[But the expression and ideas contained within the art are not property because they are non-exclusive and non-rivalrous.]
Yes, but I wasn't really talking about ideas or expression. Content can contain more than ideas and expression. The contents of my purse are not ideas or expressions, yet they are "contents" (hence my statement on being careful you define content).
[A digital image displayed on a website is not anyone's exclusive property.]
Says who? A digital image is created by someone - regardless of how. The ideas in it can be public even the methodology or expression can be "public domain", but the digital image still has a physical value (ie: money) if the image is one that is licensed or sold. So no, it is not belonging to the public or nobody because it's displayed digitally.
The actual "sight" of the image (ie: what you see with your own eye) is yours or anyone's or the public's. How you interpret the image is yours too, and in many cases, what you do with that (derivative work) is yours (or the public's if that's how you choose to see it).
I am all for creative commons and give away much free work, and I believe that copyright laws are rather flawed, and also don't believe that "stealing" and "copyright infringement" are the same, nor cause the same harm, though both can sometimes cause monetary loss...or not.
I do still believe the image is MINE - until copyright runs out, or I say otherwise (which usually comes long before copyright runs out). You can license it, or you can buy it, or you can probably even use it in your blog. You just can't claim you created it.
I wasn't in any way talking about the ideas or expressions contained in the image, but about the actual image itself. There is quite a distinction between the ideas expressed in an image, or the expression of something and "the actual image itself".
The difference is I can sell or license the image I created (that's mine). You cannot (nor can the public) sell or license the image I created...not without my permission.
I have a feeling we're talking about slightly different aspects of the art/image and not quite meeting up.
[If you can't argue your opinion successfullly, you are wrong.]
Not necessarily. Some people just aren't very good with debate, or with words.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion...opinions aren't really right or wrong.
People can agree or disagree about opinions, but since an opinion is personal who will be right? The one most people side with, or the one(s) who hold those opinions?
[In other words, from the chaos emerges order. And not an unnatural kind of order provided by head-in-the-sand policing and moderation. Assholes exist, both online and in real life. So what?]
Yes, that's true, though in real life I've seen comments by such degenerate into fist fights. At least online, you won't bruises.
I also think that every human being has the potential to be an ass, depending on the situation. Some just learn to control it better than others.
This isn't always true. A painting or artwork is considered property - it has a physical presence. If I create a painting and display it (whether on a website or in a gallery), it is still "mine" - and it is also content. The public does not own it, I do.
The images I display on my website of my artwork and photography are "mine" - the physical aspects of them. I can touch them, hold them in my hands, etc. They are not part of the public domain and the public doesn't own them just because I display them on my website as sample work.
You need to be careful how you define "content". Anything on a website can be considered content, including a digital representation of a real work.
Redistributing that sample image isn't likely to cause much in the way of harm if you sell physical works, but it still doesn't belong to the public, nor does it reside in the public domain just because you can see it on the website.
OMG...that's about the worst representation I've seen in terms of a professional's website. I'd hazard a guess that it's yahoo's website builder...since it proudly displays "hosted by yahoo" at the bottom.
C'mon...my website is hosted by yahoo, but I sure as heck wouldn't used their web builder.
"Ginsburg said he would not order TSA to immediately halt the full-body screening--which resulted in a near-revolt by air travelers last fall--but instead instructs "the agency promptly to proceed in a manner consistent with this opinion.
So what do we suppose is "proceed in a manner consistent with this opinion"? And will they decide themselves what manner that actually is?
Opinion isn't helpful without something to back it up, like an actual order to cease and desist using the damn things.
On the other hand, where does that leave travelers? With no option except the pat-down procedure?
[but instead focus on the importance of IP in the global economy and on your personal economy]
My "personal economy" ...well in that case, I'm happy to give away lots of stuff for free. I'm not sure I care that much about global economy in terms of art.
[you only can make your art if you are paid and IP rights are how that happens, etc]
Where did that come from? So very NOT TRUE.
I can (AND DO) make my art anywhere, anytime for any purpose, with or without pay.
Why should IP decide when and where I can make my art, or whether I can make it at all? It doesn't now, it hasn't in the past, and it sure as hell won't in the future.
Only I have the right to decide whether or not I make any art at all.
I am not actually "anti-copyright" or IP, I am however "anti-stupid". I believe in copyright to a point, I believe in creative processes, I believe in an artist being able to make money for their work...I just don't believe in the way copyright and IP current works...er, the way it doesn't work.
On the post: The Absurdity Of Comparing Copying To Stealing
Re: If Copying is Theft
My dad would have spent his entire life in jail if that were the case.
On the post: The Absurdity Of Comparing Copying To Stealing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but I wasn't really talking about ideas or expression. Content can contain more than ideas and expression. The contents of my purse are not ideas or expressions, yet they are "contents" (hence my statement on being careful you define content).
[A digital image displayed on a website is not anyone's exclusive property.]
Says who? A digital image is created by someone - regardless of how. The ideas in it can be public even the methodology or expression can be "public domain", but the digital image still has a physical value (ie: money) if the image is one that is licensed or sold. So no, it is not belonging to the public or nobody because it's displayed digitally.
The actual "sight" of the image (ie: what you see with your own eye) is yours or anyone's or the public's. How you interpret the image is yours too, and in many cases, what you do with that (derivative work) is yours (or the public's if that's how you choose to see it).
I am all for creative commons and give away much free work, and I believe that copyright laws are rather flawed, and also don't believe that "stealing" and "copyright infringement" are the same, nor cause the same harm, though both can sometimes cause monetary loss...or not.
I do still believe the image is MINE - until copyright runs out, or I say otherwise (which usually comes long before copyright runs out). You can license it, or you can buy it, or you can probably even use it in your blog. You just can't claim you created it.
I wasn't in any way talking about the ideas or expressions contained in the image, but about the actual image itself. There is quite a distinction between the ideas expressed in an image, or the expression of something and "the actual image itself".
The difference is I can sell or license the image I created (that's mine). You cannot (nor can the public) sell or license the image I created...not without my permission.
I have a feeling we're talking about slightly different aspects of the art/image and not quite meeting up.
On the post: If Your Comment Section Is Awesome, It's Your Community's Fault
Re:
Not necessarily. Some people just aren't very good with debate, or with words.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion...opinions aren't really right or wrong.
People can agree or disagree about opinions, but since an opinion is personal who will be right? The one most people side with, or the one(s) who hold those opinions?
On the post: If Your Comment Section Is Awesome, It's Your Community's Fault
Yes, that's true, though in real life I've seen comments by such degenerate into fist fights. At least online, you won't bruises.
I also think that every human being has the potential to be an ass, depending on the situation. Some just learn to control it better than others.
On the post: The Absurdity Of Comparing Copying To Stealing
Re: Re:
This isn't always true. A painting or artwork is considered property - it has a physical presence. If I create a painting and display it (whether on a website or in a gallery), it is still "mine" - and it is also content. The public does not own it, I do.
The images I display on my website of my artwork and photography are "mine" - the physical aspects of them. I can touch them, hold them in my hands, etc. They are not part of the public domain and the public doesn't own them just because I display them on my website as sample work.
You need to be careful how you define "content". Anything on a website can be considered content, including a digital representation of a real work.
Redistributing that sample image isn't likely to cause much in the way of harm if you sell physical works, but it still doesn't belong to the public, nor does it reside in the public domain just because you can see it on the website.
On the post: Kim Kardashian Sues Old Navy For Hiring Actress Who Looks Like Her
Re:
However, I did give up the lazies for once, and googled her.
She's nobody I have any interest in and I apparently haven't ever even heard of her "reality" shows.
I can't really see why this case even exists. She's afraid of what? That someone else looks like her and is getting paid as an actress?
On the post: TSA Agrees To Take The Naked Out Of Naked Scanners
Re:
On the post: Lawyer Trying To Trademark Bitcoin Threatens Techdirt With Bogus DMCA Takedown
Re: Re: Grammar nazi
On the post: Lawyer Trying To Trademark Bitcoin Threatens Techdirt With Bogus DMCA Takedown
Re:
C'mon...my website is hosted by yahoo, but I sure as heck wouldn't used their web builder.
On the post: Belgian Newspapers 'Give Permission' To Google To Return Them To Search Results
Re: Re: Re: Re: Are the papers giving back the settlement?
On the post: Court Refuses To Issue Injunction Stopping Secret Web Spycams From Running On Rental Laptops
Re: cover the camera
If I had to rent one, I'd be finding the webcam and taping over it too...before I even plugged it in or turned it on.
On the post: TSA Agents Continue To Lie And Say You Can't Photograph Or Videotape Checkpoints
Re: TSA must stop using scaners!
So what do we suppose is "proceed in a manner consistent with this opinion"? And will they decide themselves what manner that actually is?
Opinion isn't helpful without something to back it up, like an actual order to cease and desist using the damn things.
On the other hand, where does that leave travelers? With no option except the pat-down procedure?
On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
My "personal economy" ...well in that case, I'm happy to give away lots of stuff for free. I'm not sure I care that much about global economy in terms of art.
[you only can make your art if you are paid and IP rights are how that happens, etc]
Where did that come from? So very NOT TRUE.
I can (AND DO) make my art anywhere, anytime for any purpose, with or without pay.
Why should IP decide when and where I can make my art, or whether I can make it at all? It doesn't now, it hasn't in the past, and it sure as hell won't in the future.
Only I have the right to decide whether or not I make any art at all.
I am not actually "anti-copyright" or IP, I am however "anti-stupid". I believe in copyright to a point, I believe in creative processes, I believe in an artist being able to make money for their work...I just don't believe in the way copyright and IP current works...er, the way it doesn't work.
Am I a freetard...no and yes. You figure it out.
Goodnight "Burns Auto Parts".
On the post: Company Trademarks Name Of Town, Sues Firm For Selling Souvenirs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the way it should be
On the post: Vancouver Rioters Trying To Abuse Copyright To Avoid Being Identified, Which Only Helps Identify Them
On the post: We Need To Let Go Of The Idea That Our Creations Are Utterly Ours
My husband and I created two kids...can I copyright them?
On the post: Get Accused Of Copyright Infringement Under New Five Strikes Plan? It'll Cost You To Challenge
...only because where the US treads, Canada is sure to follow (eventually).
Anybody can make an accusation without proof, and the accusee has to pay for that privilege too?
Nah. No thanks. We don't want any.
On the post: RIAA Accounting: How To Sell 1 Million Albums And Still Owe $500,000
Re: Re: Re:
Wow, that is so wrong. I suggest you take a historical stroll through the past and discover what they had to go through, even way back when.
Holy cow.
On the post: We Need To Let Go Of The Idea That Our Creations Are Utterly Ours
Re:
Next >>