freeking copyrights

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 18 Jul 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

GoserGosarian	18 Jul 2002
OK... give me some feedback here. Check out my post "I am designing an new deck" or something, under my name. I have used other peoples artwork (GASP!!!!), comparable to the way I make compilation tapes of my favorite musical artists. Check this out. Every 2nd Friday of the month at the request of my friend who owns a local bar, I EJ. "EJ" is like being a DJ, but instead of spinning records, I have the setup of speakers, crazy lights, and a laptop. Like mostly every other EJ, I use WINAMP, and jam songs by a whole array of artists. THIS IS NOT A COPYRIGH ISSUE. Any artist would gladly kiss my ass for the pure fact that people are dancing to their music and enjoying themselves. Why are DJ/EJ's immune to copyright laws that otherwise infest sites ike Napster etc...? dwell on that, and then think about why I am pissed that every artist that I have Emailed regarding my personal tarot deck has answered negatively.... even when specifically stating that it is specifically for personal use. Never mind the money that I have spent on these individual artists (Julie Bell, $200-300, Royo $3000-5000, Boris $1500 for one painting framed)... it was never about the money to me... hehe.... anyway, what do you all think about the purpose of art vs. the purpose of the lawyers, vs. the people who want to use others art for their own purposes? p.s. all responses I have received from all these artists have come not from them but from some lackey webmaster or lawyer...

GoserGosarian	18 Jul 2002
Let me add, after that blast, that I am creating a deck, and that I have NO INTENTION of making money off of it. For those who have not pursued my original post, you should check out the art... Dont respond with the usual "rights this, copyright that" stuff... Im really trying in my late night mentality way to vent, and dig at the heart of the purpose of art itself. NO, Im not naive, I understand that if there were no regulations or copyrights that I could easily copy others work and EASILY make money off of it, but why would an artist not want ones art spread for others to see??? free advertising!!! come on, ....Ok ok ok im ranting and its late....but this is an interesting point. Tarot cards arent exactly something that I would worry about as an established artist.... anyway enough out of my yap, what does everyone else think about this subject?

lunalafey	18 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by GoserGosarian OK... give me some feedback here. ... think about why I am pissed that every artist that I have Emailed regarding my personal tarot deck has answered negatively.... even when specifically stating that it is specifically for personal use. Never mind the money that I have spent on these individual artists... it was never about the money to me... hehe.... anyway, what do you all think about the purpose of art vs. the purpose of the lawyers, vs. the people who want to use others art for their own purposes? p.s. all responses I have received from all these artists have come not from them but from some lackey webmaster or lawyer... Someone once said, practicing law was an art. OK I say be creative......Bluff your way directly to the artist. Perhaps send them a copy of your deck as a gift and a letter explaining why you where inspired to use thier art as well as asking permission and a signed "confession" saying you will never use this to make money, there you have CYA.

kayne	18 Jul 2002
Interesting point GoserGoserian... As an artist I do not appeciate poeple using my work unless I give them permission... I spend hours and hours on this original work... I have thought up the concepts, found the appropriate references, composed the image to look and feel a certain way... My tarot decks are not published yet and I plan to have them published. If someone was to take my work, chop and change it without my permission I would not appreciate that at all. Then again... much of my work I give away. (Example: the Aeclectic Avatars) If I am making the pieces to be given away it is usually unsigned and I don't really mind what people do with it - it is theirs... So... I guess work that I intend to give away, not a problem... but work that is my own I would not really want others chopping up. After saying all this, I mean no offence to you or the deck that you are creating... But I can understand why the artists don't want you using their work.

GoserGosarian	18 Jul 2002
p.s.s. heres the fool.... who the heck is that? name him and you win....hehehe or should I say youre on the list...

kayne	18 Jul 2002
You are very skilled at using photoshop GG!!! Why not take photos yourself, friends, family, things around you. It would be more personal and all your own work! :D

Faerie Lin	18 Jul 2002
Jonathan Davis (lead singer from KoRn). weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Lin

divinerguy	18 Jul 2002
I am an attorney in California, and I could give you a million legal reasons why copyrights should be protected. However, I don't think anybody really cares about that aspect of your question. Here's what I think as a human being and please, no comments about lawyers not being human, it stopped being funny around the 10,000th time I heard it. Creating a work of art that people like is hard. Creating a work of art that people will pay for is even more difficult. The artists themselves are far more eloquent that I could ever dream. "The Far Side" cartoonist, Gary Larson wrote: These cartoons are my "children," of sorts, and like a parent, I'm concerned about where they go at night without telling me. And, seeing them at someone's web site is like getting the call at 2:00 a.m. that goes, "Uh, Dad, you're not going to like this much, but guess where I am." Cartoonist Richard Guindon -- ''It's like having someone else write in your diary."

Lee	18 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by GoserGosarian Check this out. Every 2nd Friday of the month at the request of my friend who owns a local bar, I EJ. "EJ" is like being a DJ, but instead of spinning records, I have the setup of speakers, crazy lights, and a laptop. Like mostly every other EJ, I use WINAMP, and jam songs by a whole array of artists. THIS IS NOT A COPYRIGH ISSUE. Any artist would gladly kiss my ass for the pure fact that people are dancing to their music and enjoying themselves. Why are DJ/EJ's immune to copyright laws that otherwise infest sites ike Napster etc...? You know, I think it's not really the same thing, because, if I understand you correctly, you're playing each of the artists' songs as they were written. But what if you were to take the melody of someone's published song, write your own lyrics to it, and write your own arrangement to it, and then play it for an audience? Even if you weren't making money from it, it would seem pretty natural for the original songwriter to be irritated. I agree with kayne -- you seem to be a very creative and artistic person. Why not create your own works from scratch? Think how much more satisfying it would be.... -- Lee :)

jema	18 Jul 2002
hi, there are a lot of free photos on the net, photos of things, flowers, trees, houses, landscapes, space etc. take those - get a digital camera and start taking your own photos, mix it up in photoshop and you will have a truly original deck that no one can complain about. go to www.deviantart.com and browse their stockphotography for a start. lots of really nice things there. you are also allowed to scan in old adverts and such. and there is to my knowledge not any copyright on the old masters. browse your local old book dealer for old postcards and such. make people in a 3d program like bryce. there are a lot of ways to get the images you need. perhaps you won't get exactly what you want but you can still make a terrific deck and one that you can print and sell and no problems with any lawers. you have talent, it will be a challange for you but i think you can make it. they say "kill your darlings" perhaps that copyrighted art is your darlings. i think you can do without them.

tabbycat	18 Jul 2002
As a writer myself, I have to say this - although I put my work out on the Web for people to read, I'd really hate it if my stories and characters were stolen, altered and used in ways I didn't approve of. If you create it, it _is_ your baby - words, images, music, whatever - and folk sure do get upset if you mess with their children! Also, you might not want to use pictures of celebrities in your Tarot - frex, Ozzy Osbourne might not object to appearing as the Devil, but Bill Gates sure as heck would! You seem to think that not making any money out of the project is okay, but that isn't the issue with copyright. The artist is allowed to make copies of his/her work and nobody else is - that's what 'copyright' really means and, as far as 'personal use' goes, you've already gone beyond that by posting the images here. I have to say that I do like what I've seen of your deck, but I've one reservation - the colours used on the Minors don't seem to reflect the suits, especially the blue used on the Queen of Wands. I suppose I just like my fire cards fiery! :D Jilly

Laurel	18 Jul 2002
Anne Rice is notorious in her attitudes towards fan fiction based on her work- which upsets some of those same fans. But I can understand where she's coming from, even if I might have a different attitude in her shoes. Those card you are making are so incredibly beautiful, but you as the artist are making them so. I'm convinced you can create cards (The Sun is an example) of 100% copyright free or licensed or original material that will be just as beautiful or better and put the whole project on a better foundation. Being a DJ or EJ who's entertaining at a party playing music is using the product they purchased/downloaded in the manner that the music artists intended. Borrowing someone else's art w/o permission for personal webpages or other projects like your tarot really is a very different situation. Laurel

midnightmerry	18 Jul 2002
I have to agree with what's been said about the relationship between artists and their art & why it is protected from public use. I find your attitude towards these artists interesting. My daughter is an artist and after seeing the work/soul/feeling/labor she puts into her work, I myself would be highly offended if someone took her material and used it without her permission. These works that you've used do not belong to you. If the artists want their use restricted, I think I would be a bit more respectful of their wishes. Besides, I agree with what was said about creating your own images. You are obviously creative; come up with a creative alternative to using someone else's work! Midnightmerry

Geenius at Wrok	18 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Laurel Being a DJ or EJ who's entertaining at a party playing music is using the product they purchased/downloaded in the manner that the music artists intended. More than that: Professional DJs are supposed to keep track of what they play and pay royalties to ASCAP/BMI. If your DJ friend isn't doing that, he can actually be busted for it.

lili	18 Jul 2002
I think that you should try to create your own art work and not use someone's art, we do not know how hard was for them to create their own art for somebody to come and use it. I'm sure you can make your own and do a nice and "original" job.

Ravenswing	18 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Lee But what if you were to take the melody of someone's published song, write your own lyrics to it, and write your own arrangement to it, and then play it for an audience? -- Lee :) you'd be weird al... }) nevermore... ravenswing

GoserGosarian	18 Jul 2002
Or, you would be a DJ, remixing songs as you please to fit a certain style or mood. DJ's who mix music techno DO NOT have to report anything... Ive never ehard of that happening. Very interesting responses... I defenitely have thought about this issue more.... I think, that if an artist is so protictive of his/her work, and doesnt want it recreated or used any other way, then they shouldnt show it to anyone. I mean, if its THAT personal, who are the doing it for, anyway? These artists should keep their work to themselves, and not put it on the net, or reprint it in any way or share it. Interesting analogy, relating kids to art... but if one was so worried about their kids, why would they whore them out like a pimp to only paying customers? yeah, Jon Davis... you win.... he's already received that image...

squigglywiggly	18 Jul 2002
Copyright law is an artificial invention that came to light only in the last couple of centuries. It is not founded on any moral or religious framework whatsoever. It was meant as a temporary and practical stopgap solution to encourage creators to create new works. Today, it is being used in exactly the opposite manner -- to discourage people from creating new works (by preventing people from building upon the works of others) and to strengthen the stronghold of ever-larger multinational corporations on society's cultural heritage. It's a damn shame and it's only going to get worse from now on.

kayne	19 Jul 2002
GoserGosarian: It would be a very grey and depressing world if you had your way. Rediculous. SquigglyWiggly: The means with which to make copies when their was no copywrite were a lot more difficult than they are now. It is pretty easy for someone to swipe an image from the net and distort it for their own use than it was 150 years ago, when the copier had to be as skilled as the artest was to paint a reproduction...

HudsonGray	19 Jul 2002
I have to side with the artists on this one. I've had two items ripped off that were my own design. One ended up in a gift shop in Oregon (but I didn't care to follow up on it) & the other was a blatant rip off by a store in California who ordered 14 of my monster dolls then ripped one apart, sent it to China & had 5,000 copies made THEN advertised them in a comic wholesalers catalog. I found out about it as soon as the catalog hit the public, had to hire a copyright lawyer (this is one of my bread & butter designs!) & even though I won, the lawyer got all the money plus some. No, I side with the artists. You work hard to design something original & don't want to see it being used free of charge elsewhere & hear that it's 'free advertising for you' (as the guy who ripped me off tried to tell me). I don't look at it as free advertising, the middlemen marketing the monster dolls for him made the lion's share -- $72,000 off of it, I only got $3,000 & a contract saying he owes me triple damages on the selling price if he does it again. This happened 2 years ago & I'm still pissed about it.

HudsonGray	19 Jul 2002
"Or, you would be a DJ, remixing songs as you please to fit a certain style or mood. DJ's who mix music techno DO NOT have to report anything... Ive never ehard of that happening. " Oh yes they do, every song, even if a snippet is played for a commercial or a partial song on the radio before a power outage is supposed to be recorded as being 'played' and a fraction of a cent goes to the artist. It's the law, even if you haven't heard of it. I've got a musician significant other & it's a sore point with any musician that the royalties are so low & that it's so hard to follow up on stuff like this. If the musicians get diddly, imagine what the songwriters get! Even less. So yes, reporting is supposed to be done on any song reaching the public by a dj, a tv station, etc. Even at weddings & parties where you hire the guy to come in & spin records.

dolphingirl	19 Jul 2002
ok- I am not a lawyer, but here is the problem as I understand it. Other than the very good emotional arguments presented here, about how a piece of art is a "baby", there is the very real problem of copyright dilution. Copyright is not ownership, as some seem to think. It is the right to copy and reproduce your art and profit therefrom. The problem is, you MUST defend this right, or lose it - under the rules of copyright law. This is especially true the more popular the work. As an example of a very similar thing, look at trademarks: Kleenex tissues, Xeroxing, Scotch Tape and Aspirin have all passed into common use - because the trademark owners did not defend them. Who remebers that "aspirin" used to be a brand name?!? Under the laws, if a copyright holder does not defend the copyright - the same thing can happen. It can pass into the public domain. This may seem anal to outsiders, but it's the way the system works. On another issue: you may also have a problem using parts of celebrity photos in your work. Most modern celebs defend the use of their likeness as much as anything else - and it can get you into trouble as well. Just do a google search about Alyssa Milano's battles over use of her images and you'll see what I mean. As an artist I don't find it flattering when people use my work with out permission :) Thanks Dolphingirl

Major Tom	19 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by jema hi, there are a lot of free photos on the net, photos of things, flowers, trees, houses, landscapes, space etc. take those - get a digital camera and start taking your own photos, mix it up in photoshop and you will have a truly original deck that no one can complain about. This is basically what I've done with Major Tom's tarot. I have to agree with the defense of copyright. I would not be pleased if someone started using my work without my permission. Continue to use other's work without permission and someone will come after you for damages. There's plenty in the public domain. If you're not confident (or dare I say talented) enough to use your own work - at least stick to images in the public domain.

the hermit	19 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by squigglywiggly Copyright law is an artificial invention that came to light only in the last couple of centuries. It is not founded on any moral or religious framework whatsoever. It was meant as a temporary and practical stopgap solution to encourage creators to create new works. Today, it is being used in exactly the opposite manner -- to discourage people from creating new works (by preventing people from building upon the works of others) and to strengthen the stronghold of ever-larger multinational corporations on society's cultural heritage. It's a damn shame and it's only going to get worse from now on. NOPE! It's NO MORE artificial than any other law (like those against murder and robbery) and it’s based on common law and dates back more than a just 'couple of centuries', try charters such as the Magna Carta, June 15, 1215 one of the founding documents of English Law (and guess where most of OUR law comes from?). The difference is that if some one plagiarized you, copied your design, etc. back then, you just went out and pummeled them or had a minion pummel them. The law was designed to take fights out of the ‘street’ and bring them to a ‘court’, the local king, prince or noble, where in theory you were ‘judged’. NOT based on moral AND religious framework? How about Judeo-Christian concepts like… Thou shalt not steal. Though shalt not covet… ? Which are, in general, echoed by other major religions and philosophies. NO it was not designed as a stopgap… see above statements. NO it doesn’t discourage people from creating new works… it discourages people from stealing someone elses work and it protects NEW work created by people! YES in some cases it can be abused… but that’s true of almost anything. NO it’s not a ‘damn shame’ because it works and protects artists such as those right here in this forum as well as ‘small time’ writers such as myself who make little enough from our work as it is! But that’s just my opinion.

MeeWah	19 Jul 2002
GoserGosarian: I am aware of the possible issues with your deck but what I have seen indicates you are immensely talented in your own right!! I trust that your deck will showcase your unique personal vision of Tarot & eliminate any issues with its images. There are many of us who are supportive of such an endeavor & would be very interested to see it realized as a marketable deck--you can count on us to form a line for it!

midnightmerry	19 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by GoserGosarian I think, that if an artist is so protictive of his/her work, and doesnt want it recreated or used any other way, then they shouldnt show it to anyone. ...Interesting analogy, relating kids to art... but if one was so worried about their kids, why would they whore them out like a pimp to only paying customers? EEEEEE, the insensitivity! the lack of insight! the 'just doesn't get it'!! **Midnightmerry runs screaming from the thread** .....just kidding. But really, do you liken a carpenter to a pimp? No? Why not? A carpenter will create pieces of work and then expect to be compensated for it. Is a carpenter a pimp? How about an accountant? Should accountants be called pimps because they charge for their knowledge of tax law? Or for that matter, how about anyone? Anyone who works on something expects to be credited with the work, recognized as the author of the work, and expects to be compensated for the work and to receive the credit if others benefit from the work. They don't expect anyone to claim the work as their own when its not, use their work inappropriately, and they don't consider themselves to be 'whoring' themselves by receiving compensation. Art is no different to the artist; it IS their work and they own it, have complete control over it, and should be compensated for it without being likened to 'pimps' because they didn't go along with your plans for THEIR work. I hate to say it, but your attitude has a lot to do with why folks have to hire lawyers to protect their ownership rights in the first place. Midnightmerry

HudsonGray	19 Jul 2002
Unless I'm wrong, copyright goes for the life of the artist plus 35 years, then it has the option of going into the public domain if direct relatives don't pay to extend the copyright (so John Wayne's image still belongs to his heirs, regardless of the fact he's been dead). Kleenex & other brands also are under a trademark, which needs renewing also. They elected to drop the ownership of their copyright & allow it into public domain. Same for 'super glue' and 'ortho novum' birth control. You have to dig sometimes to find out if it's in the free & clear, but copyright is assumed on ALL artistic doings from point of creation. Even if they don't affix the copyright symbol, name & date to the item at the time. There's basic copyright info on the government site, you can find it really easy online. I've downloaded their forms & filed on my major work already. Backfiled on the stuff from the 1980's too, on what was important to me, just to have it on record.

midnightmerry	19 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by MeeWah GoserGosarian: I am aware of the possible issues with your deck but what I have seen indicates you are immensely talented in your own right!! ...There are many of us who are supportive of such an endeavor & would be very interested to see it realized as a marketable deck--you can count on us to form a line for it! This is what I keep coming back to, too! Goser, I said it earlier & I'll say it again: I agree with MeeWah. Why are you even messing with this, when you are so obviously creative & could very well create your own deck using your own work. Yes, there would be a line here for it, I'm sure!! All issues about copywrites, etc... would be- poof! gone! and you'd have a great deck for all of us Tarotholics!!

squigglywiggly	19 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by the hermit NOT based on moral AND religious framework? How about Judeo-Christian concepts like… Thou shalt not steal. Though shalt not covet… ? Which are, in general, echoed by other major religions and philosophies. Here's a good example: You make up a story and tell me your story. Now, you know your story, and I know it, too. You can still go and tell your story to other people. I haven't stolen it from you. You still have your story just like you had it at the beginning. The difference is that now I also know your story as well. Society has been enriched and nobody has lost anything. The argument of stealing does not generalize to entities that are not scarce i.e. entities that can be multiplied at asymptotically zero cost. A car can be stolen because only one person can own a car at one time. It takes additional effort and additional resources to make each new car. The same is not the case for entities that are not scarce. An idea, a story, or computer data, cannot be stolen in the same way. One cannot run out of copies of an idea, or a story, or computer data. You can keep making copies and each new copy costs practically nothing to make. This is so obvious to me that it baffles me every time someone tries to equate copyright infringement with stealing. They are nothing like one another. Stealing has its basis in common law, and dates back at least eight centuries. Copyright infringement is a newfangled invention that is barely two centuries old.

Laurel	19 Jul 2002
Given the personal (I'd say almost intimate) relationship readers can develop with their decks, who'd want to use a deck associated with the "bad karma" of intellectual property theft, any way? That's just starting everything off on the wrong foot. Laurel

the hermit	19 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by squigglywiggly Here's a good example: You make up a story and tell me your story. Now, you know your story, and I know it, too. You can still go and tell your story to other people. I haven't stolen it from you. You still have your story just like you had it at the beginning. The difference is that now I also know your story as well. Society has been enriched and nobody has lost anything. But I didn't tell you my story. I wrote it down over a period of 6 to 12 months of actual writing (time it generally takes for most writers to produce the average novel). Found a publisher who spent thousands of dollars to print it, distribute it, advertise it. Now the royalties come into me and I don't have to work 2 jobs and stay up until 3 a.m. while writing and have no personal life. Now I can write during what ever hours I choose, go out to dinner from time to time and live a reasonable life while I write more and hopefully even better books. Quote: Originally posted by squigglywiggly The argument of stealing does not generalize to entities that are not scarce i.e. entities that can be multiplied at asymptotically zero cost. A car can be stolen because only one person can own a car at one time. It takes additional effort and additional resources to make each new car. The same is not the case for entities that are not scarce. An idea, a story, or computer data, cannot be stolen in the same way. One cannot run out of copies of an idea, or a story, or computer data. You can keep making copies and each new copy costs practically nothing to make. Your analogy of the car is perfect. Because you're forgetting that it's a copy of the 'original' design... Just like the 'copy' of my book in the book store (boy, I wish! someday maybe). It took resources to make the car, both intellectual—the original design, and actual—the parts. My book also took intellectual—original story, and actual—the paper and ink to make the book, printing costs, advertising cost, store front costs, etc. which shows you're error in assuming zero cost. The same applies to music and art. How YOU come up with zero cost is beyond ME. And as for computer data, if you think there’s no problem with ‘accessing’ it (you say it can’t be stolen) then how about giving me access to your financial records so I can use them to ‘access’ your identity—because by your analogy ‘identity theft’ can’t be theft because it’s computer data. I could use some credit cards that I don't have to pay... and maybe one of those new cars in your name but my garage... (and don't think it hasn't happened, just read the papers or the web!) Quote: Originally posted by squigglywiggly This is so obvious to me that it baffles me every time someone tries to equate copyright infringement with stealing. They are nothing like one another. Stealing has its basis in common law, and dates back at least eight centuries. Copyright infringement is a newfangled invention that is barely two centuries old. So I guess you’ll just have to continue being baffled since ALL law is based on common law and copyright law is just another extension of theft laws NOT a new-fangled invention. It baffles me when people can’t see the forest for the trees. They want law to protect what THEY see as the ‘correct’ issues, but when they don’t agree with that law, then hey, toss it out! Copy that book, tape, movie, DVD, art, etc. I don't care if the artist, writer, whatever worked days, weeks, months, years... so what? Take money out of his pocket? Who cares... it ain't me!

squigglywiggly	19 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Laurel intellectual property theft Intellectual property, isn't. Property means scarce goods. Ideas, creative works, data, are not property. These works are not scarce. They can be copied any number of times at practically zero cost. Also, theft makes no sense in this context. You cannot steal something that is not a scarce good. You can infringe the copyright on a nonscarce good, but that's just disobedience of some newfangled law that most people don't agree with anyways. There is absolutely no religious or moral foundation to the idea of copyright. Therefore, karma doesn't apply, at all. "Intellectual property theft" is misleading rhetoric used by multinational megacorporations to brainwash the naive public. You have bought hook, line and sinker into such propaganda. This is very very sad.........

the hermit	19 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by squigglywiggly "Intellectual property theft" is misleading rhetoric used by multinational megacorporations to brainwash the naive public. You have bought hook, line and sinker into such propaganda. This is very very sad......... Then color me sad. I've bought into reality. What, I wonder, do you do to feed, clothe and shelter your and yours? Obviously nothing intellectual or creative as I know you CAN'T be taking any money for thinking or creating in your work because you obviously haven't "bought hook, line and sinker into such propaganda" as that would be "very, very sad" and so naive.

squigglywiggly	19 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by the hermit Then color me sad. I've bought into reality. What, I wonder, do you do to feed, clothe and shelter your and yours? Obviously nothing intellectual or creative as I know you CAN'T be taking any money for thinking or creating in your work because you obviously haven't "bought hook, line and sinker into such propaganda" as that would be "very, very sad" and so naive. I work in the adult services industry. And I don't appreciate your holier-than-thee attitude.

Laurel	19 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by squigglywiggly There is absolutely no religious or moral foundation to the idea of copyright. Therefore, karma doesn't apply, at all. "Intellectual property theft" is misleading rhetoric used by multinational megacorporations to brainwash the naive public. You have bought hook, line and sinker into such propaganda. This is very very sad......... Having an artist (or artist's lawyer) write you and say "No, you don't have leave to use my/my client's work to create your own art, even for personal use" -- and doing it any way would most certainly involve a moral foundation. And I consider intellectual property rights (regardless of the legalities) to be a very important issue. I disagree with your approach and accept that you won't see mine- which are based on my personal ethics and have nothing to do with anyone's rhetoric. Its the rights of the independent, struggling artist/writer I personally care about, being one of the latter. I hear almost everyone else on this thread saying the same. Its also my experience, karmically speaking, that when I pay for what I aquire (music, books, software, images) rather than looking for loopholes out of paying the artists and publishers, I always have enough money to meet my needs and a lot of my wants. Besides, freedom requires responsibility- otherwise, *it* is just rhetoric. Laurel

the hermit	19 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by squigglywiggly I work in the adult services industry. And I don't appreciate your holier-than-thee attitude. I'm not 'holier' than anyone. I simply addressed your arguments from my point of view and understood that you were addressing them from yours and asked what I viewed as valid questions. I responded TO rhetoric WITH rhetoric.

Jenny-Li	19 Jul 2002
I don't understand this debate. Are all artists supposed to give their work away for free, so that they will havthus having to get a day job in order to support their famillies. In the end they will only be able to create while deliriously tired and overworked - if they bother at all. Sometimes sleep beats creation, right. What are they - superhumans? And, this part is the most unbelievable, assuming they do keep up their creative work, they are to let their art be used/exploited/chopped-up-into-arbitrary-bits-and-pieces by people who don't know them, and don't know the story behind their work... Because if they don't, their creation is a "whore" and they are "pimps" for being greedy enough to expect to be payed for their efforts! I don't understand this debate. Jenny

AmounrA	19 Jul 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I work in the adult services industry. And I don't appreciate your holier-than-thee attitude." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- you work in the sex trade?:-) I find that often what people acuse others of is what they are 'guilty' of themselves..there judgements give them selves away....... On the copyright front I would say this....to be a full time obsessed artist often means certain things......1] did not overly achieve at school due to an obsension with art 2] the inability to find time for a career outside of there art and maintain there levels of the art 'fix'......as a result the artist would need to make some cash out of there work if they did not want to live in povety or be a part time artist . Therefore I see nothing wrong with an artist wanting to protect there work..not only finacially..but also in spirit..I would not be happy if my work turned up in a cover to a book about self -healing -- so why shouldn't I as its creator, have the right to choose what happens to my creations? If some-one e-mailed me and asked if they could use my work to do a personal tarot deck for themselves.I would say fine..no problem...but not publication ...but this would not be because of money.If they offered to pay and use my work for manipulation then publication, I would still say no...do your own work:-) I am a liberal universally minded person..but I don't think I should expect to have rights of claim to everything...without working for it....Its a question of respect.

midnightmerry	19 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by squigglywiggly I work in the adult services industry. And I don't appreciate your holier-than-thee attitude. Station break... The phrase is "...holier than THOU." Now back to our regularly scheduled debate. ;)

midnightmerry	19 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by squigglywiggly Intellectual property, isn't. Property means scarce goods. Ideas, creative works, data, are not property. .... "Intellectual property theft" is misleading rhetoric used by multinational megacorporations to brainwash the naive public. You have bought hook, line and sinker into such propaganda. This is very very sad......... You'd have to color the U.S. Patent Office very sad indeed as it operates on the notion that ideas and creative works are property that can be and are protected from intellectual theft.

Ravenswing	19 Jul 2002
hey gosher--- i must say, i really like your sun. i've downloaded it so i can use it a deck i've been working on for about the last fifteen years or so. it's not quite what i wanted as it was, but i was able to fix that. oh yeah, i really like the boarders. they're much better than mine were. but i think i'll have to color them differently. i prefer the traditional color match. thanks for the sun. i can't wait to see if you have any other cards i can borrow. cackle, cackle ravenswing

kayne	20 Jul 2002
SquigglyWiggly: If I said to you "I am going to paint a picture of a dog that is standing over a tree with a boat floating below the tree roots and a girls arm sticking out of the bottom of the boat in reds, blues and grey-greens." You could take this idea and create your own painting from it and that would not be a problem as far as I am concerned because your painting and my painting, using this one idea, would be very, very different. However, if I painted this picture before you knew anything about it and then you saw and photographed the painting and used the photo of my painting as the basis for your work (maybe on some newfangled contraption like a computer) then that is stealing. You have stolen the image, whether you plan to make money from it or not... I don't understand why you can't see that.

squigglywiggly	20 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by kayne However, if I painted this picture before you knew anything about it and then you saw and photographed the painting and used the photo of my painting as the basis for your work (maybe on some newfangled contraption like a computer) then that is stealing. It's not stealing. You still have your picture just like you had it at the very beginning. Nobody's taking your picture away from you. According to your imaginary scenario, I created a derivative work from your picture. And a newfangled law called copyright law which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with property law (therefore has nothing to do with stealing) makes it illegal to create unauthorized derivative works, therefore makes it illegal for me to do what I have done in your imaginary scenario. ALL TAROT CARDS ARE DERIVATIVE WORKS OF THE ONE ORIGINAL TAROT DECK. If copyright Nazi's like you had your way, we would not have had the wonderful variety of Tarot decks that we have today. The creator of the original Tarot deck would have sent cease-and-desist letters to all creators of alternative Tarot decks (after getting a patent for the idea of Tarot) and the world would have been forced to make do with a single Tarot deck. Think about that for a moment.

kayne	20 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by squigglywiggly ALL TAROT CARDS ARE DERIVATIVE WORKS OF THE ONE ORIGINAL TAROT DECK. If copyright Nazi's like you had your way, we would not have had the wonderful variety of Tarot decks that we have today. The creator of the original Tarot deck would have sent cease-and-desist letters to all creators of alternative Tarot decks (after getting a patent for the idea of Tarot) and the world would have been forced to make do with a single Tarot deck. Think about that for a moment. LOL! Do you really think that? The artists of published tarot decks are being paid you know. They didn't give it away out of the goodness of their heart, they get a little boit of money for every deck sold. If a publisher took their images and didn't give them any money for it then they would be right to go to copywrite lawyers and demand payment. Tarot artists get paid for the reproduction of their work. The artist has given the publisher PERMISSION to make reproductions of his/her work. Stealing is when you take *anything* without permission, even if I still have the original copy.

squigglywiggly	20 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by kayne Stealing is when you take *anything* without permission, even if I still have the original copy. No, what you're describing is copyright infringement, it's not stealing. On the one hand, you have property law, and stealing that goes with that. It's criminal law. On the other hand, you have copyright law, and copyright infringement that goes with that. It's civil law. They're different philosophically, morally, legally, and practically. They're different in every imaginable way.

kayne	20 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by squigglywiggly They're different philosophically, morally, legally, and practically. They're different in every imaginable way. You think they I different, I don't. I don't have a problem with that.

Ravenswing	20 Jul 2002
well guys-- what you have been witnessing in previous posts is the meeting of mutually exclusive portions of two diametrically opposed distinct and unique systems of reality. note how each system automatically attempts to assert its existence in the face any denial. in general, this is demonstrated by the meeting (technically known as 'the big clash') of any two sets 'A' and 'not A'. you will note that this 'big clash' always produces a similar result. for more on this topic, please see g.g. rhinehart's classic work, "So what's wrong with you?" sitting in my tree, wondering about the moon ravenswing

Jimilyn	20 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by squigglywiggly No, what you're describing is copyright infringement, it's not stealing. On the one hand, you have property law, and stealing that goes with that. It's criminal law. On the other hand, you have copyright law, and copyright infringement that goes with that. It's civil law. They're different philosophically, morally, legally, and practically. They're different in every imaginable way. They are not different in every way. Illegal is illegal. Copyright infringement is illegal. One doesn't have to like it, but one does have to live with it....well, actually I suppose one doesn't. One can choose to violate copyright law and risk being sued, going to jail, or both.

GoserGosarian	20 Jul 2002
MUHAHAHAHA!!!! great debate I have started here. Oh, by the way:hey gosher--- i must say, i really like your sun. i've downloaded it so i can use it a deck i've been working on for about the last fifteen years or so. it's not quite what i wanted as it was, but i was able to fix that. oh yeah, i really like the boarders. they're much better than mine were. but i think i'll have to color them differently. i prefer the traditional color match. thanks for the sun. i can't wait to see if you have any other cards i can borrow. cackle, cackle ravenswing Knock yourself out. I do have other cards, and youre welcome to them. How many times have I said that? Also, if its taking you 15 years to make a deck...OMG that Sun card took 15 minutes... Id hate to see the other cards. JK, I know youre TRYING to make a point. Obviously, if I was sensitive about my work, I wouldnt share it or make it available. If I didnt want the kids to eat the chocolate cake, I wouldnt leave it in plain view on the table. Secondly, I DO understand the point of copyrights, especially for those whose incoma and livelyhood depend on their art. I made some strong statements to draw the responses I expected to see...and did, from the lawyer-in-training POV to the spiritual/karma side. I side with the spiritual/karma side. To end the DJ debate, I think I have a different defenition of a DJ than you...Im not talking about the DJ's at weddings or Bar Mitzvahs here...and while there might be some law somewhere requiring them to report songs, thank god nobody does it. No one is going to report a 15 second breakbeat or a drum-n-bass line. Regardless of any law, goddammit, I am making my deck for myself and my girlfriend(pictured)... NO, that is not Julia Stiles...she gets that a lot... and I will also continue, in the same thread, to make compilation CD's for myself and friends of music that convey a certain theme or emotion.

squigglywiggly	20 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Jimilyn They are not different in every way. Illegal is illegal. Copyright infringement is illegal. One doesn't have to like it, but one does have to live with it....well, actually I suppose one doesn't. One can choose to violate copyright law and risk being sued, going to jail, or both. Oral sex and anal sex are both illegal in 37 states. Chances are very good that you've violated that law several times in your life. Do you deserve to go to jail? You figure it out.

GoserGosarian	20 Jul 2002
Now see what youve all made me do to the tower....hehehe

Jimilyn	20 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by squigglywiggly Oral sex and anal sex are both illegal in 37 states. Chances are very good that you've violated that law several times in your life. Do you deserve to go to jail? You figure it out. ROFL!!!!!!! Sorry. You lose. Besides, if I know that such a law exists and decide to violate it, I take my chances...just like in copyright infringement. Jimilyn

kayne	20 Jul 2002
Let's not get personal SquigglyWiggly.

squigglywiggly	20 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Jimilyn Besides, if I know that such a law exists and decide to violate it, I take my chances...just like in copyright infringement. Jimilyn My point is that many laws exist with absolutely no basis in current morality, logic, or a balanced consideration of the rights of the people and the corporations. If everybody respected laws the way you advocate that they do, then we would not have had a civil rights movement in this country. Women would still have been unable to vote. Abortion would still have been illegal. And so on and so forth. You're advocating a sheep-like attitude that opposes progress. This is dangerous and this is tragic.

lili	20 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by squigglywiggly Oral sex and anal sex are both illegal in 37 states. Chances are very good that you've violated that law several times in your life. Do you deserve to go to jail? You figure it out. It takes more than one person to have oral or anal sex (unles you use a vibrator) and the parties involved on it have to be agree with it.

Lee	20 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by squigglywiggly If copyright Nazi's like you had your way, we would not have had the wonderful variety of Tarot decks that we have today. "Be nice. Please don't insult or harass other forum users, even if you don't agree with them. Differences of opinion and open discussions are tolerated, but insults and flames are not. Repeat offenders may find their posting privileges removed." -- from Solandia's Forum Guidelines post. -- Lee

Laurel	20 Jul 2002
I think we've reached a point where's there is not much left to say. Its clearly down to Opinion A and Opinion B time and some tempers are fraying. So I at least am going to just drop it all. Gosher- I hope your girlfriend likes the tarot deck, and I think its sweet that you are making her one. That in itself is romantic. I'd be extremely touched, if I were her, and fall all over that beautiful Sun card. My last piece of advice is to just keep it all private and personal, between the two of you. Best wishes! Laurel

Sally Gardens	20 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by squigglywiggly Oral sex and anal sex are both illegal in 37 states. Chances are very good that you've violated that law several times in your life. Do you deserve to go to jail? You figure it out. Even worse, I am told by a former Michigan resident who keeps up with these issues that in the state of Michigan it is not only illegal to have the above-mentioned forms of sex, the Michigan law ALSO stipulates that it is illegal to have ANY sexual activity that is not between husband and wife AND does not have the husband on top in the so-called "missionary position." Going to jail for letting the wife be on top; who the hell makes these laws, anyway? Anybody who gets busted for "violating" these absurd laws should not just meekly say "oh, well, that's what I get for breaking the law" but should definitely fight it! Anyway, on the copyright thing, I tend to take the middle ground. I think it's valid for artists, writers, etc. to protect the rights to reproduce their works for money. They have a right to earn a living from their labor, and not have that living siphoned off by some slave-labor corporation in China. On the other hand, I think that the creation of derivative works is a legitimate part of the creative dialectic and, as long as the derivation leaves the original work intact, does not misrepresent as being the original work or the work of the original artist, and is not being done for money or threatening the livelihood of the artist - several examples given in this thread involved attempts to circumvent the artist's production-for-sale of said works, and so were not relevant to discussions of derivation for non-monetary reasons - it should be allowed, or at least overlooked, on the grounds that it is a form of engagement with and commentary on the original work. Does that mean the original artist will like or approve of every such form of engagement and commentary? No. I'm sure that J.R.R. Tolkien, for example, is spinning in his grave at the sexual fantasies young fans have harbored (whether expressed or not) about his characters. But then, the original artist won't be any happier with every way in which his or her work is treated in forms that are protected, such as analytical essays, reviews, and parody. My view is that preserving the free exchange of ideas is the stronger ethical imperative, here. Now, all of the above is my view about what is right, not a claim about what is legal. But as several people have pointed out, the law isn't always right. I think the current situation has swung too far to the extreme, but rather than completely abolish copyright, I hope the pendulum will eventually swing to a reasonable balance in the middle.

Mermaid	20 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Sally Gardens Anyway, on the copyright thing, I tend to take the middle ground. I think it's valid for artists, writers, etc. to protect the rights to reproduce their works for money. On the other hand, I think that the creation of derivative works is a legitimate part of the creative dialectic ... Amen Sally! For me, at least, this all comes down to that old idea: Don't do it to others if you wouldn't like them to do it to you. So if you honestly believe you wouldn't mind someone else copying the work if you'd done it, go ahead and copy it. But if you know deep down that you'd mind someone using your work without permission, then don't do it to someone else. And of course, always always always give the artist/author credit when you use their material. That's just plain manners. Just my 2 cents.

Jimilyn	22 Jul 2002
Quote: Originally posted by squigglywiggly My point is that many laws exist with absolutely no basis in current morality, logic, or a balanced consideration of the rights of the people and the corporations. If everybody respected laws the way you advocate that they do, then we would not have had a civil rights movement in this country. Women would still have been unable to vote. Abortion would still have been illegal. And so on and so forth. You're advocating a sheep-like attitude that opposes progress. This is dangerous and this is tragic. Hmmm...you jump to conclusions about what I say too easily. I never said (nor do I believe) even 1/3 of what you say I said. I would appreciate it if you would not be so quick to project things into my statements. I feel that what you posted about what I said gives the wrong impression of my true opinions to others in this forum. When you post to me as you have been, it feels like you are trying to provoke me. This may not be the case, but it's how I feel. However, I choose not to be upset. I do, however, wish to make clear that I am *not* "advocating a sheep-like attitude that opposes progress." You are certainly free to have your opinions about copyright issues as are all of the other people in this forum. I respect your right to your opinion and expect that you respect mine as well. I don't view you as someone dangerous and tragic. I view you as someone with a very strong and definite opinion on copyright issues. No more, no less. No, I never said I agreed with all laws. I never said that we should never seek to change laws we don't agree with. However, in so doing, you may risk certain consequences. It's up to the person to decide whether or not they think a certain battle worth fighting. It appears from your comments that you read far too much into a simple statement of...make your own choice and be prepared for whatever consequence or lack thereof. Take responsibility for your choice is all I was saying. If you feel very strongly about a law being changed or repealed, it is certainly your right as a citizen to fight to change that. It's happened many times in the history of the US...not just with women's rights. But one still has to be prepared to accept whatever consequences (which may be consequences of law or other types of consequences) may come. They may be "good" or "bad" consequences, but they come to you as a result of your choices. And whether or not you see the consequences as "good" or "bad" is a personal perception. They are simply consequences, and your judgement of them is separate from the actual consequences. Every action a person takes (or non-action) results in some consequence and that should be taken into account when we are making our choices about what we say and do. Then be responsible for your own choice. That's all I meant. Jimilyn

The freeking copyrights thread was originally posted on 18 Jul 2002 in the Talking Tarot board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Talking Tarot, or read more archived threads.