- Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:52 pm
- Location: Au pays de l'Arc-En-Ciel
Art theft
.
I find it amusing that patents last only 20 years and there's no real strong movement to extend their terms. Many patents are the result of several years of research and millions of dollars invested and the patent owner only has 20 years to make this investment back.
Copyrighted material costs little to produce and keeps getting extended. I wonder why that is? I really think it should be limited to the same amount of time that patents are limited to.
I find it amusing that patents last only 20 years and there's no real strong movement to extend their terms. Many patents are the result of several years of research and millions of dollars invested and the patent owner only has 20 years to make this investment back.
Copyrighted material costs little to produce and keeps getting extended. I wonder why that is? I really think it should be limited to the same amount of time that patents are limited to.
Last edited by Blondine Arc-En-Ciel on Fri Nov 12, 2010 7:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Blondine et moi!!!//Rainbow Brite and me!!!//Azurine et moi!!!//Regina Regenbogen und ich!!!
Art theft
You see this is why if I was in your place I'd be upset. The very least they could have done is let buyers know of the origin of the art. Someone is going to buy that bag but it might be possible that that person never gets to see any of your other art. I could care less if they were to profit off my art but they better let people know it was me and nobody else that drew the picture.pinkpuff wrote:But as far as I can tell they have made no claims as to the art's origin, and it should be pretty obvious that it's not official Hallmark artwork.
Art theft
Blondine:
Agreed. A drastic reduction in copyright term lengths would be a great transitional step.
Wardah:
I can totally understand being upset about that. In my particular case, I don't really consider myself much of an artist anyway so, not having much in the way of other works to display, I don't mind if they don't attribute me overtly. If they were to overtly attribute my picture to someone else though I would at the very least feel the urge to contact them and correct the mistake.
Agreed. A drastic reduction in copyright term lengths would be a great transitional step.
Wardah:
I can totally understand being upset about that. In my particular case, I don't really consider myself much of an artist anyway so, not having much in the way of other works to display, I don't mind if they don't attribute me overtly. If they were to overtly attribute my picture to someone else though I would at the very least feel the urge to contact them and correct the mistake.
Art theft
I think everyone can agree that a lot of people are upset when someone takes their artwork and does something to/with it without their permission, and I think the artist has a right to be upset if he or she so chooses to be. I personally would not be happy if someone took my fanart and was making a profit off it, regardless of anyone else's ethics.
Parts of this topic are exactly why Creative Commons was created, so people willing to share their work can, and they can specify in the license whether or not those uses can be commercial. I don't know if CC can apply to a fanart, since there may already be trademarks or copyrights in place. That is something the courts would have to settle.
I still think if Hallmark really wanted to go after someone for selling fanart, they could, but it would earn them a really bad reputation and so probably won't. And then there is always the argument of fair use, and it does matter if someone is making a profit off your trademark/copyright.
After all, you can be sued for anything. Whether or not the person suing you will win, or their case will be thrown out, is another story.
Parts of this topic are exactly why Creative Commons was created, so people willing to share their work can, and they can specify in the license whether or not those uses can be commercial. I don't know if CC can apply to a fanart, since there may already be trademarks or copyrights in place. That is something the courts would have to settle.
I still think if Hallmark really wanted to go after someone for selling fanart, they could, but it would earn them a really bad reputation and so probably won't. And then there is always the argument of fair use, and it does matter if someone is making a profit off your trademark/copyright.
After all, you can be sued for anything. Whether or not the person suing you will win, or their case will be thrown out, is another story.
Upon the Rainbow, my rainbow blog.