Selling Public Domain Art and Maps--Why Do Some People Consider this "Theft"?

Although, for my part, I've been meaning to track you down in-world to apologize for the snark in my response. As you may have noticed, being a smartass is a habit of mine.

Anyway, I had in mind more like people who, say, take scans of Boris Vallejo or some other promenent artist, upload, and sell.

art.com is a great place to get "free" art. Upload only L$10 and you can resell it for 200L$ isn't that wonderful! I think it is

I'm glad I never actually used the "evil" textures... mostly because I just don't like 'em.

Browsing free texture sites is a good way to spot "not for commercial use" textures being resold in SL (good visual memory helps). Entering likely keywords in Google images is also a good, though timeconsuming method to spot textures that have been taken from random sites and are likely copyrighted. Then there is the "feature" of the upload tool that bulk uploads will have the filename and complete path in the description field - when that path contains the name of a big-brand commercial game, it's a bit of a dead giveaway

Alas, what it comes down to is consumer education - know thy pop culture to recognize textures ripped off big-name RL content creators, alternatively know thy sxc.hu et al. to recognize where you, the consumer, is being ripped off paying for "not for resale" / "not for commercial use" textures.

There is of course royalty free textures out there
I make a few.

Well, there are alot of bang-bang gamers running around in avs designed to look like SW stormtroopers -- and I believe that "character" falls under LA copyright -- so all you SW "artists" selling the COPYRIGHTED stormtrooper armor skins should be prepared for the day that the MPAA/George Lucas wake up and sue your butts to kingdom come.

And don't think that LA would actually _improve_ the SL experience... it would be all pay-as-you-go.

What makes you think that the government agencies do not hold copyright on images you find on their websites?

"A work of the United States Government is, as defined by United States Copyright Law, "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties": the term only applies to the work of the federal government, not state or local governments. Such works are public domain under U.S. law. Note that many publications of the U.S. government may contain protectable works authored by others (e.g., patent applications, SEC filings, public comments on regulations), and this rule does not necessarily apply to the creative content of those works."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_of_the_United_States_Government

In short, he thinks so because that's the way it is.

I think ou go out of your way to properly source, label and protect the rights of others. Your store is amazing.

If there was no way to reward people for taking the time to bring great art into Second Life, you'd have a world where Mona Lisa was prohibited and disco was not. Not that there's anything wrong with disco. .

That wouldn't be right.

Actually your probably right.

What you are doing is PERFECTLY LEAGAL!
The difference from what I do is, I sell all my own original art. But that is what makes this world so cool. Diversity! We need access to all the classic stuff in here, so don't listen to people who are jealous. They always seem to want to throw cold water on others. They are not happy unless you are miserable. so ignore them if you know what you are doing is leagal.

Thank you. Funny thing is, I love original art, too. My castle in Kuula is filled with art I've bought in world from SL artists. Drop me a LM in world, I'm always eager to check out new artists.

Not really--art.com's pictures are two low-res to look good in SL. For the type of stuff I'm selling, I really need a 512x512 texture (and in some case 512x1024). Additionally, art.com's stuff isn't dated, so in many cases I'd have to go research the date of creation seperately to confirm public domain status.

Finally--All the art and maps I sell are 40L$. I think that's a fair price; I can't imagine someone getting 200L$ for such an image. Who knows--maybe I'm way below market

Cite the law, son. So far all you're stated is an _assertion_, not law.

"Son"?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000105----000-.html

Also, I included a Wikipedia link, which ALSO included a link, you lazy sod.

Remember, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You claimed that U.S. Government works were not public domain; I merely posted the link 'cause it took all of a moment's work with Google.

Also also, is that Rockwell Kent picture in your shop public domain?

This thread is pretty interesting, and being an artist I feel like throwing my two cents into it.

Surprisingly enough, none of this copyright stuff has ever been touched in any significant detail within any classes I've had while earning my BS in Graphic Design.

As far as I know, reselling things in the public domain is legal. In my opinion it shouldn't be; it should be free as the name implies. Generally it is free, you can find this stuff out there for free, however I'd be surprised if even 30% of the population knew that as they were going out and buying CDs of their favorite classical music.

Of course one could argue you're not paying for the music itself, but the time spent manufacturing the disc, the artwork for the CD insert, blah blah blah and so on. But the fact remains that people do have access to this stuff without a middle man telling them they need to pay $10 for it.

If I do buy stuff like art prints, I only buy the print from a musem with an art collection. And usually they only have prints of the paintings in their own collection, however I did buy a van Gogh print of Crows in a Wheatfield that a museum didn't actually have, but at least the money I paid went to an organization that protects artwork and displays it for public viewing.

So where I see this argument going is, is it moral to do this? If I were Picasso and I connected to Second Life and saw Les Demoiselles d'Avignon selling in some guy's gallery for L$40, I probably wouldn't think this to be very moral, even though it is legal.

As an artist and graphic designer, I will admit to stealing concepts and ideas all the time. In my business, there isn't anything new left, only changing and reworking what's already out there to make it as unique as possible. But there's the key, changing and reworking. When I take an idea, I change it into something different, and bypass this whole moral/legal argument.

Do I think these masterpieces should be sold on SL, even for L$40? No. If only because if you really want to, you can go and find the stuff on your own for free, so I see it as a sort of trickery.

If it’s public domain, it’s freely distributable, not free of cost, as it should be. No way should people be restricted from selling prints of the Mona Lisa just because it’s public domain, for example. They should be able to recoup the costs and make a profit. It’s public domain. That’s what public domain is meant to do. Allow people to use the work in any way they see fit, even sell it.

Likewise, I see nothing wrong with uploading a public domain image of the Mona Lisa, framing it (or doing whatever else to it), and selling it. That’s the beauty of public domain. It lets you do stuff like that.

In this case, Carl goes above and beyond what should be required and gives the source info. If it’s so easy, and free, for someone to make one of these pictures in SL for themselves, then let them do it. Otherwise, pay Carl for his costs in time and uploading fees for doing it for you. I see nothing wrong with that.

That's appalling. Your school is setting its graduates up to be screwed over if are not teaching them about copyright law and what it means to the artist.



If there is no money to be made of off the public domain, then there will be no prints, no books, no DVDs, no CDs, etc. ever issued of public domain works. It will wither and die. What is free is the images, text, etc of the public domain material. It costs money to republish that material. When you buy a public domain work, you are paying for the costs of publication and distribution--and a profit for the company producing it.



No--almost every performance you can buy of a classical piece is protected by copyright. While most of the music they are playing is public domain, the individual performances that are being recorded and sold are not. They are--in effect--a derivative work of the original music, and as such, all original material (i.e., the musical interpretation of the artists) is under copyright. Try listening to two different orchestras recording the same symphony. They are far from identical--even to someone with my tin ear.



Your "blah blah blah" is what allows people still access public domain works in most cases. While there are a few charitable organizations (such as Project Gutenberg) that provide public domain works to the public, most public domain publishing depends on being able to make money.



If you were Picasso, you would be dead--as is Picassso. Under current copyright law new works created (except for work-for-hire or US Government works) after 1/1/1978 are under copyright for the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years. So the situation you describe would be rare indeed. Under previous copyright law, it was possible for a creator to lose copyright protection on his or her works if they failed to renew their copyright. This is no longer the case in the US and other Berne Convention countries.



You may not be. I urge you to read up on the legal concept of derivative works. While ideas (rightly so) cannot be copyrighted, it is possible that works that are derivative of a particular expression of an idea may infringe a copyright.

Check out these URLs for more information:

http://www.artslaw.org/DERIV.HTM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_works
http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative/



I'm sorry if you begrudge me the ~15 cents US I make per painting sold. My customers however seem to feel that it is worth that money not to have to search out a good copy of the painting on the net (or scan one), convert, size, upload, and put it on a prim (while keeping the proportions correct). Not to mention the important editorial function of finding and presenting a selection of public domain images to my customers...


And since the sign over my gallery (and my past ads) have clearly stated that this is a gallery of PUBLIC DOMAIN art and maps, I fail to see how I can be accused of tricking anyone.

Eh, surprised you took so much effort in replying to that. Anyway, more power to you really. It's just my opinion and as I said, you're totally in the legal right to do what you're doing. I don't morally agree with making profit off someone elses work - because I wouldn't want someone making money off my work - so by all means get paid for your effort and time to make it available though.



Actually, I am. What I do isn't considered derivative because a shape or color inspired me to do something similar. If it were, no one but the first guy who made his logo a square or letters in a square would be able to have anything similar. Now if I took the Nike swoosh and flipped it upside-down or the McDonald's Arches and made them purple, that's a different story.



As I said, you are totally in the legal right. That doesn't mean I have to agree with the law. And for that matter, just because it is law doesn't mean it's right. There have been many unjust laws. More to the point though, I don't disagree with things going into public domain. I disagree with profiting off it. It may be of value to know that I am a socialist. So take what I say with a grain of salt.

And my comment to trickery wasn't necessarily targeted at you specifically, sorry if it came across as that. What I meant is if someone is making lots of profit off something that is free, I see it as trickery. Heck, I think bottled water is trickery though. Just my opinion guy. I'm just answering your initial question.