Graphic Requests...

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

AuthorTopic: Graphic Requests...
VCH
Shaper
Member # 247
 written Wednesday, February 23 2005 18:37 Profile Homepage #25
**** all this copyright legal stuff. Why do Libraries have photocopiers, that's illegal too you now. Why do schools copy work books a million times when its actually illegal. Forget it I swear these forums have some of the most self-righteous, technicality minded people anywhere. Everything isn't that serious people.

--------------------
The Knight Between Posts.
Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00
drafter
Warrior
Member # 5322
 written Thursday, February 24 2005 01:45 Profile #26
tm, still want them, after that show of dreamguy's? meh, your e-mail?
Posts: 73 | Registered: Saturday, December 25 2004 08:00
Imban
Shake Before Using
Member # 75
 written Thursday, February 24 2005 07:41 Profile #27
Even some of the more glaring cases of art abuse in BoE have gone unmentioned, DreamGuy - Drizzt's use of official art of Drizzt Do'Urden in Brotherhood of the Hand, or whoever-the-hell-designed-Saviour's-Quest's horrible mangling of some of Tim Farland's BoE graphics, for example, both went unmentioned.
Posts: 3234 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00
Morgan
Shaper
Member # 22
 written Thursday, February 24 2005 07:50 Profile #28
DreamGuy - You are completely and utterly bereft of a sense of proportion. Say I'm writing a report for school. I need a picture of some sort to accompany the text.

Are you saying that I must e-mail all the photographers involved in the pictures and ask them if it's alright if I use them in my school report?

It's comparable to picking a penny up on the street and reporting it at the local police station.
Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00
Custer
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
 written Thursday, February 24 2005 07:57 Profile Homepage #29
quote:
Originally written by DreamGuy:

Yes, there is a difference between legally wrong and ethically wrong, but taking graphics without permission is wrong both ways.

Someone above claims that it's only wrong if you claim them as your own. This is wrong. That's an error picked up from kids in school who learn that it's OK to reference other articles and items when writing a report, and that not referencing them is plagiarizing. That's true, but copyright is something different. Taking a graphic that isn't yours and saying who did it is just advertising who you stole it from, not anything that makes it OK.

Simple rule: You can't just take other people's things, and you can't just assume they don;t have a problem with it if you do, even if you give them credit. Theft is theft, and claiming that nobody cares is nothing but a lie you tell yourself to try to rationalize something that's clearly wrong.

And now since TM has admitted that his scenarios violate these laws, his stuff needs to be pulled.
IMAGE(http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/tool.gif)

OH NOES COPYRIGHT THEFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!1! LOOKS LIKE THE BOARDS HAVE TO BE TAKEN OFF OF THE AIR NOW

GOD BLESS THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

[ Thursday, February 24, 2005 07:58: Message edited by: Bad-Ass Mother Custer ]

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
DreamGuy
Warrior
Member # 5415
 written Friday, February 25 2005 00:24 Profile #30
It never ceases to amaze me that people will chime in so emotionally on topics they obviously have no knowledge of. You might want to pay attention:

*Photocopiers have plenty of legitimate uses, so they are not illegal.
*Stealing from those who steal does not make it right.
*The fact that the people that got ripped off don't know about it doesn't mean that it's right.
*Just because you do not make money off of something you stole does NOT make it "Fair Use." You should learn what the terms mean before you try to use them.
*The fact that other people got away with breaking the law in the past does not make it right.
*A bunch of spoiled kids who don't give a damn about breaking the law doesn't mean they are justified.

And I'm especially appalled that the same posters and moderators who complained about Overwhelming (who was not charging money either, so the failed undestanding of Fair Use mentioned above obviously is wrong) are the same people trying to rationalize this theft away. Stareye gleefully hopped in and disconnected Overwhelming's links right away but now sits around doing nothing about this. Kelandon was all happy to learn about the DMCA when Overwhelming could be shut down, but doesn't care about this at all. And of course, TM, who told Overwhelming to remove his scenarios, acts all cocky even though it's completely unjustified, per his usual standards.

I guess some people never learn unless the smackdown lands on their own heads personally. Overwhelming didn't think anything would happen to him, but he was wrong too.
Posts: 62 | Registered: Thursday, January 20 2005 08:00
drafter
Warrior
Member # 5322
 written Friday, February 25 2005 00:36 Profile #31
dude, chill, take a deep breath and so forth. it's not that the WORLD'S GONNA END just because TM among other designers has used and is about to use a couple of graphics from the internet..
Posts: 73 | Registered: Saturday, December 25 2004 08:00
Thuryl
...b10010b...
Member # 869
 written Friday, February 25 2005 01:34 Profile Homepage #32
Aw, I think it's kinda cute that he still has things like "moral principles" in this day and age.

Eh, what the hell. This should be amusing. DreamGuy, what do you believe the purpose of laws should be? Since you make a distinction between laws and ethics, presumably you're not a pure social contract theorist.

[ Friday, February 25, 2005 01:45: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
PoD person
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
 written Friday, February 25 2005 05:37 Profile #33
You know, I don't think DreamGuy actually cares much about copyright law, rather, he is trying to satirically point out that some pillars of the community acted with no small amount of hypocrisy during the 5-page bonanza of pettiness that was the BoAC/Overwhelming debacle. His problem with the whole issue, and mine as well, is that you, collectively, used a law which you do not yourselves follow and for which, in fact, you have little to no regard, to crush Overwhelming's website, crappy though it most certainly was, simply because you didn't like him. He is implying, and I agree, that one should not apply the law only in situations where it aids him in some dispute. This thread basically reveals that the earlier thread was not, in fact, a question of legality or of ethics, but a personal grudge between Overwhelming and, well, the more respected members of the Community. I am glad that someone else saw it the way I did.

Just my $.02.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00
KernelKnowledge12
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
 written Friday, February 25 2005 05:59 Profile #34
Overwhelming refused to remove Kelandon's works after being asked several times. Eventually he did and his site still exists as a result, but this is irrelevent.

DreamGuy is, presumably, not the author of any of these graphics. His opinion holds no weight unless the authors also feel it neccessary to complain. As I see it a law means nothing and has no ramifications (legal or otherwise) unless it is accepted by some party and most importantly, invoked.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00
Kelandon
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
 written Friday, February 25 2005 06:08 Profile Homepage #35
My actions here, and I think most others' too, contain no hypocrisy for reasons I have explained already. I don't think there's anything morally wrong with using someone's work as long as that person doesn't mind that you're using it; while it may be on legally shaky ground, I don't think it's morally wrong.

I do think it's morally wrong to use someone's work when that person has explicitly denied permission. That's the difference here.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Lynkfox
Apprentice
Member # 5512
 written Friday, February 25 2005 06:28 Profile #36
i dont speak leagalese very well, but take a look at this from the copyright office and tell me what you think.

quote:
§ 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works

(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.

(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
And most importantly

quote:

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
both taken from http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

Allright lets look at the fair use law.

1) Does tm use of the work have any commercial impact? No, it is for entertaiment purposes only and freely distrubuted.

2) The nature of the copyright work is graphics, but im not a copyright expert to say what that would mean in this case. Are any of you? No? Then dont touch this point. If you can say youve worked with the copyright office are are a copyright lawyer then go ahead.

3) Thats the 50% rule i was talking about earlier. I told you it did matter. It may not be 50% but still, it is a derivative of copyright work, and can fall under that provision

4) Will TM using someones graphics in a scenario that is at most probably going to be downloaded a few thousand times going to affect the market value or the market for a picture that isnt being sold anyway? Nope, not thinking so here....

btw, incase your wondering sections 106 and 106a deal with who has the right to say you cannot use the work, including the following

quote:

(b) Scope and Exercise of Rights. — Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright owner. The authors of a joint work of visual art are coowners of the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work.
Dreamguy you can argue moraly as much as you want - i think everyone agrees that if the author of such work would come and say 'dont use my work' or their webpage says 'dont use my work' then TM and others wouldnt use their work. But unless the author comes forth and says that, i am of the (only semi informed, i admit - im not a lawyer) opinion that his use of the work falls under Fair Use.

--------------------
Gir! What did you do with the Guidance chip?

I took it out to make room for the CUPCAKE!!!!!
Posts: 30 | Registered: Thursday, February 17 2005 08:00
The Immortal
BANNED
Member # 4
 written Friday, February 25 2005 08:57 Profile Homepage #37
Since I don't care about the legal grounds for 64x64 images (and other people are doing more than my fair share), to wit:

* Overwhelming refused to take down the offensive material when questioned about it
* The material was within the community against a member thereof, and this sort of offense just tends to piss all of us off.
* Graphics do not require updates periodically, whereas scenarios do. Canopy can and will be updated frequently, so I requested that he link to my site rather than host it himself.
* I did not tell him to "take it down," I told him to link to the scenario. Good news for him, since he doesn't have to waste his webspace or his bandwidth- this is obviously not an option with pictures, though.

Don't claim that this has anything to do with Overwhelming. It does not.

--------------------
*
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00

Pages