|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 23, 2013 13:46:03 GMT -5
But in both of your cases, should the content creator not have the ultimate say? Disney doesn't want you taking Minnie and using her to sell your new vibrator. To me they created the character they've got legit interests in protecting the image of said character. They should be able to go after someone who does that if they want to. Same with Radiohead. If they want fans to use their music for mashups, that's fine. That's their content at the end of the day. If they want to put the kibosh on that, that's their perogative too. The Disney issue is not that the character becomes Public Domain, but the cartoons themselves. Honestly, Disney screwed over those who need and use public domain resources for educational and entertainment endeavors to the point that many great works cannot enter into the public domain in the US for several decades to come, and even then they have given the government the right to pull something from PD even way after the creator is dead and gone. The cartoons shouldn't be in public domain as long as someone exists who created them. Sent from my XT907 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by slappy on May 23, 2013 15:27:19 GMT -5
amidst about a 1000 other reasons. Can't really agree with that. If I'm a photographer shouldn't I have copyright protection on my work? Or can someone like Coca-cola (to pick a random brand) find my picture on the Internet use it for a billion dollar ad campaign and not compensate me at all? But let's take it further. If I write a book nowadays it's all digital. It's a file on my computer, goes to my publisher as a file, they format it/edit it as a file and if I go straight for the ebook route it's digital the entire way. Do I have no copyright? Or what if I write a computer program? Do I have no copyright protection on my work? Can you take my code and sell it and not compensate me? Let's take the photo example. The photographer takes the photo and uploads it to their blog. Well they have already created a copy of the photo. One from their computer/phone to the internet. Now there are two copies of the photo. Now let's say I take that photo and put it on my blog. I have created a third copy. Someone else takes it and so do others creating a 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th copy. But look, the photographer still has their original version thus nothing was stolen from them. You can't take a car and make a copy, leaving the original while you now have one. Now regarding Coke using the picture. They could use the photo in their ad campaign. Just like I could take the photo and put it on a t-shirt and sell it. It would behoove Coke and me to pay the photographer especially if our products do well because of the photo. Now we could be jerks and not pay. The only recourse the photographer has is if we are damaging their brand by being associated with us. I don't mean in a they could have gotten money from selling that photo to Coke or me way. I mean in a people won't do business with them because their image is associated with Coke and me. Coke and me using their photo could be beneficial to them. People see the photo and want more from the photographer thus generating business for them, their stock rises and they become very popular earning them a lot of money which may not have happened (at least not as fast) if it weren't for us using their photo.
|
|
|
Post by Thick Justice on May 23, 2013 15:36:33 GMT -5
The reason you buy ownership of the image is so you can create digital and real life copies. You can buy a painting from a painter, but unless you own the copyright also you can't make copies of it and sell the copies.
|
|
PenguinDeluxe
Main Eventer
20 Refs and Counting
Joined on: Dec 19, 2006 21:22:54 GMT -5
Posts: 4,932
|
Post by PenguinDeluxe on May 23, 2013 16:31:13 GMT -5
The Disney issue is not that the character becomes Public Domain, but the cartoons themselves. Honestly, Disney screwed over those who need and use public domain resources for educational and entertainment endeavors to the point that many great works cannot enter into the public domain in the US for several decades to come, and even then they have given the government the right to pull something from PD even way after the creator is dead and gone. The cartoons shouldn't be in public domain as long as someone exists who created them. Sent from my XT907 using proboards Well, Disney and Iwerks are both dead now, so...
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 23, 2013 16:49:12 GMT -5
The cartoons shouldn't be in public domain as long as someone exists who created them. Sent from my XT907 using proboards Well, Disney and Iwerks are both dead now, so... Disney (the company) is very much alive. A person should have the right to sell the rights to their works to anyone they choose. Whomever buys those rights should have the right to maintain them in perpetuity forever if they choose to.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 23, 2013 16:53:12 GMT -5
Can't really agree with that. If I'm a photographer shouldn't I have copyright protection on my work? Or can someone like Coca-cola (to pick a random brand) find my picture on the Internet use it for a billion dollar ad campaign and not compensate me at all? But let's take it further. If I write a book nowadays it's all digital. It's a file on my computer, goes to my publisher as a file, they format it/edit it as a file and if I go straight for the ebook route it's digital the entire way. Do I have no copyright? Or what if I write a computer program? Do I have no copyright protection on my work? Can you take my code and sell it and not compensate me? Let's take the photo example. The photographer takes the photo and uploads it to their blog. Well they have already created a copy of the photo. One from their computer/phone to the internet. Now there are two copies of the photo. Now let's say I take that photo and put it on my blog. I have created a third copy. Someone else takes it and so do others creating a 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th copy. But look, the photographer still has their original version thus nothing was stolen from them. You can't take a car and make a copy, leaving the original while you now have one. Now regarding Coke using the picture. They could use the photo in their ad campaign. Just like I could take the photo and put it on a t-shirt and sell it. It would behoove Coke and me to pay the photographer especially if our products do well because of the photo. Now we could be jerks and not pay. The only recourse the photographer has is if we are damaging their brand by being associated with us. I don't mean in a they could have gotten money from selling that photo to Coke or me way. I mean in a people won't do business with them because their image is associated with Coke and me. Coke and me using their photo could be beneficial to them. People see the photo and want more from the photographer thus generating business for them, their stock rises and they become very popular earning them a lot of money which may not have happened (at least not as fast) if it weren't for us using their photo. Whereas if I painted the picture it would be different? What you are basically saying is that if the work I create is physical, then I'm protected by copyright laws. If it's digital, then I have no protections at all. What if I'm a programmer? You can take my code, sell it as your own and it's perfectly legal? Same thing with my photo. It's not in your best interests or Coke's to pay me for the use of my photo. Certainly you make more money if you don't, so why would you pay and I don't blame you. I then have no recourse at all. How are people going to know it's my photo? Coke isn't going to attribute it to me. Why would they? And if I put a watermark on it, they can easily brush that out before they use it which is perfectly legal according to you. They have copied my work without compensating me for it the same as it I was a programmer and they copied my code without compensation. How is this not theft?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on May 23, 2013 17:11:41 GMT -5
Let's take the photo example. The photographer takes the photo and uploads it to their blog. Well they have already created a copy of the photo. One from their computer/phone to the internet. Now there are two copies of the photo. Now let's say I take that photo and put it on my blog. I have created a third copy. Someone else takes it and so do others creating a 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th copy. But look, the photographer still has their original version thus nothing was stolen from them. You can't take a car and make a copy, leaving the original while you now have one. Now regarding Coke using the picture. They could use the photo in their ad campaign. Just like I could take the photo and put it on a t-shirt and sell it. It would behoove Coke and me to pay the photographer especially if our products do well because of the photo. Now we could be jerks and not pay. The only recourse the photographer has is if we are damaging their brand by being associated with us. I don't mean in a they could have gotten money from selling that photo to Coke or me way. I mean in a people won't do business with them because their image is associated with Coke and me. Coke and me using their photo could be beneficial to them. People see the photo and want more from the photographer thus generating business for them, their stock rises and they become very popular earning them a lot of money which may not have happened (at least not as fast) if it weren't for us using their photo. Whereas if I painted the picture it would be different? What you are basically saying is that if the work I create is physical, then I'm protected by copyright laws. If it's digital, then I have no protections at all. What if I'm a programmer? You can take my code, sell it as your own and it's perfectly legal? Same thing with my photo. It's not in your best interests or Coke's to pay me for the use of my photo. Certainly you make more money if you don't, so why would you pay and I don't blame you. I then have no recourse at all. How are people going to know it's my photo? Coke isn't going to attribute it to me. Why would they? And if I put a watermark on it, they can easily brush that out before they use it which is perfectly legal according to you. They have copied my work without compensating me for it the same as it I was a programmer and they copied my code without compensation. How is this not theft? If someone bought a painting from you, you'd no longer own it. You can't barge into someone's home and demand it because you painted it. We live have the internet, people would find out who took the photo Coke is using. It is in my interest especially if I make good money off the product because I could then go back to the photographer and use another of their photos. Sure, I could just keep using their photos but I might as well employ that person then. The public's perception of my company could drop when they find out I'm not compensating the photographer. Theft needs something tangible. If I broke into your house and stole a flashdrive containing the code then I would get in trouble. If a company found out I was taking code from someone and representing it as my own they'd fire me. Why would they want someone on staff who can't make their own code? They'd want someone who could code. Plus I believe you could get in trouble for fraud but not theft if you claim the photographer or programmer's work as your own. If you use it and say you didn't make it then it's not fraud. But if you pass it off as your own that is fraud and the original maker could have some recourse. They'd have to prove they made it, prove you took it and sold it as your own and that you have been damaged in some way.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 23, 2013 18:47:42 GMT -5
Whereas if I painted the picture it would be different? What you are basically saying is that if the work I create is physical, then I'm protected by copyright laws. If it's digital, then I have no protections at all. What if I'm a programmer? You can take my code, sell it as your own and it's perfectly legal? Same thing with my photo. It's not in your best interests or Coke's to pay me for the use of my photo. Certainly you make more money if you don't, so why would you pay and I don't blame you. I then have no recourse at all. How are people going to know it's my photo? Coke isn't going to attribute it to me. Why would they? And if I put a watermark on it, they can easily brush that out before they use it which is perfectly legal according to you. They have copied my work without compensating me for it the same as it I was a programmer and they copied my code without compensation. How is this not theft? If someone bought a painting from you, you'd no longer own it. You can't barge into someone's home and demand it because you painted it. We live have the internet, people would find out who took the photo Coke is using. It is in my interest especially if I make good money off the product because I could then go back to the photographer and use another of their photos. Sure, I could just keep using their photos but I might as well employ that person then. The public's perception of my company could drop when they find out I'm not compensating the photographer. Theft needs something tangible. If I broke into your house and stole a flashdrive containing the code then I would get in trouble. If a company found out I was taking code from someone and representing it as my own they'd fire me. Why would they want someone on staff who can't make their own code? They'd want someone who could code. Plus I believe you could get in trouble for fraud but not theft if you claim the photographer or programmer's work as your own. If you use it and say you didn't make it then it's not fraud. But if you pass it off as your own that is fraud and the original maker could have some recourse. They'd have to prove they made it, prove you took it and sold it as your own and that you have been damaged in some way. Theft does not need something tangible. It's long been held that it doesn't need anything tangible. If I work for a bank and I use my access to transfer funds from your account to my account I've stolen have I not? Yet nothing tangible changed hands. Just numbers in a computer system. Let's say I build a widget. It's an awesome widget and everyone wants one. You try to duplicate it, but you can't no matter how hard you try. So you hack into my computer one night and download the plans for my widget. Now you can build one just like it. Have you committed theft? Or what if you don't hack into my system. What if you just bribe one of my engineers to download the plans and give them to you? Have you committed theft? And fraud is a crime against the consumer of a product, not the creator. If you take my code and represent it as your own, you may be committing fraud against the person who accepts said code, but not against me. Why would you employ a photographer when you can just take anything they produce without compensating them? That makes no business sense at all. They have no way to stop you from taking the photos they create and no way to force you to compensate them. What if I publish a book? I spent hours, weeks, maybe months writing it and editing it. Now I publish it as an ebook for $10. You take it and sell it for $1. You may not even claim it's yours. You may put my name right on the cover, but give me nothing from the sales. What right do you have to undercut my sales and profit from my work without compensating me at all?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on May 23, 2013 19:12:44 GMT -5
If someone bought a painting from you, you'd no longer own it. You can't barge into someone's home and demand it because you painted it. We live have the internet, people would find out who took the photo Coke is using. It is in my interest especially if I make good money off the product because I could then go back to the photographer and use another of their photos. Sure, I could just keep using their photos but I might as well employ that person then. The public's perception of my company could drop when they find out I'm not compensating the photographer. Theft needs something tangible. If I broke into your house and stole a flashdrive containing the code then I would get in trouble. If a company found out I was taking code from someone and representing it as my own they'd fire me. Why would they want someone on staff who can't make their own code? They'd want someone who could code. Plus I believe you could get in trouble for fraud but not theft if you claim the photographer or programmer's work as your own. If you use it and say you didn't make it then it's not fraud. But if you pass it off as your own that is fraud and the original maker could have some recourse. They'd have to prove they made it, prove you took it and sold it as your own and that you have been damaged in some way. Theft does not need something tangible. It's long been held that it doesn't need anything tangible. If I work for a bank and I use my access to transfer funds from your account to my account I've stolen have I not? Yet nothing tangible changed hands. Just numbers in a computer system. Let's say I build a widget. It's an awesome widget and everyone wants one. You try to duplicate it, but you can't no matter how hard you try. So you hack into my computer one night and download the plans for my widget. Now you can build one just like it. Have you committed theft? Or what if you don't hack into my system. What if you just bribe one of my engineers to download the plans and give them to you? Have you committed theft? And fraud is a crime against the consumer of a product, not the creator. If you take my code and represent it as your own, you may be committing fraud against the person who accepts said code, but not against me. Why would you employ a photographer when you can just take anything they produce without compensating them? That makes no business sense at all. They have no way to stop you from taking the photos they create and no way to force you to compensate them. What if I publish a book? I spent hours, weeks, maybe months writing it and editing it. Now I publish it as an ebook for $10. You take it and sell it for $1. You may not even claim it's yours. You may put my name right on the cover, but give me nothing from the sales. What right do you have to undercut my sales and profit from my work without compensating me at all? But I then go to my account to get my money and I can't get any because the teller transferred it to their account. The money has been stolen. The hacking would be digital breaking and entering. Taking a photo that has been posted on the internet is different then hacking into a computer to take something that hasn't been published in some form. The engineer should be fired. And the company should put a clause in the contract stating they cannot do such a thing. So the employer can then remedy that in court. If you want to make a widget because others like it are selling well then make one and improve upon it so it is better than the competitors. But it is fraud as you are fraudulently claiming ownership of someone else's work. Fraud can happen to someone other than the consumer. If you allow me to use your name on some products I'm selling and then I take your name and put it on something you didn't sign off on, I've committed fraud because I misrepresented my intentions. A company's image is a big deal. If they are constantly accused and proven to be using photos of someone else's work without compensating them the public will like them less. Their bottom line can suffer because of it. Does a person have the right to resell something they bought? If not then garage sales would be illegal since none of the money would go to those who made the things that were sold. WF's classifieds would have to be shut down. Amazon and ebay would suffer greatly.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 16, 2024 21:38:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2013 19:34:11 GMT -5
I'm still wondering what 'axededed' means.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 23, 2013 20:29:24 GMT -5
Theft does not need something tangible. It's long been held that it doesn't need anything tangible. If I work for a bank and I use my access to transfer funds from your account to my account I've stolen have I not? Yet nothing tangible changed hands. Just numbers in a computer system. Let's say I build a widget. It's an awesome widget and everyone wants one. You try to duplicate it, but you can't no matter how hard you try. So you hack into my computer one night and download the plans for my widget. Now you can build one just like it. Have you committed theft? Or what if you don't hack into my system. What if you just bribe one of my engineers to download the plans and give them to you? Have you committed theft? And fraud is a crime against the consumer of a product, not the creator. If you take my code and represent it as your own, you may be committing fraud against the person who accepts said code, but not against me. Why would you employ a photographer when you can just take anything they produce without compensating them? That makes no business sense at all. They have no way to stop you from taking the photos they create and no way to force you to compensate them. What if I publish a book? I spent hours, weeks, maybe months writing it and editing it. Now I publish it as an ebook for $10. You take it and sell it for $1. You may not even claim it's yours. You may put my name right on the cover, but give me nothing from the sales. What right do you have to undercut my sales and profit from my work without compensating me at all? But I then go to my account to get my money and I can't get any because the teller transferred it to their account. The money has been stolen. The hacking would be digital breaking and entering. Taking a photo that has been posted on the internet is different then hacking into a computer to take something that hasn't been published in some form. The engineer should be fired. And the company should put a clause in the contract stating they cannot do such a thing. So the employer can then remedy that in court. If you want to make a widget because others like it are selling well then make one and improve upon it so it is better than the competitors. But it is fraud as you are fraudulently claiming ownership of someone else's work. Fraud can happen to someone other than the consumer. If you allow me to use your name on some products I'm selling and then I take your name and put it on something you didn't sign off on, I've committed fraud because I misrepresented my intentions. A company's image is a big deal. If they are constantly accused and proven to be using photos of someone else's work without compensating them the public will like them less. Their bottom line can suffer because of it. Does a person have the right to resell something they bought? If not then garage sales would be illegal since none of the money would go to those who made the things that were sold. WF's classifieds would have to be shut down. Amazon and ebay would suffer greatly. It is fraud, but if you steal my work and pass it off as yours I have no recourse. I have not been defrauded. The person who purchases my work thinking it's yours has been defrauded and has a case, but I do not. I have not been defrauded at all. You did not fool me into giving you my work. You simply took it. I'm supposed to put a clause in the employee contract that says you cannot steal my property??? Really? That is beyond ridiculous. Furthermore your claim is that nothing at all has been stolen. So what wrong has the employee committed? He has not stolen anything by your logic since theft involves physical items. It was his thumb drive he put the data on. He legally had access to the building at the time. He took a huge sum of money from my competitor, but there's nothing illegal in him taking money from someone. So what? I'm supposed to say that they can't take any form of compensation from my competitors? Ok. So they don't give my employee any money. Instead they give his grandma a million dollars. I'm supposed to say in a contract that my employees family can't take any money from my competitors? Ok. So instead of that, they donate a million dollars to the Red Cross. My employee is philanthropic that way. I'm supposed to put it in my employees contract that competitors can't donate money to charities? Do you see how ridiculous this is. The average person doesn't care if someone else's work is stolen. Do you know anyone who pirate's music? Do you think less of them because they do so? Why would it make a difference if it's a company that does it instead of an individual. There's a guy right now who is suing Taco Bell claiming they stole his idea for Doritos Locos tacos. I have no idea if his law suit is legit or not. It probably isn't, but let's say that it was. Does anyone actually care? No. Yes people have the right to resell something they bought. Why wouldn't they? And what of the book I wrote. Now there's this guy selling it for less than what I'm selling it for without compensating me one single penny. He still has my name on the title page so he's not committing any fraud. I have no recourse at all?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on May 23, 2013 21:05:15 GMT -5
But I then go to my account to get my money and I can't get any because the teller transferred it to their account. The money has been stolen. The hacking would be digital breaking and entering. Taking a photo that has been posted on the internet is different then hacking into a computer to take something that hasn't been published in some form. The engineer should be fired. And the company should put a clause in the contract stating they cannot do such a thing. So the employer can then remedy that in court. If you want to make a widget because others like it are selling well then make one and improve upon it so it is better than the competitors. But it is fraud as you are fraudulently claiming ownership of someone else's work. Fraud can happen to someone other than the consumer. If you allow me to use your name on some products I'm selling and then I take your name and put it on something you didn't sign off on, I've committed fraud because I misrepresented my intentions. A company's image is a big deal. If they are constantly accused and proven to be using photos of someone else's work without compensating them the public will like them less. Their bottom line can suffer because of it. Does a person have the right to resell something they bought? If not then garage sales would be illegal since none of the money would go to those who made the things that were sold. WF's classifieds would have to be shut down. Amazon and ebay would suffer greatly. It is fraud, but if you steal my work and pass it off as yours I have no recourse. I have not been defrauded. The person who purchases my work thinking it's yours has been defrauded and has a case, but I do not. I have not been defrauded at all. You did not fool me into giving you my work. You simply took it. I'm supposed to put a clause in the employee contract that says you cannot steal my property??? Really? That is beyond ridiculous. Furthermore your claim is that nothing at all has been stolen. So what wrong has the employee committed? He has not stolen anything by your logic since theft involves physical items. It was his thumb drive he put the data on. He legally had access to the building at the time. He took a huge sum of money from my competitor, but there's nothing illegal in him taking money from someone. So what? I'm supposed to say that they can't take any form of compensation from my competitors? Ok. So they don't give my employee any money. Instead they give his grandma a million dollars. I'm supposed to say in a contract that my employees family can't take any money from my competitors? Ok. So instead of that, they donate a million dollars to the Red Cross. My employee is philanthropic that way. I'm supposed to put it in my employees contract that competitors can't donate money to charities? Do you see how ridiculous this is. The average person doesn't care if someone else's work is stolen. Do you know anyone who pirate's music? Do you think less of them because they do so? Why would it make a difference if it's a company that does it instead of an individual. There's a guy right now who is suing Taco Bell claiming they stole his idea for Doritos Locos tacos. I have no idea if his law suit is legit or not. It probably isn't, but let's say that it was. Does anyone actually care? No. Yes people have the right to resell something they bought. Why wouldn't they? And what of the book I wrote. Now there's this guy selling it for less than what I'm selling it for without compensating me one single penny. He still has my name on the title page so he's not committing any fraud. I have no recourse at all? If my using your image damages you (and I don't mean in a you could have gotten $5 from me for it way) then you'd have a case against me. If I took a picture you took of yourself and started using it without your permission to advertise an adult website I've hurt your image and reputation and you'd have a case against me for damages. The employer can have anything written in the contract (to an extent. You can't offer a contract to someone that says at anytime of their choosing they may assault you but they can have it written that you must wear red hats every Tuesday.) So you can put in that the employee may not sell it or give it away. Companies put no compete clauses in contracts, put one in that says they cannot give company information to anyone even their wife or neighbor even after they leave the company. It is ridiculous because that's not at all what I'm saying. You obviously cannot make someone take part in a contract they didn't sign. You have no way of forbidding a company from donating or giving money to someone. They didn't sign anything. Yes, I know people who pirate music. I know a lot of people who pirate music and then go out and buy the CDs of the musicians. There are many musicians I never would have come to love if I hadn't heard their music first, most of it comes from people taking the music and putting in on youtube without permission of the record label. If I hadn't heard it illegally (according to the record company) then I wouldn't have known they were good and would never have went out and bought their music. So there are times where taking someone's work benefits that person. Let's say the taco guy did think Dorito shelled tacos would be a good idea. He's not the first person to think of it. There is no way for him to prove he thought of it first. Maybe he sent them an idea for it, again doesn't matter because I highly doubt he was the first to ever bring it up. The garage sale example was in reference to the book. You are saying someone shouldn't be able to sell something without compensating the maker. Me buying a book from someone doesn't put a penny in the author's pocket. If I had just bought the book at the store then they'd get money but since I bought from someone who already bought it the author is losing out on that sale.
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on May 24, 2013 2:51:08 GMT -5
How can you claim to be 31 (and married, no less) and not understand the concept of license rights? If you had any sort of traditional wedding, with a professional photographer, you should have learned all about this then. When I got married we did have a photograhper and a seperate company shot the film for the movie. Neither company ever mentioned anything about us not owning the rights. Owning rights to something you sold sounds like nothing but greed to me. Should I call up wells fargo and Axe them if I own the rights to my home? I mean they did sell it to me so all these years I've been thinking I own my house but now it turns out I might own the actual house but I might not own the rights. Let's suppose I play along with this "rights" stupidity. And let's say I buy the rights. What is to keep them from later claiming I own the rights, but not the international rights? Or the right to reproduce the picture? Or the rights to delete the picture? Where does it stop? They just make crap up as they go. Reminds me of the other day. My Grandmother came to visit from Mexico. They gave her the run around at the airport. Why? Because she had an old Resident Alien card and now the old cards are no good. Why are they no longer good? When they issued those cards they had no expiration date on them. But now cause the government wants to give people the run around and wants more money from people, these old cards with no expiration date are expired. Just greed and wanting to put screws to people
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on May 24, 2013 4:47:22 GMT -5
yeah, you should AXE them a question.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 24, 2013 6:44:34 GMT -5
It is fraud, but if you steal my work and pass it off as yours I have no recourse. I have not been defrauded. The person who purchases my work thinking it's yours has been defrauded and has a case, but I do not. I have not been defrauded at all. You did not fool me into giving you my work. You simply took it. I'm supposed to put a clause in the employee contract that says you cannot steal my property??? Really? That is beyond ridiculous. Furthermore your claim is that nothing at all has been stolen. So what wrong has the employee committed? He has not stolen anything by your logic since theft involves physical items. It was his thumb drive he put the data on. He legally had access to the building at the time. He took a huge sum of money from my competitor, but there's nothing illegal in him taking money from someone. So what? I'm supposed to say that they can't take any form of compensation from my competitors? Ok. So they don't give my employee any money. Instead they give his grandma a million dollars. I'm supposed to say in a contract that my employees family can't take any money from my competitors? Ok. So instead of that, they donate a million dollars to the Red Cross. My employee is philanthropic that way. I'm supposed to put it in my employees contract that competitors can't donate money to charities? Do you see how ridiculous this is. The average person doesn't care if someone else's work is stolen. Do you know anyone who pirate's music? Do you think less of them because they do so? Why would it make a difference if it's a company that does it instead of an individual. There's a guy right now who is suing Taco Bell claiming they stole his idea for Doritos Locos tacos. I have no idea if his law suit is legit or not. It probably isn't, but let's say that it was. Does anyone actually care? No. Yes people have the right to resell something they bought. Why wouldn't they? And what of the book I wrote. Now there's this guy selling it for less than what I'm selling it for without compensating me one single penny. He still has my name on the title page so he's not committing any fraud. I have no recourse at all? If my using your image damages you (and I don't mean in a you could have gotten $5 from me for it way) then you'd have a case against me. If I took a picture you took of yourself and started using it without your permission to advertise an adult website I've hurt your image and reputation and you'd have a case against me for damages. The employer can have anything written in the contract (to an extent. You can't offer a contract to someone that says at anytime of their choosing they may assault you but they can have it written that you must wear red hats every Tuesday.) So you can put in that the employee may not sell it or give it away. Companies put no compete clauses in contracts, put one in that says they cannot give company information to anyone even their wife or neighbor even after they leave the company. It is ridiculous because that's not at all what I'm saying. You obviously cannot make someone take part in a contract they didn't sign. You have no way of forbidding a company from donating or giving money to someone. They didn't sign anything. Yes, I know people who pirate music. I know a lot of people who pirate music and then go out and buy the CDs of the musicians. There are many musicians I never would have come to love if I hadn't heard their music first, most of it comes from people taking the music and putting in on youtube without permission of the record label. If I hadn't heard it illegally (according to the record company) then I wouldn't have known they were good and would never have went out and bought their music. So there are times where taking someone's work benefits that person. Let's say the taco guy did think Dorito shelled tacos would be a good idea. He's not the first person to think of it. There is no way for him to prove he thought of it first. Maybe he sent them an idea for it, again doesn't matter because I highly doubt he was the first to ever bring it up. The garage sale example was in reference to the book. You are saying someone shouldn't be able to sell something without compensating the maker. Me buying a book from someone doesn't put a penny in the author's pocket. If I had just bought the book at the store then they'd get money but since I bought from someone who already bought it the author is losing out on that sale. So, as long as I don't damage your reputation it's ok if I profit from your work without compensating you at all? Coke is one of the most recognizable brands on the planet. So let's say I open a sandwich shop and put all over my marquee that this is the official sandwich shop of Coca-cola. They can't stop me from doing this? Being associating with a sandwich shop doesn't really damage their brand at all. So I can benefit from Coke's brand image without compensating them at all? That should be completely legal? I now have to put in my employee contract that you can't steal company property? Shall I also put in it that you can't spray paint the building or beat your co-worker with sticks? Or can we simply have common sense laws against such things? You missed my point. Do you care that your friends pirate music? Does it affect your opinion of them at all? Of course not. If it came out that WFigs stole their logo from someone else's site without compensating them would you stop coming here? Of course you wouldn't. The garage sale is a completely different example from mine because the author was compensated at some point. If you bought my book and then sold it again later on (even if you sold it for more than you paid for it) I was still compensated at the original purchase and you no longer have access to my work after selling it. I was compensated at one point even if it was way back up the food chain. Completely different from you getting a copy of my ebook and selling it a billion times. Even if you pay for it once that doesn't give you the right to sell it multiple times without compensating me does it? Why should you profit from my work without compensating me for it? Why?
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on May 24, 2013 12:24:13 GMT -5
yeah, you should AXE them a question. It always makes me laugh when I hear someone say Axe instead of ask. Or even better when they say something like Axeded or Likeded. OR the rare occasion when they add more ed's. Like I axedededed you. You Killedededed it dog.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on May 24, 2013 12:28:25 GMT -5
i suppose i should clarify my point. copyrights certainly have their place, and particularly in that last case with the ebook, a creator needs to have some protection of his property to ensure his ownership to his ideas. my real issue is how far we've allowed them to develop so that more often or not they are put in place to secure corporate cash cow's money pulls. a clear example of this occurred in 1976, in what was officially dubbed the Copyright Term Extension Act but most people just considered it the mickey mouse protection act. disney lobbied that year to push the years in which content becomes public domain to something of 100 years - to the point where the content isn't relevant in direct form to society or culture any more. so the issue with this is this: some people consider it "mickey mouse is disney's, no one else ever should have the right to infringe." i feel that these people are fine with the idea of buying what they see and putting it up in their house somewhere. but for many others, we want more. we want the ability to cut, copy, paste and mutilate any content or product sold because we don't just want to be consumers anymore - we want to interact with our culture on all forms, including our icons and our themes. another interesting example of how copyrights attempt to infringe the consumer's ability to interact with the media and world is with the current music state. radiohead made a lot of waves back in 2007 when they made their album available through online cost friendly prices. one radiohead fan was so supportive he took all the tracks from the cd, made a mashup version of them where he added his own effects, and put them all up on youtube. immediately capital records legally went after these tracks and threatened the fan of touching copyright material. do you know what radiohead did when they received this information? as THE MAKERS OF THE CONTENT, they still decided to release all the tracks in their individual take form so that people could take the tracks into their pc recording programs and make all new things with the original takes.they also made sure capital records relieved the fan of any legal ramifications or other complications. basically, radiohead told capital through actions that they can suck it and wouldn't allow their fans to be corporately silenced. it's a very, very important issue to our times as we enter this digital age. there's a documentary called "RIP: remix manifesto" that really gets into all this. the cool thing about it is the movie has been made in 100s of forms, as the original copy was intended to be bootlegged and that people can add what they want to the movie and release it online, making it 'their' version. i really suggest checking it out, it's available all over the internet still. But in both of your cases, should the content creator not have the ultimate say? Disney doesn't want you taking Minnie and using her to sell your new vibrator. To me they created the character they've got legit interests in protecting the image of said character. They should be able to go after someone who does that if they want to. Same with Radiohead. If they want fans to use their music for mashups, that's fine. That's their content at the end of the day. If they want to put the kibosh on that, that's their perogative too. at the end of the day i am all for copyright laws in some form protecting artists from having their work exploited and directly copied, but someone creating something inspired by your creation is simply the natural human creative process. everything is a rip off. why let crapty ass court lawyers and judges with no true understanding of art and it's purpose decide what merits copyright infringement or not? for example: in this scenario, i imagine you'd side with disney. it's a direct copy of the steamboat willie era mickie, despite what differences they make of the character's motives or traits. i, on the other hand, completely side with the artist on this.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 24, 2013 12:39:44 GMT -5
But in both of your cases, should the content creator not have the ultimate say? Disney doesn't want you taking Minnie and using her to sell your new vibrator. To me they created the character they've got legit interests in protecting the image of said character. They should be able to go after someone who does that if they want to. Same with Radiohead. If they want fans to use their music for mashups, that's fine. That's their content at the end of the day. If they want to put the kibosh on that, that's their perogative too. at the end of the day i am all for copyright laws in some form protecting artists from having their work exploited and directly copied, but someone creating something inspired by your creation is simply the natural human creative process. everything is a rip off. why let crapty ass court lawyers and judges with no true understanding of art and it's purpose decide what merits copyright infringement or not? for example: in this scenario, i imagine you'd side with disney. it's a direct copy of the steamboat willie era mickie, despite what differences they make of the character's motives or traits. i, on the other hand, completely side with the artist on this. I would side with Disney. They're clearly using a Disney trademark and using it in such a way that the brand is damaged. Mickey as a drug dealer could be very damaging to Disney since their reputation is based on being a family friendly company (whatever that means). So yeah, I'd side completely with Disney. It's one thing to be inspired by previous work, but another thing altogether to use intellectual property that someone already created for your own use without compensating them. Look at My Fair Lady. By your logic, even though George Bernard Shaw wrote Pygmalion, those who adapted his play into a musical shouldn't have to pay him or his estate any royalties. Or look at the latest run of superhero movies. Iron Man is a comic book hero. If we make a movie based on him can we do so without compensating Marvel? Or what if we just make a movie about a guy who builds a suit of armor so he can fight crime and we call him Steel Dude? Is that ok?
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on May 24, 2013 12:40:21 GMT -5
But in both of your cases, should the content creator not have the ultimate say? Disney doesn't want you taking Minnie and using her to sell your new vibrator. To me they created the character they've got legit interests in protecting the image of said character. They should be able to go after someone who does that if they want to. Same with Radiohead. If they want fans to use their music for mashups, that's fine. That's their content at the end of the day. If they want to put the kibosh on that, that's their perogative too. at the end of the day i am all for copyright laws in some form protecting artists from having their work exploited and directly copied, but someone creating something inspired by your creation is simply the natural human creative process. everything is a rip off. why let crapty ass court lawyers and judges with no true understanding of art and it's purpose decide what merits copyright infringement or not? for example: in this scenario, i imagine you'd side with disney. it's a direct copy of the steamboat willie era mickie, despite what differences they make of the character's motives or traits. i, on the other hand, completely side with the artist on this. So you think the girl making minimum wage at six flags taking pictures is an artist? I think copyright laws should apply to commercial propertys. And not to family pictures. It just makes me wonder now, if I go to the park and take some pictures, do I have to call the city and ask if I have the rights to publish those fotos on facebook. It's just non stop sillyness.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 24, 2013 12:51:09 GMT -5
at the end of the day i am all for copyright laws in some form protecting artists from having their work exploited and directly copied, but someone creating something inspired by your creation is simply the natural human creative process. everything is a rip off. why let crapty ass court lawyers and judges with no true understanding of art and it's purpose decide what merits copyright infringement or not? for example: in this scenario, i imagine you'd side with disney. it's a direct copy of the steamboat willie era mickie, despite what differences they make of the character's motives or traits. i, on the other hand, completely side with the artist on this. So you think the girl making minimum wage at six flags taking pictures is an artist? I think copyright laws should apply to commercial propertys. And not to family pictures. It just makes me wonder now, if I go to the park and take some pictures, do I have to call the city and ask if I have the rights to publish those fotos on facebook. It's just non stop sillyness. Why would Six Flags not have rights to pictures that they take of you? They took the picture using their equipment. Why should they not have the rights?
|
|