Why Plagiarism is Wrong

[AuntShecky]

It's theft.

If someone deliberately takes another's intellectual property and attempts to present it as his own work, that's plagiarism. We all know that. We also know that lifting complete essays or theses or purchasing a "college paper" online and passing it in for credit can get you booted out of school or worse.

We might have read or heard about unwitting parents getting slapped with huge multi-thousand dollar fines because their children had illegally downloaded music files and "shared" them online. Stealing another's creative work in written form is the same thing.

One can be guilty of plagiarism when "quoting" another's work without attribution. That's never okay.

Even if you do identify the original source, if you might be stepping into dangerous ground if you just "quote" it without commenting upon it. There are specific instances in which we can quote someone else's work, but in these cases we have to follow the rules of "fair use." That means we are using just a portion of the original work for a critical review, a scholarly paper, or the like. You can't just quote Bob Dylan's lyrics just because you "feel" like it.

Elsewhere on these forums a member stated that he (or she) believed that not being able to quote another's work infringed on one's "free speech." The countries which hold personal liberties sacred (such as the one in which I proudly reside) allows self-expression with very few limits (such as the famous admonition against a false shout of "fire!" in a crowded theatre.) For the most part, I can say or write anything I damned well please, as long as I am willing to take responsibility for what I say and that the words I use are my own.

Free societies which make a point of civil liberties aren't all one-sided. Other citizens have rights as well, among them the right not to have their intellectual property stolen out from under them.

The aforementioned LitNutter who thought his free speech rights were compromised mentioned that the copyright laws were designed mainly to protect monetary interests, the rationale, I suppose, being that extremely wealthy artists and performers wouldn't miss a few cents in royalty payments here and there. Imagine if every fan thought this way and acted accordingly -- we're talking about a substantial hit. And that's not just to the
victim-- just like the illegal downloaders, the plagiarist himself can be held liable for hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in fines and damages.

There's an old joke that goes "Whenever anyone says 'It's not the money, it's the principle,' it's really the money." In the case of stealing another's creative work, it is the principle, though.


Let me give you a case in point, one that is close to home.

A little over two years ago there was a crisis on the Literature Network Forum. A person maintaining another website had systematically lifted numerous original poems written by LitNet members and posted them without any form of attribution on his or her own website. One of our members discovered this by chance, when she saw the queue of poems on that site, all allegedly written by screen name "Personal Poetry." The alert LitNutter noticed that these were the same titles --and complete poems--that had originally appeared on the LitNet. Those of us whose poems had been stolen were horrified; one LitNet member said that she felt "violated." Another LitNet member graciously, painstaking, and tirelessly worked to have the stolen works taken down.

So you can see the damage that plagiarism can do when not even one cent changes hands. If someone lifted your work and posted it elsewhere without giving you credit, how would you feel?

Realistically speaking, nobody is going to object if you sing a hit song in the shower or rock along with the car radio. There is a difference between private and public use. When you post something on a website, such as this one, it automatically becomes public, no matter how many users log on. When you register as a member of the Literature Network Forum that means that you agree to follow the rules, such as this one-- which I'm quoting fairly!--

"5. If you are going to refer to or use content from other sites, authors, or entities, you must include a link or citation for it. You cannot copy and paste entire articles, stories, poems, or etc. from other sites or entities as that is copyright infringement, and contributes nothing to discussion. You should not need more than a few lines, sentences, or maybe a paragraph, to make your point in reference to the topic/discussion. From Copyright.gov ; “Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports.” Passing off others’ work as your own, whether unintentionally or purposefully, is copyright infringement, and the Literature Network abides by the Copyright Laws of the United States of America and of other countries where applicable."

I hope I haven't offended anyone or insulted anyone's intelligence by bringing up this topic, but there are occasions when I think I should try to step up to the plate offering what little I can to do the right thing. In addition to the LitNet anecdote mentioned above, I've lived long enough to have experienced how heartbreaking it was when, after spending time, effort, and hope in the attempt to have my work accepted, it had been taken out from under me. So please read and heed:

Plagiarism is always wrong. It's not only good manners, it's the law.

[Delta40]

I remember that crisis. It was appalling to see my poems posted on another website, as if somebody else had written them.

What about pictures Aunty? I mean I copy and paste pics on this site (my avatar for e.g) Would you consider that the theft of intellectual property too?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I stole my yin-yang avatar from someone who probably stole it from someone else who probably stole it from someone else who probably stole it from someone else. . . . . . . . .

[JBI]

meh, people clip my responses from this forum and paste them into their essays. I've heard my ideas spoken in front of me in classes before, and I am sure they got them from me (they made similar mistakes, that I came to identify after), yet nobody is standing up for me. Where is the line?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

meh, people clip my responses from this forum and paste them into their essays. I've heard my ideas spoken in front of me in classes before, and I am sure they got them from me (they made similar mistakes, that I came to identify after), yet nobody is standing up for me. Where is the line?
Wow, really, JBI? In some weird way, that's gotta kind of make you proud, no? It would me. It would also piss me off quite a bit. I wouldn't let it go. I'd go to the professor.

[Maryd.]

I don't upload personal poetry on line; anywhere, anymore, for that same reason. Unless of course it is a co-write, with a fellow forum member.

[BienvenuJDC]

I'm still upset that Shakespeare stole some of my ideas so many years ago. And he got away with it just because they didn't have a copyright on them...

[Maryd.]

Yes... Well one can never top Romeo and Juliet, no matter how many rewrites or remakes of films, plays or stage performances!!

[JBI]

Wow, really, JBI? In some weird way, that's gotta kind of make you proud, no? It would me. It would also piss me off quite a bit. I wouldn't let it go. I'd go to the professor.

Well, one can only catch it during presentation, and I instead just ask incredibly difficult and awkward questions that stumble them, and pick apart the entire argument. That is good enough revenge.

As for ego, well, I put my ideas out there, of course, but that doesn't mean my name should not be acknowledged. I don't mind others knowing what I think, but to shamelessly steal it is just annoying.

[AuntShecky]

I remember that crisis. It was appalling to see my poems posted on another website, as if somebody else had written them.

What about pictures Aunty? I mean I copy and paste pics on this site (my avatar for e.g) Would you consider that the theft of intellectual property too?

Oh, Delta, I may be the wrong person to ask about photos. I don't even know how to deal with that sort of files (JPEG and the like) on "Pong 2.0" (our PC.) That's why my profile page here on the LitNet is so boringly blank.

As a rule of thumb it's best to assume that most
photos are the property of the original photographer, and that they are most likely copyrighted.

There are, to my admittedly limited knowledge, numerous websites offering free photos, that is, those which are in the public domain. As ever, use caution if you download anything without first ascertaining as well as you can whether the site is "safe," w/o spyware and adware.

Auntie

[Themis]

I remember that crisis. It was appalling to see my poems posted on another website, as if somebody else had written them.

What about pictures Aunty? I mean I copy and paste pics on this site (my avatar for e.g) Would you consider that the theft of intellectual property too?

It depends whether the picture in question is in the public domain or not. If it is in the public domain, you're free to use it. If it isn't and the creator of the picture doesn't allow other people to use it (either for non-commercial or even commercial use), using it is - as far as I know - a copyright infringment.

[AuntShecky]

It depends whether the picture in question is in the public domain or not. If it is in the public domain, you're free to use it. If it isn't and the creator of the picture doesn't allow other people to use it (either for non-commercial or even commercial use), using it is - as far as I know - a copyright infringment.

That's just what I said in the reply just before yours.

[Paulclem]

In the UK the way that the standard English language exam for 16 year olds has been changed. The kids - and anyone else taking the exam - are required to write their former coursework in controlled conditions in school. They no longer do it at home.

This is harder for them, but ultimately much better, because they will have no opportunity to plagiarise work culled from the internet.

A few years ago I had a student who was writing about the Morlocks from The Time Machine. Not only had he not read the book, he didn't have any idea what the story was about. I googled his essay text and it took me to a graphic novel site where he had just copied and pasted the text into his excuse for an essay.

With the new system it means that this can't happen and that the kids actually have to work at their writing. It's got to be better.

[Alexander III]

I completely agre with you about the immorality of plagiarism of art, but then again it should be noted that Shakespeare was a huge plagiarist; and I also completely agree with the maxim of T.S Elliot - "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal"

On a relative side note, here is an article about great men who plagiarized, if anything it is interesting to look at: http://www.cracked.com/article_17198_5-great-men-who-built-their-careers-plagiarism_p2.html

[Delta40]

I think we need to be prepared that what is posted on the net is subject to uses the OP never dreamed of. If we treasure our own work and are concerned that somebody will cut and paste and use it for their own purposes, then don't put it out there for somebody else to use.

Plagiarism also reminds me of the issue of privacy. This is the World Wide Web for God's sake! Release it to the public at your own risk!

[stlukesguild]

Nice thoughts Auntie... but I'm afraid your concept of intellectual property rights is something from a couple centuries ago that is rapidly coming to an end. All you are doing is acting (unwittingly?) in support of greedy corporations that have been overcharging for their products for years.

Certainly you are aware of this well known poem:

APRIL is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
Winter kept us warm, covering 5
Earth in forgetful snow, feeding
A little life with dried tubers.
Summer surprised us, coming over the Starnbergersee
With a shower of rain; we stopped in the colonnade,
And went on in sunlight, into the Hofgarten, 10
And drank coffee, and talked for an hour.
Bin gar keine Russin, stamm' aus Litauen, echt deutsch.
And when we were children, staying at the archduke's,
My cousin's, he took me out on a sled,
And I was frightened. He said, Marie, 15
Marie, hold on tight. And down we went.
In the mountains, there you feel free.
I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.

What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow
Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man, 20
You cannot say, or guess, for you know only
A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,
And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
And the dry stone no sound of water. Only
There is shadow under this red rock, 25
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust. 30
Frisch weht der Wind
Der Heimat zu.
Mein Irisch Kind,
Wo weilest du?

T.S. Eliot employed a wide array of fragments "stolen" from others. The most obvious here being the final 4 lines in German, taken from Richard Wagner's opera, Tristan und Isolde. No one would think to accuse Eliot of plagiarism... unless he were to have written The Wasteland today. Corporations, sensing their eminent loss of income from outdated laws are desperately attempting to enforce these laws in almost Draconian manner.

One of the most important artistic developments of the 20th century was that of collage/montage. New... "original" works of art were created from fragments of pre-existing works:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3457/5697200020_8101062ba0.jpg

Picasso employed fragments of imagery taken from newspapers, wallpapers, magazines, etc... While there are rarely any figurative "images" the texts and wallpaper designs were certainly protected under copyright law and Picasso's intention was to blur the gap between art and "reality".

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3143/5696623919_ca2177f0ab.jpg

Artists such as George Grosz employed imagery from newspapers and magazines in political art... again using imagery from pre-existing sources.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3282/5697200526_1df1fb6c52.jpg

The Surrealists, such as Max Ernst, employed pre-existing imagery as a palette from which to pick and choose at random.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3457/5697200572_efaf2d5719.jpg

Joseph Cornell, one of the most original and influential of American Modernists "recontextualized" images and objects... placing them in a new context to change their meaning.]

Nearly all of these examples would be considered "illegal" today in some camps.

Collage and Montage really took off in the late 1950s and 1960s as Pop Artists began to employ imagery taken from popular culture as a means of commenting upon popular culture. Imagery was "taken" from advertising, pin ups, film and television, popular music, pornography, etc...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2787/5697202968_1860258882.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2165/5696624913_bc50f2264f.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3128/5696625243_b6b7120b91_z.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2038/5696624823_f77f2913f8_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2548/5697202150_a7041b24e0.jpg

The most well-known example of art based upon "appropriation" (to use the art critical terminology) most certainly was Andy Warhol who created icons of our modern consumer culture from soup cans and film stars:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5145/5697201236_381daf7f38_z.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2144/5697201150_176a1ed3f2.jpg

The most comic irony of your argument that such laws aren't all about the money is underscored by the instance of Warhol himself. Warhol never asked to use the copyright protected images he employed in his paintings. It was understood that by changing the imagery he was engaging in a form of criticism (placing the work under "fair use" law)... beside which... nobody really cared about an artist hijacking intellectual "property" from huge corporations. Yet late in his career Warhol created these:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5105/5697201974_a5ff1b7cf6_z.jpg

When years later the Campbell's Soup Company decided to release a limited edition of cans inspired by Warhol's work, they had to pay a pretty penny for the use of imagery stolen from them by Warhol:

esguild1, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5027/5696625283_d7305c1c2c.jpg

As we moved into the 1990s and beyond there has been a development of an outsider movement in the arts known as Pop Surrealism. The Pop Surrealists reject most of the esoteric developments of high art of the last 50 years, and instead embrace both high art and popular culture... blurring the line between the two. Their art employs imagery taken from comic books, cartoons, anime, pornography, television, art history, etc...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3595/5697202240_9cce3b7972_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5229/5697202322_4bf6f87e66_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3520/5696626229_ccd106e18a.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3107/5697202478_d2f75e54e9.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2739/5697202344_8d32f63d1d.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3267/5696627041_59ecbaee5f_b.jpg

The problem with the intellectual property rights laws is that they have no clearly defined boundaries with regard to art work employing "appropriations" in the creation of something that is truly "new". The laws clearly favor whoever has the "deepest pockets". Perhaps one of the most famous recent infringement cases concerned the artist, Shepard Farie's famous Obama "Hope" poster:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5268/5696866219_565eb3b632_b.jpg

Under "fair use" laws imagery employed for critical purposes or a political commentary is exempt from copyright. This is what allows MAD Magazine or Saturday Night Live to parody characters from film and television. Fairie clearly employed this photograph from the Associated Press:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2475/5697441734_b5fc7af5e2.jpg

In theory, the poster should have been exempt from accusations of copyright infringement as political commentary. The artist did not even make any money off the work, having donated his efforts. AP, however, has deep enough pockets and smelled money to be made from subsequent sales of the poster.

To further emphasize that its all about the money, we might look at Damien Hirst. Hirst is one of the wealthiest artists currently at work... one of the bad boys of art. A site here shows all the art that Hirst "stole" from others:

http://www.stuckism.com/Hirst/StoleArt.html

Pathetically, a couple of years ago a 16-year old boy started creating collages using images from Hirst which were essentially critical comments or Parodies of Hirst. He sold some of these on E-Bay for $50 a pop. Hirst slapped the boy with a "Cease and Desist" suit and a lawsuit seeking millions in compensation for damage to his reputation. Hirst could be such a blatast a$$ because he has the money to enforce his view of copyright law... even if he is wrong.

Few writers or musicians make any real money off the sale of records or commercial downloads. A good many support putting their work on line for all to have free access because the recognize that this is a form of free advertisement that will pay off for musicians in increased audiences and also lead to increased sales for most lesser-known writers. The reality is that copyright law as it is currently employed is meant only to defend the gross profits of a few superstars (actors, directors, musicians, authors) and more importantly, the corporate middlemen. When one considers that actual cost of production of a CD or a book... even including the artist's share... one cannot help but recognize the price gouging that has been going on for years.

As technology evolves it becomes ever increasingly difficult... if not downright impossible for corporations to enforce copyright laws based on an outdated reality. We've all heard or read of the Draconian attempts at copyright protection. There's the instance of the British equivalent of ASCAP or BMI attempting to charge an elderly woman for whistling show tunes while she worked (thus entertaining others illegally?). There was the artist Richard Serra who insisted that any change in the context of his sculpture amounted to a change in the work itself... thus he felt he should have the right to deny construction of new building in NYC near his public sculpture. Then there are the architects who believe that they should own the sole rights to the representation of their buildings... thus no snapshots posed in front of this or that building while touring New York or Paris. The internet itself would virtually cease to function if we were to strictly adhere to copyright law.

Pictures, by the way, are certainly included in copyright law... but there are certain stipulations. The Supreme Court ruled that a reproduction that seeks to reproduce as accurately as possible an original work of art (a painting, sculpture, photograph, etc...) cannot be afforded copyright protection because it lacks any real attempt at originality. If the photographer were to employ a dramatic angle, or lighting, or pose their spouse before the Mona Lisa, such an image would indeed be open to copyright protection, but not otherwise. The original image, however, may still be under copyright protection even if the reproduction photograph were not. Then one must consider how the image is used and "fair use" law.

[Delta40]

Wow! You said everything my brain could not possibly say when it comes to pictures! Thanks so much. I notice on american shows, models, brand and logo names are often blurred in the footage and I can only assume it is because of the strong arm of copyright infringement laws in the US. If somebody don's a Coke adds life t-shirt during a take of Neighbours, nobody gets antsy about it. It's advertising, not plagiarising.

[billl]

The problem with the intellectual property rights laws is that they have no clearly defined boundaries with regard to art work employing "appropriations" in the creation of something that is truly "new". The laws clearly favor whoever has the "deepest pockets". Perhaps one of the most famous recent infringement cases concerned the artist, Shepard Farie's famous Obama "Hope" poster:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5268/5696866219_565eb3b632_b.jpg

Under "fair use" laws imagery employed for critical purposes or a political commentary is exempt from copyright. This is what allows MAD Magazine or Saturday Night Live to parody characters from film and television. Fairie clearly employed this photograph from the Associated Press:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2475/5697441734_b5fc7af5e2.jpg

In theory, the poster should have been exempt from accusations of copyright infringement as political commentary. The artist did not even make any money off the work, having donated his efforts. AP, however, has deep enough pockets and smelled money to be made from subsequent sales of the poster.


Corporations Have Screwed Us, but the Baby deserves clean Bathwater, etc.
There certainly are problems with copyright laws, but it doesn't mean that they should be abandoned. Some people might have trouble imagining a world in which copyright protection could continue and usefully be enforced, but it's basically a matter of how the technology is set up. It should be possible to keep it as well-enforced as it was back in the days of cassette tapes (ie., not a 100% successful enforcement, but a lot better than a simple ***-to-the-sky 100% surrender to those who are selling hard-drives, search engine ads, bandwidth, and all of the other things we use to enjoy and perhaps even "stockpile" images, music, software, text, and other digitizable forms of human creativity). There will be problems (people will be passing flash-drives to friends), but they could be limited--wide-scale sharing of copyrighted material over networks need not be ignored, neither by law, nor by technological design, and this is a precedent that is currently being set (prosecution of offenders, approved app environments like the ipad).

Is Shepard Fairey An A-Hole?
Regarding Shepard Fairey, I don't see any reason at all that the AP photographer (or, as his contract would stipulate, I assume, the AP itself) shouldn't get 50% of whatever cash or "attention" that Obama print has gotten. I think it would probably count as an effective method for Fairey to get his name out there (I certainly had never heard of him before...)--he can expect money from increased sales and attendance in regard to his other works.

Is it OK to make this self-promotion something that AP has no recourse to receive payment for? If they should get something, how much? If nothing (since he made it freely available), well that's just a nice loophole for Fairey or whatever. SOMETHING could be arranged, though, and with more cases, maybe it will become easier to get more consistent rulings. Perhaps attention will become sufficient to bring about new and carefully debated, specific legislation, etc. Not that it would become *completely* nailed down, but that isn't the only way to judge the usefulness of an effort. (And yes, a particularly important part of the effort would be directed at the ridiculous legislation that media corporations have promoted and brought about.)

Anyhow, at the very least, shouldn't the the photographer or AP get credit for providing the image that was "appropriated"? Because Fairey wasn't interested in that. He denied using any existing photo, and eventually admitted to destroying evidence, trying to hide the fact that he had used the AP photo (which led to his lawyers abandoning him). He's the perfect poster boy for the (sometimes) dishonest, intellectually confused, and overblown attitude of (some of) these "posterboys". Frankly, I was impressed by his appearances in that recent Banksy movie (it isn't easy doing all of that graffiti, and the "journey" was interesting on film, at least), but the guy has some problems, as well.

Here's an examination of some of his art that is pretty interesting, and I strongly recommend it if you want to see how "appropriation" figures in his art; his attitude towards the artists from whom he appropriates; and what this situation likely results in vis-a-vis his audience's experience and understanding of his "creativity":
http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm

Precedents
Technology is making it easy to duplicate stuff. Our lives are becoming increasingly digitized. 3-D printers exist, and will be increasingly found in homes. Robots will be doing more and more for us. Can't we at least expect our human creativity to have importance and value, as we move forward? Or must we just sacrifice the rather nice idea that an "idea" can have value. Patent and copyright laws certainly need to be modified (just look at what Disney has done), but they provide a bulwark against a culture that might increasingly value appropriation, in a technological landscape that would be more than happy to accommodate such trends. Of course artists and inventors have been "stealing" from each other forever--is creativity always a case of mixing and matching, perhaps? Um, actually, probably--at least on some level? But the point is that useful lines can be drawn, and certain practices simply seem logical (e.g. you re-color a photo, you don't pretend there was never a photo.).

Which People Are In The Driver's Seat? And Do The Passengers Get Airbags?
Yes, back to Fairey, and his media-spotlight jackpot. Clearly, by making the Obama print free, he manages to get more attention, and financially wins in the end (at the gallery). It's a nice trick, and, similarly, the internet makes it easy for musicians to get more people at their concerts, etc. For novelists, the news isn't so good, however. And, really, if it is such a good tactic, why not let the artist choose to use it, instead of forcing them to (i.e., because we've decided to take a back seat to technological imperatives-- those things that the tech gurus and technology corporations can most efficiently do "for us" at the moment, and the easiest stuff that comes next, etc.)?

Let the musicians stream their work (if they want people to hear it before buying, or attending a show), and don't let people put the mp3's out there on massively-shared torrents with assured impunity. Unless the musician wants it out there like that. Let the author provide the first 5 chapters for free, or whatever. Let the artist choose the resolution that might be freely available. Give the programmer some protection against those people widely sharing registration numbers, etc. People will find a way to record streamed music (or, of course, get full-quality copies from a friend's flash drive). The "solution" won't be perfect. It hasn't been perfect as long as I've been around.

EDIT: It turns out that Shepard Fairey had claimed to have used a *different* photo as the basis for his Obama print, but claims to have gotten things mixed up. THEN, after realizing that AP was right about the matter, he went on to destroy evidence of using the AP photo--an effort to conceal the truth that was discovered, and to which he admitted guilt.

[Revolte]

I'm anti-copyright. It is NOT theft any more then speaking the same language as some one else, only it's written down. To say your ideas are only yours and could not be the same ideas as someone else is repulsive. You have words yes? You make a sentence with those words, throw in some fun punctuation and all of a sudden it's yours to own, and for no one to ever write themselves? I think not.

We need to get our heads on our shoulders and out of our poop shoot. Our writings are not godly, we are not literary masterpieces created for the soul purpose of making money off of our efforts and limiting others to do the very same.

First and foremost, if you write a novel with expectation of monetary gain for it, then morality was lost a long time ago (but morals are different form person to person and serve NO credible purpose in debate).

Second, there is nothing wrong with being proud of your work, but having to show it off, is pointless. If anything you should be flattered, but I hate to say it, the lot of us won't be remembered 50 years after our children (if we have any) die and striving to reach that goal is way too egotistical to take seriously. Write for yourself, do it because you love it, if you have to have legal document proving that you did it and no one else did and never can. Maybe you are a bit full of yourself.

Theft? HA! The real theft is taking away the rights of others to use words in the same sentence.

And copyrighting anything other then writing isn't even worth debating, it's just that moronic. I will draw what I like thank you and I will show it where I like, I don't care if someone else did it first, it was still the first time for me, that makes it brand new in my world. And the chances of it being a perfect match are too damn small.

[AuntShecky]

StLuke'sGuild: Thank you for your time and technical expertise for pasting those artworks. You are of course absolutely right in the fact that modern art, from Dadaism onward, borrowed and quoted from (that health insurance word!) "pre-existing" works. This is a prominent characteristic of "postmodern" literature And yes, we know that "The Waste Land"(as early as 1919) is rife with fragments of quotations and allusions.

One thing you didn't mention concerned American jazz. (Remember the famous line from that well-known critic, Bart Simpson?)* During solos, musicians' improvisation often include melodic lines and chords from pre-existing
standard songs, a practice which Lester Young and numerous others made their own. Rappers do this also, in a practice called "sampling."

In all of these instances, however, the artist and musicians used these quotes to create something entirely new. None took the entire original work and claimed it as his or her own. That's the huge difference.

Delta (reply #18) What you described is called "product placement" -- a money-making "win/win" situation for mercenary movie producers. The product's manufacturer
gets a "plug" and the producers have another source of financing. Personally, I think the practice stinks. But in this case there is permission on both sides, and it's not a question of copyright infringement.

I ask again -- if someone should take a work which you created yourself, posted it or had it published, whether or not the thief made money or not, how would you feel?


Bart Simpson "Ah, the comic book. The only native American art form. I don't count jazz, because it sucks."

[Themis]

That's just what I said in the reply just before yours.

Excuse me, I was already typing when you sent your reply.

[Vonny]

About product placement: If you see a Coke image add, it is a win for Coke. That's all. The television program exists for the purpose of Coke, the television show is not there for the benefit of people. If the program is entertaining, it is for the purpose of dulling people's minds so they will consume more junk food.

If you see a teenager with a Coke add on his tee shirt, that teen exists for the purpose of Coke, from Coke's point of view.

And more and more, the advertisers are molding the public's minds so that their point of view is also our own. It's funny, I feel that I'm now talking from Proptor's point of view, that we don't have free choice. We have free choice only if we remain very aware and mindful.

If you see a product that is good, and is supported by advertisers, the fact that it is good is an incidental byproduct. It is good only because there are a few people who demand quality and won't respond to any other advertising pitch. For instance, people here aren't reading tabloids and watching much television, so advertisers will target them in other ways, such as a screen saver advertisement on their Kindle. (The Kindle example is a bit different because you are buying the Kindle, and at least for now, you can buy one without advertising embedded in it.)

Revolte, you're wrong. Morals aren't necessarily different from person to person. There's a basic right and wrong. "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." Have you ever created a treasure and seen it appear elsewhere with someone else's name on it? ....Some people believe that homosexuals are immoral, but they are the immoral ones when they create a homophobic society that punishes innocent people. So people need to think for themselves, but there is a basic right and wrong.

[stlukesguild]

There certainly are problems with copyright laws, but it doesn't mean that they should be abandoned. Some people might have trouble imagining a world in which copyright protection could continue and usefully be enforced, but it's basically a matter of how the technology is set up. It should be possible to keep it as well-enforced as it was back in the days of cassette tapes (ie., not a 100% successful enforcement, but a lot better than a simple ***-to-the-sky 100% surrender...

But the situation has greatly changed. In the day of cassette tapes you had a physical object (the tape) and unless you had some high-end commercial equipment, you could only make one copy at a time. So you might have bought an LP you particularly liked, so you made a tape of it to play in the car and maybe one or two for a couple of friends. The copy inherently was inferior in sound to the original... and got progressively worse with each further copy (ie. if your friends made taped copies for their friends). If you thought to make a profit off of selling copies (bootlegs) you'd have to make hundreds of copies and deal with the logistics and how to market these without getting caught.

The situation has greatly changed with digital. There is no physical tape... there is but data digitized which can be stored in a vast array of manners. This data can be sent across the internet in mere seconds... to an endless number of individuals. If I like a particular song, I can burn it to my hard-drive and send a copy to every person in my e-mail address book. It is virtually impossible to maintain the freedom of the internet if we allow corporations to control or monitor what is being transmitted. We also must face the viral nature of the internet which makes enforcement nearly impossible without the sort of controls that few of us want. You post a recording of a song that Sony holds the copyright to on the internet. Sony pressures you (directly) or your internet service provider/the server (indirectly) to take the song off the net. In the meantime, thousands of copies have been made, and perhaps a dozen other copies show up on the net.

The absurdity of attempting to enforce certain aspects of copyright law (and I am not calling for a complete abandonment of such, nor even taking a moral stance against them) is that it has led to the corporations, who wish to present themselves as the "victim" (although they usually do this by bemoaning how the artists are being victimized) into taking Draconian... and even illegal actions. Sony/BMG encoded a program on a number of discs including their hot-selling Elvis 1 greatest hits. This program loaded itself to the purchaser's computer... even if the individual selected not to have it load. It then made it impossible to record/burn the CD and most other Sony/BMG discs. The individual who purchased the disc was unable to copy it to their own hard drive for personal use or for transfer to some other media (I-pods etc...). A class-action lawsuit was brought about and Sony was charged with having essentially hoisted a virus upon unsuspecting consumers.
This is but one instance of the extreme and desperate measures the corporations are willing to employ to maintain their cash flow

...wide-scale sharing of copyrighted material over networks need not be ignored, neither by law, nor by technological design, and this is a precedent that is currently being set (prosecution of offenders, approved app environments like the ipad).

Clearly, it isn't being ignored... but how do you propose to enforce it? Again we are facing the viral nature of the internet. When the recording industry develops a new means of blocking individuals from making a copy of information (whether music, text, or imagery) there are hundreds of thousands of computer "geeks" racing to crack the defense method... and once one has done so, the information is immediately available across the net. For example, there are various methods that individuals use to keep others from copying their images on the internet: disabling the right click, etc... As illiterate as I am when it comes to the computer it me but a few seconds on Google to find out how to circumnavigate these measures and grab any image I desire.

The problem is that corporations and individuals want to take advantage of the internet and digital technology, but they don't want the problems that come with it. The big corporations would love to be able to monitor and control what is being posted and charge everyone a user fee. This may not be far from the solution with companies like Hulu and Netflix that set up online libraries that can be fully accessed for a reasonable flat fee. The problem is that the corporations are holding on to the old days of $19 CDs.

Regarding Shepard Fairey, I don't see any reason at all that the AP photographer (or, as his contract would stipulate, I assume, the AP itself) shouldn't get 50% of whatever cash or "attention" that Obama print has gotten. I think it would probably count as an effective method for Fairey to get his name out there (I certainly had never heard of him before...)--he can expect money from increased sales and attendance in regard to his other works.

Conversely, should Fairey not be able to make a claim for the increase in the value of the original photographer's efforts as a result of free advertising. SUrely Campbell's didn't do bad by the way of Warhol. Again, its not the individual artists in either instance making the money. Fairey donated the image to the Obama campaign. The original photographer gave up all rights to any picture he took while working for AP. What it comes down to is AP wanting a share of what other merchandisers and marketers have made made from mass-produced copies of the poster and silk-screened t-shirts. The whole debate also ignores the fact that Fairey's image is quite different from the original... not less so than Warhol's is from the original photograph of Marilyn... which he most certainly didn't take himself. It also leaves many questions remaining concerning how the "fair use" law was interpreted.

Here's an examination of some of his art that is pretty interesting, and I strongly recommend it if you want to see how "appropriation" figures in his art; his attitude towards the artists from whom he appropriates; and what this situation likely results in vis-a-vis his audience's experience and understanding of his "creativity":

http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm

The problem here, in virtually every instance, is that Fairey is employing the appropriated imagery in order to make a critical comment. In many instances he is essentially parodying the imagery to make a political statement.

What we are confronting here is a question of "originality" or as you call it: "creativity". But surely this is not something new. If we look at the images of Apollo from ancient Greece:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2388/5700059972_4ab45d89f9_z.jpg

The image is almost immediately recognizable as being the same as Jesus, the Good Shepherd... an image dating back to the Roman catacombs:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5026/5700060132_8b4a9b36e0.jpg

The image became common as Christianity became the official religion of the empire:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2286/5700060060_d8ec4d30f0_z.jpg

The later artist were appropriating an earlier image with an intention of alluding to that image or what it represented. Clearly, Christ was being equated with Apollo.

The appropriations continued. Rather than the image of the effete, bearded, long-haired Jesus, Michelangelo's Jesus was a powerful, muscular, handsome Greco-Roman god:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3491/5699488323_f8f24b567d.jpg

His handsome visage was cleanly indebted to the famous Apollo Belvedere:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3578/5700059874_2ed45831c4_z.jpg

While his arm raised in judgement undoubtedly came from the Augustus of Prima Porta:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5184/5700060820_747c1095dc_z.jpg

The sculptor of the Augustus image, himself referenced the earlier Orator (a classic work from the Roman Republic) and the Doryphoros by the sculptor Polykleitos:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3558/5699489149_3cf0203c05_z.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2392/5700060942_7765873d10_z.jpg

The intention was clearly to suggest a continuity with an illustrious past through these allusions/appropriations. How are these different than what T.S. Eliot does in The Wasteland... or what Shepherd Fairey is doing?

**********

If you like... we can explore a single image that has continued from the ancient Greeks... and perhaps earlier... through the present day: the Three Graces:

Fragment from ancient Greece:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5308/5700063542_ecc44e7b3f.jpg

Roman copy after a Greek original:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2666/5699492999_63be5b3ced_z.jpg

Painted version from Pompeii:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3611/5700063502_9deb64e352.jpg

Raphael's youthful version (Italian Renaissance):

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5065/5699491861_53b5497eda.jpg

Botticelli employs the graces within his masterpiece, the Primavera:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3253/5699492283_c2884557c2.jpg

With Rubens, the women are fleshed out into good, sturdy, Belgian girls:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5306/5699492659_7817152c42_b.jpg

Antonio Canova hones them back down into idealized Neo-Classical goddesses:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2077/5699493253_0457d3f5dc_b.jpg

While Canova shifts the view to the front... the poses are still the same:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3268/5700065224_abda9600e5_b.jpg

As we enter the 20th century, the Three Graces end up on the beach...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3283/5699492241_320ec4cecc.jpg

in the tattoo parlors...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2331/5700064628_afce07a927.jpg

or in even stranger locales:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3344/5700063804_bc26f707d2_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5261/5699492165_47a5b2cd29.jpg

So are we to assume that Rubens or Raphael lacked "originality"... any more than Shakespeare when he "borrowed" from the narrative of the Montague's and Capulets?

Where is the line drawn between appropriation or allusion and plagiarism? Is Manet nothing but a plagiarist:

Titian:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3662/5700061072_d4ddec10f4_b.jpg

Manet:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2116/5700061290_499b1fd3f5_b.jpg

Raimondi (after Raphael):

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5230/5700061580_73f86fb0c9.jpg

Manet:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2067/5699489861_c7d7355a01_b.jpg

and all the hommages/allusions to Manet... they are plagiarized from a plagiarized image?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2015/5700061474_ef2777d598.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3466/5700061698_606006ef07_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5026/5700061632_f4bb2ab17c.jpg

The questions remain as to where the line is drawn between something that is plagiarized and something that is appropriated and turned into something truly new. The copyright laws refuse to even address this issue, arguing that the very act of appropriation of even the smallest detail amounts to plagiarization. Coke has attempted to copyright the red used in its cans and posters. How soon until certain companies attempt to copyright given words?

The second question that has yet to be addressed is just how we set about enforcing copyright laws that we are in agreement with, without curtailing the freedom of the internet and the access to technology. Or do we allow IBM, GM, Citibank, Exxon, and Walmart to censor our technology in the same way as more totalitarian states employ governmental censorship?

One thing you didn't mention concerned American jazz. (Remember the famous line from that well-known critic, Bart Simpson?)* During solos, musicians' improvisation often include melodic lines and chords from pre-existing
standard songs, a practice which Lester Young and numerous others made their own. Rappers do this also, in a practice called "sampling."

In all of these instances, however, the artist and musicians used these quotes to create something entirely new. None took the entire original work and claimed it as his or her own. That's the huge difference.

One of the problems... and one of the reasons that so many are against copyright law... is the absurd manner in which it has been employed. By today's laws, the "sampling" employed by Thelonius Monk or Lester Young is not seen as resulting in something new or original... but is wholly illegal. An artist such as Andy Warhol or James Rosenquist who employ appropriated imagery would face serious legal challenges today... no matter ho removed the work is for the original. Figurative artists... in an era in which working from the live model is quite expensive... find that they must be careful about employing photographic references... no matter how different their final painting is from the original. Certainly taking an original art work is quite different... yet the problem remains as to how to enforce these laws fairly.

[Vonny]

Stlukesguild, I hope that by interjecting I'm not distracting from the wonderful work you're doing.

"The absurdity of attempting to enforce certain aspects of copyright law (and I am not calling for a complete abandonment of such, nor even taking a moral stance against them) is that it has led to the corporations, who wish to present themselves as the "victim" (although they usually do this by bemoaning how the artists are being victimized) into taking Draconian... and even illegal actions."

The problem with copyright laws is that they are built for the benefit of corporations. It's the same with patents. My brother designed an ingenious mechanical device and was producing it himself. A larger company stole it from him, and began producing it in China, an inferior version. My brother hadn't patented his design, but it wouldn't have made a difference if he had, because if you can't afford teams of lawyers to defend your patent it is useless to you.

And Delta, my brother somewhat became one of those depressed and demoralized people that you mention on the homelessness thread. But he hasn't and won't end up on public assistance.

Revolte, people should be able to make a profit from their own design. My brother deserved to.

(I hope I'm not derailing the thread. This is me with my emotions getting the best of me again!)

[stlukesguild]

dup :blush:

[billl]

If you like... we can explore a single image that has continued from the ancient Greeks... and perhaps earlier... through the present day


Let me begin by reminding followers of this thread that my previous post (represented in St. Luke's red-highlighting) pointed to:

1) the ease with which technology allows us to massively share digital media and digital information in general.

2) the fact that technological work-arounds will presumably continue to exist.

3) the fact that the corporations (who are a leading force in the defense of copyright) are absolutely to blame for the outrageous and unfair legislation that has been enacted in regards to copyright.

4) the fact that humankind has been busy appropriating forever--I even suggested that we might not be capable of doing anything creative without recourse to mixing and matching of existing ideas or experiences. (As much as some of the Abstract Expressionists might have tried. Note the "some" and "might" being deployed in the presence of an art expert.)



The questions remain as to where the line is drawn between something that is plagiarized and something that is appropriated and turned into something truly new. The copyright laws refuse to even address this issue, arguing that the very act of appropriation of even the smallest detail amounts to plagiarization. Coke has attempted to copyright the red used in its cans and posters. How soon until certain companies attempt to copyright given words?

The second question that has yet to be addressed is just how we set about enforcing copyright laws that we are in agreement with, without curtailing the freedom of the internet and the access to technology. Or do we allow IBM, GM, Citibank, Exxon, and Walmart to censor our technology in the same way as more totalitarian states employ governmental censorship?

I share these concerns completely. The corporations absolutely should not be completely in charge of our technological future. (And I certainly would not argue in favor of Coke owning a shade of red, or that Disney be allowed to extend ownership of Mickey Mouse's image to whatever distant date they can warp the entire world of copyright to include.) The argument that the slippery slope must lead one way or the other to an extreme degree (that ANY appropriation is "theft", or that appropriation is NEVER "theft") is overly reductive, although it might be a comfort to a greedy or envious heart, and/or a tired mind.

But if we put enforcement in the hands of a government agency, with government oversight of it, accountable to courts, the freedom of information act, and political criticism--how worthy would be the objections? Would it amount to censorship? How? I mean, X-Rated material might be something to keep away from children, etc., and plagiarism and wide-spread sharing of media from a single shared copy could be discouraged/punished. But where would the censorship come in?

It would be easy to cry out "Big Brother" here, but Orwell didn't describe a democracy in 1984. And using the internet is a choice, of course (it isn't a technology installed and forced on us by the government). The internet might seem like a necessity, and perhaps effectively is a necessity for many people (and more so every day)--but the same is true of public roads and highways, where we find traffic police, marked lanes, and laws requiring seatbelts. So let's not say that seatbelts and drunk-driving laws restrict our freedoms in such a way as to present a slippery slope to Orwellian horror (I know the suggestion hasn't been made, I'm just trying to forestall it before the debate gets too spread out). I think the Orwellian horror would actually be far more likely if we keep the government out of the game (or at least officially out of the game... Because the government will be in the game, whether we might want to have a better possibility of holding them accountable or not).

Currently, technology exists to automatically track the speed of drivers at certain points along some road, or detect if a driver has run a red light at an intersection. Tickets can be dispensed in this manner, with no human traffic cop being present at the time. Most of us are probably (quite!) familiar with this sort of thing--and a key point about it is that the infraction results in a photo of the vehicle sufficient to get the license plate number necessary for the issuance of the ticket.

Other drivers are not "tracked" by this sort of monitoring (their speed or presence might be measured, but there is no tracking of WHO they are). Further, drivers discussing whether or not the current president is great or terrible, or planning a terrorist attack somewhere are not detected via this sort of monitoring. This sort of monitoring of file transfers (most likely, some percentage of them) could be done with certain algorithms, in addition to whatever human "investigators" we (a democratic "we") might find it reasonable to have deployed. I'm not saying that it would be unimaginable that there could be abuses in this sort of monitoring, but I don't think that condensing our fears onto a government-run 1984 situation is the right response. In fact, if we want a safer internet, with greater control over how our online life is observed and "used" by others, and how our identities and privacy are protected, an elected government that can be held accountable on these issues is probably a powerful tool in our favor. And this scenario doesn't require complete government ownership of the internet--current service providers would just need to comply with certain requirements (as happens already).

I don't mean to present a "there won't be any problems" sort of case here. Of course there will be legal wrangling, and cases of abuse and injustice. But I think it would be better than if we didn't have the government take such measures. Quite likely there will be a lot to discuss about the design and oversight, etc., and it could look much different in the end than I have amateurishly sketched out and hinted at. But, again, it is unfair to simply expect some Big Brother scenario, establishment of some censorship scheme, or some hidden abuse of our privacy.

As far as buying software that enables us to "grab" online images against the intentions of the providers of the image (which is precisely analogous to the example I provided of people using software to record streaming music on the internet), so what? It's largely the same as the cassette tape thing for many people (although the sound quality/picture quality is better preserved). Passing these copies of things on to a few friends needn't capture anyone's attention or be combatted with anything more than some "you're a naughty boy" PSA's.

Frankly, I'd be happier if it were some of the artistic Guilds out there, and companies like ASCAP and BMI that were leading the fight for sensible copyright legislation, rather than the giant media corporations. It would be a lot more dignified, and would probably win a lot more sympathy (in comparison to the $19 CD contingent). But it isn't just Disney and Warner Brothers that we need to be worried about, as we decide how we move forward. At the moment, Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, etc. are the corporations that are making headlines, in regards to our privacy and security/control of private information. In all of these cases, the presence and authority of a government that is accountable to the people is useful, and should be deployed in order to protect citizens from threats that are greater (or more technologically skilled) than particular individuals themselves.

What do we do about copyright protection (and protection of invention patents, etc.)? Well, we shouldn't dispense with the protections it provides simply for the sake of punishing the ugly corporations that have made a mockery of it. Nor should we reflexively imagine that it is some sort of toehold for Big Brother.



The problem with copyright laws is that they are built for the benefit of corporations. It's the same with patents. My brother designed an ingenious mechanical device and was producing it himself. A larger company stole it from him, and began producing it in China, an inferior version. My brother hadn't patented his design, but it wouldn't have made a difference if he had, because if you can't afford teams of lawyers to defend your patent it is useless to you.


That's a really sad story, Vonny. I think it's worth considering the help that a patent might have given though. Of course, discussing copyright law over production occurring in China is to discuss a entirely specific set of problems. But, in the U.S., for example, a patent might have provided lawyers good reason to take on your brother's case (no matter how poor he is), depending on the case's merit and the amount of money involved. If the patent were for something that had resulted in a mere $1,000 of sales/revenue, probably no lawyer would've cared to take the case on (not that it wouldn't have represented an injustice, of course). But if the potential settlement or award would be in the millions (or the tens of thousands, against a smaller company for example?), then the patent could have helped lawyers and your brother get compensation.

[Vonny]

dup :blush:

I don't understand. I'm not really used to forums. What does this mean?



Bill, I will explain a bit more perhaps further along in the thread, but I think it would detract from the thread at this point. Also, I think that patent law is a bit different than copyright law.

Also, I haven't read the entire thread so I hope this comment fits, but Stlukesguild, you said that corporations claim they are protecting the artists. What artists?? I asked my brother once how Madonna got so famous. He said, "Because, I think, at one time she looked good in her underwear."

I think the important thing is that the "little" people, (sorry, I can't talk on your level, especially when I'm nervous) who create great things should somehow be protected, such as the people who have written amazing poetry on this website.

I have practically memorized some of the poems, but I'd never present them to someone else and pretend I wrote them.

Corporate practices are driving out the real talent. But I think the problem will only get worse, and not better.

[Maryd.]

Stlukesguild, I hope that by interjecting I'm not distracting from the wonderful work you're doing.

"The absurdity of attempting to enforce certain aspects of copyright law (and I am not calling for a complete abandonment of such, nor even taking a moral stance against them) is that it has led to the corporations, who wish to present themselves as the "victim" (although they usually do this by bemoaning how the artists are being victimized) into taking Draconian... and even illegal actions."

The problem with copyright laws is that they are built for the benefit of corporations. It's the same with patents. My brother designed an ingenious mechanical device and was producing it himself. A larger company stole it from him, and began producing it in China, an inferior version. My brother hadn't patented his design, but it wouldn't have made a difference if he had, because if you can't afford teams of lawyers to defend your patent it is useless to you.

And Delta, my brother somewhat became one of those depressed and demoralized people that you mention on the homelessness thread. But he hasn't and won't end up on public assistance.

Revolte, people should be able to make a profit from their own design. My brother deserved to.

(I hope I'm not derailing the thread. This is me with my emotions getting the best of me again!)

Dear Vonny, I am with you on this matter. It's "Us" little people who get kicked in the "behind" when our work is misused in any way or form. There has to be a better way to protect the "Little" people from tyrants such as the "Giants" that stole your brother's work.

Now in reference to me... Well I have the heart and soul for peotry, just not the education. So I have to say I am an easy target. My work can be taken and toyed with, by these so-called Giants or Intellects. As well as your brother who did not have the finance to hire such prestigious laywers to aid him through his ordeal.

So I gues Vonny... Your brother and I are just going to have to take it... Well, I don't really want to say the word, but you know what I mean. This is one reason why I refuse to upload any of my work online. Here in Oz they claim your work is copyrighted by you the very second it is written or produced by you... But once again... It isn't for the little people.:(

[Delta40]

So I gues Vonny... Your brother and I are just going to have to take it... Well, I don't really want to say the word, but you know what I mean. This is one reason why I refuse to upload any of my work online. Here in Oz they claim your work is copyrighted by you the very second it is written or produced by you... But once again... It isn't for the little people.:(

I already mentioned the offence caused by seeing my poetry on another poetry forum by a name I couldn't remember. I cannot imagine how I would feel to flick through the pages of a book in a bookshop and see my work there under the name of a person other than myself. :flare:

I have thought about how to protect my work while it is online. I know I can get the mods to delete it all - esp if I want to get published. The point is, there is alot of discussion about the concept of publish. At uni, it is agreed that once you click submit on the web, your work is published, which is a pain when asked by mags and other publishing areas if the piece has been published elsewhere. It does include the net. I can get rid of it all but once somebody has cut and pasted it, I'm doomed.

[Maryd.]

I already mentioned the offence caused by seeing my poetry on another poetry forum by a name I couldn't remember. I cannot imagine how I would feel to flick through the pages of a book in a bookshop and see my work there under the name of a person other than myself. :flare:

I have thought about how to protect my work while it is online. I know I can get the mods to delete it all - esp if I want to get published. The point is, there is alot of discussion about the concept of publish. At uni, it is agreed that once you click submit on the web, your work is published, which is a pain when asked by mags and other publishing areas if the piece has been published elsewhere. It does include the net. I can get rid of it all but once somebody has cut and pasted it, I'm doomed.

Dearest Delta... So don't upload your good stuff. I didn't. I kept that work safe and as for trusting a certain few people privately. Well I did. But once again due to some other horrible thing that happened to me online in the past. I didn't give them too much personal info or data... Nor did I give them my good work. I am not a professional, needless to say my work is not that great. But my ideas are somewhat interesting. Now I just keep to myself. Which is sad really. I have one manuscript floating in the hands of a family memeber who is already in the writing industry. The family member in question, I can trust. He isn't a fiend or down right dirty, like some; of which I have met in the past. But that is not to say he won't steal the idea of my manuscript. In fact is, the idea is quite good. The writing on the other hand, well... Isn't "All that!" So again, it might leave me vulnerable and useless... And that isn't even online!

[Delta40]

I hear what you're saying. The whole point of me posting poetry and short stories on Lit-Net was for a learning exercise. Perhaps I don't need to do that so much. I can ask the mods to remove my previous works.

[Maryd.]

I hear what you're saying. The whole point of me posting poetry and short stories on Lit-Net was for a learning exercise. Perhaps I don't need to do that so much. I can ask the mods to remove my previous works.

Well... I did, but between you and I... Do you think it will stop plagiarism?????

[Delta40]

No. Someone posted on a poem I wrote a while back if they could paste it on their facebook account. I didn't reply because I figured that an answer of no would not stop them anyway. I have all my posted works on a USB but I have to admit I also have a folder of favourite poems by other Lit-Nutters. However, I wouldn't dream of pretending I wrote them. What's the point?

From a rebellious perspective, why should a few rats diminish the enjoyment of the majority?

[Maryd.]

True that... But once bitten, twice shy. I stay online, to keep an eye on my kids and to help my literary skills. (And believe me I need all the help I can get) And maybe play a few games along the way. But as far as uploading work is concerned... A big fat "sad face" for me. It will never happen again.
xo

[Revolte]

About product placement:

Revolte, you're wrong. Morals aren't necessarily different from person to person. There's a basic right and wrong. "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." Have you ever created a treasure and seen it appear elsewhere with someone else's name on it? ....Some people believe that homosexuals are immoral, but they are the immoral ones when they create a homophobic society that punishes innocent people. So people need to think for themselves, but there is a basic right and wrong.

But there really isn't because something that you and I may view as wrong, could be completely right to someone else and we would be viewed as the immoral ones. Because of that alone, it's impossible to have any kind of 'Moral Law'.

For example, I have always been upped on anti-racist action, and for a while was part of ARA activities to some degree, and got enough scare out of the Aryan Brotherhood to take leave for a while and keep my head down. But I've always viewed racism as 'immoral' and you would think that was a general perspective, but take a look through stormfront dot com and you will see other wise. To those lads I am just as disgusting and immoral as I view them.

This same concept is universal with every belief. The lesser of the lot may be Rape and.. Rape.. But even then there are exceptions which annihilate rape being immoral by given.

Morals are opinions, personal beliefs that we put into practice.

[stlukesguild]

I have a huge advantage over most here when it comes to the issue of copyright in that I am not a writer but an artist. The traditional visual arts have still yet to face the reality of mechanical reproduction. The author must deal with the fact that there is essentially no difference between his or her original manuscript (with the exception of any editing) and the copy printed by Harpers or the copy transmitted illegally across the net. The same is true of music. The technology has reached such a state that the copy of the music burned from a disc and transmitted across the net through any number of lossless formats sounds exactly the same as the original disc... or the master from which these were produced to all but the most anal of audiophiles... and even then... considering the hearing abilities of humans... I suspect this is but an illusion.

The traditional fine arts (painting, sculpture, drawing, intaglio print, ceramics, etc...), however, are quite removed from this. Certainly one can take a photograph of a painting or a sculpture or a tapestry... but ultimately this photograph... no matter how accurate the color and how detailed, remains far removed from the original. One sense this immediately when standing before a real painting. Walter Benjamen in his landmark essay argued that the only difference was that the "original" had an "aura"... a feeling we imposed upon it as a result of our recognizing that this was the very object that Rembrandt's hands touched. Certainly this is true of a first folio of Shakespeare or an autograph score by Mozart. Such works take on a greater value as a result of the fact that they were touched by the "master's hand" (as it were)... but ultimately Shakespeare's first folio and Mozart's autograph score to Don Giovanni is in no way aesthetically superior. In some ways, my later copy of Shakespeare complete with critical commentary and notes may actually be better. There is, however, an aesthetic difference between the most actual art objects, and the mechanical reproductions and this difference goes far beyond the idea of the "aura".

When I first recognized that I was drawn most to the visual arts, I spent hours reading up on the great painters of the past and looking at their paintings in reproductions. To a certain extent I understood that Rubens' paintings were not 3X5" as they were in the books but rather 9x15 feet... yet I did not fully register this until I stood before one of these huge canvases and was able to appreciate the gestural paint application, the way that one could "read" how the image was built up of layers, the relationship of this huge canvas to my own body, and the true colors that were there which no camera could capture because a camera always seeks to harmonize the image by "evening out" the contrasts.

I remember the first time I stood before an actual Vermeer painting:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5030/5700952737_f0dd95d7bd_z.jpg

in spite of the fact that the painting was almost no larger than it was in reproduction, I was absolutely stunned at the exquisite surface... the painting seemed as if it were made of liquid gems... the result of Vermeer's endless layers of translucent paint... and the colors were astounding... what all seems black or brown or gray in reproduction glows with an almost Impressionistic intensity of color.

Bonnard was a similar revelation. I had looked at him for some time, but thought that his work was but a weak homage to Degas... until I visited the Phillips Collection in Washington D.C. Coming upon this painting (and at least half a dozen others) I was stunned by the application of paint:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3371/5700952861_63d8eace9f_z.jpg

The painting was like a tapestry constructed of the greatest variety of paint handling... everything from the mere whispers and veils of paint... even areas of bare canvass... to the richest blobs and swirls of impastos that all dance before your eyes as you draw near... yet fall perfectly in place as you back up.

Even today I can be stunned at how different the real art works are from the images I have constructed based on reproductions. I have never been a great fan of Abstract Expressionism or the work of Mark Rothko, however a couple years back I happened upon an exhibition of his suite of red and burgundy "Seagrams Paintings". Having worn myself out from walking all day through the National Gallery and the Hirschhorn, a sat down on a bench surrounded by the Rothko paintings:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5102/5700956403_7e7a7b692f.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2471/5701525488_e4b3163b08.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2134/5701525572_6f67b5fee6.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3469/5701525544_d18140592a.jpg

Sitting for some time I was struck at how contemplative and quiet the experience of these paintings was... not unlike a Japanese Zen Garden. And yet the experience was also clearly elegiac with all the blood red, scarlet, carmine, vermillion and sienna... and all that they suggested.

It is the experience of the "original" art object that has protected the traditional fine arts from the grasp of the mass media... in spite of all the hype and gross commodification of the market. The fine arts remain, for better of worse, something of a luxury object. I suspect that as the huge profits to be made from the recordings of music die out, it may be that musicians discover that live music becomes the greatest source of their income. One also wonders whether or not we might see a similar venue develop for the writers. Certainly Shakespeare recognized that the live theater was a far more lucrative source of income than any form of publication offered at that time. Dickens, among others, recognized the possibility of the serialized publication. One wonders at the possibilities for such today?

[MystyrMystyry]

You've precisely hit on something there StLukes - the unique object with a self-inherent quality, and value merely an estimate

But surely in the visual art world the infringement of copyright is called forgery, and some examples have gained value in their own right

I wonder how many unique art objects have been destroyed in the path of history for which we possess no record because no-one copied them, which is akin to the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria - what exactly have we lost!?

Bach's widow selling ff his manuscripts by the pound

Michelangelo's drawings being trampled into the mud by stormtroopers who saw them 'only' as drawings (actually probably less - just pieces of paper)

Maybe some victims should be thankful that their work and ideas live on in some other form rather than lost completely - I honestly believe it's the isolation the lonely writer suffers in order to create that gives them a skewed perspective on the absolute value of their creativity ('I've sacrificed so much for my self-indulgence!')

Or to put it another way - 'Genius is that which no-one DARE copy' - do your utmost best and establish a reputation along the way, then you'll be safe (or do your absolute worst and you'll still be safe - but only because you don't care)

The only way to ensure that no-one's stealing your work on-line is to goggle it unique line by line, unique phrase by phrase - and then you'll probably find it in the forum where originally posted, or in the referencing board readers

The trouble with being a writer is you get the chance and choose to voice the fact you're getting ripped off to a wider audience - everyone feels like they're getting ripped off at some point - just like cracking a joke at a party and then you see someone go off and take credit for it in another group - what to do? Drink a beer!

When crap like the Wasteland gets repeatedly cited as somehow groundbreaking and on a level beyond everything - I'm always reminded that good critics don't make good artists, poets, musicians, etc and vice versa, but some are neither critics nor nor artists - TS. Idiot forgot to choose a side, and now witness the modern day equivalent in Clive James whose poems are fairly average in my view - but because of his reputation in other media some choose to praise them far beyond deserving

Who is he? Socrates - or Bozo the Clown?

Do you really want people to read you words? then prepare to get ripped off, because it will happen regardless, and then rip off someone else* because corruption is inherent in the system from the top down

If you've only got one book in you, then surprise - join the club of J.K. (do a search on H.P. and plagiarism) and Wells, and all of the other thieves that have ever built a reputation courtesy of their audience's ignorance

I think if you are J.K. the least you could do is invest in the replanting of forests - but she's strangely quiet on that issue, as are all best selling (read 'successful') authors (maybe not David Suzuki) and publishing magnates the world over - these 'people' are happily ripping off what is ours and belongs to everyone, and have been doing it since before history

Who originally came up with the words 'the' and 'a' - perhaps we should footnote them more often than we do, and don't get me started on those German letterfests (books in themselves some of them)


*I wouldn't and don't condone the act, but look up from your puters and see what's going on - if you really like the artist, help support them, but if your unplayably scratched cd/dvd isn't automatically replaced by either the artist nor publisher (hah! as if!) well, what to do? Actually that change from vinyl to digital, why wasn't I consulted? Why was I expected to repurchase what I'd already purchased in a different form? Don't tell me it was the manufacturing cost!

**I don't think I've been plagiarised anywhere else on the net, and apart from a few who change my unique ideas to suit themselves, sufficiently disguised to make them seem different - but never has anyone stood up and pointed this out on my behalf - and why do I remain silent? Because maybe one day I'll copy them? Who knows..? (Probably not!)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

This thread has turned awesome.

[Cunninglinguist]

There has never been an inherent problem with using someone's idea in your own work. The problem comes about when one takes someone's work and presents it as their own - and this is more in line with the textbook definition of plagiarism. So, since I highly doubt that Raphael expects us to believe that he invented the idea of the three graces, I don't think we can say he (or anyone else who is using the concept) is "plagiarizing" it. On the other hand, if you're competitor architect down the street steals your building concept and presents it as his own (an issue someone I know has encountered more than once), then that is quite a problem, and, mind you, one that happens quite often. Therefore, most of the "examples" Stlukes has given are pretty much meaningless, except perhaps the Fairy [sic] example.

While inside the bubble of academia copyright laws may only seem like a hindrance to art, outside, many artists would at best not be able to continue their career and at worst be screwed without them (and some are even screwed with them). Plagiarism is a problem that is, with all our technology, greater now than ever, especially for writers and photographers..... I have to go, will finish this later, maybe.

[billl]

Even today I can be stunned at how different the real art works are from the images I have constructed based on reproductions. I have never been a great fan of Abstract Expressionism or the work of Mark Rothko, however a couple years back I happened upon an exhibition of his suite of red and burgundy "Seagrams Paintings". Having worn myself out from walking all day through the National Gallery and the Hirschhorn, a sat down on a bench surrounded by the Rothko paintings:

.
.
.

Sitting for some time I was struck at how contemplative and quiet the experience of these paintings was... not unlike a Japanese Zen Garden. And yet the experience was also clearly elegiac with all the blood red, scarlet, carmine, vermillion and sienna... and all that they suggested.

It is the experience of the "original" art object that has protected the traditional fine arts from the grasp of the mass media... in spite of all the hype and gross commodification of the market. The fine arts remain, for better of worse, something of a luxury object. I suspect that as the huge profits to be made from the recordings of music die out, it may be that musicians discover that live music becomes the greatest source of their income. One also wonders whether or not we might see a similar venue develop for the writers. Certainly Shakespeare recognized that the live theater was a far more lucrative source of income than any form of publication offered at that time. Dickens, among others, recognized the possibility of the serialized publication. One wonders at the possibilities for such today?


First of all, it's interesting (a bit exciting) that Rothko is mentioned. For perhaps half-a-decade, this non-art expert had an infatuation with art (due to some art history classes and a PBS series). For me, Rothko became a favorite, and I had a large print (eventually two) hung on the living room wall, right where I faced during yoga. I was eventually convinced by someone who knew more about "interior decorating" that it didn't always create the best mood, and I eventually took it down. In a way, I figured, maybe I really had had enough of it myself. Anyhow, I also spent significant time at the Rothko room at the National Gallery, and was sort of proud that I had managed to appreciate something so seemingly.... difficult? Anyhow, I'm including this anecdote partly because it has led me to realize that I paid money for that print, and it had (over time, years...) a much more profound affect on me than those days I visited that Rothko room. Perhaps a poor testament to my art appreciation, but... I don't mean to contradict the point about the importance of the original (I certainly would've taken the original over the print), but the nostalgia eventually got sidetracked, and perhaps compelled me to include the point about the print, sorry.

Touring and Copyright
Anyhow, second of all, touring has always been an important source of money for a lot of musicians--often the most important part. Groups selling tens of thousands of albums in years past might have been lucky to break even, after the record companies got their share and recouped various production and promotional expenses. The issue is: do we want to support the existence of copyright laws and the idea of intellectual property?

If not, then fine. I mean, I completely disagree--but fine, I can understand. However, if we are willing to recognize the usefulness (and "fairness", I'll say) of copyright (once the legislation is gotten "right"), then there is no need at all to assume that a future of unregulated piracy awaits us, and that artists will have no chance at getting appropriate compensation for efforts that are enjoyed by people using digital media. The hardware landscape is changing, and it is becoming easier for people to enjoy media in a way that most of us are comfortable with--by checking samples, and making purchases on specially-designed devices, in controlled and convenient (and relatively more secure) environments. The increasing irrelevance of the old bloated and pampered music music companies gives new artists a great chance to more directly benefit from their recorded performances. A musician can expect to receive more than half of the money spent on a single purchased at iTunes.

And frankly, for me and at least, say, 80% of the people I know who enjoy music, recorded music is FAR MORE essential than live performance. I've probably only met a handful that would choose the ability to attend live shows over owning the recordings they love, if they could only have one or the other. I can't at all see the logic behind why people like me (and, I think, most people in the U.S.) who enjoy recorded music, should feel that the musicians need to do some shows if they really think they deserve money for their music (money that wouldn't be coming from me, because I'd 99% of the time rather skip the concert).

This isn't a case of buggy whip makers needing to find a new craft because theirs is no longer useful--it's a case of technology making it simple to devalue creativity, or disempower the creators of media. Who benefits, when we do this? Some people associated with the technological infrastructure. (Hey, I just discovered Ska music! I need a new hard-drive! More bandwidth, new devices!). And "consumers", I guess, if they really think the musicians deserve nothing from them, and the same variety of musicians still continue to put out music of the same quality and quality for them.

No need to throw our hands in the air
Continued efforts against explicitly pirate sites, and against cases of copyright infraction at other less focussed peer-to-peer networks have plenty of potential for being ultimately successful (to some degree, at least successful enough), especially with the public becoming more familiar with other ways of getting music, TV, movies, and books digitally. I don't blame anyone for "sticking it to the man" and forgoing expensive CDs for just a few songs here and there; or for downloading a cracked piece of software, designed and priced for professional company use, just so that one can become qualified to use it, and improve one's career prospects. But where these situations with digital media/software improve (or must it be always be hopeless?), and the efficiencies of internet sales take effect (and some other approaches are adopted to ease some of these problems), I really think people have less reason to cling to the dehumanizing notion of a worship towards efficiency for the machines (against the encouragement and rewarding of human creativity); the ridiculous notion that "information wants to be free" (as if it were a human); and the idea that blurred lines mean there somehow can't be huge swaths of clear copyright infringement (and non-infringement). Those arguments, though quite interesting, can ultimately end up as parlour tricks (in the wrong hands), misdirection disguised as profound and conclusive insight.

Protecting piracy isn't the same as protecting democracy or freedom, or saving us from chilling forms of monitoring. The monitoring is happening, pedophiles take note.

[stlukesguild]

Stlukes, it seems like you don't know the definition of plagiarism.

Oh please enlighten me, oh brilliant one.:rolleyes: As someone who spent several years working with collage I spent a good deal of time researching the copyright laws and their implications for the visual arts.
Part of the problem is that the government has not spelled out where the line is to be drawn. How much can you "borrow" before allusion or appropriation becomes plagiarism? According to the strict interpretation of the law the answer is nothing. A work which draws upon another work in any way is considered in legal terms "derivative" and only the original artist or the owner of the copyright has the right to create a derivative work of art. With the exception of that which is spelled out in the "fair use" laws, the very act of appropriation... regardless of the intention or purpose is illegal. By this strict interpretation, virtually the whole of collage, montage, Joseph Cornell, Andy warhol, Robert Rauschenberg, and the jazz pieces that "quote" well-known popular standards would be deemed illegal. Because the law is so broad, there have been endless ridiculous lawsuits brought about. Without clear defined limits, the only way to test what is or is not illegal is through the courts.

There has never been an inherent problem with using someone's idea in your own work. Are we going to rebuke Dante for his incessant alluding to the Bible, Virgil, Statius, Aquinas, etc.?

Obviously Dante faced no such problems (as is the case with most of the artists I cited) for the simple reason that he was working prior to copyright law. If we take things into the present, however, do you honestly think that a contemporary writer could get away with employing characters out of a Disney movie or from the Harry Potter novels without the very real possibility of facing legal action? How is this different from Shakespeare using characters of the Montagues and Capulets?

The problem comes about when one takes someone's work and presents it as their own - and this is more in line with the textbook definition of plagiarism.

There is no question as to whether simply taking another's artistic creation and presenting it as one's own without any real change amounts to plagiarism. But that is not what current copyright law stipulates. Take, for example, this instance (gleaned from ArtBusiness.com site: http://www.artbusiness.com/reprosuit.html ):

Artists who realize that their art is being used without their permission almost always assume that their artistic copyright has been violated and that they must take corrective action, legal or otherwise.

Treating every such incident as infringement and legally actionable, however, is not necessarily a good idea. Several years ago, for example, an artist saw one of her paintings hanging on the set of a popular television show. She filed suit against the show's producers based on the fact that she had not given them permission to use her art. She won the suit, but in doing so, an argument can be made that she made life more difficult rather than easier for her fellow artists.

The television show's lead actor happened to be an art collector. One way that he expressed his support for the arts and for the artists in his collection was to hang their art on the sets of his shows. He did not show their art to make money or to save the costs of having to use prop-art instead. He showed it to honor the artists, pay them tribute, and encourage people to buy art; he did not show it for personal gain.

True, he neglected to ask permission to show the art, and perhaps he should have asked, but imagine how complicated constructing a Hollywood set would be if the producers had to ask every single company or individual whose products or creations appeared on-screen for permission. In any event, the judgement in this lawsuit caused the actor as well as other collectors in similar situations to pull back from showing their art in public. Now, less art by fewer artists is seen in high-profile circumstances due to fears that the artists may take legal action. The ripple effect here is that when people don't get exposed to original art, they're not inclined to buy it.


The situation becomes further confused if we recognize that virtually every man-made object is protected under copyright law of some form or another. Do we expect a film producer to get permission for the use of every piece of clothing, sign, or architectural design that might show up in a street scene? Must the painter who employs a can of Coke in his or her still-life first get permission from the soft-drink giant? If he or she wishes to avoid any chance of legal problem, the answer right now is "yes."

So, since I highly doubt that Raphael excepts us to believe that he invented the idea of the three graces, I don't think we can say he is "plagiarizing."

I don't think that Warhol intended that we think he invented the image of Marilyn or Elvis. Indeed, the intention was quite the reverse. He most assuredly wanted the viewer to recognize his source. The same is true of Eliot's Wasteland or of the teenager who was selling collages that parodied the work of Damien Hirst. Intention is irrelevant under copyright law... with the exception of that which qualifies as "fair use"... and the "fair use" laws are not overly clear. An artist may insist that his or her use of Mickey Mouse or Spiderman in a painting was intended as parody or social commentary and thus fair game under "fair use" law... but the lawyers for Disney or Marvell comics may certainly take an altogether different view.

On the other hand, if you're competitor architect down the street steals your building concept and presents it as his own (a problem someone I know has encountered more than once), then that is a quite a problem, and, mind you, one that happens quite often. Therefore, most of the "examples" given are pretty much meaningless, except perhaps the Fairy [sic] example.

A concept itself is not generally open to copyright protection. In other words, if we were living in the Gothic age, no architect would be able to copyright the idea of the "flying buttress". The specific design of a given buttress would be afforded protection, but not the idea of the structural element. Such would be akin to giving copyright protection to a color, or a technique of applying paint.

As for the examples given... I have already admitted that those predating copyright law were simply to establish the historical precedent of appropriation. You will need to do more than to simply state that the Shepard Fairey case is different to prove why his work amounts to plagiarism and Warhol's Elvis or Marilyn does not. It would seem obvious that nearly any artist wishing to employ the image of any celebrity or public figure would need to base such upon photographs... unless he or she had personal access to the individual. Because celebrities and public individuals are open to critical comment and parody it is commonly assumed that such appropriation is protected under "fair use" law. In this instance, however, we have a large corporation smelling money and willing to test the case through the courts. The ability of those with the deepest pockets to take such action... or only threaten to do such... effectively acts as a means of censorship.

By the way... what d'you make of these?:devil:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2245/5702498244_ea72e27c17_z.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3603/5701928945_9cc292e656_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5101/5702498454_3af99a63cf.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2450/5702498614_02d9ed4012_z.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2530/5702498676_2a4a3d824d_z.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3598/5701945227_da88899e71_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5222/5702498734_4247639207_z.jpg

While inside the bubble of academia copyright laws may only seem like a hindrance to art, outside, many artists would be quite screwed without them (and some are even screwed with them). Plagiarism is a problem that is, with all our technology, greater now than ever, especially for writers and photographers. From here, your views appear grievously academic, which, for all their acumen, are pretty ignorant about reality in this case.

My opinions are academic and ignorant...? Hmmm... last I checked I wasn't working anywhere near academia... at the same time, my views are informed my my research on the topic of copyright law as it effects my own work as a working artist. I agree that photographers, film-makers, and recording artists... anyone who makes use of modern mechanical reproduction... is facing a challenge with regard to protecting their work. On the other hand, one must recognize that any medium has its inherent strengths and weaknesses. If one wishes to take advantage of mass production and the potential of the internet, one must also be aware of the potential problems. The question still remains as to just how we can enforce outdated ideas of copyright while still preserving all that we love about the internet, downloads, streaming music and film, and all our digital gadgets. The obvious answer is that we can't... we can't put the genie back into the jar. As such, we must rethink the whole means of financing and compensating artists.

[Vonny]

It's all so exhausting. It almost makes me :smile5: that I have no talent and don't own much of anything that can be stolen.


"The question still remains as to just how we can enforce outdated ideas of copyright while still preserving all that we love about the internet, downloads, streaming music and film, and all our digital gadgets. The obvious answer is that we can't... we can't put the genie back into the jar. As such, we must rethink the whole means of financing and compensating artists."

There's very little of this stuff, (music, film, contemporary fiction), that is worth the time and effort it would take to download and steal. ...I own a few CD's. DVD's I rent once in a while and don't need to own. And digital gadgets - bleh - I was given a digital camera once, and I threw it away. I could do without the iPod, too.


"I think if you are J.K. the least you could do is invest in the replanting of forests - but she's strangely quiet on that issue, as are all best selling (read 'successful') authors (maybe not David Suzuki) and publishing magnates the world over - these 'people' are happily ripping off what is ours and belongs to everyone, and have been doing it since before history."

This is a good point, these 'people' ripping off what's ours. If the genie could be put back in the jar, I'd just put the forests back in the Pacific Northwest, not a replant, but the original old growth. The H.P. books aren't worth the paper they're printed on. I haven't read H.P. but I've heard that all of her ideas are stolen from classics with a pale spin. If it is commercial, it's tawdry.
...A public library is nice to have, that offers the classics, and since very few people care to read anything of quality, a few volumes would serve the entire country. If they only had classic books in the library, the library would be nice and uncrowded. Just give me back the forest and they can keep all of their digital garbage, including this laptop. More than anything, I'd love to go outside and breathe fresh air.


Revolte - your concerns (regarding what is moral or immoral) are as important as any of this, though maybe a bit off topic, but we can discuss it when this thread runs it's course, or on another thread. I hope I haven't sounded like a "know it all." My thinking can get rigid. You make me ponder things more.

[JCamilo]

I suppose people are confuding the occurence with Delta, a copy and paste sittuation, with all plagiarism. Guys like La Fontaine, Perrault, Shakespeare, Italo Calvino, etc. would be out of the accusation since they borrow from oral tradition, but this cann't be said for example from the history of Dracula. Not only the book would have too much similarity with previous works as they have imitators like Stephen King or Horacio Quiroga and of course, the famous case with the movie Nosferatu. Or the Captain Marvel and Superman.
I recall one funny, which was the White Wolf roleplaying game going to the courts against the movie Underworld because there was enough similarity between the movie plot (Vampires vs.Werewolves, the existence of a convenant between both, elder vampires, the possibility of a vampire-wolf mixed breed, even that they dressed in black leather, etc) with visual concepts and plot-lines of their games World of Darkness. Despite that all those ideas they borrowed from somewhere...

[Bluehound]

There also seems to be confusion between stealing something outright and changing it for the purpose of homage satire or parody.
I am not sure of the legal implications of these things. But I think they have a place in society and art, seeing something familiar and yet wittily altered is good. I would hate to see laws tightened to the point of choking such expression, I recently enjoyed Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

But no one should copy exactly someone elses work and call it their own, the trouble is that if the original work is not famous enough in its own right any plagiarists can get away with it. We are reliant on folk being honest and unfortunately not everyone is.
So until the human race evolve a better moral gland , don't put anything you truly value up on any forum - sad but true.

On the flip side we should remember , before getting uppity, that how ever clever we think we are.....
To quote the Bible "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."

For example : Vampire stories existed well before Dracula and they will be recycled for as long as there are people around to write I would bet.

[billl]

The question still remains as to just how we can enforce outdated ideas of copyright while still preserving all that we love about the internet, downloads, streaming music and film, and all our digital gadgets. The obvious answer is that we can't... we can't put the genie back into the jar. As such, we must rethink the whole means of financing and compensating artists.

I'm not sure exactly if an abandonment of copyright is being suggested here, or if more artist-friendly laws are potentially part of the mix. But I encourage people to not take the put-the-genie-back-in-a-bottle stuff too seriously. (The same goes for another notion that some want to prevail: "privacy is outdated.") We can put the genie back in the bottle (or basically as much of the genie that was ever in that bottle, anyhow), while keeping the ability to access and share widely, and notions of intellectual property and copyright.

[Vonny]

There also seems to be confusion between stealing something outright and changing it for the purpose of homage satire or parody.
I am not sure of the legal implications of these things. But I think they have a place in society and art, seeing something familiar and yet wittily altered is good. I would hate to see laws tightened to the point of choking such expression, I recently enjoyed Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

But no one should copy exactly someone elses work and call it their own, the trouble is that if the original work is not famous enough in its own right any plagiarists can get away with it. We are reliant on folk being honest and unfortunately not everyone is.
So until the human race evolve a better moral gland , don't put anything you truly value up on any forum - sad but true.

On the flip side we should remember , before getting uppity, that how ever clever we think we are.....
To quote the Bible "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."

For example : Vampire stories existed well before Dracula and they will be recycled for as long as there are people around to write I would bet.




I was thinking something similar because I realized that I enjoy the story Dracula and also Nosferatu. However, Stlukes gross picture of Charlie Brown bothers me. I've always loved Peanuts and Charles Shultz.

A lot of the work on this website has a freshness to it, and it won't ever become famous because it doesn't appeal to that lowest common denominator.

If your work isn't famous enough (if it isn't the property of a corporation) then it will be ripped off and probably altered in uncomplimentary ways, that could end up making you feel somehow ashamed of your own creation. It occurs to me that someone could adulterate your work in ways you can't even imagine.

No laws will be put into effect to protect you.

When I first came to this site, one of my first thoughts was, as I read some of the poetry, "I can't believe this person would put this here! I'm really glad they did, but I don't think I would have put it here if it had been mine."

[JCamilo]

There also seems to be confusion between stealing something outright and changing it for the purpose of homage satire or parody.
I am not sure of the legal implications of these things. But I think they have a place in society and art, seeing something familiar and yet wittily altered is good. I would hate to see laws tightened to the point of choking such expression, I recently enjoyed Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

But no one should copy exactly someone elses work and call it their own, the trouble is that if the original work is not famous enough in its own right any plagiarists can get away with it. We are reliant on folk being honest and unfortunately not everyone is.
So until the human race evolve a better moral gland , don't put anything you truly value up on any forum - sad but true.

On the flip side we should remember , before getting uppity, that how ever clever we think we are.....
To quote the Bible "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."

For example : Vampire stories existed well before Dracula and they will be recycled for as long as there are people around to write I would bet.

Yes, of course. Dracula is pretty much born under copyright care, since Stoker wrote some chapters before, to grant him the copyright for plays, before anything else. It is a weird story, but many can see similarities between it and Lord Ruthveen from Polidori's Vampire, which would cause enough questions today in a court.

Anyways, the homage or paradoy is not easy. Not only because, unless the artists claim it, we cann't tell if it is either for sure. And, what if I do not want to be target of a homage or parody? The plagiarism does not draw the line well here.

As the copy and paste, any teen can change a text enough to avoid the complete copy and paste from a text, imagine a well trainned writer. It must be similar, not the same.

That is why for example ghost-writers survive. After all, they are not illegal (as copyright is not about the author, but however owns the right to copy the material) and they are a sittuation when someone claims to have write the material of someone else. Accusations such as those fall over bright heads (falsely, but well) such as Mary Shelley and Emily Bronte. And it's without a doubt a "sin" of Alexander Dumas.

[Ecurb]

Since I started this argument with AuntShecky, I thought I should respond. But since I haven't been on this site for several days, I haven't read this thread thoroughly (although I've glanced through it). I'll make a couple of points:

1) The entire concept of copyright is based on technology. Homer never worried about "plagiarism". The entire concept would have seemed ridiculous to him. Of course the Iliad and the Odyssey are "plagiarized" (by modern standards).

2) In addition to StLuke's examples of modern and postmodern collage art (the elimination of which would surely be a restriction on free speech), I'll give another example. I know a woman who produces and directs High School plays. Some are copyrighted. She has to get approval (and sometimes pay) for the production. In addition, some authors don't want the director to alter their play at all. This is ridiculous. A play is a collaborative work of art -- the playwright is one of many artists that work on the production. Elia Kazan was as influential as Tennessee Williams in the final version of "Glass Menagerie", and dozens of other artists were involved. The notion that the playwright "owns" the play in some sense other than the financial sense is not only illogical and ludicrous, but is a hinderance to artistic creativity.

3) AuntShecky said:
Elsewhere on these forums a member stated that he (or she) believed that not being able to quote another's work infringed on one's "free speech." The countries which hold personal liberties sacred (such as the one in which I proudly reside) allows self-expression with very few limits (such as the famous admonition against a false shout of "fire!" in a crowded theatre.) For the most part, I can say or write anything I damned well please, as long as I am willing to take responsibility for what I say and that the words I use are my own.

Free societies which make a point of civil liberties aren't all one-sided. Other citizens have rights as well, among them the right not to have their intellectual property stolen out from under them.

Since I’m the member who stated that I believe that copyrights impinge upon free speech, let my reiterate that all too obvious point. Intellectual “property” impinges upon freedom because ALL PROPERTY impinges upon freedom. This is obvious – and it’s a point that AuntShecky apparently fails to recognize. She talks about words being “my own”. How can words be “her own”? Unless she invents them, like Lewis Caroll, NO words are her own. The only question is the extent to which her use of particular sequences of words should be limited by law. If one borrows an Oscar Wilde witticism in conversation, is one morally required to attribute the witticism to Wilde? I certainly don’t think so.

Obviously, claiming that you wrote a poem that somebody else wrote is a lie, and to the extent that lying is immoral, it is immoral. However, most people don’t think that lying is immoral per se. It is immoral if and only if it confers some undeserved benefit to the liar, or some undeserved harm to the listener. Mark Twain said, “Show me a man who don’t lie, and I’ll show you a man who ain’t got much to say.” Tall tales, embellishments of fact designed to make a story more entertaining, fiction, etc. etc. are not immoral.

Finally, the cult of the “author” or “artist” may be losing sway. Romanticism in particular (and the Enlightenment in general) emphasized the “individual”. However, critics like Foucault (who refuses to even use the word “author”) see works of literature as “dialogical” – part of a discourse that answers previous works, and anticipates future works. Just as post modern collage questions the notion of plagiarism in the visual arts, this approach to literature questions the notion in literature (see also St.Luke’s discussion of T.S. Eliot, whose views anticipated Foucault’s).

I'll try to answer in more depth when I've had a chance to read the thread more carefully.

[AuntShecky]

I started this thread because a member posted lyrics by a singer/songwriter without credit or attribution, and presumably, without permission.

The opinions expressed in the opening of this thread had little to do with "corporations," which, if you really want to hear what I think of them, I'd be here all afternoon ranting against their abuses and oppressive capitalism. In my native country, however, the corporations are irrevocably
linked to politics, discussion of which is forbidden on this site.

No, I have not taken nor am not taking the side of corporations or the conglomerates running the publishing and music business. Instead, I was trying to stick up for the individual --including yours fooly, as well as this poster:



I already mentioned the offence caused by seeing my poetry on another poetry forum by a name I couldn't remember. I cannot imagine how I would feel to flick through the pages of a book in a bookshop and see my work there under the name of a person other than myself. :flare:

I have thought about how to protect my work while it is online. I know I can get the mods to delete it all - esp if I want to get published. The point is, there is alot of discussion about the concept of publish. At uni, it is agreed that once you click submit on the web, your work is published, which is a pain when asked by mags and other publishing areas if the piece has been published elsewhere. It does include the net. I can get rid of it all but once somebody has cut and pasted it, I'm doomed.

Life is already hard enough for unpublished, struggling writers. Having some selfish loafer steal our work is just one more strike against us. Why can't we catch a break?

[Ecurb]

I started this thread because a member posted lyrics by a singer/songwriter without credit or attribution, and presumably, without permission.

The opinions expressed in the opening of this thread had little to do with "corporations," which, if you really want to hear what I think of them, I'd be here all afternoon ranting against their abuses and oppressive capitalism. In my native country, however, the corporations are irrevocably
linked to politics, discussion of which is forbidden on this site.

No, I have not taken nor am not taking the side of corporations or the conglomerates running the publishing and music business. Instead, I was trying to stick up for the individual --including yours fooly, as well as this poster:

Originally Posted by Delta40
I already mentioned the offence caused by seeing my poetry on another poetry forum by a name I couldn't remember. I cannot imagine how I would feel to flick through the pages of a book in a bookshop and see my work there under the name of a person other than myself.

I have thought about how to protect my work while it is online. I know I can get the mods to delete it all - esp if I want to get published. The point is, there is alot of discussion about the concept of publish. At uni, it is agreed that once you click submit on the web, your work is published, which is a pain when asked by mags and other publishing areas if the piece has been published elsewhere. It does include the net. I can get rid of it all but once somebody has cut and pasted it, I'm doomed.



Life is already hard enough for unpublished, struggling writers. Having some selfish loafer steal our work is just one more strike against us. Why can't we catch a break?

This is a good example of how two people can see the same event in completely distinct ways. First, AuntShecky uses the word “steal” to describe publishing poetry on a web site. By the same reasoning, Homer was a ‘thief”. If someone wants to share something they’ve written (rather than wanting the money or glory they can get from having written it), why would they object? Personally, I wouldn’t object to someone cribbing one of my posts. I’d see it as a compliment.

Second, the notion that people SHOULD be able to profit from their artistic endeavors is problematic. Although it is true that in some capitalist societies people DO so profit, the early artists (story tellers, cave painters) probably did not. Why should people EXPECT money from entertaining their fellow humans? I tell funny stories all the time (or, at least, I think they’re funny), and I don’t expect to get paid for it, nor do I mind if someone repeats the story.

Third, the internet is more like a conversation than a publication. If (as above) you tell a joke to someone, you can hardly complain if he repeats it (unattributed) to someone else. Why whine about it?

Fourth, I don’t buy the notion (which AuntShecky has not explicitly stated, but which seems implicit in her posts) that if you sing a new song to someone who remembers the song and sings it to someone else, the song “belongs” to you by some sort of natural law. Why would it? Any art is shared by several people. The artist and the audience both participate. Why always take the side of the original artist?

All this being said, I’m aware that we now live in an economically specialized society and that we want to encourage artists by allowing them to make money. I don’t object to all copyright laws – I just want to point out that they are arbitrary (as opposed to “natural”) and that I think they should be narrowly interpreted.

[Vonny]

I started this thread because a member posted lyrics by a singer/songwriter without credit or attribution, and presumably, without permission.

The opinions expressed in the opening of this thread had little to do with "corporations," which, if you really want to hear what I think of them, I'd be here all afternoon ranting against their abuses and oppressive capitalism. In my native country, however, the corporations are irrevocably
linked to politics, discussion of which is forbidden on this site.

No, I have not taken nor am not taking the side of corporations or the conglomerates running the publishing and music business. Instead, I was trying to stick up for the individual --including yours fooly, as well as this poster:




Life is already hard enough for unpublished, struggling writers. Having some selfish loafer steal our work is just one more strike against us. Why can't we catch a break?


Sorry AuntShecky, I'm always trying to figure out what is considered political or not.


Point is, as individuals, don't copy anything from this website.

Don't figure out a way to interpret or manipulate the laws, whether "arbitrary" or "natural." Don't try to find a rationale for taking another person's work.

Got that Revolte?? :lol: I don't know why I'm always picking on that guy!

You know, I'm not sure what we're going to do about Revolte. He says he's going to copy whatever he wants.

[AuntShecky]

You know, I'm not sure what we're going to do about . . . He says he's going to copy whatever he wants.


Really?

My advice to anyone who might be entertaining notions of plagiarizing someone else's work is that he or she should retain a good attorney and a hefty bankroll:


I have "copied" the following quote from this U.S. Government website:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html
(The boldfaced sections have been added by moi.)


"Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.

"Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law."

[Ecurb]

“Protection by federal copyright law” doesn’t mean much. I remember when VCRs first hit the market. The networks panicked because they thought people would tape TV shows, and then fast-forward through the commercials. The networks tried to make the entire process of taping TV shows illegal (based on proprietary copyrights). However, it didn’t work. The technology trumped the law.

This makes sense. Artists can make money from their work only if the medium in which they work is conducive to making money. Before recordings were developed, songwriters made money by selling copyrighted sheet music. Now that copies of CDs are easily made, monetary gains from recordings may become more difficult to realize. Of course that’s a bummer for recording artists – but the extent to which it is bad for society is dubious. In addition, the extent to which placing legal limits on freedom of speech in order to allow writers, singers, or painters to profit is NOT self-evident. It is reasonable to argue about it, and discuss it (although AuntShecky appears to think the issue is black and white). There are two issues worth discussing: first, what IS protected by law; second, what SHOULD BE protected by law.

All laws are violent and coercive (by their very nature). All copyright laws limit free speech. Given that violence and coercion should be avoided whenever possible, and that free speech should be protected whenever possible, we should be certain that those copyrights we offer are sufficiently worthwhile to merit the violent and coercive limitation on free speech.

[Vonny]

AuntShecky

You can't get blood out of a turnip. I doubt that Revolte has that much money.


I think Revolte is confused. Revolte is intelligent and can write well, but I have a little difficulty interpreting him. For instance, I don't know the meaning of the word "upped." I'll need to google that. But I think he was saying that he belongs to the Aryan Nations even though he feels that racism is completely wrong. (I could have that wrong.) I think he feels a bit of an outsider because he can't fully express himself in the world and so he copies other people's words. It's significant to me that he calls himself "Revolte" and he worries that people don't like him.

But I guess we can always put him in jail and throw away the key.

I have a brother like Revolte. In 2nd grade the school principal called my mother in and told her that Mark had a mental block and needed to be put into "special education." The mental block had to do with the fact that my father called him a "sissy," but also Mark always felt different from the other boys. In special education, where he had one-on-one teaching he flourished. My mom has his report cards which state, "In my career, I have never seen a child make such rapid progress as this child." Mark needed that attention in school. Today he reads very well. However, Mark still feels deeply ashamed of the fact that he was put into special education in 2nd grade! And the fact that he has always felt different from the others has damaged him. But I think the fact that my mom embraces him has kept him from joining the Aryan Nations.

It makes me think of Dickens Ghost of Christmas Future, where he opens his cape and says, "Beware of these ..." I know I didn't quote that exactly right.

It feels very strange to be outspoken, although I feel that what I'm saying is fine. I feel that I must continually say, "I hope this is okay." I'm not like Revolte, but in my life, I haven't really been able to speak too much. In person, I can't do it.


In addition, I think this thread is about plagiarism, about the theft of people's work on this website. Are we really talking about someone who burns a copy of Madonna? I personally wouldn't have too many qualms about that, but the thing is, I don't want a Madonna CD. I feel differently about the poetry on this website. Stealing that would feel much more personal somehow, a violation of a person. Not stealing it stems from my conscience. And people either have a conscience or they don't. And some people have a conscience but they can't really access it... maybe they're focused on their own hurting more than someone else's.

I shouldn't have said that Mark feels different from other boys. He feels different from everyone.

[Delta40]

Is Lit-Net American and if it is, does that mean its copyright laws apply to everyone who plagiarizes from this site? What about a site with different laws. My concern is that American copyright infringements are somehow being applied as the universal norm.

[JCamilo]

I suspect that is why they give the warning with US law. This is a first and necessary protective measure, because in those sittuation, the first contact is usually friendly.

Now, net laws are complicated, but even if a Brazilian like me post here, Litnet would answer the law of the country where it's based, but they cann't (as they should not) be accused of me getting a text here and publish in brazil.

Obviously, one of the hot topics in the NY digital fair in january was the international law and e-books. There is many considerations because there is not an international law and there is a potential international market. The consumist pressure is breaking down the first barriers of e-book legal protection, so countries will need to re-adapt their laws.

[Vonny]

If I could do it, I would put a great poem up and hope someone stole it. "Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed."


About this:
"Second, the notion that people SHOULD be able to profit from their artistic endeavors is problematic. Although it is true that in some capitalist societies people DO so profit, the early artists (story tellers, cave painters) probably did not. Why should people EXPECT money from entertaining their fellow humans? I tell funny stories all the time (or, at least, I think they’re funny), and I don’t expect to get paid for it, nor do I mind if someone repeats the story."

It's true that art and literature creations were richer back in the days when artists created solely for the purpose of their art and were starving to death.

However, today people do have to support themselves. Telling a funny story or a joke is different from a person who has invested a great amount of themselves into their work. People have different gifts, some as mechanics, some as artists. Also, what appears as simply a gift may have required an education that has resulted in student loan debt. And, a person who writes may not be able to spend 40 hours per week earning a living as a mechanic.

As a different kind of example, my oldest brother (not the one mentioned above) created a state of the art piece of sporting goods equipment. He wasn't interested in becoming wealthy from his device. He only wanted to earn a reasonable living. And he had spent years learning metals analysis. (I won't tell the story in depth, because his identity would be revealed through an online search.) He had put many hours into his design and making a small business float... this isn't the same as a written creation, but still I know the devastation when an inferior copy turns up elsewhere, which is blatantly your own design, with someone else's name on it.

And someone who puts their name on someone else's creation is misrepresenting himself/herself. That's different from repeating a joke or a little story you heard.


It may be easier to sue for copywrite than for patents, but I know my brother had spoken of getting a patent and whether or not it was worthwhile. When you're violated it isn't a matter of, "Oh okay, I'll just sue and get compensation." Fighting "someone" bigger than you is not easy or brief. My brother's product did still sell, because it was superior to the copy, but this gradual takeover dragged on for a very long time and wore him down miserably, along with his marriage, until he gave up. He was somewhat despondent and suicidal for a very long time, and today he is the one member of my family who has no health insurance. But he says now he will become healthier than ever, now that he's finally cut his losses and walked free of that devastation.

[Ecurb]

Surely the amount of time and effort one spends creating either a work of art or an invention is irrelevant to whether he should make money from it. Obviously, not everything we spend lots of time and effort on pays off. If it did, I’d be a professional athlete.

We all want to “earn a reasonable living”. So what? The people who knocked off your brother’s invention wanted to earn a reasonable living just as much as your brother did.

As a society, we want to encourage inventiveness and artistic creativity. That’s why we sometimes limit freedom by offering patents and copyrights. However, the interests of JUSTICE are not necessarily served by such limitations on freedom. The notion that an artist somehow DESERVES to make money, or that an inventor DESERVES to make money is precisely what I am inveighing against. That’s why my example of telling a joke IS relevant – it’s an example of offering entertainment to other people with no expectation of compensation. The relevant difference between that and writing a novel is NOT the effort and time (some people might spend lots of time planning out jokes). Instead, it is simply in the culturally constituted expectation of cashing in.

My point is simply this: if people expect to cash in and then don’t cash in – that’s too bad, but it does not mean the system is unjust. There may be reasonable expectations about cashing in on intellectual property based on current law – but there are no such reasonable expectations based on any extralegal view of “justice”.

Here’s an example: Drug companies can produce HIV drugs that save lives very cheaply. However, patents that limit competition allow them to sell the drugs at a huge profit. In Africa, where AIDS is rampant, millions of lives could be saved by distributing these drugs at an affordable price that would still be profitable for the Drug Companies (and the Drug Companies currently make no money at all, because Africans can't afford the inflated prices). However, some of these drugs would be “diverted” to the U.S. and European markets, where people would buy them instead of the premium-priced patented drugs. So the Drug Companies would lose profits.

If you were an African parent, would you let your children die of AIDS, or buy black market drugs? Does “justice” demand you honor the intellectual property rights of the drug company? If not, why should you honor other intellectual property rights? Shouldn’t “ideas” be free? Mightn’t there be a value to society in allowing a freedom of invention and ideas, instead of regulating it?

We are all invested in our own systems -- but systems of intellectual property rights are far from universal.

[Cunninglinguist]

First, I want to apologize for an originally crass post which was written in haste, while I was tired, so that I would not miss the new episode of River Monsters (which, incidentally, is also why I never finished the post). Mind you, it was a good episode.

In any event,


As someone who spent several years working with collage I spent a good deal of time researching the copyright laws and their implications for the visual arts.
Part of the problem is that the government has not spelled out where the line is to be drawn. How much can you "borrow" before allusion or appropriation becomes plagiarism? According to the strict interpretation of the law the answer is nothing. A work which draws upon another work in any way is considered in legal terms "derivative" and only the original artist or the owner of the copyright has the right to create a derivative work of art. With the exception of that which is spelled out in the "fair use" laws, the very act of appropriation... regardless of the intention or purpose is illegal. By this strict interpretation, virtually the whole of collage, montage, Joseph Cornell, Andy warhol, Robert Rauschenberg, and the jazz pieces that "quote" well-known popular standards would be deemed illegal. Because the law is so broad, there have been endless ridiculous lawsuits brought about. Without clear defined limits, the only way to test what is or is not illegal is through the courts.

Well, the October 2009 copyright law in America (which I have partly read through myself), and all hitherto copyright laws, have never dealt with the concept of "plagiarism." The word never appears in any of the legal documents; it is purely a moral concept.

As such, it is understood as the appropriation of someone's intellectual property and the presentation of it under the pretense that it is ones own. It is the inclusion of this second stipulation that makes it plagiarism, and in almost all the cases you have given, the artists are not trying to do the latter, and therefore would not ever by any reasonable person's standards be construed as plagiarizing. How the law would deem their actions is another story. Fairey might stand in a moral gray area because, as suggested by billl (I think), he does not have a reputation preceding him, unlike Warhol or English, which makes his own personal advancement in the wake of his "borrowing" suspicious. There are perhaps other reasons, but I don't know if it's worth nitpicking into this case.


Obviously Dante faced no such problems (as is the case with most of the artists I cited) for the simple reason that he was working prior to copyright law. If we take things into the present, however, do you honestly think that a contemporary writer could get away with employing characters out of a Disney movie or from the Harry Potter novels without the very real possibility of facing legal action? How is this different from Shakespeare using characters of the Montagues and Capulets?

On moral grounds, I don't think anyone can/will ever rebuke Dante or Shakespeare. As I'm sure you know, these artists are recognized and understood as great to the extent that they followed and borrowed from models...here is a quote from Royal Shakespeare Company (2007) p.215:

"while we applaud difference, Shakespeare's first audiences f[avo]red likeness: a work was good not because it was original, but because it resembled an admired classical exemplar, which in the case of comedy meant a play by Terence or Plautus"

Shakespeare, then, (and Dante, Virgil, Picasso, etc. and Warhol, as you suggest) would have been doing himself a disservice if he deliberately and successfully plagiarized material. As you said the artist "most assuredly wants the viewer to recognize his source."

To state the obvious, the idea of "original work" is highly incompatible with art. Of the few, perhaps the most notable example of an artist actually creating good "original work" is Pollock.


There is no question as to whether simply taking another's artistic creation and presenting it as one's own without any real change amounts to plagiarism. But that is not what current copyright law stipulates. Take, for example, this instance (gleaned from ArtBusiness.com site: http://www.artbusiness.com/reprosuit.html)

Again, the law doesn't realize plagiarism as a concept, and I think mixing the two beclouds the situation. In a culture that is obsessed commercialization the copyright laws have become somewhat of a necessary double-edged sword. But ultimately I do not think the copyright law is what makes the situation less than favorable...it's a culture that necessitates it, drunken on the commercialization of art. And sure, without it, the art history texts would be a lot richer but the exceptional artists who will never make it into them, who are simply trying to make ends-meat from day to day, would be intellectually pilfered by the avaricious in a heartbeat.



A concept itself is not generally open to copyright protection. In other words, if we were living in the Gothic age, no architect would be able to copyright the idea of the "flying buttress". The specific design of a given buttress would be afforded protection, but not the idea of the structural element. Such would be akin to giving copyright protection to a color, or a technique of applying paint.

I think a flying buttress would be understood as a "device" instead of a "concept." The law never clearly defines "concept," either, though section 102.b states:

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship
extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is, described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Unfortunately, taking someone's concept design is still theft.


...In this instance, however, we have a large corporation smelling money and willing to test the case through the courts. The ability of those with the deepest pockets to take such action... or only threaten to do such... effectively acts as a means of censorship.

By the way... what d'you make of these?:devil:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2245/5702498244_ea72e27c17_z.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3603/5701928945_9cc292e656_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5101/5702498454_3af99a63cf.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2450/5702498614_02d9ed4012_z.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2530/5702498676_2a4a3d824d_z.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3598/5701945227_da88899e71_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5222/5702498734_4247639207_z.jpg

From my, albeit limited, understanding of the work of Mr. English, it is partly a reaction to corporation rights and not the copyright law, per se. It's an answer to the the question: should (copyrights held by) corporations enjoy the same rights as (ones held by) individuals? The question English addresses opens up a new and important vein of discussion, where I pretty much agree with his "no." However, in my opinion, a law that protects an individual artist's property beyond the threat of plagiarism is more or less necessitated by our commercialized culture, which removes the question of the applicability, cause, and necessity of copyright laws from the table. And as long as the capitalist culture continues its course, there will always have to be measures taken to protect intellectual property. Moreover, with the internet, and the ease wherewith the information can be copied thereon, these laws have become more important now than ever.


my views are informed my my research on the topic of copyright law as it effects my own work as a working artist. I agree that photographers, film-makers, and recording artists... anyone who makes use of modern mechanical reproduction... is facing a challenge with regard to protecting their work. On the other hand, one must recognize that any medium has its inherent strengths and weaknesses. If one wishes to take advantage of mass production and the potential of the internet, one must also be aware of the potential problems. The question still remains as to just how we can enforce outdated ideas of copyright while still preserving all that we love about the internet, downloads, streaming music and film, and all our digital gadgets. The obvious answer is that we can't... we can't put the genie back into the jar. As such, we must rethink the whole means of financing and compensating artists.

Then I'll suggest, let's focus on that question, instead of presenting ambiguous cases that might or might not exemplify a disobedience of this-or-that moral concept or current legal stipulation. As said above, I think removing copyright laws (at least without installing new measures) is quite beyond question ... and while they smell, and have been (ab)used by certain individuals (in anomalous cases) and corporations (in more routine cases), I haven't really ever come across a suitable alternative.

[Vonny]

Ecurb, I can't really answer your question completely because we're not to talk about -- you know, what AuntShecky said..

"So what? The people who knocked off your brother’s invention wanted to earn a reasonable living just as much as your brother did."

The amoral "people" were not aiming for a "reasonable living."

"The relevant difference between that and writing a novel is NOT the effort and time"

Each person has an area of speciality. One person might be a dental hygienist - that's something that can't be stolen. Another person could be a designer. Both are probably burdened by student loan debt.

"As a society, we want to encourage inventiveness and artistic creativity."

I don't think we do. I think we encourage shoddy products at the lowest cost that can be sold for the maximum profit.

What happened to my brother didn't encourage inventiveness and artistic creativity.

If you were an African parent, would you let your children die of AIDS, or buy black market drugs? Does “justice” demand you honor the intellectual property rights of the drug company? If not, why should you honor other intellectual property rights?

There's a difference here, which, if you can't see it, I can't explain it to you. There's a difference between obtaining a drug for a sick child and stealing my brother's invention. I'm not really thinking in terms of law, all of the law talk makes my head hurt.

But I'll tell you, of the devastation that happened to my brother, the financial aspect, although it was significant, was the least of it. He was emotionally devastated. It was the way these "people" went about what they did.

And the thing my brother designed... I'm sure no one would believe from his dummy sister telling about it here... it was something extraordinary, for anyone who would use that kind of thing. But it's something that you'd have to be very involved and proficient in that sport in order to fully appreciate the "edge" of this "thing." (The story of this invention and how all of this went down would make a good book actually, but it won't be written.) In fact, there is a very famous, rich man's son, (whom if I told you the name of this man you would all know), who bought 2 of these items from my brother and had them custom made, and that was the very last order that my brother filled. By that time, my brother didn't even want to save his design anymore. My brother has an undiagnosed bipolar disorder, or something, that made it very difficult for him to deal with this. It is an incredible story that if someone just told to me, I wouldn't believe.

In fact, that's not the only thing my brother has designed. He designed something else before that that he managed to actually sell to another company, because it was too cumbersome and involved for him to produce himself. And that "thing" is out there. If I told you the name, you could go buy one. My brother used the proceeds from this first design to start his next business, which he subsequently lost in bankruptcy.

And for this summer my brother is working on a ranch in Wyoming, as far from people as he can get. He's even out of range of a phone signal.

[Delta40]

I posted a short story here recently and then another Lit-Nutter Pm'ed me to let me know that they were actually writing a book on the same theme. Of course there were differences they said but they did not want me to think they had stolen my idea if I ever see it in print.

This is a courteous thing to do of course.

But what happens if I read a great story here and decided 'Hmm I could write a book on that plot' and so PM the poster to let them know I already had a similar idea and I don't want them to think I'm stealing their ideas?

Then again, how many stories are there about love? I think I've missed the point on plagiarism completely so I'll stop now :mad2:

[jocky]

Here we go again, why is plagiarism wrong ? Without plagiarism there would be no art, no science, no music, nothing. Did Shakespeare not plagiarise, was Constable not following Claude, did Dylan not folloiw American folk-blues? If by plagiarism you mean copying someones art word for word that is cheating, but there is no word that can describe a total original. We are " standing on the shoulders of giants " but they plagiarised as well. Perhaps a precise defenition of the difference between plagiarism and copying should have been utilised. " It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" is that copying or plagiarising? Humbug.

[MystyrMystyry]

Not sure about anything anymore

When Jimmy Page stole the opening guitar chords and fingerpicking for Stairway to Heaven from Spirit's Taurus it was a case of a small American band versus a large Brit band and Spirit's guitarist just let it go - until much later when he was down on his luck and asked politely for a bit of acknowledgement and maybe some cash to get him through

Well Jimmy proved to be a prick about it and hid behind the fact that it was a Led Zep song, therefore a collaborative effort, shrugged it off with a nothing he could do about it unless he chose to sue the whole band

No American lawyer would touch it, no British lawyer would touch it

Why? Because Stairway was never released as a single, therefore trying to determine how much the song was actually worth was impossible, added to the international hassle it was just overall more hassle than it was worth to anyone

I played Stairway last night because it was once a weekly staple, and I was curious whether my opinion would have changed beyond just general boredom knowing of the theft

Didn't matter - it was boring (I blame the radio stations that thrashed it to death) but it still contained nostalgic memories

This though is perhaps the point, are you a writer for the money, the enjoyment, the purpose of trying to change the world, personal satisfaction, entertainment - what?

Should I track down the Spirit guitarist and give him some money for indirectly entertaining me at certain periods, or perhaps start a charitable collection agency for all artists been/being/felt/feeling ripped off?

Jimmy Page probably feels ripped off for his own old white-haired reasons - but it's a good thing playing Stairway badly on electric guitar in a music shop wasn't charged a fee/compensatory price - imagine!


When did the world change? The day Michelangelo decided to sign his sculptures? Before that artistic production/expression was done for the common good. But we know of someone named Chaucer from earlier than the adoption of the printed word, just like we know of someone named Homer

And what's in a name anyway? We know Orwell as Orwell (not a name I would have chosen - nor Saki for that matter), what if we knew William Shakespeare as Fred Bloggs - would that alter our opinion? What if someone produced an authentic document stating that this F.B. was in fact the author and Shakespeare had ripped him off?

Where permission is sought and granted perhaps a young Spirit guitarist gave Page permission - this happens quite a lot - so did he rip himself off?

But regardless of it all ignorance is no excuse, at some point someone ripped someone off and the 'concept' of music was born, much as the concept of art, photography, television, computers, home invasion, organised warfare, and even copyright

I've said it before - get to the artshop to buy some materials, and produce something truly unique to you, because everything else is a brown area amid muckied waters


I seem to recall the Australian (conservative) government deciding that the best way to tackle illegal downloads was to scrap all laws trying to stop it - the amount we all save by having access to everything for free makes us all the more richer

[stlukesguild]

Ecurb-Second, the notion that people SHOULD be able to profit from their artistic endeavors is problematic. Although it is true that in some capitalist societies people DO so profit, the early artists (story tellers, cave painters) probably did not. Why should people EXPECT money from entertaining their fellow humans?

While I am questioning the current copyright laws that favor wealthy corporations and that do not deal intelligently with current realities of digital reproduction, the problems of international piracy of intellectual "property", and the viral nature of the internet and spread of information... nor the issues of derivative art forms such as collage, montage, parody, etc... I am not calling for throwing the baby out with the bath water. The notion that artists should not make a profit from their artistic endeavors is simply absurd... or more likely naive. Art involves a great deal of labor and the individual expects to be compensated for their labor... whatever that may be.

Vonny- It's true that art and literature creations were richer back in the days when artists created solely for the purpose of their art and were starving to death.

And when was that? The Renaissance painter, the medieval sculptor, the Kappelmeister who composed and scored music for the town cathedral, the Greek or Roman architect... all were paid. Until the Renaissance, most artists were paid as skilled craftsman at the going rate established by the guilds (which were essentially unions). This was equally true of musicians/composers. Writers commonly held positions as scholars, tutors, professors, courtiers, or court poets that afforded them the time to explore their writing. With the onset of the Renaissance the arts increasingly became a competitive business... rather than being supported through commissions, the artists competed with each other for sales in the open market.

Surely the amount of time and effort one spends creating either a work of art or an invention is irrelevant to whether he should make money from it. Obviously, not everything we spend lots of time and effort on pays off. If it did, I’d be a professional athlete.

That is true... but only in the sense that the artist is essentially a businessman... an independent contractor. He or she offers a product for sale but will only make money if their is an interested audience. This, off course, is quite different from suggesting that if an artist does create something that sells well and there is a demand, that anyone should be able to steal his or her art and offer it up to the audience as his or her own work.

The notion that an artist somehow DESERVES to make money, or that an inventor DESERVES to make money is precisely what I am inveighing against.

This, of course, makes no sense, outside of a communal system of economics where everyone's needs are met. Obviously, the artist deserves to be compensated for his or her work no less than the doctor or the laborer. If you are suggesting that artists need to somehow keep themselves free on moral grounds from the taint of money, then that is completely absurd. Artist are no different than anyone else in moral terms.

Here’s an example: Drug companies can produce HIV drugs that save lives very cheaply. However, patents that limit competition allow them to sell the drugs at a huge profit. In Africa, where AIDS is rampant, millions of lives could be saved by distributing these drugs at an affordable price that would still be profitable for the Drug Companies (and the Drug Companies currently make no money at all, because Africans can't afford the inflated prices). However, some of these drugs would be “diverted” to the U.S. and European markets, where people would buy them instead of the premium-priced patented drugs. So the Drug Companies would lose profits.

If you were an African parent, would you let your children die of AIDS, or buy black market drugs? Does “justice” demand you honor the intellectual property rights of the drug company? If not, why should you honor other intellectual property rights? Shouldn’t “ideas” be free? Mightn’t there be a value to society in allowing a freedom of invention and ideas, instead of regulating it?

The problem with your example is that it ignores the basic question of motive. Why would a company continue to invest millions into research and development of a product if there was no money to be made? Why would an artist continue to labor for years to perfect his or her skills if he or she knew for a fact that there would never be any compensation? Where is the motive?

[JCamilo]

There's a difference here, which, if you can't see it, I can't explain it to you. There's a difference between obtaining a drug for a sick child and stealing my brother's invention. I'm not really thinking in terms of law, all of the law talk makes my head hurt.

First, I think we must point the creator is not necessarily the owner of copyrights of anything. He may not be. And there is no difference. If I have intelectual material that is good, implying can lift ignorance, i am doing an evil by not allowing all the benefict of using it. If I have an invention that provides light using 10% eletricity, therefore reducing the demand for energy, preserving nature, etc. I am doing a evil by protecting it. Just like the same medical companies (which actually abuse of the concept of ownership, a great deal of druggs where found in laboratories, but by natives, just copied in laboratories by a different process, literary stolen under legal concepts from their real "creators").

Ecurd does not raise a notch in my understanding if copyrights, etc laws have their use in society, but the justification that plagiarism is wrong because it is illegal is not necessarily ethical. Plus, it goes to the ridiculous of believing people has to follow the american law for something as universal as intellectual process.

Very sad the story of your brother. Much sadder when Bayer company has stolen from brazil amazonia several species of vegetables, etc, build a world wide empire can come to sell us back their discovered with species which only exist in amazonia, but they grow in germany and allierata smallia became allierata smallia bayer and very funny when Brazilian governament in the 90's listed several product which would no longer be under protection of international laws and could be copies and produced by laboratories without problem to save people. Those stories have sad and happy stories , in both sides.

[billl]

As such, it is understood as the appropriation of someone's intellectual property and the presentation of it under the pretense that it is ones own. It is the inclusion of this second stipulation that makes it plagiarism, and in almost all the cases you have given, the artists are not trying to do the latter, and therefore would not ever by any reasonable person's standards be construed as plagiarizing. How the law would deem their actions is another story. Fairey might stand in a moral gray area because, as suggested by billl (I think), he does not have a reputation preceding him, unlike Warhol or English, which makes his own personal advancement in the wake of his "borrowing" suspicious. There are perhaps other reasons, but I don't know if it's worth nitpicking into this case.


I'm not sure if it's nitpicking or not, but I didn't mean to suggest that Faiery "[stands] in a moral gray area" for that reason.

For me, in the case of the Obama print, it would seem reasonable that the photo (and the photographer) receive credit, as well. It isn't a case of Fairey choosing to show a man in profile because other men have been in profile, at that angle. It is a case of Fairey using a photograph of the same man, in the same pose, etc.--it's a duplication of the photo, basically. It isn't a sample inserted into a song. It is a compostion the relies almost completely on the photo (or could I even say "completely"?). The coloration, the borders and outlining, and the addition of the word HOPE don't seem quite enough to me to make the thing any more than 50% Shepard Fairey's.

Anyhow, in January, Fairey agreed to share rights for the image with AP, and there are planned collaborations for the future, in which Fairey will work with more AP photos. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#Origin_and_copyrigh t_issues)

The agreement: http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressreleases/pr_01122011a.html

[jocky]

Not sure about anything anymore

When Jimmy Page stole the opening guitar chords and fingerpicking for Stairway to Heaven from Spirit's Taurus it was a case of a small American band versus a large Brit band and Spirit's guitarist just let it go - until much later when he was down on his luck and asked politely for a bit of acknowledgement and maybe some cash to get him through

Well Jimmy proved to be a prick about it and hid behind the fact that it was a Led Zep song, therefore a collaborative effort, shrugged it off with a nothing he could do about it unless he chose to sue the whole band

No American lawyer would touch it, no British lawyer would touch it

Why? Because Stairway was never released as a single, therefore trying to determine how much the song was actually worth was impossible, added to the international hassle it was just overall more hassle than it was worth to anyone

I played Stairway last night because it was once a weekly staple, and I was curious whether my opinion would have changed beyond just general boredom knowing of the theft



Jimmy Page probably feels ripped off for his own old white-haired reasons - but it's a good thing playing Stairway badly on electric guitar in a music shop wasn't charged a fee/compensatory price - imagine!




Oh! Stairway to Heaven, you name dropper you. I will give you the biggest rip off of all time. The Eagles ' Hotel California ' Plagiarised, or politely, copied from Jethro Tull's ' We Used To Know '

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgO7MamJnqM

So let us get back to plagiarism, rip off.

[jocky]

Art is available to everyone and not the self proclaimed chosen few. Just because some self proclaimed critic thinks he knows the iconography of the 'Death of Marat' it does not give he, or she, the last word. Here is an interpretatation of ' Hunters in the Snow' by Breughel in a musical fashion. Bet you have never seen this before.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qcPS-J0HTg

[MystyrMystyry]

They're a couple of good examples of appropriation Jocky, but similarities within simple chord progressions are as common as cowshi t on a dairy

The thing with Stairway is they were uncommon chords and directly discernible - at this point it becomes a question of whether Stairway was the better overall song - subjectively yes (for what it's worth)

Ballad form incorporating minor chord progressions, lead guitar break within a specified scale(s), tempo rhythm - all may be excused in the realm of pop music (by which I may mean what 'becomes' popular - one cannot 'know' exactly what will become of their creation after it's been released - which is why J.K.'s 'books' became larger after the unexpected success of the first - an attempt to increasingly remove herself from the source)

There is a thanks due for posting some JT though, something about their music tends to immediately alleviate feelings of anger/frustration

On plagiarism: you'll get caught, so watch yourself if you do, and you're not just ripping someone else off - you're ripping yourself off!

[Delta40]

I have cut and pasted this from http://www.fairwagelawyers.com/most-famous-music-copyright-infringment.html meaning, these are not my own words and I take no credit for them!

Vanilla Ice vs Queen & Bowie

Vanilla Ice became a household word for a while, not because of his talent, but because of the copyright infringement that occured in 1990 when it came to light that he had sampled Queen and David Bowie’s “Under Pressure” without consent or license. Ice Ice Baby hit number one on the charts in the United States and Vanilla Ice became the one ‘under pressure’. Vanilla Ice altered the rhythm of the baseline thinking he would thereby avoid any question of credit, royalties, license or even permission. This case never went to court as it was clear that Vanilla Ice had stolen the sample without permission. He settled out of court with Queen and David Bowie for an undisclosed but very likely very high amount. Ice Ice Baby has been released in many different versions, since then, with all of the legal procedures followed.

[MystyrMystyry]

Yeah there was quite a lot of sue/countersue going on in the sampling arena for a while, until someone wised up and observed that it was all advertising and popular musicians are all a bunch of thieving untalented ratbags anyway, so it really doesn't matter who's stolen the most millions with the least talent

A particularly interesting one was Huey Lewis and the News' Need A New Drug vs Ray Parker Jr's Ghostbusters - rythmically the similarities were beyond remarkable and it was obvious that Ray Parker had done a dirty - until 'M' of Pop Musik appeared claiming they'd both stolen from him - and won!

[jocky]

They're a couple of good examples of appropriation Jocky, but similarities within simple chord progressions are as common as cowshi t on a dairy



On plagiarism: you'll get caught, so watch yourself if you do, and you're not just ripping someone else off - you're ripping yourself off!

:D cowshi't in a dairy. Excuse me that is so,.....so un-European. I did think for a moment I was engaging with empty space, but I made my point and you responded perfectly. The thing is I enjoy art as well, but I am not sure I can comprehend it satisfactorally. History I can live with as you just fill in the dots and if you are wrong no one can prove otherwise.

[Delta40]

here is another example. J K Rowling

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/767464--j-k-rowling-sued-for-plagiarism

[MystyrMystyry]

I think it's that if something is sufficiently old and well-known enough then you can't sensibly claim infringement of copyright, as in the case of an icon like the Mona Lisa or Breughel - not even if the artist was still alive

They can be parodied, copied, photographically manipulated, anything except forged

It's just that if the artist stands to lose money/face from the theft/misappropriation of their words/works, their case is clear - but they'd still have to go to quite some effort to prove that they'd had their work used in a fashion untoward

Here's a case in point - Hitler's Mein Kampf was a blatant plagiarism from beginning to end - from columns in working class newspapers dating back to even preceding the First World War - he merely codified it as a political treatise

The ideas of the Third Reich, Sudetenland and Final Solution etc, were neither new nor his own, but he adopted them, and the few intellectuals who read his 'book' and may have mocked it were summarily dealt with in due course - ever read a chrono-current criticism of it? No - because the plates were all destroyed


Stomp on plagiarism today lest history repeats!

[jocky]

here is another example. J K Rowling

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/767464--j-k-rowling-sued-for-plagiarism

Yes, but it does not resolve the point in question. What is the difference between copying and plagiarism ? Everyone would like to play football like Lionel Messi, but he based his style on Maradonna. This brings us back to the point, individuals have their own style, but it is always based on what has gone before. English Cathederals were designed on the basis of Chartres in France. Medievil plate armour was developed in response to the longbow, chainmail did not work. Paint was developed by artists as red ochre had it's day. My point being it is a blurred line between copying and plagiarising. It seems only headmasters and teachers can draw the distinction.

[Vonny]

Jocky if your own work ever gets copied, you'll be able to figure out the distinction quite easily.


I agree again Stluke!

It's true that art and literature creations were richer back in the days when artists created solely for the purpose of their art and were starving to death.

And when was that?

I was thinking of van Gogh. He made art because it flowed out of him. In a way, that's how my brother's designs happened. My brother does have an engineering background, but his designs resulted when he realized he couldn't buy the kinds of equipment that he needed. It wasn't available on our markets. He wanted to make a contribution to the sport he loves, or I should say, "loved." For a while, I honestly thought he would meet the same ultimate fate as van Gogh. ...My brother had previously worked for Intel, and he had done contract work for other companies. He's very skilled and competent. The problem was that working in those environments was difficult for him because he has something like bipolar. So he did need another line of work, and an income. ...So then he faced the rigors of running a small business. They call having your own business, "The Great American Dream." Well, it's actually, "The Great American Nightmare." And then finally, to have his design stolen! ...Honestly, I'm not sure if he could have continued to run his own business, producing this "item" forever, because it was overwhelming, but he should have been able to sell his design. ...Now his income is very greatly diminished from what he once earned, but he's finally happier with what he's doing, because he's made peace with the past and he has no pressure.

The people who enjoy chatting about artists/designers not needing or deserving money, and all the instances when it's okay to steal someone else's work are people who have never been touched by this, those who don't have talent and want to take someone else's ...and of course those people will always be the great majority.

The other artist that came into my mind as creating solely for the purpose of art was Edvard Munch. I thought of him because I can relate to his art, and I don't think he chose to create art, I think it was inevitable. I'm not sure if he died destitute like van Gogh though. I don't think he died with a bullet through his head.

I know one thing, my brother won't be designing anything else.

JCamilo:

"Very sad the story of your brother. Much sadder when Bayer company has stolen from brazil amazonia several species..."

I'm with you on this. Just give us back our rain forest and all of those species. I will give up everything, even my life. That is truly how I feel.

But I have to admit that if someone in my family had AIDS, I'd consider taking a drug that came from there. And I'm somewhat anti-technology. I don't get into a car if I don't have to. However, in the past year, my mother developed a condition called atrial-fibrillation, a fast and irregular heartbeat. Twice she's needed a "cardioversion," an electrical shock that stops her heart momentarily and restarts it to beat normally. I'm GRATEFUL for this machine.

[JCamilo]

I am not defending the rain forest or anything, just pointing that Law is not synounimous of ethical. The laws of a country are usually an accord between parts to keep that society's demands under control. Changes and new conflicts will change laws.

So, people claimming that there is a ethical vallue in something just because it is legal or that it won't change are just out of line. Morals and laws weren't the same even inside the same nation, imagine when the world is considered.

[Vonny]

JCamilo

I agree completely. I'd say there's little correlation between laws and what is ethical or moral.

And I defend the rain forest, not that it does any good. Also, 90% of the new drugs shouldn't be invented at all. They make people more sick than anything else. But my mom takes a couple of those drugs that have horrendous side-effects, and in that situation I want her to take them. And most of the drugs that are really worthwhile are based on old established drugs. They aren't as new as inventors would have us believe. The best drugs are ones like aspirin, antibiotics, (which have been mishandled, are are losing effectiveness) and vaccines. Drugs such as anti-depressants, for most people, lead to conditions such as obesity and diabetes, and shouldn't be prescribed.

I was thinking about motive, after Stluke mentioning that artists and inventors need an incentive. With my brother, his original motive wasn't just to make tons of money, but when he saw someone else get rich while he went bankrupt, believe me that ended his innovative streak.

I was thinking more about motive. When a person intentionally copies, a relevant question is, "what is the motive?" If it is an amoral "person" who steals the work, then we know the motive. But as individuals copying... the question about motive is: is this new "copied product" complementary to the original? Like, if a new creation is based on the old, does it do justice to the original? Also, are you doing it recklessly without regard for the inventor, without regard for his livelihood, or his feelings? Does it injure anyone?

Also, if you're writing a love story or vampire story, of course we know that those same themes have been regenerated since people sat around the campfire. But you know in your soul if you are blatantly ripping off someone's work.

About that "cardioverter" machine, I don't know who invented it. Being the design of an amoral entity, I would say it was designed by an employee who's invention immediately became the property of someone else. I hope the person or people who designed it have a little income now.

[Ecurb]

While I am questioning the current copyright laws that favor wealthy corporations and that do not deal intelligently with current realities of digital reproduction, the problems of international piracy of intellectual "property", and the viral nature of the internet and spread of information... nor the issues of derivative art forms such as collage, montage, parody, etc... I am not calling for throwing the baby out with the bath water. The notion that artists should not make a profit from their artistic endeavors is simply absurd... or more likely naive. Art involves a great deal of labor and the individual expects to be compensated for their labor... whatever that may be.


As I said in earlier posts, I support the notion of copyright -- in limited form. It is true that some artists expect to profit from their endeavors, and that such an expectation is, in part, the result of their expectation that their work will be protected by copyright laws. However, Homer’s work was not protected by copyright laws (although he probably profited).

Obviously, the notion that artists SHOULD profit from their artistic endeavors is absurd, as the failure of many artists to so profit surely suggests. The hack poet, the lousy painter, and the amateur rock star all invest a great deal of labor into their art, and none of them are compensated. It is thus clear that the amount of labor invested is irrelevant to whether an artist should be compensated. Instead, an artist should be compensated if readers, viewers, or listeners agree to pay him for his performances. Obviously, the extent to which the artist can copyright his works that are easily reproduced has an impact on this, and that’s what we’re talking about.




This, of course, makes no sense, outside of a communal system of economics where everyone's needs are met. Obviously, the artist deserves to be compensated for his or her work no less than the doctor or the laborer. If you are suggesting that artists need to somehow keep themselves free on moral grounds from the taint of money, then that is completely absurd. Artist are no different than anyone else in moral terms.

The doctor and laborer CONTRACT for their services. So does the artist, sometimes. A singer performing for a live audience contracts for his services. A painter who sells his painting contracts to give it to a buyer for money. However, the issue we are discussing is copyright. I’ll grant that since we have copyright laws, the artist has an expectation of intellectual property, based on the law. However, my point is that such an expectation is not universal; laws vary; and the expectation is based on arbitrary, culturally constituted law rather than some universal or “natural” law. As Marx pointed out, all property rights involve the legal right of one person to limit the freedom of other people (and that’s ALL they involve). I’m not a Marxist. I don’t object to all forms of property. But intellectual property is a shaky concept in that it involves the right of one person to limit the freedom of speech, or of ideas, of other people. Although I agree that it is sometimes reasonable to grant such rights, I think we should be very careful about granting them. It would be ridiculous, for example, to refuse to allow people to make wheels because someone had patented the idea 8000 years ago. That’s why most patents and copyrights have limited validity in terms of time (which I think is a good idea, and perhaps the time limits should be shorter).

One example is the VCR snafu. Networks thought taping TV shows violated copyrights. If we think there is some sort of “natural” or “universal” ethos in support of intellectual property, the networks were right. My point is this: since there is no universal ethos supporting intellectual property rights, we can decide based on our reasonable preferences. Do we want to tape TV shows? It might make TV shows worse, by limiting the money they can make. Or do we want to disallow the taping of shows?

In addition, technological changes (like the VCR or the internet) make copyrights difficult to enforce. Since I don’t think that there is any “natural” right to intellectual property, I hardly think this is a huge tragedy.




The problem with your example is that it ignores the basic question of motive. Why would a company continue to invest millions into research and development of a product if there was no money to be made? Why would an artist continue to labor for years to perfect his or her skills if he or she knew for a fact that there would never be any compensation? Where is the motive?

Of course it is correct that U.S. drug companies, operating on a profit motive, developed most of the best HIV drugs. That’s why it’s such a complicated issue. My point was that although we want to promote the research and intellectual dynamism that results from a profit motive, the issue is morally complex. To say that some African mother is simply “stealing” because she is buying black market drugs that violate patents is, even if true, a vast oversimplification of the moral issue.

[Emil Miller]

....until someone wised up and observed that it was all advertising and popular musicians are all a bunch of thieving untalented ratbags anyway, so it really doesn't matter who's stolen the most millions with the least talent

Absolutely true, but what about the case where someone like Lord Webber, who actually can read and write music, has been criticised for using the compositions of others? I don't think much of his stuff and didn't know the truth of these allegations as I don't listen his songs. One day, however, I was listening to the radio and it was playing something called 'I Don't Know How to Love Him', and I sat bolt upright as it's a pinch from Mahler's 6th symphony. Later, I was listening to Lord Webber talking about music and he said that it's amazing how many little melodies run counter to a symphony's main themes that many people are unaware of.

[MystyrMystyry]

Emil,a tune is a tune is a tune

Henry VIII may have composed Greensleeves but it's public domain - free for use if you can do something with it, and somewhere I'm sure someone has

Musicians generally don't really have a that's mine you can't use it attitude unless there's lots of money involved (often it's just a lawyer who decides they have a case separate from from artistic merit)

There's no song I can think of which upon the copier being successfully sued are then forced to not receive airplay or inclusion on an album - it's a creation based on another's creation, and doesn't need to be accredited because the people versed in musicology already know the source - you can still buy Need a New Drug and Ghostbusters if you wish (though why is a question)

But musicians, you know, different breed - and music law is there to prevent wholesale copying of another's work, though it's all a copy of something else because music requires certain rules which can't be broken - just manipulated in slightly different ways

The words are a different matter, because they can be anything about anything, and if the similarities are too striking then credit where it's due I guess (Achey Breaky Heart - you know it's just a silly song - but it was a hugely successful song, and one which also was taken to the courts

'Genius is not that which can't be copied, it's that which no-one dare copy'

Beatles took tunes from Bach and Beethoven, but they didn't get sued by the estate (because there isn't one?) and most people couldn't tell you exactly what they've copied - actually the Beatles have a pretty good record in NOT being sued

I remember Disney wanting to do a Tarzan movie, but the family of Edgar Rice Burroughs decided Disney would do it no justice, even though few people read the original novels these days [interesting that the family still control the rights a hundred years later]

[Vonny]

"intellectual property is a shaky concept in that it involves the right of one person to limit the freedom of speech, or of ideas, of other people. Although I agree that it is sometimes reasonable to grant such rights, I think we should be very careful about granting them.

It doesn't really. Take the Peanuts comic strip for example. If Charles Shultz hadn't invented it, the world wouldn't have Charlie Brown today. You wouldn't have Charlie Brown to steal or to turn into a zombie.

In the case of a great poem. We all use the English language, but a great poem could not be written by a multitude of people. A unique poem can be written by only one person.

And my brother's design. People say "ideas are free." His design wasn't simply an idea. It was many many ideas. It was/is an intricate precision instrument. I don't think anyone else in this world could've come up with precisely that "thing."


It would be ridiculous, for example, to refuse to allow people to make wheels because someone had patented the idea 8000 years ago. That’s why most patents and copyrights have limited validity in terms of time (which I think is a good idea, and perhaps the time limits should be shorter)."

I agree. Hopefully the person who thought up the first wheel didn't die the hungriest person in his village. And if someone comes up with a state-of-the art wheel, he should earn a decent profit.

"Do we want to tape TV shows? It might make TV shows worse, by limiting the money they can make."
This concerns you?

Somehow, there's a difference between the entities that AuntShecky said not to talk about and an individual artist or inventor. But how can laws be tailored, especially if people can't distinguish a difference between the two?

Those companies that produce the AIDS drugs. Profit drives them, but have you checked lately on who profits and how much? It seems there ought to be a legal way for a mom to get that for her child. Otherwise, maybe none of us really need that drug.



Since I don’t think that there is any “natural” right to intellectual property, I hardly think this is a huge tragedy.

This is one reason my brother is in Wyoming, as far from people as he can get. I think that other innovative and creative people will also vanish and not share their gifts. It isn't just about the money. And it isn't just about enforcing laws. If there isn't a public out there who can appreciate and respect what they do for us, then why will they bother? Artists do get depressed.

Maybe people deserve another reality show that is a guy eating a worm over and over and over again, only just a different guy/girl and a different worm.

[Ecurb]

One good example of copyrights that are excessively oppressive is JK Rowling’s attempts to limit “fan fiction” about Harry Potter (I haven't really followed this, so I don't know how successful she's been). Personally, I never write fan fiction, and I never read fan fiction. However, I think it’s ridiculous that Rowling can limit people’s not-for-profit internet scribblings.

Copyrights might reasonably limit other authors’ ability to PROFIT from writing about the Harry Potter characters – but limiting their not-for-profit writings seems to me to be an egregious attack on freedom of expression. What’s next? Should Rowling be allowed to limit what Harry Potter games children play with their friends? Should she sue any kid who dresses up as Harry Potter for Halloween (unless he buys an “official” costume)? Perhaps these further limitations on freedom seem ridiculous, but so does suing people who write harmless, not-for-profit fan fiction. Authors should have some economic propriety over their works, but the characters no more "belong" to the author than to the reader. Any attempt to limit how the reader thinks about, discusses, or writes about (without profit) the characters is, in my not so humble opinion, ludicrous.

[Delta40]

Good Point Ecurb. I'm not a JK Rowling fan . That one time author has sued poor but devoted fans of Harry Potter on the basis that she is protecting her intellectual property. Their actions are an expression of their admiration for her. Websites created in her honour are dismantled with hefty repercussions. Why not hire them, pay them to continue to extol her virtues rather than putting them into bankruptcy with law suits? In my book, JK Rowling has been unable to shake her underclass single mother paranoia and is therefore overly viscious.

[Ecurb]

"intellectual property is a shaky concept in that it involves the right of one person to limit the freedom of speech, or of ideas, of other people. Although I agree that it is sometimes reasonable to grant such rights, I think we should be very careful about granting them.

It doesn't really. Take the Peanuts comic strip for example. If Charles Shultz hadn't invented it, the world wouldn't have Charlie Brown today. You wouldn't have Charlie Brown to steal or to turn into a zombie.

In the case of a great poem. We all use the English language, but a great poem could not be written by a multitude of people. A unique poem can be written by only one person..

What does all this have to do with whether intellectual property involves the right of one person to limit the freedom of another? Absolutely nothing. Obviously, if the owner of a house didn't pay to have the house built, nobody could sleep in the house. Nonetheless, "ownership" of the house means nothing more than the owner's right to forcibly prevent other people from using the house without his permission. In otherwords, it means nothing more than the owner's ability to limit the freedom of others. This is obvious -- but it doesn't mean we have to oppose all property rights. ALL LAWS LIMIT FREEDOM (including property laws). Because copyright and patent laws limit freedom of expression and invention, we should be particularly careful about passing and accepting such laws, and do so only for very good reasons.




This is one reason my brother is in Wyoming, as far from people as he can get. I think that other innovative and creative people will also vanish and not share their gifts. It isn't just about the money. And it isn't just about enforcing laws. If there isn't a public out there who can appreciate and respect what they do for us, then why will they bother? Artists do get depressed.
.

What's wrong with Wyoming? True: it's a little depressing in Annie Proulx or Maille Melloy stories -- but I like the place. I've spent many, many months there, of my own free will. And I like people!

Advice to Vonny's brother: The public doesn't OWE anyone respect and appreciation -- a great many people feel they've been screwed by the system when they haven't been. I don't know your circumstances, but the sooner you get over it, the better off youll be!

[MystyrMystyry]

Maybe she wants to limit what others do with her characters because she might inadvertently steal their idea and then get sued?

Could happen...

[Vonny]

Ecurb,


No, people don't owe inventors/artists respect or appreciation, and maybe not even compensation ...but like I said, if no one appreciates anything of value, even a forest, we won't continue to have it. And that's why things really are in decline.

My brother does love Wyoming, and he loves his work out there. He also lives part of the year on the Oregon Coast, where he's out to himself. He does have a good circle of friends there in Oregon. He's very happy not to be tied down.


Actually, I'm here mostly because I find it fun, and I think this is a good practice for me, not because I thought I could influence anyone's opinions.

Hey, I bet there in Oregon you see those HUGE trucks carrying HUGE, HUGE logs down the highway from the forest to the cardboard box factory, don't you?

[stlukesguild]

I was thinking of van Gogh. He made art because it flowed out of him...

The other artist that came into my mind as creating solely for the purpose of art was Edvard Munch. I thought of him because I can relate to his art, and I don't think he chose to create art, I think it was inevitable. I'm not sure if he died destitute like van Gogh though. I don't think he died with a bullet through his head...

It is dangerous to over-romanticize artists. Van Gogh's "career" as an artist lasted a mere 10 years. His work was shockingly new in many ways... to an extent that it took some time for it to be digested. His lack of financial success was owed to his isolation from the art market of the time... physically (he was working in the South of France rather than Paris)... and mentally (his mental illness made it difficult for him to deal with the realities of the art market). In spite of all of this, Van Gogh's fame spread rapidly following his death. Along with Cezanne, Gauguin, and Munch, Van Gogh was a leading source of inspiration for the following generation of artists (Picasso, Vlaminck, Bonnard, Vuillard, Matisse, Beckmann, etc...).

Few artists make a name for themselves early in their career. Monet, Renoir, Matisse, Picasso, Rodin, Rothko, etc... all struggled for a decade or longer before they gained recognition. In many ways it seems that this struggle strengthens the artist... those who rapidly achieve fame and fortune often fall prey to sycophants and burn themselves out in endless repetition. Munch, unfortunately, seems to have been one of the first of these "art stars" of the 20th century. Almost all that he achieved of merit was achieved within a ten-year period early in his career. We see this pattern repeat itself again and again in the careers of artists who achieve stardom early on... and then just lose any relevance as they repeat themselves ad nauseum: Warhol, Wesselman, Rauschenberg, etc... Artists such as Lucian Freud who achieve fame later in their career seem mature enough not to let it go to their head and not to be taken in by con artists and sycophants.

[AuntShecky]

As I said in earlier posts, I support the notion of copyright -- in limited form. It is true that some artists expect to profit from their endeavors, and that such an expectation is, in part, the result of their expectation that their work will be protected by copyright laws. However, Homer’s work was not protected by copyright laws (although he probably profited).



In what way did Homer actually "profit"? For centuries his works weren't even written down, but rather passed from
generations to generation via the oral tradition.

It's absurd to talk about copyrights in antiquity.

Likewise, we don't even know the author of many seminal works in history; for instance, who wrote the Bible and Beowulf? We don't know who created the medieval allegory "The Pearl," so scholars refer to him (or her!) as "The Pearl poet."

We are, however, in the 21st century in which-- regardless how unenlightened mankind still remains-- the sovereignty of the individual has become a cherished value.

When an individual therefore creates a work of art -- despite how little financial value it may garner -- he or she is the author of that work. Others may read it, appreciate it, vilify it, use it to line birdcages, but no one else can claim that he created it but the original author himself.

That is why we can't plagiarise or use any part of it without due attribution. I still can't see how this compromises your freedom, ecurb.

And by the bye, just whom are you calling "hacks"? Certainly not your fellow LitNetters, right?

[Ecurb]

Ecurb,
Actually, I'm here mostly because I find it fun, and I think this is a good practice for me, not because I thought I could influence anyone's opinions.

Hey, I bet there in Oregon you see those HUGE trucks carrying HUGE, HUGE logs down the highway from the forest to the cardboard box factory, don't you?

I didn't mean to be disrespectful of you or your brother -- just to express my opinion. I think freedom of speech and ideas is at least as important as the financial gains of artists -- and striking a fair balance between the two is a delicate business.

Of course the the huge logs on those trucks are used to make not only the cardboard boxes, but also the copyrighted books.

[Ecurb]

In what way did Homer actually "profit"? For centuries his works weren't even written down, but rather passed from
generations to generation via the oral tradition......

When an individual therefore creates a work of art -- despite how little financial value it may garner -- he or she is the author of that work. Others may read it, appreciate it, vilify it, use it to line birdcages, but no one else can claim that he created it but the original author himself.

That is why we can't plagiarise or use any part of it without due attribution. I still can't see how this compromises your freedom, ecurb.

And by the bye, just whom are you calling "hacks"? Certainly not your fellow LitNetters, right?

Most scholars assume Homer was a performing artist. He probably went from city to city performing his poems for the rich and famous. Nobody knows exactly how he was paid, but he probably was paid.

As far as “individuals” creating works of art, that is a stretch, as you would know if you had read my posts. How about a playwright? Does he “create” the play? Or do the director, the actor, the stage manager, the scenery designer, etc. also play a role? How about Rowling? Does she “own” her characters, so that it’s reasonable for her to sue people who write “fan fiction” about them? Is writing "fan fiction" plagiarism? You appear to ignore nuance.

I haven’t spent any time reading the LitNet fiction and poetry, so I have no opinion about its quality (which is irrelevant to my position here).

One more thing, OF COURSE people “CAN” claim that they created a work they plagiarized. They do it all the time. The question at hand is not whether they “can” copy things – it’s whether we as a society should clap them in irons and throw them into dungeons for doing so. It is certainly true that some morally repugnant behaviors should nonetheless NOT subject those who do them to violent punishment. Lying, it seems to me, is one of those behaviors. If we start imprisoning all the liars, our prisons would soon overflow. Let's leave the regulation of commercial speech to the government, and leave punishing non-commercial liars to community opinion.

"Use every man after his desert, and who would 'scape whipping?" -- Hamlet

[JCamilo]

In what way did Homer actually "profit"? For centuries his works weren't even written down, but rather passed from
generations to generation via the oral tradition.

If Homer acted like most oral storytellers they have the profit of receiving food, house, gifts, status, etc. At least, the poets who recited homer received it.


It's absurd to talk about copyrights in antiquity.

Let me see. Everyone knows George Romero directed (and his group) Night of living dead. It is the forefather of modern zoombie industry. They didnt receive any for it. They didnt even for the re-make of the movie. You know why... some burocratic mistake which them (movie students, etc) where unware, the movie was in public domain a few years after the release. Now, this make talking about copyrights in modern days absurd... And to think the idea of plagiarism came from antiquity...


Likewise, we don't even know the author of many seminal works in history; for instance, who wrote the Bible and Beowulf? We don't know who created the medieval allegory "The Pearl," so scholars refer to him (or her!) as "The Pearl poet."

So? If I find a academic work in the net and there is not authorship declared to someone know, it is fine to use it as my own? Knowing or not the author should not be an ethical problem... if claiming that taking credit for a work that you didn't created is wrong, then the presence or an author or not, is irreelevant. You know you didn't it.


We are, however, in the 21st century in which-- regardless how unenlightened mankind still remains-- the sovereignty of the individual has become a cherished value.

Actually, Democracy and Socialistm are cheerished vallues, considerable more powerfull than individualism. Everyone is leveled, that is actually the origem of the copyrights laws, giving "rights" to all.


When an individual therefore creates a work of art -- despite how little financial value it may garner -- he or she is the author of that work. Others may read it, appreciate it, vilify it, use it to line birdcages, but no one else can claim that he created it but the original author himself.

This is not copyright. Copyright is the right of someone, creator or not, to use the work. Disney was not the "creator" of Mickey, Bob Kane was not the sole creator of Batman, DC Comics was not the creator of Superman.


That is why we can't plagiarise or use any part of it without due attribution. I still can't see how this compromises your freedom, ecurb

Because plagiarims is not just using the word by word text, but even ideas, structures, style without credit. It is painting the Last Super in the same position as everyone else did. And if there was a law forbidding it Da Vinci Last Super would not exist, he would be arrested, his freedom to paint that scene, to use those solutions and organization, damaged.

[AuntShecky]

Okay, we're all getting off-track and off-topic here.

Here's the gist of what I am saying and what I am NOT
saying:

I'm not saying:
that modern and post-modern works, jazz improvisations, and literary allusions are copying or plagiarizing or stealing.

I'm not saying:
that corporations and big entertainment industries can usurp the rights of indvidual artists. It's never right for
anyone to scam or scrhooohooohoooew anyone else or to
bully him or her because the bully is rich and the victim is poor. (Or for any reason, for that matter.)

I am saying:
Everyone (the U.S. at least) has the right to free expression.However, this right, guaranteed in the Constitution, does not allow a person to claim another's work --the whole work itself -- as his own.

I am saying:
Whether the work of art is a masterpiece or a piece of crap
or whether it earns millions or nothing, the person who created it remains the person who created it, and whatever critical acclaim or financial benefits accrue or may accrue in the future rightfully should go to the person who created the original work.

What I am saying, LOUDLY and I hope everybody can hear me FINALLY:

Don't quote anyone's work without attribution.

Don't claim somebody else's work as your own.

That's simple enough to understand-- or it should be!

[Vonny]

Stluke, that's very interesting. You remind me of why I came to LitNet, because I enjoy learning about literature, art, and philosophy.

My brother's legacy will live on. For one thing, there is a limited number of the originals in existence, and those out there are owned, cherished and even coveted, by the very top sportsmen. As I said, two of those "items" are owned by the son of one of the richest and most famous men in this country. (Though this guy is not at the top of his sport, nor is he someone I particularly admire.) Many of my brother's originals have personalized engravings that the buyer requested. Those "things" will be handed down from father to son, and in at least one instance, from mother to daughter. My brother's creation is known by, and engraved with, his initials. Those who own the original "thing," do know what they have. In truth, the copy is nothing like the original. (Actually, the copy is made in Korea, and not in China, as I had said.) The copy is relatively inexpensive junk. This is consolation for my brother since he has never been a money hungry or materialistic sort.

Actually, although my brother had a gift for creating (and though he has training, he also simply has a great mind, a gift) I am actually glad to see him working outdoors now. It's much healthier for him.

Ecurb,

"I didn't mean to be disrespectful of you or your brother -- just to express my opinion."

I find you rather endearing and humble actually. I like your response to the visitor on your visitor page. I like LitNet because people are respectful here. That's very rare on a forum, from what I've heard. It's good that everyone has his/her opinion, what fun would there be without that?

I tend to agree with you about the punishment of offenders. The ones punished would be those like the guy I mentioned earlier in the thread. The people who are really destroying this world get patted on the back, as Delta mentioned in the "beggars" thread.

[Ecurb]

At least, AunkShecky, you are finally making a reasonable statement by saying “don’t quote anyone’s work without attribution” instead of “you can’t quote anyone’s work without attribution”. The latter statement was clearly incorrect. Even so, however, I don’t agree (as my example of telling a joke without attribution clearly demonstrates).

In addition, you say, “Everyone (the U.S. at least) has the right to free expression. However, this right, guaranteed in the Constitution, does not allow a person to claim another's work --the whole work itself -- as his own.” I don’t know exactly what the right to free speech allows and doesn’t allow, not being a lawyer. My point, though, is that a right to free expression includes the right to lie. In general (again, in my inexpert legal opinion) economic speech is reasonably regulated to a greater extent than non-economic speech. Misrepresenting something you are selling constitutes “fraud”. Misrepresenting something you are not selling constitutes lying, but is not illegal, nor should it be illegal.

[JCamilo]

The problem is copyright is not about autorship ,it is about ownership. It does not prevent people from quoting or using a work as if you created it. It prevents me from using or quoting a work as if I own it. It is even legal to claim you are the author of someone else work: Ghost writers do it. 99,9 of politicians or anything else, pay someone to write for them their discurses, etc. Those things do not break copyright laws. So, when it is said "and whatever critical acclaim or financial benefits accrue or may accrue in the future rightfully should go to the person who created the original work." you are actually going against the copyright law which allow a compary to own the beneficts of a creation without having to share their profit with the original creator. Schuster and Siegel had a very small profit from Superman compared to DC Comics, because they own (or owned) the copyrights of the creation. So, copyright laws, legality, etc has little to do with the ethical merits (or demerits) of plagiarism.


The problem of assuming the authorship of a work which is not yours, is something else and clearly shaddy. There may obvious cases (the aforementioned poem copy and pasting) which seems easy to take a side. But there is others which are not, because plagiarism is not the faithfull copy but also the very similar allusion. You cann't say "i am against plagiarism, except those plagiarism I approve" and not find the matter to be quite arguable.

[Vonny]

Hi again Ecurb,


"Obviously, if the owner of a house didn't pay to have the house built, nobody could sleep in the house. Nonetheless, "ownership" of the house means nothing more than the owner's right to forcibly prevent other people from using the house without his permission."

"-- a great many people feel they've been screwed by the system when they haven't been."

I trust you're not a homeowner there in Oregon? Ownership of a house means you've lost a lot of money lately. Do you think that happened naturally, or was criminal behavior involved?

I just love a person like you Ecurb :smile5: And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.

"Of course the the huge logs on those trucks are used to make not only the cardboard boxes, but also the copyrighted books."

Touche! (I need an accent on that "e") I'm considering an e-reader, though I'm not keen on plastic either. ....Isn't it funny how there's no solutions to anything?!!

[Ecurb]

I trust you're not a homeowner there in Oregon? Ownership of a house means you've lost a lot of money lately. Do you think that happened naturally, or was criminal behavior involved?



I am a homeowner in Oregon, and I haven't lost a lot of money (except on paper). My house is still worth a lot more than I paid for it 15 years ago. I’m not an expert on the economic collapse, but irresponsible behavior abounded, as did some criminal behavior (the exact dollar value the I’ve “lost” from each of these being uncertain). On the other hand, the reason my house doubled in value before the collapse was (in part) due to the some of the same irresponsible lending schemes that led to the collapse.

Easy come, easy go, I say!

[Vonny]

Ecurb, We're off topic. You're right, but I'm happy not to be a homeowner right now. Who knows if or when the market will rise again.

Haven't we been brainwashed that home ownership is the best investment we can make? And most homeowners haven't been irresponsible -- Some buyers were irresponsible, but they knew what they were doing.

My brother also sold his house there in Oregon last year. He had to sell in order to separate from his wife. If you're one who takes the loss, it stings. (If you're one who gains, of course you're happy.) I'm not here complaining though. He's stronger and smarter from what he's been through, and I've learned from his mistakes, (including about marriage.)

[Vonny]

Okay, we're all getting off-track and off-topic here.

Here's the gist of what I am saying and what I am NOT
saying:

I'm not saying:
that modern and post-modern works, jazz improvisations, and literary allusions are copying or plagiarizing or stealing.

I'm not saying:
that corporations and big entertainment industries can usurp the rights of indvidual artists. It's never right for
anyone to scam or scrhooohooohoooew anyone else or to
bully him or her because the bully is rich and the victim is poor. (Or for any reason, for that matter.)

I am saying:
Everyone (the U.S. at least) has the right to free expression.However, this right, guaranteed in the Constitution, does not allow a person to claim another's work --the whole work itself -- as his own.

I am saying:
Whether the work of art is a masterpiece or a piece of crap
or whether it earns millions or nothing, the person who created it remains the person who created it, and whatever critical acclaim or financial benefits accrue or may accrue in the future rightfully should go to the person who created the original work.

What I am saying, LOUDLY and I hope everybody can hear me FINALLY:

Don't quote anyone's work without attribution.

Don't claim somebody else's work as your own.

That's simple enough to understand-- or it should be!


This needs a repeat.

[JCamilo]

Really?

Then lets repeat: Copyright does not Prevent people from claiming the authorship of a work they didnt create. Therefore this: "the person who created it remains the person who created it, and whatever critical acclaim or financial benefits accrue or may accrue in the future rightfully should go to the person who created the original work." is against he copyright law. Therefore legal rights, watever US constitution which IS NOT an authority on ethics and plagiarism, is irrelevant for the subject. It only shows a side of the history, the american interpretation of their law, that is all.

And Literary allusions, references, etc are plagiarism. Plagiarism is copying someone work letter by letter, it is the appropriation of ideas, concepts, etc even with a completely different text (technique, style, etc). Plagiarism can be subtle that only specialists may discern. The only reason why Lion King was not sued of plagiarism by producers (or distributors) of Kimba was they rather used it as profit. There is enough similitudes. Captain Marvel was ruled as plagiarism to superman because both had superforce, speed ad invunerability, alter-ego and tigh uniform with a cape, and nothing else. Just small references.

[Vonny]

And Literary allusions, references, etc are plagiarism. Plagiarism is copying someone work letter by letter, it is the appropriation of ideas, concepts, etc even with a completely different text (technique, style, etc). Plagiarism can be subtle that only specialists may discern. The only reason why Lion King was not sued of plagiarism by producers (or distributors) of Kimba was they rather used it as profit. There is enough similitudes. Captain Marvel was ruled as plagiarism to superman because both had superforce, speed ad invunerability, alter-ego and tigh uniform with a cape, and nothing else. Just small references.

For LitNet purposes, I think this is okay to do.



Therefore legal rights, watever US constitution which IS NOT an authority on ethics and plagiarism, is irrelevant for the subject. It only shows a side of the history, the american interpretation of their law, that is all.

The U.S. not the authority? But we are The Greatest Country on Earth. Ever wonder why we're The Americans and not you, even though you live on the American continents as well as us? It's because we're Great. We have freedoms such as freedom of speech.

Some folks here, not being lawyers, don't know what is covered under "freedom of speech." We can talk about anything except for politics and those entities that AuntShecky said not to talk about.

And also, we're higher-minded, especially citizens lower on the pecking order, than those in other countries. For instance, if our life savings gets channeled upwards, we say "Money is only paper. Easy come, easy go!"

And also, as Americans, we don't go around whining. We're not "negative" here. We always have a "Hollywood spin" to our stories.

(I hope it's okay to say this. I never talk to the cab driver because I'm afraid he might shoot me.)

[Ecurb]

I always talk to cab drivers, because it's interesting discovering how they got to America. None of them have shot me, although, on occasion, they have driven so fast that I thought that I might die.

JCamilo made some very good points about copyright. Ghostwriters obviously do not violate copyrights, although John F. Kennedy did claim to have written "Profiles in Courage". It may have been disingenuous of Kennedy to claim authorship -- but it was not illegal.

[Vonny]

I always talk to cab drivers, because it's interesting discovering how they got to America. None of them have shot me, although, on occasion, they have driven so fast that I thought that I might die. :lol:

I don't mean to keep it off topic, but to respond... Oregon is Very, Very Different from North Idaho. You know this. We're the Christians and all white. People here recite talk radio "chapter and verse." But our type is mingled throughout the country.

If I can ever transfer my job, I may end up an Oregonian. My friend, however, can't move because (being dumb and young, right out of college) she bought a house a couple of years ago, and is now stuck here, probably for life, with an inflated mortgage.

[jocky]

Bloody artists, speak about me being off topic, you lot should be carted away and dropped off non-returnable in Neverland. At the end of the day everyone plagiarises, but has the good sense to adapt and change works of genius to incorporate their own individuality. That is why Dan Bown escaped censure for his bloody awful ' Da Vinci Code'. Next thing you will be telling me is Van Gogh's ' The Potato Eaters ' is a work of extraordinary brilliance charting the chrysalis of an exceptional talent. At the end of the day the market decides the value of a painting and artists have little or no say in this process.

[ranathomson]

Plagiarism is consequently a legal problem. It can be illegal in certain circumstances to plagiarise copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright owner.