Intellectual Property - Real or Imaginary?

[RobbyMaQ]

By your definition, there is no business model profitable if anyone may capitalize on your work the following day. So no creative thought, and everything is honkey dorey.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

Dare I ask... Is anyone other than walt disney responsible for the creation of Mickey Mouse. And by what pretense is it acceptable for anyone to profit off of his creation (despite his death)?
Is there a legitimate reason why any one should be able to capitalize on the creative work by another person? Other than you came up with a great business model to steal someone elses idea?

 

[downzero]

Other than you came up with a great business model to steal someone elses idea?

This is itself a loaded question. You cannot own an idea, so it cannot be stolen. As I stated many pages ago, ideas are not intellectual property that the law protects.

The state of human knowledge at any given time is essentially the sum of all things prior to today and whatever is added today. "Innovation" seldom results in something truly, 100% new. Innovation is *usually* about making the world a better place by improving on that which already exists.

Creating artificial barriers to innovation by creating a quasi-property right for the benefit of the inventor or artist is always going to be at the expense of future innovations that would grow out from that which exists. We justify this by recognizing that there would not be much incentive to improve on that which exists if one could not extract some monopoly profit from that innovation, and we've created certain protections to allow monopoly profit for that reason.

Unfortunately, we haven't come up with a way to make this policy last for as long as the theory suggests it ought to last (see my earlier post linking to theoretical economics discussion of social benefit - monopoly rents as model for IP protection). We've, in fact, created a system that is so broad and stifling so much innovation, that fair minded, otherwise intelligent people like yourself are convinced that they own an idea. The entire system has become a cancer on our innovation machine. And because this area of the law shares many characteristics of "property," it can't be reformed easily--something about the 5th and 14th amendments presenting a huge barrier to that.

 

[poptab]

I'm an artist. I'm 43. 28 years ago I was 15, and selling art. Apparently, per some of the ideas in this thread, anything I did at that time is worthless and should be freely available since it did not become so famous that it is now public domain (which can't be considered copyrighted/trademarked any longer). Freelance artists don't really get a 401k plan. Copyrights are, in a sense, their 401k. But when yer all enthralled with how easy it is to copy something for free, there isn't much point in worrying about rich peoples big words like 'intellectual property'. They're just made up words.

If you created a painting 28 years ago it wouldnt be in the public domain yet.

It should be though. I still dont see why you are complaining? People cant steal a physical painting. Are you really going to sue someone that creates a similar painting. Creating paintings takes effort.

Say you paint a portrait of my likeness. You dont own the idea of painting my likeness...


Also, I have a question. Say my sibling takes a picture. They are a pro photographer. I use their picture to create a painting. Is that a derivative work, a new work, am I violating copyright?

 

[cqcn88]

Ok, let's make the scenarios more similar monetarily. You tell someone an important trade secret. They are about to tell it to someone else. It's worth a whole lot more than your car. You put a gun to their head to prevent them from speaking this secret. Ethical?

The car situation involves a certain level of violence to begin with as I'm being torn from my car. It's not purely a monetary value thing. As I said before, let the punishment fit the crime. If someone gives away a secret that puts food on your table there is legal recourse you can take. I may have spoke too bluntly, I'm not saying a gun to the head is correct course of action in all situations. Although I do advocate hanging cattle rustlers.

Then I would of course assume that you are also ethically opposed to loaning a book to a friend. That friend did not compensate the author for the book that they are reading. Right?

No, you're not mass producing it or making it available for everyone. When someone sells a book they are selling a physical object with the understanding it could end up in a library. The hope for an author is that enough people like his or her work enough to buy their own copy. Giving away someone else's book in mass quantity is still ethically wrong. The key here is copying it or not.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

This is itself a loaded question. You cannot own an idea, so it cannot be stolen. As I stated many pages ago, ideas are not intellectual property that the law protects.

Perhaps I should have used a different word than 'idea' there. Am I to assume you feel that Mickey Mouse is an idea. And that it is perfectly acceptable to draw Mickey Mouse in any fashion, and earn a profit from it? Since Mickey Mouse is an idea, and even if we go so far as to make sure we do not directly copy any individual animation frame, or image of him directly, then creating a 'new' Mickey drawing and selling it is perfectly fine?

 

[RobbyMaQ]

It should be though. I still dont see why you are complaining? People cant steal a physical painting. Are you really going to sue someone that creates a similar painting. Creating paintings takes effort.

That would depend. If they're mass producing a painting I did, and selling them for profit, how is it any different than stealing my painting directly?
Creating paintings does take effort. In fact, a rights agreement must be worked up between an artist and a lithographer when a limited set of prints is created, because the lithography plates are considered a separate and distinct work (requiring skill to create) even though it is a direct copy. This is an example of how rights are used, and protects both the lithographer and the artist.

Say you paint a portrait of my likeness. You don't own the idea of painting my likeness...

No. Tiger Woods is a great example here. He has come down hard on copyrights of his image being used. Why? In his view, regardless of the skill required, he contends that the profit is made specifically because it is Tiger Woods being featured in the painting. A painting of myself playing golf would not likely sell as well as one of Tiger Woods playing golf.

But say I paint a picture of you all hippified and holding a picket sign saying 'ban guns' with the INGO title above it. Anti gun advocates begin using the image on every blog, newscast, etc... Should you have no say how your image is being presented? Should INGO not be able to protect it's name and how it is used?

Also, I have a question. Say my sibling takes a picture. They are a pro photographer. I use their picture to create a painting. Is that a derivative work, a new work, am I violating copyright?

That would be for a judge to determine. I am not a lawyer, but in my opinion the painting is a new work. If I look out at the horizon, and paint a work based upon what I see, it is the same as painting what I see in a photograph, requiring the same skill set in both instances. However, when I look out into the horizon, I am discovering a unique image to recreate. When I look at an existing photo, I am finding someone else's unique image to recreate. And that's where a judge comes in.

 

[poptab]

That would depend. If they're mass producing a painting I did, and selling them for profit, how is it any different than stealing my painting directly?
Creating paintings does take effort. In fact, a rights agreement must be worked up between an artist and a lithographer when a limited set of prints is created, because the lithography plates are considered a separate and distinct work (requiring skill to create) even though it is a direct copy. This is an example of how rights are used, and protects both the lithographer and the artist.


No. Tiger Woods is a great example here. He has come down hard on copyrights of his image being used. Why? In his view, regardless of the skill required, he contends that the profit is made specifically because it is Tiger Woods being featured in the painting. A painting of myself playing golf would not likely sell as well as one of Tiger Woods playing golf.

But say I paint a picture of you all hippified and holding a picket sign saying 'ban guns' with the INGO title above it. Anti gun advocates begin using the image on every blog, newscast, etc... Should you have no say how your image is being presented? Should INGO not be able to protect it's name and how it is used?


That would be for a judge to determine. I am not a lawyer, but in my opinion the painting is a new work. If I look out at the horizon, and paint a work based upon what I see, it is the same as painting what I see in a photograph, requiring the same skill set in both instances. However, when I look out into the horizon, I am discovering a unique image to recreate. When I look at an existing photo, I am finding someone else's unique image to recreate. And that's where a judge comes in.

Currently I wouldnt care if someone copied my paintings. I might feel different if they started making a bunch of money on it. I might also feel different if I was trying to feed myself with my paintings. Even if I couldnt get a judgment assuming I ever found out about someone stealing my work for profit, it would not cause me to stop painting I hope. Who knows maybe it would but right now I doubt it. I still haven't gotten tired of painting portraits of my family.

What about pictures of people in the news? Couldnt they claim a copyright to their own image and demand compensation? I thought this has been ruled against. As in if you are out in public and you walk by my easel and I happen to paint you. You dont have any rights over my work of art.

Even so I would be pretty upset if a picture of my likeness ended up in something like an abortion ad (not that it is likely). Isnt this usually avoid by hiring actors anyway? What about the ad where they use some actress that looked like another more famous actress?

This is all one giant morass.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

Currently I wouldnt care if someone copied my paintings. I might feel different if they started making a bunch of money on it. I might also feel different if I was trying to feed myself with my paintings. Even if I couldnt get a judgment assuming I ever found out about someone stealing my work for profit, it would not cause me to stop painting I hope. Who knows maybe it would but right now I doubt it. I still haven't gotten tired of painting portraits of my family.

And that is a large issue. Many artists ARE feeding their families... It is a career and not always a hobby (Not that it matters though). And someone copying your work should certainly not be a deterrent or prevent you from continuing painting, creating, etc.
We once had a person come in and apply for a job. Later after the applicant left, my boss came in and showed me his portfolio, asking about one printout in particular. It was a race transporter layout that I had done 3 years prior. Not a copy, but a direct printout of the actual layout I had designed. He'd cropped out our company logo. I welcome anyone to argue this person was NOT a thief. Even though I did not lose any compensation or profit, his 'profit' was attempting to gain employment based on the merit of someone else.

What about pictures of people in the news? Couldn't they claim a copyright to their own image and demand compensation? I thought this has been ruled against. As in if you are out in public and you walk by my easel and I happen to paint you. You don't have any rights over my work of art.

Many things fall under public domain in certain contexts. News agencies can use images if it pertains to news being reported (ie mugshots, survelliance cams, etc). Images may also be used in an educational manner. If you are teaching a class on Walt Disney, it is perfectly acceptable to show images of his creations. If you are out in public (ie the person happens to walk by and you paint them) then it is in public domain. This came into play a few years ago with upskirt videos and such. Lawyers can get creative, and some places require admission to attend, which then are considered private.

Even so I would be pretty upset if a picture of my likeness ended up in something like an abortion ad (not that it is likely). Isnt this usually avoid by hiring actors anyway? What about the ad where they use some actress that looked like another more famous actress?

This is all one giant morass.

I agree. But copyrights & trademarks aren't always there to insure the creator can profit from it. They also help to protect the creation and how it is used.

 

[steveh_131]

By your definition, there is no business model profitable if anyone may capitalize on your work the following day. So no creative thought, and everything is honkey dorey.

Not true. Plenty of people have found ways to profit apart from the copyright/patent model. Radiohead, for example.

Is there a legitimate reason why any one should be able to capitalize on the creative work by another person? Other than you came up with a great business model to steal someone elses idea?

Yes. Because that's the way the world works. Did you invent paint? Did you invent the paintbrush? Did you create every object that you use as the subjects of your paintings? (Or whatever media you utilize for your particular form of art)

As I said before, let the punishment fit the crime. If someone gives away a secret that puts food on your table there is legal recourse you can take. I may have spoke too bluntly, I'm not saying a gun to the head is correct course of action in all situations. Although I do advocate hanging cattle rustlers.

Isn't there a legal recourse you can take if someone steals your car? Let's say you see them stealing it out of a parking lot while you aren't in it. Don't we believe that we may use violence to prevent the theft of our property? Why wouldn't this apply to intellectual property?

No, you're not mass producing it or making it available for everyone. When someone sells a book they are selling a physical object with the understanding it could end up in a library. The hope for an author is that enough people like his or her work enough to buy their own copy. Giving away someone else's book in mass quantity is still ethically wrong. The key here is copying it or not.

Ok, now you're making two conflicting arguments here. Is copying it the problem? Or is it giving it away in mass quantities that is the problem?

And that is a large issue. Many artists ARE feeding their families... It is a career and not always a hobby (Not that it matters though). And someone copying your work should certainly not be a deterrent or prevent you from continuing painting, creating, etc.

The existence of 'careers' that maybe ought not to be careers is not a good argument for government interference, in my opinion.

We once had a person come in and apply for a job. Later after the applicant left, my boss came in and showed me his portfolio, asking about one printout in particular. It was a race transporter layout that I had done 3 years prior. Not a copy, but a direct printout of the actual layout I had designed. He'd cropped out our company logo. I welcome anyone to argue this person was NOT a thief. Even though I did not lose any compensation or profit, his 'profit' was attempting to gain employment based on the merit of someone else

That is not theft. That is fraud and deception. Still wrong, but certainly different.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

The existence of 'careers' that maybe ought not to be careers is not a good argument for government interference, in my opinion.

lol
So Artist should not be a career? Creation of something from ones imagination should not be a career?
Goodbye Artists, Film Makers, Writers, Engineers, and virtually every other occupation that involves creating from thought... except maybe that of truck driver.

 

[steveh_131]

lol
So Artist should not be a career? Creation of something from ones imagination should not be a career?
Goodbye Artists, Film Makers, Writers, Engineers, and virtually every other occupation that involves creating from thought... except maybe that of truck driver.

Darn, you're right. Nobody ever did anything creative before copyrights and patents came into being.

Right?

 

[RobbyMaQ]

Nevermind, I just read through some of you threads.

 

[steveh_131]

Nevermind, I just read through some of you threads.

You're welcome!