Stealing is Stealing-Copyright Issue

[DumOleBob]

I just can't take it any more so I'm dropping my membership. The Admin has developed a wonderful site here, which I really have found useful. However, there is a total disrespect for any kind of honor when it comes to posting the property of others. Just look at how many times SignTorch and Cascade give us free drawings ? AND how many times dumb butt members post drawings they?ve bought or lifted from them. Talk about kicking a gift horse?..

Few other people seem to give a hoot. Mostly, the members engaging in the disrespect for the property of others are those who are new to the business and have never developed anything, any property, of their own. And they never will.

So folks blast away I?ll not be a party to a bunch of invisible people stealing the honest efforts of real artists.

Bye!

[WSS]

You will be missed! I have enjoyed the banter and sport you engage here on this forum.

A true moral compass.

I do believe this site does a fair job of respecting the property of others. Irony offends some, it makes others laugh. Sorry you were offended by it

WSS

[Russ K]

Bob, I urge you not to leave. The "dumb butt" members are the extreme but unfortunately MORE vocal edge of the group (think less, talk more). I believe the vast majority are reasonable, honorable individuals who are unfortunately LESS vocal. I appreciate your comments as a balancing voice. Comments from people like you and Gary can serve to educate most of us. Others, not so much. If you leave, they win. I also believe that personal attacks by name, even disguised as humor are inappropriate and should be censured until apologies are made. If not, the member should be removed. Please think about this. I would consider it a personal favor if you stayed............Russ K.

[plasmajoe]

Bob, I urge you not to leave. The "dumb butt" members are the extreme but unfortunately MORE vocal edge of the group (think less, talk more). I believe the vast majority are reasonable, honorable individuals who are unfortunately LESS vocal. I appreciate your comments as a balancing voice. Comments from people like you and Gary can serve to educate most of us. Others, not so much. If you leave, they win. I also believe that personal attacks by name, even disguised as humor are inappropriate and should be censured until apologies are made. If not, the member should be removed. Please think about this. I would consider it a personal favor if you stayed............Russ K.

Ditto Bob, your points are well taken by lots of people on this site. Your comments will be sorely missed by me. I am saddened to see you leave like this.

Plasma Joe.

[plain ol Bill]

Bob if you leave they win! The way to control content is if members of the forum speak up about copywrited material and intellectual properties.

[SignTorch Vector Art]

You give me and admin too much credit, it is people like you with attitudes like yours that make this community what it is. A year ago I was banned and you were taking up for me. Don't get discouraged.

[mdwalker]

Sometimes it isn't so much what you say but how you say it. You will always have a few that have no morals & no respect for other peoples property. But with thousands of images & files in most peoples libraries it is very easy to post a file that contains copyrighted images or portions of copyrighted images. Just because a person post it & it is copyrighted doesn't mean the person obtained the file illegally. If you see a file posted that you know is copyrighted, NICELY bring it to their attention. If the same person repeatedly post copyrighted material, then it becomes a problem. You still don't need to be an *^&hole though. Simply notify the copyright holder & let them deal with it. Then it is no longer your problem. You can't enforce the copyright rights of somebody else anyway, they have to do it.

[Russ K]

Another way to look at this is that all of us Spiders are a large family (of sorts). In any large families one extreme will wear a tie, go to church and invest in conservative mutual funds. The other end of the family will have piercings, spiky hair and attitudes that drive the first bunch up the wall. We can't just stamp our views, values and ways on someone else. Remember, the spiky ones have their good points also and are still Family. At best we can continue to voice our own opinions and values courteously and without malice. We can persist in this, secure in the knowledge that, eventually, time will take it's toll and many of the spiky ones will see the light and become old worn out conservative curmudgeons just like me..................Russ K.

[admin]

DOB, I wanted to take a moment to thank you for all your efforts and support over the years. I know you have been given a hard time by some in the past for being so vigilant on this subject. Some express their distaste for this there are many, many, others who appreciate it and just don't let there opinons be seen or heard. I for one really appreciate your presence on the site and would love to see you back anytime. Best of luck with all your endevours, sad to see you go.

[AnotherDano]

I've always supported you Bob but perhaps not as vocally as I should have.

Also, I believe that there is a silent majority that agrees with you.

As said previously, if you leave, they win.

There will be plenty of times that someone will post a picture of something they cut but not remember where they got the pattern. I try to keep Gary and Jasons files in their own folder and have a few more from the more prolific designers too. But If there is one that I overlook, I expect the original artist to just let me know and I'll gladly take it down - with apologies.

Don't leave...

Dano

[vmax549]

HI GUYS I have a question. At what point of reproducing a plasma silhouette is it considered a violation of the copyright?

How much of the original design has to change in order for it to be considered safe to use?

I have a friend in the Art business for over 50 years and he cliams there is very little original art left SAME as in the literature and Music business. There are ONLY so many combinations of words and musical notes that will make any sense.

He claimns that if you draw something you think is original chances are good that it has been drawn before. AND has shown me MANY examples of something I thought would have been original art that really was not.

How many veiws of a horse are there that have already NOT been drawn??

Just a thought or two, (;-) TP

[AnotherDano]

This one is from Jason.
The customer wanted an elk in place of a crane. I added a pony tail to the kid because the scene reminded her of fishin' in a canoe with her daddy.

I consider it a design from Jason and would feel wrong to pass it out for free.

Coated [640x480].JPG

[SignTorch Vector Art]

I have a friend in the Art business for over 50 years and he cliams there is very little original art left SAME as in the literature and Music business. There are ONLY so many combinations of words and musical notes that will make any sense.

He claimns that if you draw something you think is original chances are good that it has been drawn before

How many veiws of a horse are there that have already NOT been drawn??

that's a rhetorical question

With all due respect,that (old) concept that all (art) that is possible is already created doesn't make sense.

Man is nothing if not creative...

... At what point of reproducing a plasma silhouette is it considered a violation of the copyright?
How much of the original design has to change in order for it to be considered safe to use?...

You basically have to 'create' (not 'change') to achieve a whole new work.

Without authorization:

To 'safely' use part of an existing work, it should be 'fair use', which takes 4 factors into account

1) Purpose and character of the use
2) The nature of the copyrighted work
3) Amount and substantiality of the portion used
4) Effect on the potential market for or value of the work

Under 1, plasma art is almost always commercial and or for profit and or decorative which limits the liklihood that copying it can be considered fair use.

Under 2, plasma art is almost always artistic, hand drawn art, which can't hardly be reused to make new art, fair use would be displaying it for education, or commentary, or things of that nature (excluding commercial, for profit, and decorative use).

Under 3, that one's harder to quantify, but I think where visual works are visibly different, while literature is only semantically different, it applies more to the latter than the former types of work.

Under 4, plasma art has a definite purpose and elevated value and targeted market in the cutting industry which increases the liklihood that copying it directly impacts the author's market, which extrememly limits the liklihood that reusing it can be considered fair use.

Or, if the new art is creative and transformative then it is original for all practical purposes. Transformative basically means to create a whole new work with a new character for a new purpose and different market.

Would take forever to explain fully, I hope that helps a little... I am far from qualified to give legally reliable advice on any subject, this is mostly just my opinion, it could be wrong....

[vmax549]

Don't get me wrong I am all for copyrights BUT you have to be able to clearly define a copyright(;-)

You cannot copyright the charector or intent that is covered under trademark ONLY the direct image. You cannot simply scale up or down to change the image as that is defined as well.

There HAS to be some point or % of change where it is no longer the same image. I see where many consider the 80% rule as the guideline.You would have to change more than 20% of the original shape.

You cannot really compare art to literature or music as the words are already defined as well as the musical notes.

Being that it IS business you have to remove the moral issues and just go by definition as that is the only thing you have to defend the copyright if needed.

Trademarks ARE different in nature as intent and charector CAN be trademarked as a corporate image (not the picture kind of image)

Just a thought, (;-)

[vmax549]

Just a side note on copyrights. I was visiting my son a few years back at the university where he was finishing up one of his masters and he drug me into a experiment the science dept was running on plagerism. They had a computer program that the college uses to check for original works.

I had to type out a story or statement of 200 words or more on any subject just off the top of your head.

The paper was then ran through the program to check the verbage. Somehow I had plagerised 2 authors of whom I had never read.

Yes the world IS getting crowded, (;-) TP

[Dawgonhawg]

My question here is if say I have a picture of a Harley Davidson. Can I cut the picture and sale it IF "Harley Davidson" is no where to be seen on the cutout.
Thanks, Dawg

[vmax549]

My reasoning would be as LONG as you did not show the trademarked HD logo you would be good to go.

BUT who took the picture(;-) Has someone retained the copyrights ??? There is the slippery slope dealing with preexisting art and photos.

A good example would have been the steel logo mentioned else where THAT is a trademarked logo (;-)

SO what IS the answer to preexisting art and photos?????

(;-) TP

[WSS]

My question here is if say I have a picture of a Harley Davidson. Can I cut the picture and sale it IF "Harley Davidson" is no where to be seen on the cutout.
Thanks, Dawg

Jim, Thats a tuffy. It is your bike. I assume you paid for it

Dunno.

WSS

[SignTorch Vector Art]

Don't get me wrong

ok, wasn't expecting you to answer your own question, or take both sides of the issue, it doesn't sound like you're all for copyright when you postulate against it.

.. if say I have a picture of a Harley Davidson. Can I cut the picture and sale it IF "Harley Davidson" is no where to be seen on the cutout.

yes, a real motorcycle is not copyrightable, and pretty much anything or anyone appearing in public is fair game for photographers (and artists)

at what scale a logo appearing in a larger photo (or artwork) becomes confusing enough to constitute infringement, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it's not on the scale of being included in a full picture of a motorcycle (photo or artwork), because that would place impractical limits on photography (and art).

if there's room it should be ok to emulate the proper size shape and placement of the logo without fully replicating it

that's what I do, just a couple or three holes in that basic shape is usually all there's room for anyway

as always: that's my personal opinion, not to be taken as actual legal advice....

[Dawgonhawg]

Not by bike...was speaking of any photo of a bike..

[vmax549]

I don't think there was any confusion there. I agree on copyright AS LONG as you can define it where it can be understood by the layman and a clear cut yes or no to infringment.

(;-) TP

[SignTorch Vector Art]

vmax549, I'll buy that, I'm sorry if I mistook your position, some of the points run parallel to the anti-copyright agenda, that part confuses me, but I shouldn't read anything into it. Between the 'already been done' theory, and the 'percentage' theory, and the plagiarism story, and trademark, morality, and intent points, I totally overlooked how confusing it all really is, whether I agree or disagree with any point in particular is beside the point, you do have a point. Like how copyright protects the expression not the idea (whatever that means), and how it just gets more confusing from there.

[Kentuckyfarmer]

This seems like as good a place as any to ask this.
If I cut the Ruger gun co. eagle and make a clock for a good friend who is a gun collector.
Am I in the wrong?
I am not selling the clock it is a onetime gift for a friend.
is this ok or not?
Thanks Mike

[vmax549]

HIYA MIKE,My take on it would be IF you are not selling it and IF the gift is NOT competing with an object say a Ruger clock that is being produced by Ruger for sale then you should be good to go.

You could call Ruger and ask them(;-), It might surprise you how many companies would give the ok for a personel gift and even send you a letter of approval.

Just a thought, What could it hurt?

(;-)TP

[hobbypoor]

I can tell you this from experience....Upon talking to the company that handles Chevrolets trademarks and copyrights. I was told right out...."The image of a Corvette, be it a picture, a print, a cutout, or the car itself....that image is a copyrighted item"

So I asked.."So What you are saying, is I cant legally take a picture of my corvette, make a poster out of it, and sell it...even though I dont put the words chevrolet or corvette on the poster or are you saying I cant post a picture of my own personal corvette on my website legally?...Which?"

his response "BOTH...but we probably arent gonna the pursue legal action against someone for posting a picture of their car on some various website."

The image there of is a copyrighted Item....He said the image or form is copyrighted.

I wonder if this is true of all items.

Come to think of it, I cant recall seeing a corvette in a competitors ad.....wonder if this is why.