I think that moral has actually made it nearly impossible to see this correctly. The retroactive part of each copyright extension is a big problem. Forget for a second whether you agree or disagree with copyright. So there is this agreement that was made between the public and content creators, both have a stake and one day the agreement is change in favor of one party retroactively. How can anyone think this is fair? Now I understand you might subscribe to the believe that content creators should get to own their creations for ever thus any extension is fair in your eyes but thats moral and is probably cause you dont have a vested interest in copyright. If everytime house prices go up, whoever sold you the house comes and claims the added difference because house pricing apply retroactively would you see that as fair? no, no one would.
Also the idea that whoever is against copyright extension is so because they want to copy stuff for free isn't entirely accurate either. Copyright holds art hostage and as more art is created as long as it is copyrighted there is less possibility for other artists to create. I think we're already living in a world were it is next to impossible to create something new that doesn't infringes to a degree on someone else copyright or even worst patents. Luckly not everyone enforces their copyright because if they did I think there is a good chance art creation would stop. You might think I am exagerating maybe but seriously Think of a story plot line and then search around a bit and see how many times it was done before. Search for photo on a particular subject and see how many you find that are similar.
Copyright isnt just about creators getting paid, copyright is also about artists / public being able to create their own thing building, inspiring, imitating, deriving from previous works. This didnt come free we paid for this by offering a limited monopoly in exchange for this. As things are this limited monopoly is turning out to be a permanent monopoly disguised as a limited monopoly to make people accept it even if it makes not sense to them. Mike is right in that if this is actually a permanent monopoly there is really no point to it for the general public so might as well abolish it. if you remove copyright from the equation copying becomes lawful again and the artists loose in that they will have to figure out how to protect their works since they will not be able to threating people with the law. Copyright is in the best interest of both artists and the public but a one sided copyright agreement is pointless. Now obviously you cannot simply decide to opt out but I cant see how one can really not be outraged when an agreement is changed over and over again so that you're cheat on whats yours. Going back to the house analogy what if you buy a house for x amount but is not yours until you pay it in full, however year after year the price increases as such it becomes impossible to ever pay it in full with the end result you end up paying the seller all the time but never get actually anything in return. Would anyone not be outraged over this? This is exactly what continuously expanding copyright retro actively is doing. We're paying the price, the price keeps on increasing and the goods we bought with that price (art going in the public domain) is never delivered.
Some are trying to introduce copyright in the fashion world too, if that occurs this satirical example would actually come true!
Now its true that the fashion would add to the picture but is it fair that whoever designed the jacket gets a share of any profits a photographer does? and the shirt? and the tie? And the jewelry? and the design of the instrument? and the engineer of the light sources? should Maisel really pay a license to each of these people so that he can sell his photo?
I do not agree with you on a couple of points. 1. its true if you take a photo for your personal use it is unlikely anyone will come after you, however that doesn't mean you did not infringe. That to me is still scary!
As for the inspiration part, if inspiration makes you liable you honestly don't think that can get scary in the long run? If using a picture as an inspiration for a completely different type of artwork makes it derivative and not fair use, What about using a picture as inspiration for taking another picture. What about variations of it? If I take a picture of a public monument does that mean now nobody can take a picture of that monument as it can be considered derivative of my work? What about getting inspired by a certain type of composition would that infringe? What if someone doesnt really copy a certain composition but it ends up being similar to someone else's work?
What I am saying is if we try to be this strict we'll end up in a situation where every artist that does any work that becomes successful risks ending up being asked by other artists for licenses as some of his work might be similar to theirs and that is wrong!
Don't get me wrong I know there is a dark side on the opposite side of the spectrum, I am not arguing that someone should be able to just take a picture of a picture and sell that as his own. I don't know where to properly place the line but I believe as it is right now It is too strict.
For me the Pixel art is a total different work then the original picture, the art in the original picture involved the correct lighting, framing, posing and angle choices. The art in this Pixel art was choosing the right palette, composing in a way to still convey the same image with as few colours as possible, creating the detail that shading provides without using shading as well as changing shapes to still convey the same sense even if they're totally different. Its a completely different discipline.
Now let me ask you a question, if instead of copyright from the picture the artist might have come across it and then tried to replicate it in such a way that there would be a few slight differences but the overall feel would still be the same would that be infringing?
I think you're making a mistake, in that you're associating art with skill and that is not necessarily related. Take Van Gogh for example his artwork isnt that spectacular in the sense that complexity wise his paintings were pretty simple, something a mere kid could draw. what made his paintings spectacular is the technique and colours he used. The point of art is not to look good or be outstanding, what makes art, art is the emotion, message or sensory trigger it creates.
It is society in general that decides what is and what is not art by how it reacts to various works. A blog post with no intention of being artistic might be so moving as to create sadness in readers that act alone would make it art even if it was never intended as such.
At then end of the day there are so many people in the world with so many ideas that react to so many different stimuli that It is probably safe to assume everything is actually art!
Going back to the pixel art in question, some people are fascinated by such a simplistic representation of the original that conveys the same image with a fraction of the detail, that fascination create wonder which is an emotion ergo it is in fact art. I was personal fascinated by the pictures in the other article related to this where the pixilated art go progressively more pixelated ending in a few boxes of solid color, which makes that simple geometric display art! which technically was derived from the same original photo so does that mean that a few coloured boxes infringe on Maisel's copyright too? and if those coloured boxes do not infringe why does the original pixelated image, its just a more detailed view of that last image!
I really worry about how far copyright is stretching especially considering rights on derivative work. I am amazed how we're not in a situation where any art form is actually not possible to do legally anymore even though I am afraid we're actually getting there!. Proponents of copyright keep pushing for more and more rights. Now lets assume they succeed and since we're on subject lets take photography as an example.
Derivative work is art work which is based on other art work right? so lets take a simple photograph. In a simple typical photograph you will get:
Cloths, make up, jewelry, colours (different pigement in cloths, wall colours, car colours, etc..), vehicles, buildings, statues, adverts, shoes. lets just stop there, each of these has an element of design, each of these has an element of art contributed by one or more people.
Are we really going towards a world were to take a simple photograph while on holiday you have break the law by infringing on people's rights? Causes it seems to me this the reality that we're heading towards. (I know most the things I listed are currently not copyright-able but at least for some, the industry is pushing for them to become so)
I am not saying we should drop copyright completely but I do think it needs to be a lot more "forgiving" and allow other people to express themselves within certain limits.
Derivative works are a tricky subject but I do agree with those who say every work of art is derivative as I pointed out in my example of a simple photograph.
What you're saying is mostly accurate and true, however some systems do not bother to check if the owner of the certificate they recieve is legitimate (one would really hope no military system has this deficiency obviously). Some one also suggested that China can get fake certificates from a Chinese Trusted CA it can control which might also be possible however I would imagine Military systems have their own CAs and they trust them exclusively Public CA is not something I would use in a military environment.
Bottomline whats being suggested is possible but only if the implementation itself was flawed after all the whole idea of Certificates was to protect against a Man in the Middle attack.
On the military side its hubris to think they're safe cause all traffic is encrypted however. Encryption can be compromised in a number of ways... Brute force were encryption is meant to make it unfeasable to guess the correct key in a time window where the content you're decrypting still matters (while this will be good protection against individuals I would worry when big governments like china are involved I would think they have the resources to actually make successful bruteforce attacks). Weakness in the algorithm or actually managed to covertly acquire the private key itself. Encryption is just one security layer... the path it travels is another having one compromised is never good news.
I think there might have been a misunderstanding in my opinion, Cause what the paper suggests is not far fetched at all, on the contrarary to me is obvious. The Android Authentication system is as people said before a 3x3 square of dots and you can create a pattern and use it as a password. In most cases you can bet for convenience it will be a flowing pattern and if you just log in to check a message or something trivial you can bet the pattern will be clearly visible on the screen. Guess that pattern will in most cases require two guesses, either starting from left or from the right. Its the first thing I notice on the first day I used the phone. In fact I dont think of it as a security feature at ll but rather as a mechanism to help avoid the phone unlocking and initiating a phone call while its in my pocket more then to secure my information.
I think the problem here is not that people are afraid of some doctor doing brain surgery on them who would have studied brain surgery on wikipedia (obviously no one expects that to ever happen) I think its more like fear of free. I have seen it a lot especially in the gaming world. A lot of people have the misconception that since its free, it doesnt generate money and thus it cannot be of equal quality of something that charges money. And it would be fine if it ends there but it somehow turns into hostility towards the free offering as if the free offering is harming the world and we need to get rid of it or something. Its like some people want to hate free stuff and they're looking for any excuse to rationalize it.
Further more if its the profession that makes people good at their job and only people who are good at their job can do the job at all, isnt that a bit of a chicken and egg problem? no one is born into a profession. Surely everyone can see that! I think its really all fear of the free
I think its to be expected. Insurances use any excuse they can imagine to rise premiums and avoid claims. I personally believe there is some risk in the use of social networking if the user doesn't consider carefully what he is sharing. broadcasting your Location is one thing. Worst would be the habits one can infer from those locations. What about happily sharing how your spouse bought you this expensive ring or how you bought this expensive TV? I don't think a thief will sit down and watch you twitter when you're out to spring into action, but searching through twitter to find a target? I think its possible! I might even call it the modern day dumpster diving really!
I tend to disagree with classifying this as trivial. On the other hand its not the end of the world either. I do see this as a higher risk then an answering machine or a funeral announcement however. A robber who wanted to exploit this can get something out of this that he cannot get easily with any other method. Thats Trends. A program can easily monitor each person for patterns automatically and report by their geographical location as well.
However for me the point I hope pleaserobme conveys is how careless some people share information with the world. I am not saying sharing is a bad thing but I do think that such social networks have made some people too careless. I think many people think that what they're sharing will be seen by their closed friends only and not potentially anybody. I think that having people realize that the information they publish online can have consequence is a good thing for everyone.
Also I do not agree with that robbers do not have the knowhow to pull this off. Never underestimate the technical knowledge of anyone. It already happens, thats what scammers are all about.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Emmanuel Carabott.
loosing perspective
Also the idea that whoever is against copyright extension is so because they want to copy stuff for free isn't entirely accurate either. Copyright holds art hostage and as more art is created as long as it is copyrighted there is less possibility for other artists to create. I think we're already living in a world were it is next to impossible to create something new that doesn't infringes to a degree on someone else copyright or even worst patents. Luckly not everyone enforces their copyright because if they did I think there is a good chance art creation would stop. You might think I am exagerating maybe but seriously Think of a story plot line and then search around a bit and see how many times it was done before. Search for photo on a particular subject and see how many you find that are similar.
Copyright isnt just about creators getting paid, copyright is also about artists / public being able to create their own thing building, inspiring, imitating, deriving from previous works. This didnt come free we paid for this by offering a limited monopoly in exchange for this. As things are this limited monopoly is turning out to be a permanent monopoly disguised as a limited monopoly to make people accept it even if it makes not sense to them. Mike is right in that if this is actually a permanent monopoly there is really no point to it for the general public so might as well abolish it. if you remove copyright from the equation copying becomes lawful again and the artists loose in that they will have to figure out how to protect their works since they will not be able to threating people with the law. Copyright is in the best interest of both artists and the public but a one sided copyright agreement is pointless. Now obviously you cannot simply decide to opt out but I cant see how one can really not be outraged when an agreement is changed over and over again so that you're cheat on whats yours. Going back to the house analogy what if you buy a house for x amount but is not yours until you pay it in full, however year after year the price increases as such it becomes impossible to ever pay it in full with the end result you end up paying the seller all the time but never get actually anything in return. Would anyone not be outraged over this? This is exactly what continuously expanding copyright retro actively is doing. We're paying the price, the price keeps on increasing and the goods we bought with that price (art going in the public domain) is never delivered.
Re: I represent...
Now its true that the fashion would add to the picture but is it fair that whoever designed the jacket gets a share of any profits a photographer does? and the shirt? and the tie? And the jewelry? and the design of the instrument? and the engineer of the light sources? should Maisel really pay a license to each of these people so that he can sell his photo?
Re: Re: derivative work
As for the inspiration part, if inspiration makes you liable you honestly don't think that can get scary in the long run? If using a picture as an inspiration for a completely different type of artwork makes it derivative and not fair use, What about using a picture as inspiration for taking another picture. What about variations of it? If I take a picture of a public monument does that mean now nobody can take a picture of that monument as it can be considered derivative of my work? What about getting inspired by a certain type of composition would that infringe? What if someone doesnt really copy a certain composition but it ends up being similar to someone else's work?
What I am saying is if we try to be this strict we'll end up in a situation where every artist that does any work that becomes successful risks ending up being asked by other artists for licenses as some of his work might be similar to theirs and that is wrong!
Don't get me wrong I know there is a dark side on the opposite side of the spectrum, I am not arguing that someone should be able to just take a picture of a picture and sell that as his own. I don't know where to properly place the line but I believe as it is right now It is too strict.
For me the Pixel art is a total different work then the original picture, the art in the original picture involved the correct lighting, framing, posing and angle choices. The art in this Pixel art was choosing the right palette, composing in a way to still convey the same image with as few colours as possible, creating the detail that shading provides without using shading as well as changing shapes to still convey the same sense even if they're totally different. Its a completely different discipline.
Now let me ask you a question, if instead of copyright from the picture the artist might have come across it and then tried to replicate it in such a way that there would be a few slight differences but the overall feel would still be the same would that be infringing?
what is art
I think you're making a mistake, in that you're associating art with skill and that is not necessarily related. Take Van Gogh for example his artwork isnt that spectacular in the sense that complexity wise his paintings were pretty simple, something a mere kid could draw. what made his paintings spectacular is the technique and colours he used. The point of art is not to look good or be outstanding, what makes art, art is the emotion, message or sensory trigger it creates.
It is society in general that decides what is and what is not art by how it reacts to various works. A blog post with no intention of being artistic might be so moving as to create sadness in readers that act alone would make it art even if it was never intended as such.
At then end of the day there are so many people in the world with so many ideas that react to so many different stimuli that It is probably safe to assume everything is actually art!
Going back to the pixel art in question, some people are fascinated by such a simplistic representation of the original that conveys the same image with a fraction of the detail, that fascination create wonder which is an emotion ergo it is in fact art. I was personal fascinated by the pictures in the other article related to this where the pixilated art go progressively more pixelated ending in a few boxes of solid color, which makes that simple geometric display art! which technically was derived from the same original photo so does that mean that a few coloured boxes infringe on Maisel's copyright too? and if those coloured boxes do not infringe why does the original pixelated image, its just a more detailed view of that last image!
derivative work
Derivative work is art work which is based on other art work right? so lets take a simple photograph. In a simple typical photograph you will get:
Cloths, make up, jewelry, colours (different pigement in cloths, wall colours, car colours, etc..), vehicles, buildings, statues, adverts, shoes. lets just stop there, each of these has an element of design, each of these has an element of art contributed by one or more people.
Are we really going towards a world were to take a simple photograph while on holiday you have break the law by infringing on people's rights? Causes it seems to me this the reality that we're heading towards. (I know most the things I listed are currently not copyright-able but at least for some, the industry is pushing for them to become so)
I am not saying we should drop copyright completely but I do think it needs to be a lot more "forgiving" and allow other people to express themselves within certain limits.
Derivative works are a tricky subject but I do agree with those who say every work of art is derivative as I pointed out in my example of a simple photograph.
Re: Encryption overview
Bottomline whats being suggested is possible but only if the implementation itself was flawed after all the whole idea of Certificates was to protect against a Man in the Middle attack.
On the military side its hubris to think they're safe cause all traffic is encrypted however. Encryption can be compromised in a number of ways... Brute force were encryption is meant to make it unfeasable to guess the correct key in a time window where the content you're decrypting still matters (while this will be good protection against individuals I would worry when big governments like china are involved I would think they have the resources to actually make successful bruteforce attacks). Weakness in the algorithm or actually managed to covertly acquire the private key itself. Encryption is just one security layer... the path it travels is another having one compromised is never good news.
(untitled comment)
The real reason
Further more if its the profession that makes people good at their job and only people who are good at their job can do the job at all, isnt that a bit of a chicken and egg problem? no one is born into a profession. Surely everyone can see that! I think its really all fear of the free
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
However for me the point I hope pleaserobme conveys is how careless some people share information with the world. I am not saying sharing is a bad thing but I do think that such social networks have made some people too careless. I think many people think that what they're sharing will be seen by their closed friends only and not potentially anybody. I think that having people realize that the information they publish online can have consequence is a good thing for everyone.
Also I do not agree with that robbers do not have the knowhow to pull this off. Never underestimate the technical knowledge of anyone. It already happens, thats what scammers are all about.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Emmanuel Carabott.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt