Copyright discussion from Daji's Graphic mod

[dagrimreefah]

Mod note: This thread was split from a conversation that started here: viewtopic.php?f=27&t=19037&start=310#p260591

Whenever you use someone's pixel artwork you quote the source. You should also get permission unless expressly implied that it's free to use.

Actually it is the other way around. Unless you expressly imply that it is NOT free to use, you shouldn't be required to get permission. It is the responsibility of the content's author to make sure steps and measures are fulfilled preventing anyone from using his/her content if they don't want them to. That's why you have to pay for a patent.

EDIT: That's also why major media corporations aren't filing lawsuits against people who torrent their shit anymore. Instead, now they are trying to lobby for more draconian laws, laws that would restrict the internet greatly, take away yet more individual liberties, and fulfill the example you stated above.

[cobaltjones]

Whenever you use someone's pixel artwork you quote the source. You should also get permission unless expressly implied that it's free to use.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Also it's not "pixel artwork" it's a photo of the sky.

[Onionfighter]

Whenever you use someone's pixel artwork you quote the source. You should also get permission unless expressly implied that it's free to use.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Also it's not "pixel artwork" it's a photo of the sky.

Besides the fact that it is a photo, not a painting, I agree with DOG. Copyright is implicit, meaning that a created work doesn't have to be claimed to be protected. Therefore, it is necessary to get permission if it is not already "expressly implied". Sure, the owner of the picture probably won't do anything, but he could.

[dagrimreefah]

Whenever you use someone's pixel artwork you quote the source. You should also get permission unless expressly implied that it's free to use.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Also it's not "pixel artwork" it's a photo of the sky.

Besides the fact that it is a photo, not a painting, I agree with DOG. Copyright is implicit, meaning that a created work doesn't have to be claimed to be protected. Therefore, it is necessary to get permission if it is not already "expressly implied". Sure, the owner of the picture probably won't do anything, but he could.

If that's the case, than we should get permission from Loftar and Jorb every time we want to post a screen shot?

In the US, that is not how it works. Although corporations are certainly lobbying for that kind of thing...

[DatOneGuy]

This has nothing to do with copyright anymore, it's intellectual property, and even if it's a photo the same applies.

Point is if you're doing it here at least, you should be posting the source if you're not using your own work.

Also this wasn't in reference to just this photo, but the fact that even when Daji started there was a lot of artwork taken from other sources directly. (Games too)

[dagrimreefah]

This has nothing to do with copyright anymore, it's intellectual property

Copyrights are a set of laws issued by you guessed it, the state, that protect the work (or "intellectual property") of an individual for a certain period of time. After that period, that work is free for anyone in the public domain. So yeah, copyrights have everything to do with the so-called "intellectual property" you speak of, assuming that you mean the work or ideas of an individual is "intellectual property".

However, as I said, the whole concept of "intellectual property" is an abstraction anyway. If you think of an idea, and I think of it too all my own, do we not own the same piece of "property" simultaneously? That is to say, the praxeological implications of the existence of "intellectual property" are such that society would not even be able to exist, let alone advance, since no one would be able to formulate the same ideas (since no two people can simultaneously solely own the same piece of property). And property, as far as I can recall, has to be limited in abundance if a conflict is to arise. Ideas are not limited, therefore, again, society would not be able to even exist if such "properties" you label intellectual existed, since conflict would be infinite. It's like everyone fighting each other for air. In other words, "intellectual property" is just an abstraction lawmakers use to make formulating law for such matters easier. It is an abstraction, much like a "group" or a "forest" is an abstraction.

But please, do not make me go into page after page of discussion about this. I will pull some shit out of my hat that will make you scratch your head. I am completely obsessed with subjects like this and I'm sure no one wants to see this thread derailed lol.

How about we just agree to disagree?

[Onionfighter]

If that's the case, than we should get permission from Loftar and Jorb every time we want to post a screen shot?

In the US, that is not how it works. Although corporations are certainly lobbying for that kind of thing...

Posting a screen shot of a game, when it is presented as such, would be considered "fair use." Using the work of someone else in your own work is not fair use, and therefore permission must be given.

But please, do not make me go into page after page of discussion about this. I will pull some shit out of my hat that will make you scratch your head. I am completely obsessed with subjects like this and I'm sure no one wants to see this thread derailed lol.

How about we just agree to disagree?

While I don't think that DatOneGuy is completely right so far as his use of the term copyright and ip go, you are so far off the mark as to be laughable. I would certainly agree that you are "pulling shit out of [somewhere]," but I would disagree with the assessment that that somewhere is your hat. You may be obsessed with the idea of intellectual property, but it is obviously a philosophically detached obsession that resulted in no real knowledge of the law. When one side is so clearly wrong in their facts as you, "agreeing to disagree" would be an admission that you are either too obtuse to ever understand, or are committed to deliberately making misrepresentations.

[dagrimreefah]

If that's the case, than we should get permission from Loftar and Jorb every time we want to post a screen shot?

In the US, that is not how it works. Although corporations are certainly lobbying for that kind of thing...

Posting a screen shot of a game, when it is presented as such, would be considered "fair use." Using the work of someone else in your own work is not fair use, and therefore permission must be given.

But please, do not make me go into page after page of discussion about this. I will pull some shit out of my hat that will make you scratch your head. I am completely obsessed with subjects like this and I'm sure no one wants to see this thread derailed lol.

How about we just agree to disagree?

While I don't think that DatOneGuy is completely right so far as his use of the term copyright and ip go, you are so far off the mark as to be laughable. I would certainly agree that you are "pulling shit out of [somewhere]," but I would disagree with the assessment that that somewhere is your hat. You may be obsessed with the idea of intellectual property, but it is obviously a philosophically detached obsession that resulted in no real knowledge of the law. When one side is so clearly wrong in their facts as you, "agreeing to disagree" would be an admission that you are either too obtuse to ever understand, or are committed to deliberately making misrepresentations.

The only thing I saw in your argument was ad hominem attacks against me. If you can't argue your case in a more civilized manner, I'm afraid this discussion with you is over. You represented NO points against my statements, only how I'm pulling "shit out of [somewhere]". As I said before, maybe in your communist view of the world, we should get permission to use every single thing we see because we didn't create it/ think of it ourselves. But let me ask you: did you get permission to use that avatar? Why not? Because its silly to do so. Not even lawyers would make as asinine of an argument as you just presented.

Again, the original idea of copyrights was to GIVE exclusive rights to an author for his work. Who GAVE these EXCLUSIVE rights to the author? The state. What is the state? "That organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion." At least that's Murray Rothbard's description of the state, and a pretty damn accurate one at that. So continue worshiping the state, Onion. But as far as I'm concerned, I am proud to say that I don't share the same world view as you, for I believe in free market capitalism, a high standard of living, and individualism. And those things cannot and will not exist under the collectivist beliefs of "intellectual property" you so adore :/

EDIT: And I do have a real knowledge of the law. As I said, that shit doesn't hold up in the USA. But major media corporations are sure trying to advocate that type of nonsense.

[Onionfighter]

Whenever you use someone's pixel artwork you quote the source. You should also get permission unless expressly implied that it's free to use.

Actually it is the other way around. Unless you expressly imply that it is NOT free to use, you shouldn't be required to get permission. It is the responsibility of the content's author to make sure steps and measures are fulfilled preventing anyone from using his/her content if they don't want them to. That's why you have to pay for a patent.

Apparently I misread you. I had thought that when you said that you shouldn't be obligated to get permission you meant that not getting permission would not get you in legal trouble. Instead you apparently meant that Daji just shouldn't worry about ip laws.

If that's the case, than we should get permission from Loftar and Jorb every time we want to post a screen shot?

In the US, that is not how it works. Although corporations are certainly lobbying for that kind of thing...

Posting a screen shot of a game, when it is presented as such, would be considered "fair use." Using the work of someone else in your own work is not fair use, and therefore permission must be given.

Apparently you missed this?

So here is what I don't get: in your most recent post you rant against the illegitimacy of the state. You then go on to talk about US law. So are you arguing that the law is wrong and should not be followed, or are you arguing that our interpretations of the law are wrong? Because it seems rather strange to make both arguments at the same time.

Also, there is no ip for ideas that never leave a person's head. I don't know why you would bring up such a notion.

So continue worshiping the state, Onion.

Huh?

And those things cannot and will not exist under the collectivist beliefs of "intellectual property" you so adore :/

Ok, I get it. Your trolling is successful.

[ElGato]

Whenever you use someone's pixel artwork you quote the source. You should also get permission unless expressly implied that it's free to use.

Actually it is the other way around. Unless you expressly imply that it is NOT free to use, you shouldn't be required to get permission. It is the responsibility of the content's author to make sure steps and measures are fulfilled preventing anyone from using his/her content if they don't want them to. That's why you have to pay for a patent.

Apparently I misread you. I had thought that when you said that you shouldn't be obligated to get permission you meant that not getting permission would not get you in legal trouble. Instead you apparently meant that Daji just shouldn't worry about ip laws.

If that's the case, than we should get permission from Loftar and Jorb every time we want to post a screen shot?

In the US, that is not how it works. Although corporations are certainly lobbying for that kind of thing...

Posting a screen shot of a game, when it is presented as such, would be considered "fair use." Using the work of someone else in your own work is not fair use, and therefore permission must be given.

Apparently you missed this?

So here is what I don't get: in your most recent post you rant against the illegitimacy of the state. You then go on to talk about US law. So are you arguing that the law is wrong and should not be followed, or are you arguing that our interpretations of the law are wrong? Because it seems rather strange to make both arguments at the same time.

Also, there is no ip for ideas that never leave a person's head. I don't know why you would bring up such a notion.

So continue worshiping the state, Onion.

Huh?

And those things cannot and will not exist under the collectivist beliefs of "intellectual property" you so adore :/

Ok, I get it. Your trolling is successful.

hahaha