
These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
Boycot? |
|
Rolig Loon
Not as dumb as I look
Join date: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2,482
|
10-29-2008 12:38
That's a VERY good idea. I suspect that it won't end disagreements or various interpretations about how the law applies to specific instances, but it would at least save us having to build an entirely new thread on the topic once a month, as we have been doing. I am NOT volunteering.
![]() |
Dalriada MacKay
Registered User
Join date: 15 Oct 2008
Posts: 14
|
10-29-2008 12:54
Quoting Chosen Few:By the way, speaking of things like Terms of Service, I poked around There's website, looking for that rule about percentages you mentioned. Not surprisingly, I couldn't find it. If it actually does exist, could you please provide a link to it? I suspect it's not actually there, and that you simply fell prey to one of the most common misconceptions about how copyright works, but if it I'm wrong about that, please correct me.
http://info.there.com/idx/24/788/article/Overview_on_Copyrights.html I am not sure if you can read the context of this link so I will paste the part I was referring to: B. Make sure the artwork is altered enough to be considered "derivative work" So if you submit something that contains copyrighted material, it will be rejected. But what if the material has been altered? Well, the general rule is that the material must be altered by at least 15% in order to be considered "transformed" and non-infringing (this is actually the second step of the three-step test used in judging "fair use" ![]() It should be noted that copyright laws are generally colorblind; when artwork is registered, the creators will oftentimes submit a black-and-white or grayscale image, even though the actual artwork is in color, so that there are no ambiguities. Also, altering the "heading" (or direction) of the artwork does not qualify as altering the image; that is, if you turn the artwork upside-down that does not make it different, because it would be very easy to turn it rightside-up and see the original. Maybe I didn't describe it as clear, but it is what I meant. I am not at all an expert in the copyright and legal stuff, but since There has a strict rule about coprights and the submission progress I was sure I have done nothing wrong. Quoting Chosen Few: First, as he/she mentioned, it's entirely possible that you and the person you think copied you both happened to have stumbled on the same source, so of course your results look similar. As I already stated in a previous mail. I never just copy a picture of the web and stretch or distort it and put it on a texture to fit an avy. I KNOW that is theft. There is work of MY hand and mouse in these textures. The textures aren't similar, they are exactly the same! If this girl had replied to my emails and said: sorry I wil take them down, it would have all been ok with me. It's the total lack of decency and care that struck me and is frustrating me. If someone mailed me that I used their textures in wrong, I wouldn't know how fast I could appologize and get the stuff offline. I know that some of the replies here originate from the fact that they don't know me, nor my work and I shouldn't expect support from total strangers. Maybe I was too optimistic due to my virtual world experiences in There. At least I made some new friends, so I have to thank her for that. |
Strife Onizuka
Moonchild
![]() Join date: 3 Mar 2004
Posts: 5,887
|
10-29-2008 13:06
As a former moderator of the SL forums, this type of thread can be very frustrating, there is no way to determine the truth and the potential to do harm is immense.
There are 4 distinct situations: 1) Party A has stolen the content of Party B; Party B posts the thread to complain 2) Party A has stolen the content of Party B; Party A posts the thread to destroy the reputation of Party B. 3) Both Party A and B have stolen the content... 4) Neither Party has stolen the content. Great minds think alike and the ego's to match. 5) Party C thinks that Party A has stolen the content of Party B but really hasn't. Over the years I have seen all 5 situations. While it would be nice to allow threads of the first type, it's just too hard to tell them apart. And honestly, does discussing it make it any better? At the end of the day, it doesn't make the hurt or feelings of distrust go away. Legal action doesn't mend the soul but it might help bring some closure until it happens again. On a related note... The lesson the griefers wants us to learn is not to get so emotionally invested that you self destruct. Learn to roll with the punches. _____________________
Truth is a river that is always splitting up into arms that reunite. Islanded between the arms, the inhabitants argue for a lifetime as to which is the main river. - Cyril Connolly Without the political will to find common ground, the continual friction of tactic and counter tactic, only creates suspicion and hatred and vengeance, and perpetuates the cycle of violence. - James Nachtwey |
Dalriada MacKay
Registered User
Join date: 15 Oct 2008
Posts: 14
|
10-29-2008 13:16
Chosen and others have been doing a yeoman job of writing responses to these questions, but the issue of copyright comes up again and again and again and again on these forums. As you might have noticed, this thread is not started to discuss copyright. It's what other members have made it. I should think that posters who had the patience to answer "the entirely new thread on the topic once a month" were not typing with a gun pointed at their head, so they must have been doing it to help out other people. Why complain about it then? It's a very good idea to make it a sticky or just put up some links about the subject, because the web is full of all the legal rules. I have a pretty good idea why there are a lot of threads here that are about copyright violations and many people are complaining about SL not doing anything to prevent it, or to do something about it for that matter. If the members of SL don't stick together and start laughing or don't take this seriously, I do understand why so many members are disappointed with SL. To be clear, I never designed for SL and won't either. A friend of mine had some ORIGINAL paintings of mine up in his shop, because he had my permission to do so. I just entered because of this texture theft and will leave again soon enough. Dalriada |
Rolig Loon
Not as dumb as I look
Join date: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2,482
|
10-29-2008 13:40
As you might have noticed, this thread is not started to discuss copyright. It's what other members have made it. I should think that posters who had the patience to answer "the entirely new thread on the topic once a month" were not typing with a gun pointed at their head, so they must have been doing it to help out other people. Why complain about it then? But it IS about copyright. That's exactly the question when anyone talks about ownership of a create work and mentions the possibility of theft. Copyright is the legal device that establishes your right to ownership. This is a very tricky subject. It comes up often in this forum because it's something that artists worry about a lot. What Virrginia was suggesting is that it might be easier on everyone if we set up a sticky so that we didn't have to go back to square one every time the question comes up in a new context. That's exactly what the sticky threads are for. Chosen and others have made some very articulate and well-reasoned posts in the past, but they keep getting buried. An important part of the discussion, once we have a sticky thread to refer to, is helping people understand how to defend their copyright. Simply having a legal right means nothing unless you know what to do with it. In many cases, for example, artists complain loudly about suspected theft but fail to take the necessary legal steps (like a DMCA) to deal with it. All of that ought to go in the sticky too. |
Chosen Few
Alpha Channel Slave
Join date: 16 Jan 2004
Posts: 7,496
|
10-29-2008 16:48
Wow, Dalriada. Thanks for quoting that stuff from There's "Overview on Copyrights". I'm simply amazed that they would make such irresponsible statements as "the general rule is that the material must be altered by at least 15% in order to be considered 'transformed' and non-infringing". They make it sound like that's some sort of established legal test, which it's not. It's no wonder people get confused.
They do go on to clarify, at least a little, by saying things like simply removing 15 stars from a group of 100, or changing colors, etc., doesn't constitute originality, but that hardly undoes the damage of the first statement. The document as a whole is a very unclear read. More than the percentage thing, though, I'm particularly troubled by There's brazen promotion, and erroneous implied definition, of derivative works. Derivatives, under the law, are not allowed unless authored or authorized by the original copyright holder. But by their wording, There seems to be trying to encourage the creation of unauthorized derivatives. That's wrong. What they should be saying is "Make sure the artwork is unique enough to be considered a new original work, not just altered to be a derivative work from the pre-existing imagery." For information on what derivative works really are, and how they are treated under the law, I would refer you to the US Copyright Office's "Circular 14" (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf). Here's the relevant excerpt for what we've been discussing: Who Can Prepare a Derivative Work? Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. The owner is generally the author or someone who has obtained rights from the author. By encouraging anauthorized derivatives, it could be argued that There is complicit in copyright infringement. That's really, really bad. No service provider should ever put itself in that position. They've got a lot to lose if someone were ever to make a stink over it. It's really unfortunate that you, and likely countless others, have been so misled by There's written policies. I would strongly encourage you to read what the law actually says, both in the US, and in the country where you live. Don't rely on the policies of private companies to tell you what is and isn't legal. Find out first hand for yourself. To those promoting a sticky on this subject, that's a fantastic idea. I'd love to volunteer to write one, but I'm not sure it would be wise for me to do so, since I'm not actually a lawyer. While I do have a pretty solid understanding of legal matters I've had to deal with over the years, I'd be hesitant to write anything that might be construed as "official" on any legal subject. Maybe I'll do a rough draft, and ask my lawyer to look it over for finalization before I post. I'll put it on my "hopefully to-do list". That falls somewhere in between my "when I get around to it list" and my actual to-do list. In other words, I can't guarantee I'll do it, but I definitely want to. |