Mutual Artistic Respect

(acasto) #1

We have been having quite some discussions the last few days on Copyrights and Intellectual Property Rights. I have come up with an idea that I hope more people will start to follow in the future. This because I believe that respect and not copyright is what makes things work out. If someone dosn’t respect you, they’ll steal your stuff regardless of copyright or not.

I think that we should include a “Mutual Artistic Respect” clause in our artistic domains (web sites, publications, etc…). Unlike the copyright, this would be include under the assumption that people will steal your stuff, for different reason. It will state what you do and don’t mind them using, and in what ways, and what you hope them to achieve with it. I have learned from examples and been inspired by others designs. But there is no pride in plagurism, this is why I think people want to be origional, pride.

I plan to integrate this into Iptic, I want the whole site to be a pool of knowledge and potential for education. I want to discourage plagurism through promoting artistic pride, rather than flaunting the little ‘c’ symbol.

Oh well, let me know what you think.

(rogerm3d) #2

Its an ideal that i would belive in but the problem is the “unnoble” people out there that try to take advantage of this.
But what do you do when you show your work on a webpage.
Than some say rich dude uses it as his own work and makes ton o money.
Then you lose out on something that you sept time, work, and so forth on.
This is a system that can only work if all the people “respect” this system.
That is instead of taking advantage of others. Shall we say ideal ideas for more ideal times?

(acasto) #3

But the same is true for the copyright, people will take it either way. The copyright is a tool, to allocate power that is hardly ever used. What I’m saying, is use the copyrights power allocation, yet give exceptions and encouragement. For instance, as a web designer, I know the potential of someone taking your layout, colors, code, or all of the above. But what I propose to do, is say “use it, but here is a tutorial on how to modify and/or make your own”. So perhaps we can use the normal level of plagurism to our advantage, to educate and promote creativity, by providing the means for others to accomplish something of their own, thus promoting a sense of artistic pride. While implementing the copyright to prevent the case of abuse you speak of.

(rogerm3d) #4

Now I understand better.
So your proposing a system to make better artists out of all of us?
Man then it gotta be a great system. Not only do we have a system that could cut down on plagurism.

But there is no pride in plagurism

But also helping in the education of others.
Now the only thing i see is convincing the greedy people to go with this system, since they wont want others to have access to their “quality” work.

(acasto) #5

They can do what they want, but they’ll be the ones missing out. Look at this community and how people here learn and excel. We benefit so much from helping each other out. So if they don’t like it, then their loss.

However I was wondering about one thing. How can we promote the concept down the chain. Lets say I start it with Iptic, then people take things and modify and learn from it. How can we encourage them to do the same ? Pehaps start something like the Blender web ring, in which participants can join ? Or even for more complex pieces, such as programs and such, include something like the GPL, in which they too must offer it up for people to get as they did.

But either way, in the end, if it is a success or a failure, the copyright law will still exsist, so what do we have to lose ?

(blengine) #6

this is wonderful acasto! truely noble and excelent idea that should catch on…
i have a question…i see alot of sites that have copyrights written everywhere, but i know damn well a copyright costs money right? and im pretty darn sure u just cant slap a copyright on something and say its so without getting the legal documentation…hehe…i know theres tons of sites that arent really copyrighted but say so…hmm am i wrong?
can i put a © on my page and make it truely copyrighted?

(acasto) #7

I think you can. Anything you make is copyrighted implicitly, however if someone comes out at the same time and says they made that before you, how do you decide? If the other person, has their’s registered (it would be dated), then they win, unless you can prove yours was first. I heard you can use the mail-it-to-yourself trick, but again I’m not sure.

(blengine) #8

hmm…well in that case…

im sueing bill gates! windows was my idea first! i had the idea in a past life and copyrighted it! grrr…that b*stard! ill get you bill! ill sue your *ss!! then ill be the richest man in the world, and give all the money away to people who REALLY need it! selfish low-life scruffy looking pig!..

hey u know he could feed like a whole starving country with his money? lol, what power…too bad greeds more powerful…huff… hey what if i copyright greed? then no one can be greedy or ill sue them!

chris plush
greed,, and windows ME/NT/95/98/2000 © is a copyright of chris plush and affiliates by heresay which can, and will hold up in a court of law

(pofo) #9

Hehe, there’s a limit to mutual respect I see.

You take greed, I think I’ll copyright carbon dioxide.

  1. pofo

(acasto) #10

what if you copyright the copyright ?

(CurtisS) #11

Actually Chris, Bill Gates has given away MILLIONS of dollars to many different organizations supporting the education and care of children. Granted, he has done alot to protect HIS company but he also has a big heart. No, I do not work for Microsoft and I use a Mac most of the time but I do live in the Pacific Northwest USA and know what this man has done for people here and around world. I, for one, will not hold it against him.

(theeth) #12

CurtisS: yeah, but isn’t those donations deductible from taxes?


(CurtisS) #13

No, not directly since the majority of the funds go through the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation.

(jsplifer) #14

You’ll be hearing from my lawyer in a few days, if you have any questions feel free to contact him at the law offices of Long & Ramsay, P.C. The Whitfield Building, 558 West Uwchlan Ave. etc etc


(Cessen) #15

I really like this idea of yours, Acasto.

First of all, the concept of inherent rights to intellectual “property” is simply unconstitutional (at least, when speaking of the US constitution), as was pointed out in the article I posted earlier.
The point of copyright laws are not, in fact, to protect a persons “property”. Rather, the purpose of copyright laws is to give artists/writers/etc. incentive to create things for the benefit of the public. In other words:

  1. artist paints a painting.
  2. artists files for copyright.
  3. artists can now make money off of painting.
    Now, if it weren’t for copyright laws, the artist wouldn’t be able to make money off of their painting, and thus would have much less incentive to paint. And because some art is of benifit to the public, it is obviously a good idea to give incentive for artists to create art. So, to summarise: copyright is a tool to be used in the publics best interest, it is not an inherent right of a creator to something (s)he created.

And to support my statements, here is a quote from the US constitution (Section 8, Clause 8): “[The Congress shall have Power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”

Note the stated purpose. (BTW: the article I posted goes into more detail about this. Also, note that that clause also applies to patent laws, because it refers to “discoveries” as well as “writings”.)

Anyway, I like your idea, Acasto, mainly because it is, indeed, and issue of respect, not of rights. I think that the only inherent right that an artist has to his/her work is the right of getting credit for having created it (assuming that they want credit). Aside from that, it is all about respecting the artists wishes.
Acasto, I fully support your idea, and I plan to start using it myself… you haven’t patented the idea, have you? :wink:

(Phew… that was long winded. Sorry about that, but since nobody read the article a posted earlier, I had to give some background info.)

(harkyman) #16

I like your idea, acosto. Was this based on my declaration in one of those discussions about how the theft of IP hinges not on the law but on respect? I said it first, and I copyright the text!!! :stuck_out_tongue:

Anyway, in addition to everything else I do, I am a writer and some of my classes dealt with copyright law. Everything that you produce, unless otherwise stated, is copyright to yourself, implicit. If you want, you can put the little © symbol next to it with your name and date. It costs nothing to display this notice. To have it mean something from a legal standpoint, though, you must register your work with the U.S. Copyright Office ( for a non-neglible fee. If someone steals and profits from your work, you’ll have a lot easier time taking them to court and winning if your work is previously registered with the Copyright Office.

That said, I really really like your idea. Maybe you could found a .org website that contains different levels/variations of the Mutual Artistic Respect license/statement. That way, someone could simply state that their works exist under MAR-3 or MAR-2 or whatever, with appropriate links.

Again, cool idea.

(overextrude) #17

I’m not sure I agree with this - I like the idea, but we’re dealing with human nature here. The problem is that many people don’t understand what’s involved in the production of creative works, whether it be a movie, a song, or a 3D rendering. A lack of understanding makes it easier to justify use without compensation. Further, I think all of these things have value, and that this value should be determined by normal market forces. The ONLY thing that makes it easy to circumvent the market is that these creations are easy to reproduce. The interesting thing about this is that despite the ease of reproduction, it apparently does NOT detract from its value- otherwise P2P (illegal) file sharing would be no where near as popular as it is.

Generally, there needs to be some kind of legal framework to protect the artist, other than the honor system. What the legal framework provides is an objective means of measurement (i.e., who has paid and entitled to use, and who hasn’t). Without this kind of objectivity, it’s hard to make a case that one has been harmed by people failing to pay them for their work.

(Briggs) #18

Preface: I can only say the following applies in the US. Furthermore this is all based on my hazy memory of reading literature that a published writer gave me well over 5 years ago. Please excuse the ‘matter of fact’ tone.

Any work you create is in fact implicity copyrighted, and you are well within your rights to put the little © symbol on your work (this information is freely availible from the US government). The question about whether or not to register concerns the level of protection you want/need. Without registration you will have a signifigantly harder time proving someone has infringed your copyright. The most crude method of protection is to mail yourself a copy of the work and not open it (postmarked by an authorized government agency). Registration of copyright depends heavily on the type of copyright (single work, periodical ect.) and may mean you would want to hire someone who specializes in such things.

(acasto) #19

If a work is that important, or has that much effort put into it, then copyright it. Yes we are working with human nature, but do you think a copyright is goign to protect you. Chances are, you wouldn’t find out if someone took it anyways. This is not an honor system, it is built off the idea that people will steal stuff no matter what. Lets says you make a movie that took a couple years to do, copyright it. Then lets say you put it in a website, then someone comes along and would like to use some of your site HTML (not your movie), that would fall under the Mutual Artistic Respect clause.

The Mutual Artistic Respect idea is basically a copyright with different levels of exclusions and exceptions. You decide what has full copyright regulations, and what can and can’t be used for what purposes.

(haunt_house) #20

Hi CurtisS

Bill Gates is a marketing genius. Maybe his donations are not tax deductable, but they are PR. I don´t know who he is, but I have heard that the behaviour of his company is not very noble.

To get the copyright for copyright, you must prove that you made the copyright. So a time travel is needed here. I think patents and trademarks are more expensive.