I think this will be the last in a string of copyright related posts – at least for a little while, but it’s been such a great discussion and I have one last thought! I was telling my sister about the Stolen Scream video and discussing some of the finer points of copyrights, copyright registration and funny beliefs people have about art.
In fact, I’m finding that artists seem to be some of the worst offenders! Someone tweeted this to me the other day in response to a tweet conversation I was having with another artist about why artists decide to copy others when they are creative in their own right. This third artist said,
Haven’t you heard this? ” lesser artists imitate, great artists steal”?
They went on to point out that Manet or Monet (I can’t remember which) was apparently the master at it. Well if artists go around quoting that and believing that the way to be great is to steal, we are all in trouble.
So there is blatant copying and then there is the whole “derivative work” – if you change a certain percentage it’s considered new, etc. That gets dicey as well so we aren’t going to go down that rabbit hole today.
Today I want to put copyright infringement into terms the average person can understand: lunch. More specifically – sandwiches.
[youtube JoeoZBybu7g]
What do you think? I encourage you to come up with your own analogies and post them to YouTube as well. Maybe we can educate the masses by amusing them and talking their language. If you do, let me know and I’ll share it here too. Deal?
Here’s to your creative success!
– Tara Reed
Tara – but isn’t there a big difference between digital copyright works and your sandwich? When someone takes your sandwich, you no longer have it to eat and have to expend more resources (bread, butter, ham, mustard, labour etc) to make a replacement. Conversely, if someone infringes by copying an online image, the “original” image is still there and no further resource is needed to recreate it. Whether the people who have infringed would have purchased it in the first place is one question (and studies differ on that) but isn’t it at least feasible to argue that the digital artist gets exposure, potentially greater reach and possibly the liklihood of more sales without needing to expend any further effort.
I am a great supporter of balanced copyright protection and don’t for a moment condone infringement but I’ve always struggled with the copying is theft motiv for this reason.
I’m really surprised by your take on this – being an IP attorney. If I’m making my living with my art and it is used by others free of charge and without permissions, this diminishes my brand and the value of the designs to those who would license it. How is this different than pirating of music or software or any other type of information? Copying of art diminishes my ability to make a living and pay my bills and therefore – is not ok with me. For those who want to freely share and gain exposure they can plainly allow it under the creative commons laws and designations.
Tara,
Thanks for sharing a great video! I’m so tired of the thieving that I recently created a badge for artists who want to be “Twist Defiant” and want to instead encourage each other to be as original as possible.
Many people’s intentions are good, it’s just that they don’t know what they’re doing. The bottom line is that sandwich stealing stinks!! Hooray for you bringing this unpopular stuff up.
Best wishes from germany,
tj
At the very least the Sandwich analogy is way off, a better analogy is if your neighbor refuses to maintain his house thus lowering your property value.
If someone copies your sandwich now there are 2 sandwiches and the original sandwich is worth less.
The impact is still real but if we insist on making this into something it isn’t we do a disservice to what it actually is and how important it is.
I’ve often wondered why it isn’t enough that a creator exercise a right to control.
After all it’s not Ia right for payment.
Hi Tara, I do not see a necessary direct correlation between people copying your work and your lack of ability to make money from it. That might be true is some cases, but not every case. In some cases it could even increase the value of your brand through increased exposure.
The truth is actually in the muddy middle of what you and Rick say. Applied to your sandwich analogy you’d have to say that the person is copying your sandwich (just as Rick contends), but that there is some loss to your sandwich. I.E. you lose a bite of your sandwich and the other person gains a whole sandwich (sweet deal). That is of course, except when your sandwich gets bigger because that other person told his friend who is will to pay you for the copy he wants.
So you see, it is a nice analogy, but it is too simple to really be applicable. Frankly I think the idea of simulating the old market paradigm by introducing artificial scarcity into the final product is silly and unsustainable. Especially when real scarcity still exists in the artist herself. Instead of trying to limit technology so that copyright works as it always has done, we should be looking for real alternatives for copyright, in those situations where it really does not work any more. There is real scarcity which we should be looking for ways to market, rather than creating artificial scarcity so we can continue living by the old rules. I think we will eventually get there, but it is going to be a long hard process for society to make the real paradigm switch.
This has created a great debate! OBVIOUSLY my example will not, nor is it intended to, hold up in court. It’s a simplistic analogy… and is doing it’s job of making people think and react. yeah!
P.S. Please continue to feed your children – however I still see a big difference between making a ham sandwich and making a copy of my art. 🙂
Tara – my focus was on your sandwich analogy rather than a creator’s right to decide whether or not they want their work to be freely available. As I said, I absolutely respect the role that copyright has in enabling that choice but I think you do yourself a disservice by using such examples. Copyright infringement is not theft in a factual or a legal sense and the days when one could argue that any infringing copy represents a lost sale are long gone, if indeed they ever existed.
Tara, this is an important topic you bring up. “Borrowing” or “stealing” another’s work for commercial gain is just wrong. I don’t understand anyone who thinks it’s okay. Try telling Disney that it’s okay to use Mickey Mouse in your paintings – you’ll lose in court 100% of the time.
I wrote an article on this topic some time ago, because so many people ask my husband, Artist Drew Brophy, to copy someone else’s art and re-paint it. He won’t do that, although he will at times take an idea and put his own spin on it. Here’s the article: IS IT OKAY TO COPY AND SELL ANOTHERS WORK? PLAGARISM AND THE GOLDEN RULE: http://bit.ly/bdd1Jk
Even if you can pull off infringement “legally” that doesn’t make it right. Most people who argue for “fair use” or “appropriation” are the same people who are “borrowing” the works from others and calling it their own. But then when it happens to them, their tune changes!
If we all practice THE GOLDEN RULE, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, than this topic wouldn’t even be an issue!
Does clipart know you’re biting their style?
I’m not. I don’t use the clipart shown on this blog for commercial use and I pay a subscription to use it here. Two very different things. 🙂