“We really don’t own our stuff anymore (at least not fully); the manufacturers do. Because modifying modern objects requires access to information: code, service manuals, error codes, and diagnostic tools. Modern cars are part horsepower, part high-powered computer. Microwave ovens are a combination of plastic and microcode. Silicon permeates and powers almost everything we own. This is a property rights issue, and current copyright law gets it backwards, turning regular people — like students, researchers, and small business owners — into criminals.”
—Current congressional debates about the legality of unlocking cell phones are missing the larger point – Wired’s Kyle Wiens argues we should be allowed to unlock everything we own.
Pair with System Failure. – Kirby Ferguson’s provocative take on what’s wrong with intellectual property law.
What is "Art Theft"? Mirre shares her thoughts
Many people, especially on dA, have this idea that if one artist shows any signs of similar elements from one of their art idols, it’s considered “art theft”.
Sorry but copying for example a pose, or happen to draw eyes the same way, or have an OC with the same color scheme is NOT ART THEFT.
I’m just gonna explain with examples of what is and what is not art theft:
This is NOT art theft.
“Why? Sources claim that yuumei traced from the pic to the left!”
Whenever it’s traced or not doesn’t matter. The technique used never matters as long as the final result is original enough on it’s own. Yuumei changed a lot in the final result here. Yes the color scheme in the backgrounds are similar, but you cannot claim copyright on a color scheme.
Now THIS is art theft. Basically 98% of ALL of these kind of pokéball-art use copyright material without permission. DO NOT SUPPORT THIS.
“Why? The artist credited the stock artist in the description!”
The problem with this is that the so called “stock” IS NOT STOCK AT ALL.
The stock artist they referred to is breaking copyright law by taking an artists artwork without written permission, remove the background and make it a transparent “png”.
These kind of traps are called “renders” and is a HUGE problem on deviantart. the render category is made for stock material that have a transparent background.
So ppl take coprighted artwork, both from tv-shows to freelancing artists, make the backround transparent and then upload it as a “stock”:
This is copyright violation in it’s glory. And the mods don’t do anything to this issue apparently. Which makes ppl believe it’s okay to make stocks out of other ppl’s art. This isn’t tracing, this is straight on using 90% of the original artwork and fool people to believe it’s okay to use it.
So can people please stop flaming the wrong artists for once.
Harper Lee wrote just one book, and now she's in a copyright fight over "To Kill a Mockingbird."
guardian.co.ukIn the lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan, Lee says Samuel Pinkus, the son-in-law of Lee’s long-time agent, Eugene Winick, took advantage of her failing hearing and eyesight to transfer the rights on the book, which has sold more than 30 million copies worldwide and became an Oscar-winning film.
The 87-year-old says she has no memory of agreeing to relinquish her rights or signing the agreement that cements the purported transfer.
Winick had represented Lee for more than 40 years. When he became ill in 2002, Pinkus diverted several of his father-in-law’s clients to his own company, the lawsuit said.
According to the lawsuit, in 2007 Pinkus “engaged in a scheme to dupe” Lee into assigning the novel’s copyright without any payment and had since failed to respond to licence requests.
Lee received the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her book in 2007 from President George W. Bush, a fan of Lee’s work. She has rarely shown her face in public otherwise.
“We believe that if you buy it, you own it, you’re able to do with it what you want.”
—Andrew House, president and Group CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment, affirming the core principle of the Owners Rights Initiative.
I am NOT FUCKING HAPPY.
Yahoo is fucking deleting blogs with NO PRIOR NOTICE?
This is a bag of dicks. Fuck. Expletives. Ugh.
What’s going to happen the vintage blogs? The people who post excellent content, always cite photographer and sources - are we infringing copyright too? Will we be deleted? I have spent FAR too long building up this blog to let some bullshit company who thinks we have no right to enjoy anything we didn’t personally create or photograph delete it.
I didn’t take all those photos of Marilyn. Obviously. But I bought the books, I scoured the web for photos, I carefully sourced them, cited the photographers, edited them and made them just that bit different. Is this not acceptable? Is this really what blogging is coming to? Are we not allowed to share material that could otherwise be lost?
This is ridiculous.
I'm going to write a book
And call it “Texts I Never Sent: A Journey to Not be ‘That Girl’”
It will be a compilation of texts I’ve typed out and never managed to click send on because despite the well-deserved sentiment (anger, sadness, fear, heartbreak) I refused to be “that girl.”
Chapters will include “come over,” “really? You’re not going to answer my text?,” “stop being an asshole,” “I miss you and think about you a lot” and more.
Coming to a bookstore near you.
5 Famous Online Copyright Crusaders Who Are Total Hypocrites
#5. The Man Who Sponsored SOPA Stole Pictures for His Website
Shortly after the Vice.com story broke, the congressman’s team had his website taken down, just like a dirty, copyright-infringing criminal would deserve, according to Smith’s own proposed legislation.
“Take my own picture? Of trees? You’re mad, sir.”
