In a message dated 12/24/2000 12:03:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
rttyman@wwa.com writes:
> You say, "And even besides that, you won't be affected either way by his
> using "your" fractal images on his CD covers."
>
>
Actors and athletes often get upset when their name is associated with
something they do not approve of.
It can interfere with the future value of their ability to market themselves
(Unless you are a Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods).
This is no different.
Mr Margolis may not want his art reduced to the level of "dead head"
home-burned CD's which may also be of questionable legality. This may also
interfere with his overall grand scheme of marketing his artwork and its
perceived value either today or in the future, particularly if its reduced to
market oversaturation.
I don't think I'd be likely to grant permission to use my own copyrighted
artwork with such a fuzzy sounding enterprise either.
I'd also think that if my work were to be blatantly borrowed to then be asked
for permission later, I'd be upset too. In fact, someone sent me a link to
their greeting card site, with all my artwork and not so much as a copyright
notice or credit. All the images were credited to them and not me, so this
was even more offensive. I sent this person a license agreement and they
refused to sign it, despite several follow up attempts. The agreement simply
stated that they would not make money off my commercial images, and they
would replace the images with ones with copyrighted watermarks in them. I
have records of doing this repeatedly, so I can imagine should one day they
hit the big time, and I pursue damages will be trebled.
(I am lucky that no UPR's or fractal file information was provided, so this
person was stuck with rather low resolution images). I now understand why
some artists only publish pictures and do not provide the means for us to
recreat images with fractal software, while others are more trusting and use
copyrighted notices in their UPR or frm files.
All I can say is we probably need to be more upfront in our web pages about
license and restrictions for use, much like a video tape or DVD is for
personal home private use only....
and that any other such use requires additional licensing agreement.
This forum might be a place to help standardize such a format for all of us
to prevent this type of intellectual property "seizure"
Paul
--part1_ad.4b4faa3.27787c6b_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 12/24/2000 12:03:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, <BR>rttyman@wwa.com writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">You say, "And even besides that, you won't be affected either way by his
<BR>using "your" fractal images on his CD covers."
<BR>
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Actors and athletes often get upset when their name is associated with <BR>something they do not approve of.
<BR>
<BR>It can interfere with the future value of their ability to market themselves <BR>(Unless you are a Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods).
<BR>
<BR>This is no different.
<BR>
<BR>Mr Margolis may not want his art reduced to the level of "dead head" <BR>home-burned CD's which may also be of questionable legality. This may also <BR>interfere with his overall grand scheme of marketing his artwork and its <BR>perceived value either today or in the future, particularly if its reduced to <BR>market oversaturation.
<BR>
<BR>I don't think I'd be likely to grant permission to use my own copyrighted <BR>artwork with such a fuzzy sounding enterprise either.
<BR>
<BR>I'd also think that if my work were to be blatantly borrowed to then be asked <BR>for permission later, I'd be upset too. In fact, someone sent me a link to <BR>their greeting card site, with all my artwork and not so much as a copyright <BR>notice or credit. All the images were credited to them and not me, so this <BR>was even more offensive. I sent this person a license agreement and they <BR>refused to sign it, despite several follow up attempts. The agreement simply <BR>stated that they would not make money off my commercial images, and they <BR>would replace the images with ones with copyrighted watermarks in them. I <BR>have records of doing this repeatedly, so I can imagine should one day they <BR>hit the big time, and I pursue damages will be trebled.
<BR>(I am lucky that no UPR's or fractal file information was provided, so this <BR>person was stuck with rather low resolution images). I now understand why <BR>some artists only publish pictures and do not provide the means for us to <BR>recreat images with fractal software, while others are more trusting and use <BR>copyrighted notices in their UPR or frm files.
<BR>
<BR>All I can say is we probably need to be more upfront in our web pages about <BR>license and restrictions for use, much like a video tape or DVD is for <BR>personal home private use only....
<BR>and that any other such use requires additional licensing agreement.
<BR>
<BR>This forum might be a place to help standardize such a format for all of us <BR>to prevent this type of intellectual property "seizure"
<BR>
<BR>Paul</FONT></HTML>
--part1_ad.4b4faa3.27787c6b_boundary--
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
> So say he downloads your parameter file and shifts the viewport left by .000000001. That is much the same as following Mr. Adams out to a spot and taking pictures 6 inches to his side, which you don't seem to mind.
> So what then? :)
You don't seem to understand anything about copyrights. The parameter
file is copyrighted, as I explained earlier. If you physically change
that parameter file, you are violating copyright law. It is not the same
as taking a picture six inches away from Adams. He's taking his picture,
you're taking yours. They are separate events and separate copyrights.
If you took Adams' picture and cropped it just a wee bit, you would be
violating his copyright because you altered his picture. That picture
suddenly does not become yours because you altered it by the cropping.
> All I'm saying is that there are going to be lots and lots of ways to get around this if he so wishes. You should stop worrying about all of this.
Instead of standing up for the rights of the violators, you should be
standing up for the rights of the abused. There are many great fractal
artists who have refused to post their pictures anymore on the Internet
because of copyright abuse. It's our loss when we can no longer view the
artwork of such talented people. If I don't stop worrying about
copyright abuse, then who will? Someone has to be a watchdog otherwise
everything becomes free for the taking and no one will be able to claim
ownership of any piece of art or music they create. It seems that in
your viewpoint, works of art and music belong to the people and not to
the individuals who make them.
No, there are not lots of ways to get around the copyright issue. Read
the laws, as I've instructed others to do. After you read it thoroughly,
then come back and argue your point. Don't argue beforehand from the
point of ignorance.
> That man was not using anything for his personal gain
He made covers for his CDs by using the artwork of other people. He did
not create his own artwork and then make covers using them. Using other
people's artwork did become his personal gain. Why can't you understand
that?
> - if he was going to lie to you about that, why would he email you in the first place?
Because, as someone else contributed to this thread, Mr. Miller
apparently was ignorant about copyright law, and did not realize that he
had to get permission first before using my artwork to create covers for
his CDs. Had he just downloaded my artwork for viewing on his computer
screen, there's no violation of any laws. But, he downloaded the artwork
apparently with another purpose in mind other than viewing them
periodically for his own enjoyment.
Had he said nothing, then obviously I would not have known about. But he
did write to me about it to see if I would object to his using my
artwork. I did object and so he removed it from his Web site. Whether he
thought I would or wouldn't object doesn't matter. He may have thought
he would feel better if he had gotten an okay from me rather then acting
clandestine about it. I can't speak for him; I'm not inside his brain
thoughts. But neither should others be sticking up for his actions
because they really don't know his intent. They can only *assume* what
his purpose is, and remember what Judge Wapner said about that word
*assume*. It's meaningless in a court of law.
> It's a *very* rare percentage of the population that would have
> had the decency to even send you an email telling you of their
> intended non-profit use of your fractals.. and I think it's a
> very sad thing when you can't bring yourself to trust even that
> small fraction.
This has happened to me (and other people) more times than you can
imagine. I have had my artwork used for commercial purposes without my
consent. The notion out there by copyright violators is "try and sue me,
it'll be more trouble for you than you think it's worth." No, I'm not a
corporation with deep pockets that can go after such violators and haul
them into court. But when you buy products from that corporation, part
of the retail price you pay goes toward paying for the retaining of the
corporation's attorneys. I'm just a little guy, who has to sit back and
watch this abuse of my talent or skills, while people such as you seem
to condemn me for being protective of what's mine. When any of your
rights are ever taken away in the future, don't come crying to me for
support, when you were unwilling to give me yours when my right to
control my property was being abused.
In the end, I suppose the only thing I can do to avoid this problem in
the future is to not post any parameter files to this discussion group
or the artwork resulting from it to the newsgroups. But, then I suppose
someone will jump all over me for not wanting to share what I create.
It's a no-win situation.
Bob
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Subject: Re: (fractint) What is protected by copyright law?
Date: 28 Dec 2000 21:40:26 EST
--part1_e6.f65911e.277d539a_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 12/27/2000 10:35:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
romers@home.com writes:
> I can't imagine that someone wrote copywrite law with the phrase
>
Lawyers put enough "vaguery" in their wording so it can be subject to
interpretation and thus create continuing income for themselves! As we've
all seen in the past few years, if you pay the right lawyer the right amount
of money, even the most incriminating evidence can be overturned (with the
right media soundbytes).
Its a simple concept. Guaranteed source of income............provided its
'minimally' clear and concise.....
--part1_e6.f65911e.277d539a_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 12/27/2000 10:35:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, <BR>romers@home.com writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I can't imagine that someone wrote copywrite law with the phrase
<BR>'minimum amount of creativity' embedded in it. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Lawyers put enough "vaguery" in their wording so it can be subject to <BR>interpretation and thus create continuing income for themselves! As we've <BR>all seen in the past few years, if you pay the right lawyer the right amount <BR>of money, even the most incriminating evidence can be overturned (with the <BR>right media soundbytes).
<BR>
<BR>Its a simple concept. Guaranteed source of income............provided its <BR>'minimally' clear and concise.....</FONT></HTML>
--part1_e6.f65911e.277d539a_boundary--
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Subject: Re: (fractint) What is protected by copyright law?
Date: 29 Dec 2000 10:36:18 -0800 (PST)
--0-1432795212-978114978=:54530
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
it does this every once in a while, and 'tis one of the reasons i keep the delete button handy... of course, i had decades of practice on the old bulletin board systems where "conversations" similar to this would go on and on and on, until all respondents realized they'd said all they could and that the others were either gone, dead, or had realized the same thing...
and six months later, it would start again... usually different topic, but same result...
the topic is important, but it's being beaten to death by people (on both sides of the issue) who aren't listening with an open ear... it can easily be solved: if the infringed believes in his case, he should take it to court and let the court decide... you and i did this (with a number of others) a few years ago and prevailed... what is important to remember is that no amount of conversation *here* is going to change long-held opinions... if the infringed isn't going to take the case to court, the conversation should have ended quite some time ago, as an exercise in moot...
-- caren park, monroe, washington state
Genealogy1@aol.com wrote:
I find it hard to believe that this list has degenerated so with it's
writings.
--Bob Carr--(Ocala, FL)
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
--0-1432795212-978114978=:54530
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<P> it does this every once in a while, and 'tis one of the reasons i keep the delete button handy... of course, i had decades of practice on the old bulletin board systems where "conversations" similar to this would go on and on and on, until all respondents realized they'd said all they could and that the others were either gone, dead, or had realized the same thing...</P>
<P>and six months later, it would start again... usually different topic, but same result...</P>
<P>the topic is important, but it's being beaten to death by people (on both sides of the issue) who aren't listening with an open ear... it can easily be solved: if the infringed believes in his case, he should take it to court and let the court decide... you and i did this (with a number of others) a few years ago and prevailed... what is important to remember is that no amount of conversation *here* is going to change long-held opinions... if the infringed isn't going to take the case to court, the conversation should have ended quite some time ago, as an exercise in moot...<BR></P>
<P>-- caren park, monroe, washington state</P>
<P> <B><I>Genealogy1@aol.com</I></B> wrote: <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I find it hard to believe that this list has degenerated so with it's <BR>writings. <BR><BR>--Bob Carr--(Ocala, FL)<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1><b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
Subject: Re: (fractint) What is protected by copyright law?
Date: 29 Dec 2000 16:42:05 EST
--part1_a9.fadd813.277e5f2d_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 12/28/2000 7:21:16 PM Pacific Standard Time,
packrat@nznet.gen.nz writes:
>
Most politicians are lawyers....sorry I didnt make that point clear
enough.........
--part1_a9.fadd813.277e5f2d_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 12/28/2000 7:21:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, <BR>packrat@nznet.gen.nz writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">And I thought legislation was made by politicians, well - you live and learn</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Most politicians are lawyers....sorry I didnt make that point clear <BR>enough.........</FONT></HTML>
--part1_a9.fadd813.277e5f2d_boundary--
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
