These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
Does this piss you off?....Texture makers who say you can't use their textures.... |
|
|
Ceera Murakami
Texture Artist / Builder
Join date: 9 Sep 2005
Posts: 7,750
|
12-17-2008 09:33
That's interesting, since Coca-Cola gave the green light to people to use their copyright in Second Life ( http://www.vintfalken.com/coca-cola-releases-trademark-to-second-life-merchants/ ) Ineresting. Since that wasn't in any sort of official blog or notice from LL, I was completely unaware of that change in policy. _____________________
Sorry, LL won't let me tell you where I sell my textures and where I offer my services as a sim builder. Ask me in-world.
|
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
12-17-2008 10:49
That's interesting, since Coca-Cola gave the green light to people to use their copyright in Second Life ( http://www.vintfalken.com/coca-cola-releases-trademark-to-second-life-merchants/ ) _____________________
Argent Stonecutter - http://globalcausalityviolation.blogspot.com/
"And now I'm going to show you something really cool." Skyhook Station - http://xrl.us/skyhook23 Coonspiracy Store - http://xrl.us/coonstore |
|
Carl Metropolitan
Registered User
Join date: 7 Jul 2005
Posts: 1,031
|
12-17-2008 12:01
And, no, in cases of what is called "altered art" if you change something 25% or more it overrides the supposed copyright. The U.S. case is a song and I think the case is at least 10 years old. It was determined "no copyright infringement because it was changed and/or altered from the original more than 25% and therefore represented it's own altered original creation. And this was a song. Can you cite the case? Doubtful any attorney is going to care about altered photoshop images to even give you a consult because with photoshop you have a million and one options to change an image into something unique or differing from the original enough to now be your own unique creation. An attorney will care about what you pay him or her to care about. While you are probably never going to get a lawyer to represent your on contingency in a copyright case, taking an original work and running it through photoshop and claiming it as your own is making an unauthorized derivative work--a copyright violation--unless a court can be convinced by a fair use defense. _____________________
|
|
Lindal Kidd
Dances With Noobs
Join date: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 8,371
|
12-17-2008 12:30
Where did you study law? Where did you study copyright law? 'Cause this is poppycock in regards to digital art forms (photoshopped changed transformations) not music or books. For an example, even a title of a song cannot be copyrighted. Also, if someone publishes their photo on the internet, they took the chance of the whole public viewing it. Photos, very hard to copyright especially if placed on the internet and then altered by the taker and/or then altered again. It depends upon the amount of alteration as to what can be copyrighted. For instance, a hand colored photo cannot be exactly duplicated and resold as due to hand coloring mediums, it is an "altered artwork original". Some things one cannot make digital reproductions of. Other types of digital photo supposed copyrights, forget about it, lawyers wouldn't even be interested. I'm not a lawyer, let alone an IP attorney. (Are you?) That doesn't mean I'm not informed on the subject. I have to be; I deal with copyright issues regularly as part of one of my part time occupations. I studied copyright law from the source: Publications available on the web from the U.S. Copyright Office. I'm sorry, Avawyn, but the poppycock is coming from your side, not mine. The basic principle of copyright applies to ANY medium. Photoshop images, hand painted pictures, books, ebooks, movies, videos, songs...ANY medium. The basic prinicple is this: The creator owns his or her creation, and has the right to say what other people may or may not do with it. Your comment about a photo being "hard to copyright" is nonsense. Copyright exists the instant someone creates an original work. It is an inherent right, not something you have to apply for. However, as I said in my previous post, *proving* copyright, or defending it, may be hard or easy. That depends on the medium, and whether or not the work was registered with the Copyright Office. You do have a (murkily expressed) valid point, though: The existence of digital media, and the ability of anyone to make perfect copies, has played hob with intellectual property law. The basic principles have not changed. What's become more difficult is catching violators, proving the violation, and stopping it in a timely manner. If I post a photo on the internet, my copyright is not voided. I still own the rights to that photo, no matter how many people view it. But you are right...the chances of someone duplicating that photo and spreading it all over creation are greatly increased. That's why professional photographers and artists post low-resolution images, and use watermarks and other methods to foil would-be copiers. _____________________
It's still My World and My Imagination! So there.
Lindal Kidd |
|
eku Zhong
Apocalips = low prims
Join date: 27 May 2008
Posts: 752
|
12-17-2008 14:13
Fair use is such a grey area anyway...
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo this might help you some...  _____________________
|
