Doreen is right. I'm gonna stop doing what she mentioned.



Keep the peace.

I have not read this whole thread yet but one thing I have to say is while talking about site X on site Y might be diffecult, I believe that Mark Smitka is making a point for disussion. So since he is talking a intellegent approach to the thought it would be more like just asking people opininion of the site. Aslo keep in mind that he did post something like this there and this site is FAR smaller than DeviantART. Also keep in ming who hangs here on the messagboard (lack of cursing, very civil) as oppossed to Deviant ART.

So he is not just voicing an opinion but als intellegently asking what other think.

www_wired_com/news/politics/0,1283,54460,00.html

sorry for the broken link and the ranting. I'm done.

No, one last thing. Jark I find this statement offensive, it just keeps eating at me:

"...its easy to sit back and voice concern for a problem but when you do not want to attempt to help rectify it then you are just as much a part of the problem as those violating policy are."

That makes everyone responsible for your business to a degree that they are as bad as people who steal and upload. That just goes to show that the 'problem' you are referring to isn't the stolen work, but the outcry for change. I spent months hitting that button and uploading original work to your site. I made suggestions from all perspectives (even the ripper's), none of which were even entertained. You have what you want, there is no reason for any of us to complain anymore.

Forget it. That's enough for me. This kind of wasted time was why I stopped going to Devart to begin with.

I think bakerstreet has a point about the images. But I think the point he is missing that jark is saying is that there are only 5 people policing the site. if he is seeing these images so easily, it does not mean that someone else will. That someone else is somewhere else doing something else. So those 5 people are looking over the 300 different sections for this matierial your finding. Aslo keep in mind that those 5 people are also doing other things for the site that has nothing to do with policing.

I have seen some pictures too, maybe even uploaded something I shouldn't have... but sometimes it is hard to tell, it is an opinion whether it is art or someone elses work. Thise who state that it is definatly someone elses work actually still have some space to still upload it as long as it has been minipulated in some way. What way, and how much..????? I have no idea. Is DA profiting off of copywrited material because some Joe Blow wants Brinteny's Boobs and come to the site more often to get boobs? Well, profit is a tricky word when DA is paying for the upload and download of the material. Also keep in mind that Joe Blow didn't click on any ads or is a officail member. He doesn't even pay attention to the ads that are there or closes the pop ups before he sees them.


So DA profiting from copywrited material seems a little far fetched. I think the spend more for material like that then get more. Populatiry of a site only gets you so much money from ads.


I do feel, though, that DA is getting pretty close to P2P. The funny thing about P2P is that I really felt there was a way to police the traffict through naming conventions, id reading programs for the mp3's (no id, it doesn't get uploaded)and other techniques that some people I know are working on as we speak. What really happend to P2P was the lack of policy and people to inforce the policy. Aslo the total misunderstanding of the music industry of P2P and wanting to stop it before they could analys it and us it to there benifit.


I thik DA is far from going down hill but there is a little bit to much noise. I think that is ok, though, in the long run might be a down fall if some one decides to sue or close DA because of the lack of enforcement. Of course that perosn would be much like the music industry by not understanding what is really going on and how they could use it as oppossed to destroy it.


I will be watching DA as well as other sites in the hopes that if it does happens. I am willing to do all I can to help.

. . . what hell hath I wrought?
One thing I'd like to interject at this point, as the thread has taken a few turns since I originated it:

The people posting here, myself included, are posting because they care about DA. Either because they now visit and contribute, or because they once did. I just think it's worth noting, although I guess it's obvious. Definitely lots of good thoughts here though.

and I ment as far a manipulation is concerned, more than what is origanilly there. I am not sure if that is right or not depending on what is being manimpulated (wallpaper, image, or a image everyone an there mother saw or a skin of witch would be very hard to just change a little bit do to the fact that it is more of a detailed work.


any thoughts?

I personally think after spending time here on WC and DA al well as DeskMod, it is best to do your own work or get permission to base something off of someone elses. I am still waiting for a release to uplaod a Aaliyah DesktopX's just to find out that the images are pretty much free no since the site has closed and the artist past away. As free as they are, though, I can't release the DX's until I get a real confermation to do so. Must of what I got so far was "you can do it but if there is trouble don't involve me"

So technically I have the go ahead, but I still can't because it is not a clear consent. I know it is respectful and ok, but I can't do it because I still want the permission. Some of the guys I talked to was like "What is the problem?? Just go ahead!!"

Joe: Dead artists have estates, and publicity images are owned by their entertainment company until they pass into the public domain. Aaliyah publicity images won't be public domain in your lifetime, you can bet on it. You might find other images of Aaliyah, taken by fans, press, etc., that the owner might let you use.

You can't even redraw an image, even if you do it entirely by hand. It is the right of the copyright holder to say who can and can't recreate their work in any form, whether that be cut-and-paste, or repainting the image in oils on canvas.

http://www.copyright.gov/faq.html ---that is a good link for any questions you might have.

bakerstreet: actually, you are completely incorrect on your assumptions regarding copyright.

LMAO...
Jark, you are the biggest ass... I wasn't even talking to you, but since you stick your neck out... joe is talking about making DesktopX objects with images of an artist.

your first point:
____________________________________________________________________________________

The referenced Circular 21 is "Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians", and according to FL 102:

"...U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.” "

So, quoting me would be considered ... that's why I didn't smack your ass.

but

making desktopX objects from pictures of a recording artist would not be 'fair use' unless you are stretching the definition of 'parody', thus my mention of it to Joe.




as to your second quote,
_______________________________________________________________________________________

quoting circular 14:

"WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to pre-
pare,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.Anyone interested
in a work who does not know the owner of copyright may
search the records of the Copyright Office.Or,the Office will
conduct a search at a fee of $75 *per hour.For further infor-
mation,request Circular 22,“How to Investigate the Copy-
right Status of a Work.""

Did I mention that I had nothing else to say to you?

Small note: copyright remains active for about 70 (something like that) years after the holder's death. Estate or not.

My 2 cent:
DA is too big for it's own good!
enuff said!