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"
