Pinterest - beware of what you do

[bartmoss]

Post Scriptum, as this is one of my pet peeves...

COPYRIGHT covers the expression of ideas: Text, images, photos, sculptures, music yes even architecture. Pretty much everything someone creates is under copyright.
PATENTS cover ideas. Specifically, inventions. Not every idea or invention is patentable, but checks and balances don't work too well.
TRADEMARKS cover the use of words, phrases, or logos to identify a product, service or company. Trademarks have to be actively defended or the owner risks losing the mark.

Please at least get your terminology right, guys.

[tilt]

wow... lot of head shaking and jaw dropping disbelief going on. My thoughts about this was mirrored in one of the comments - taking it to its conclusion. They win and start wanting money from webpages - webpages all move to non-US countries like europe (if they can stay away from software patents) pages get blocked by the us for not complying etc etc ... the web in the US ends up nutered.

and you're totally right we're beyond FUBAR (if you can be that... would that turn things back to recognition? *lol*) and our damn politician should do something about it instead of keep catering to the mayor industries. LIke in Denmark a few years back there were a discussion about this in the government - they called in the industry and only one representative for the "users" - which was a person from consumer rights organisation which is governmental run.... sigh

[tilt]

hmmmm without wanting to bother to read it all again I believe we did get the terminology right - but the conversation slid from copyright to patents.

The reason I brought this to attention was that even if people know what copyright is and have some concept of what they can do or can't do - pinterest - as an effect of just existing - seems to legitimize pinning any- and everything, cause surely they wouldn't exist as a company if the actions that they encourage were questionable.

[bartmoss]

Redrobes mentioned software patents, then illustrated it with what is clearly trademark law, and:

Especialy "concept" and "idea" copyright is damaging for development as I'm sure you, as a programmer, agree with.

As I said, it's just a pet peeve, I've seen much worse than this thread. ;-)

[Redrobes]

Redrobes mentioned software patents, then illustrated it with what is clearly trademark law

It wasn't an illustration of patents, it was a reference to the previous post about the trademarking of a basic colour for a whole market sector.

anyway...

With your statement about making stuff yourself. I would quite agree. Except that if you make a cake yourself in the shape of a Disney character or film your kid with some music in the background then its not acceptable. The problem is that lets say you switched off the music player so that now your kid is dancing without any music. Then there is still the designer of his clothes and the pattern on the carpet not to mention anything else in the background like pictures, vases, furniture shapes etc.

Here is a public domain photo site with a pic of a modern building. As you say, architecture is covered, so is this picture legit to be public domain now ?
http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/...odern-building

Say I went to the Oscars and took a photo of a celeb. Given that dress/suit is probably covered with a design copyright is it my photo. Could I post it. Any by extension and some case law that I recall, any photo you have taken yourself with a car in it. That has occurred. Or a photo which has a bill board poster advert, or a printed company lorry. Can you record yourself if your stood outside of a cafe with music playing or say you live next door to a concert stadium. If you sketch that building is it still ok. Theres a slew of problems sketching in a museum even for old pictures.

Where all of these things used to be 'obviously' ok they are now not necessarily ok. If the fines for putting a photo with some lorry advert in the background was at most a mild telling off with possibly taking the photo down or modifying it then ok but with fines that make assault or vandalism look mild, the situation is well out of control. This is where things have gotten stupid.

[bartmoss]

With your statement about making stuff yourself. I would quite agree. Except that if you make a cake yourself in the shape of a Disney character or film your kid with some music in the background then its not acceptable.

Well, obviously you have not created the music or those characters yourself, now did you?

The problem is that lets say you switched off the music player so that now your kid is dancing without any music. Then there is still the designer of his clothes and the pattern on the carpet not to mention anything else in the background like pictures, vases, furniture shapes etc.

The music is an obvious part of the new work, so you could say the video is derivative of the music. Just play music you wrote yourself, or use cc-licensed or public domain music. Lots of that around if you look.

As for the carpet patterns or pictures in the background - You are very welcome to cite cases where this has been an actual problem. I have the feeling you're making that up.

Here is a public domain photo site with a pic of a modern building. As you say, architecture is covered, so is this picture legit to be public domain now ?
http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/...odern-building

Yeah building designs CAN be copyrightable. But I believe this varies by country. Ask your attorney.

Say I went to the Oscars and took a photo of a celeb. Given that dress/suit is probably covered with a design copyright is it my photo. Could I post it. Any by extension and some case law that I recall, any photo you have taken yourself with a car in it. That has occurred. Or a photo which has a bill board poster advert, or a printed company lorry. Can you record yourself if your stood outside of a cafe with music playing or say you live next door to a concert stadium. If you sketch that building is it still ok. Theres a slew of problems sketching in a museum even for old pictures.

Again, ask your attorney. Much of this is probably very, very dependent on specific cases.

Where all of these things used to be 'obviously' ok they are now not necessarily ok. If the fines for putting a photo with some lorry advert in the background was at most a mild telling off with possibly taking the photo down or modifying it then ok but with fines that make assault or vandalism look mild, the situation is well out of control. This is where things have gotten stupid.

I am not convinced those things "were okay". But feel free to cite specific cases, I still think you are making stuff up to give yourself an argument.

[Gamerprinter]

I also make vinyl signs in my graphics shop, and often from non-professional customers, I get constant requests to provide art from Disney, NFL, NBA, NBL, Calvin and Hobbes, etc. I always refuse to do such work, as copyright infringement is a serious offense. Some companies especially Disney and the NFL are strict about copyright enforcement and will sue someone for doing such a thing. Besides, I'm a professional, and I create work that has it's own copyright. In the desire to protect my own work, I respect copyright law, as it's currently written, and will not breach it for someone else.

[tilt]

in Denmark we have always "laughed" at the lawsuits that were possible in the US. A lot of those cases would never had made it in front of a judge here. But the danish record labels also have their attorneys who is clearly looking to the US and trying to impose the same "rules" here, they are also lobbying a lot for stricter inforcement of copyright (not patent or trademark ).
I do think that people shouldn't be able to just plagerise everything that is created - but "fair use" is slowly turning into "no use at all". In an ACTA discussion the other day somebody noted that singing a famous danish birthday song (think happy birthday) in a public place actually violates copyright - even though its now 69 years after the author passed away.

Almost all of copyright legislation was made in analog days - and all the changes since have been proposed by the big companies trying to protect their assets. And to any that asks - nope - I don't want somebody to rip of my upcoming book or map packs - I DO want to get paid for my work - but I'm pretty open for alternatives to the existing legislation.

And concerning patents I'd never expect that the software I made to run a trucking business would be the only type of said software - rather I expect competitors would look at what I've done and copy it if I did it well.

[bartmoss]

but "fair use" is slowly turning into "no use at all".

I don't see fair use abolished. - Just so you are clear on this, "Fair Use" doesn't mean "I think it's fair to use so I can".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_us...understandings

Enjoy.



(And I am still not a lawyer.)

[tilt]

bartmoss - I know what fair use is (as much as one can) ... and to me (and this is subjective) it seems like its getting undermined by big corps that are going after smaller and smaller fish. At least real fishermen knows when to throw them back out

Copyright needs to be updated and not by the companies.

And again - this whole thread was created to warn about possible problems concerning copyright issues that might not be transparent for all. Especially since there are so many artists in this forum.