It's great to see this. This means there is still risk of violating copyright laws even if we credit the source. I have also seen news sites where the picture was taken and credited from another. Sometimes, it makes a long chain and if there's violation or improper use along the way, it would be quite a process for the creator to trace it.
Happy to see you find it useful @hiroyamagishi, we tried to keep the post as compact and as understandable as possible. Copyright is a grey area and doesn't seem to have fully exploited the depths of context and discussion yet.
Newspapers often steal other peoples work and would love to pay with "exposure", which is the mandatory credit towards the creator of the work. This reason for this, in my belief, because of the rise of talented amateur photographers who did not receive proper education about Copyright law, who were happy to get their name exposed, and occurred during the global financial crisis.
There are often people who think content should be used freely, at any time. These people do not value the time spent by others and cannot see the bigger picture what it takes to create an image that is not just simply appealing to the eye. Luckily the law has given creators protection, that whenever the creator has created a work, it automatically is protected by copyright law. This would let creators decide on their own if this work can be freely used by the public or not.
Google and Tiny-pic has developed their reverse-image search techniques which makes it easy for the creator to trace their work published online. Also good implementation of EXIF-data can help in tracing their work.
You know what's an interesting event, the osmosis that happens is unidirectional because I have yet to hear someone who had recognized the abundance of absurdity with copyrights and has become a copyright advocate, it's always the same story: almost everyone who understands that nonsense inherently built in hoarding ideas has reached that point after believing that copyrights are beneficial, has nobody changed their mind the other way? I'd love to have a discussion with someone who has, or claims they have, it's quite stale in here with all the parroting of the copyright manifesto, aren't you interested in debating Intelectual Theft(oxymoron)?
Start a blog post about it.
You don't want to debate Intellectual Theft even though it relates with the post as the underlying logical premise? Odd.
We would be happy to debate this matter in a dedicated blog post about that topic, preferable written by yourself based on your own experiences.
This blog post is purely about educating the current nature of Copyright, not to discuss personal opinions/loopholes/specific country based laws or whatsoever. We think understanding copyright is more important than to deny it and trying to counter it, as we simply cannot change this overnight. If you wish to contribute to this blog post, rephrase your opinion in a question and we are happy to try to give you an answer that fits.
Currently, the contribution you have made so far, seem to be cries where you demand a different approach on Copyright from your point of view. You simply cannot change law, nor influence the current understanding of Copyright with pushing your thoughts about this matter and expect that the law bends to you whenever you would like to. It is as it is. It was as it was. If you want change, file it to the right people, we are certainly not.
At this current state, creators that are not on this platform, seek federal guidance to start the procedure to send Cease and Desist letters regarding their Copyrighted work, which is damaging the name of Steemit and would slow down its potential grow as this issue grows.
And again, all created work is protected by copyright by law upon creation. This does not mean it is protected for financial compensation for these 'damages' by default. You need to be a registered business in some countries, you need to register a license in other countries and sometimes proof of creation is enough to be illegible for financial compensation.
If you want to talk about logical underlying thoughts about copyright, simply start a blog post and invite people that you deem interesting to reply to.
You have to include that in your article because theres plenty of talk of how great copyrights are but no specific on this important detail? Why did you have to explain to people that people making art for free do it without compensation? But you couldn't spare a line to "Copyrights doesn't mean that the work if protected upon creation for financial compensation for unfair use, you have to register and "sometimes" proof of creation is enough to be eligible for compensation." But you really don't have to do anything because the bullshit "Let's talk about copyrights" was only meant to express "Let me tell you about copyrights". Cary on
The law matters? In what case?
Here's one that it doesn't matter, in a very visceral way:
And this was mentioned before that:
The point I've made a few times:
Also when you say "let's talk about copyright" in the very premise of that is threaded discussing the logical (or lack of it) premise underlying the concept of copyrights. I decline your invitation to discuss the matter at hand anywhere else, I'd rather keep it here, with all the uninteresting, who ought to feel free to come and go as they wish, as in any public forum, even the dullingotns that yapper on "amen, copying is stealing in lalaland".
Actually, people do this freely, not only for commission and numerous other sources that pay definitively for the work and doesn't milk the people for their benefit of sharing the idea, which is no more benefit anymore. Copyrights are not about protecting the author, they are about monopolizing on a work and by and large, this is done by producers who have acquired a serendipitously clever name. The only protections copyright offer is mafia style RICO worthy Monopoly protections which equate copying to stealing.
People cannot see the bigger picture of the logical fail of hoarding over ideas and the detriment that has been beaten to death ever since the first copyright laws to censor authors came about.
Hi @baah, please Google "Statute of Anne". Now, unless you still would like to think that paying the bills with salt is still possible, please re-consider the era you currently live in and come back to earth, with us, preferable by plane and not on a horse.
The creators of their own work now have the choice to waive their rights, to make it available to the public, for free, to make sure that that work doesn't milk the people for their benefit of sharing the idea/concept.
I would like to point out to you that this blog post is about explaining the current state of Copyright, not about the history of it. So I ask you to stay on topic as you are spreading personal confusion about the current laws on Copyright and how we are supposed to work with- and understand that law.
Looking forward to more history tutoring in a blog post that you have created. I would gladly join you there.
So my argument is invalid because of bringing up the true history of copyrights even though that was nothing more than a remark to how long the detriment of copyright has been happening? If coming back to your plane means idiotically mumbling copying is stealing I take a pass. And again :
Copyrights are not about protecting the author, they are about monopolizing on a work and by and large, this is done by producers who have acquired a serendipitously clever name. The only protections copyright offer is mafia style RICO worthy Monopoly protections which equate copying to stealing.
People cannot see the bigger picture of the logical fail of hoarding over ideas and the detriment that has been beaten to death ever since the first copyright laws to censor authors came about.
Furthermore if you follow the conversation sunlit7 was having below you'd realize that the post needs a major rework to pontificate that you cannot purse for damages unless you register, poking a giant gaping hole in the whole post and making the protection racket evident, the excuses for not mentioning that without registering you won't get protection is hilarious considering that it details so much, even that people putting out work for free means they do so without compensation, and it's nice to credit them, but how many times was it implicit that the work is protected? your work isn't protected by copyrights on creation, but you can wrestle out of that whichever way you want because the point cannot be evaded: copyrights are effective in protecting only if you register.
The final point to drive the meaningless of it is that your pedantic comment keeps up the myth that artists are protected, or that laws will recompense them for damages, they do, it's producers and publishers that pimp out artists more than anything who make the money off people Stealing the intangible.
What, no argument, only gestural disagreement, feel free to mistify this comment as well because do you think that flagging me is going to benefit and shut me up? Figures, you came off as a jerk with your "come down to earth where copying is stealing". You do realize this platform is open source, the community, by and large, is anarchist and free thinking and this little cesspool of fanboys monopolizing on art and ideas as a means to get compensated are like a walled off section that never reaches the mass with their art, but a post like this gets piled on by all the hoarders, who despite being conpensated with a place to share their art, and possibly even with a reward attached, they seek to affirm the nonsense that your WORK is protected without registering, which is repugnant to what I know from my musician friends: if you don't register it you might as well give it out for free.
Stop selling people false promises of protection while omitting the crucial and if you cannot form a coherent, logically consistent and on topic argument or specific objection to my argument then don't you think that you ought to consider what I said instead of trying to make it seems as if I was arguing that today's laws are the same as 250 years ago, when I used that only to specify for how long the laws, however much they have morphed and sprouted anew they still rely on a very very very very poor way to get compensated, and considering the detriment that locking ideas and art behind monopolized control one would understand that for every person that makes a buck from their registered work, there's 10 more that pay gravely for copying, and the people that benefit all the times are the courts and the publishers, the artist always second, it's immoral and illogical to constitute copying as theft simply because you claim a "License" which is another word for being allowed to do what you Shouldn't do, by definition and by LAW (as law concerns directly with definition AND the meaning of words).
This conversation has barely begun, bring some real critique if you can because what you have done is borderline trollish.
Nobody is trying to monopolize art. The typical wish is at least that the art created by them is not used for commercial use without a permission.
Art isn't being monopolized. Anyone can create art if they want without being attacked by artists.
You've said that nobody wants to monopolize art and then expressed exactly what monopolizing art is, you do understand that and then went to deny that there is any monopolization happening right after and asauge my "worry" that art is monopolized.
Art is monopolized, the act of Permitting only some people or only some uses of ideas is monopolization itself, it's the very act itself that you deny is not happening.
Oh, so you're talking about monopolizing single pieces of art, and not art in general?
Well that's just dumb in a different way.
And what the hell, use of ideas? Are you just ranting random stuff with no point?
I have no say about ideas and "permitting the uses of ideas". If you are talking about the ideas in art, if you see a painting of an eagle with face of an elephant, that's an idea. It's not monopolized as an idea.
You can use the same idea and create art based on the same idea.
If I would create a piece of art and you'd just use my art in attempt to make money for yourself, I would try to stop you with the tools I have. And you of course could go crying "BOO HOO YOU ARE TRYING TO MONOPOLIZE ART".
No, I am talking about monopolizing in the sense of copyrights as the inherent function that copyrights have. You understand that monopolizing ideas is at the heart of copyright then you understand it makes no difference if the idea is practical or artistic a million or one, because abstractions being monopolized by individuals is a clear determent to society and has not demonstrated that it indeed helps the artist, inventor or creator, in fact it has demonstrated the opposite while where people don't have copyright competition happens naturally, and artist in turn are compensated better, as there are better ways to get compensated than by telling people what they can and cannot express, which infringes upon freedom of expression.
Hoarding ideas has slowed down the industrial revolution by decades, it has slowed down the age of enlightenment at the same time and because it's repugnant to reason to consider what can be shared without any effort to multitudes of people, as a tangible thing which is bound to scarcity and not the world of abstractions, it's always been built on fantastic constructions that equate Copying to Stealing.
If you try to stop me with all the tools you have, you have better register your work because you won't stop me, and even then I will simply send them a Special and Restricted Appearance when summoned telling them that they have no juristiction and to send me the performance bid bond that has been placed to my address and if there was none to investigate the prosecuting attorney and fine him if it's found that he filed the claim/complaint without posting a bond. I'll be sitting pretty on Land while you are in the Water wasting your time trying to get me to join you in your petty complaint, instead of making more art and being careful about sharing it before you monetize it, because it won't matter if I copy non stop, you won't find a jury of 12 to try me and there won't be a trial because you cannot demonstrate an injury that Man can be prosecuted for. Due process is a motherfucker.
If it's copyrighted then someone does indeed CLAIM legal monopoly on the idea, if you understand what that means.
Hahaha @Xposed the sham of "Let's talk about copyrighs" where it's really by their own admission "Let me tell you about copyrights"/ FAIL
Join in the
Idiot that thinks monopolizing on an idea is not exclusive rights to profit from it.
Do you understand what Monopolizing ideas means? It's the definition of copyright, it's how copyright functions more precisely. So when you judge something dumb without even understanding the basic function of copyrights in clear terms:
It's as valid as any other errenous opinion or belief.
If you create art that depicts an eagle with the head of an elephant, copyrighting means that anyone who make something that can be considered COPYING the idea, be it in the same medium or an entirely different one all together, you can attempt to subjugate their real property rights.
A rant btw is your logical inconsistent judgmeent of what you think I am doing, which is not "crying" anymore than it is "ranting", but making Salient points and speaking in a logical consistency with clarity and specificity and to avail understanding, there was nothing that could be construed as emotional response or incitement in my arguments.
Exclusive Control is Monopolizing, Idiot.
Wow, so you are actually just stupid. I wasn't talking about complete power.
So you're just talking BS, claiming I'm talking about stuff I'm not talking about and calling me an idiot.
Congratulations on upvoting your own comments while doing so.
You are very special person and I can see that.
Extremely special.
You must feel proud of yourself.
Why would I feel proud of myself if what you say is true?
But the important question is When, why and how did you think that you weren't talking about "complete power" or whatever that means? It's not complete power to make money from an idea is it? LOLOL!
IDIOT, we never stopped talking about complete power, excusive control over monetizing an idea. You might consider your unsubstantiated claims as actually steering the conversation outside what you responded to and what you "thought" you responded to, but the fact remains, you responded to me, not I to you, and you entered into the conversation on the assumption that you understood the most basic definition of what you were arguing, which you did not: STATE GRANTED MONOPOLY.
Aka Exclusive Control over an Idea.
idiot.
Yes, yes you are.
Yeah somehow we stopped talking about Monopolizing, as in to have exclusive control over making money from an idea. Nobody is doing that though Right? Fail you
IDIOT
Idiot, when you claim exclusive Control over an idea, as not allowing people to monetize it, you are monopolizing the idea idiot. That's a fact of life. Read "Government-Granted-Monopolies". How hard is that to get through your thicknelson.
I haven't been even talking about claiming exclusive control about ideas. It's been you all along.
Are your parents closely related or why you have so special way to think?
As Counter to:
Except that you didn't say nobody can copy "art" without being attacked by the artists. Ie Monopolizing over the idea, when did you think we stopped talking about Monopolizing ideas? The moment you responded and denied that monopolizing over ideas happens? The conversation doesn't change simply because you entered into it without any substance what so ever besides a denial that monopolizing over ideas happens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
You're an idiot:
You obviously do not understand that you're denying the very exclusivity while affirming that it exists while denying it again. Exclusive rights. Exclusive right you idiot means the same thing as monopolizing ideas, concepts, art, functions, abstractions of all names.
Still no. You're still talking just dumb shit and as I can see you're upvoting your posts, I'm using my power to flag it because this was special level of stupid.
If you can prove it was a "special level of stupid" I will give you my account, no if you cannot even.
Thank you for explaining anything btw Idiot.
That's because the laws were never intended to protect the Creator or benefit the creator.
I will help you if you vote for me. In this way everyone can help by voting for all. Waiting for you
How is that going to help him?