Respect Other People's Work and Don't Steal It

[teacherone]

I haven't seen any of these videos, but I'm guessing what the OP means by "claiming it is theirs" is equivalent to "uploading it to their youtube channel"

to be honest...if someone is not trying to profit off their work and puts in the public sphere then they have no right to any damages (none exist).

 

[dannno]

Look, this isn't a philosophical battle. This is a legal issue.

Your position simply would not hold up in court.

The same could be said about my use of medicinal cannabis.

If you're a cop, however, it's still wrong to come and steal my medicine and arrest me.

You are failing to acknowledge that once an idea is in a tangible form, such as written on paper or produced into something that can be transfered to another human being - it does become property. I could share an idea with you and without a non-disclosure, you'd have every right to go off and do what you may.

You don't need IP to make a contract with somebody that if they make money off of the idea they are about to discuss then they will be required to contract with them or give them a %.

We can deal with all of this through contract law. If you have a movie, make a copy, sell it to a theater, sign an agreement with them not to reproduce it. Good luck doing that with millions of music listeners.

The question is, if somebody happens to hear something on public airwaves and reproduces that using their own hardware, have they stolen anything? The answer is no.

 

[Bman]

Copyright is pure evil, but people should still be decent and atleast credit the creator.

Winner!

Otherwise it is fraud!

 

[dusman]

The same could be said about my use of medicinal cannabis.

If you're a cop, however, it's still wrong to come and steal my medicine and arrest me.

Can we stop with the strawman arguments? That perspective is a calamity in itself with state vs federal legislative conflict. In regards to me being at risk of legal retaliation with how others used my composite for review, is irrefutable.

You don't need IP to make a contract with somebody that if they make money off of the idea they are about to discuss then they will be required to contract with them or give them a %.

Duh. Still, not the point of my post. I'm not talking about IDEAS, whatsoever. When I released my composite on this forum for review, copyright to that work is already established automatically and therefore there is no need to formally define contractual obligations. If I was litigating such a matter, all I would have to do is formally copyright the material and serve a summons to appear in court. As long as I have the source files and so long as the other party doesn't, the court will rule in my favor 100% of the time.

 

[low preference guy]

As long as I have the source files and so long as the other party doesn't, the court will rule in my favor 100% of the time.

So what? Who cares? Are you talking about whether people who copy your work will get away with it? Is that what we are debating?

 

[CasualApathy]

ya'll?

 

[dannno]

Ya, you're missing the point.. the courts do a lot of things that are tyrannical, so whether the court will enforce something or not has no basis on whether it is moral.

I'm not against you here, I think others should credit your work. Maybe you can message the youtube channels that are copying your work and ask them to credit you. Or maybe you can put the credits in the film itself so if it gets copied you still get credits.

I like the idea that if one person uploads a video that somebody else might think of a better title and a better way to market the video with that title, they can go out and give the video an extra few hundred thousand or million views where they wouldn't have been able to with the old title, or maybe they made some other slight changes for a different audience. The more people who see it, the better.

The fact is, if you give it the best title and market it properly, your video will get the most views and eventually you will get a youtube partnership.

If somebody else copies your vidoes but it still has your credits, then that can only help more people see your videos.

 

[jmdrake]

Question. In the time it took for people to argue about how this uploaded video diverted traffic from the main campaign YouTube, how many times could the main campaign YouTube have been uploaded to other blogs and forums? Just sayin.

 

[RonPaulFever]

A couple people uploaded my two videos without giving me credit, but they were promos for money bombs so I didn't mind. The point was to spread the message so the more people who see them, the better. And since the bulk of the video material came from newscasts, Ron Paul speeches and such, I didn't feel like I owned them to begin with.

 

[dusman]

Apparently, people are not understanding the situation I was put in by people in this forum.

The Ames Tribune Ad Submission thread. If you go back and review it, you'll see that I entered a military ad submission. This ad was purely a composite for review. In order to create that composite, I did what a typical graphic designer would do and sought after an image available for purchase by license and used the comp they provide to fulfill a demonstration of my ad. This image was of course watermarked by iStockPhoto. The purchase for license was contingent on whether or not my ad was selected, which then RevPac would have been responsible for making the purchase for the image so that it could legally be used for commercial use.

This ad was NEVER intended to be used in any capacity, outside of being a composite for review. However, that ad was used anyways by people here and, unfortunately, no disclaimer was attached to the thread and the general legalities were not understood by those viewing the submissions. Since I had no protection with an indemnification clause in contract, I could be held liable for that being used in commercial capacities as it was. Therefore, I did my best to track down any uses of it and asked those people to remove the work for that reason.

This is a perfect example why people here need to respect the wishes of the creators of artwork to not redistribute and simply ask for permission first. It's not always about their wishes, but about legalities. Believe me, I learned my lesson now and won't ever release such an ad submission to this community without a very specific disclaimer. However, if people here were 1) respectful of artists work to ask for permission first, and 2) were given notice of such situation, then it would never be an issue.

It's clearly a mistake to assume people here give a shit.

 

[dannno]

It's clearly a mistake to assume people here give a shit.

It sounds like they give a shit about getting Ron Paul elected and less about istockphoto.

I hope they don't come after you, but it sounds like people just liked your video and wanted to make sure it stayed available for others to see even if you decided to take it down or if your account got deleted.

 

[low preference guy]

It's clearly a mistake to assume people here give a shit.

Even if people at the forum give a shit, it's a mistake to assume people outside the forum will.

 

[dusman]

In the end, and to conclude with this ridiculous discussion, I am surprised you all put your own opinions above the greater good of the community here. I don't see how it is beneficial to put doubt into all the creative people here who EXPECT at least a little bit of respect toward their work, and to pretend that there is no moral or legal reasoning to ask for permission first.

So I'll return the favor.

Anyone reviewing this thread, take note that if you don't approach me for permission first and I see anything I create being used and I'm certain you knew about this thread, I will move right forward with cease and desist letters and if continued I will summon you to court to prove a point.

I'll let a judge decide, whether that be tyrannical or not.

 

[low preference guy]

I don't see how it is beneficial to put doubt into all the creative people here who EXPECT at least a little bit of respect toward their work, and to pretend that there is no moral or legal reasoning to ask for permission first.

Anti-IP people don't necessarily advocate disrespecting creators, just like people who advocate for the first amendment don't necessarily advocate racist speech.

Further, anyone reviewing this thread, take note that if you don't approach me for permission first and I see anything I create being used and I'm certain you knew about this thread, I will move right forward with cease and desist letters and summon you to court.

I'll let a judge decide, whether that be tyrannical or not.

With this warning, I'm sure they will use TOR or other anonymizing tool to not go to court, whether you find that tyrannical or not.

 

[dusman]

Anti-IP people don't necessarily advocate disrespecting creators, just like people who advocate for the first amendment don't necessarily advocate racist speech.



With this warning, I'm sure they will use TOR or other anonymizing tool to not go to court, whether you find that tyrannical or not.

Sure they are, they have made that pretty clear they could care less about the creators in this thread. It's offensive.

And if that happens I would hope that the moderators would uphold what is right and ban those people from these forums.

 

[The Free Hornet]

I am the only one allowed to decide how my artwork is represented, redistributed, derived from, and is my exclusive right,

So if I buy your crap, I'm not allowed to take a crap on it? Once you sell it, you no longer own it. See the "right of first sale". Once I buy it, I'll resell it to whomever and wipe my ass with it whenever.

which does in fact fall under property rights.

No, read the f-ing constitution which does not use the word "property" (see wikipedia for when this fiction was created, clue: it wasn't the founders). It does use the words "limited time". Your "exclusive rights" - which are not property - lessen as you sell the product, based on the terms AND contract under which it is sold.

It would be no different [literally? lol] if you came onto my property and put a sign up that I don't want there. What you aren't getting is that digital property is so easily transferable and so you assume that means that no property right applies to how it's used. When you take my property and make it your own, you violate the foundation of property right.

Read and understand the law if you want to be an advocate of IP. As I have recommended to others, I shall recommend to you. This special, non-unique brand of stupidity by so-called creative types needs a trademark to help people like me to avoid accidentally supporting people like you.

By the way, you have about 99% of the politicians on your side with this issue so keep a lid on it. Overreach has been the downfall of the IP industry. Blowback is a bitch here too.

 

[hillertexas]

..

 

[dusman]

So if I buy your crap, I'm not allowed to take a crap on it? Once you sell it, you no longer own it. See the "right of first sale". Once I buy it, I'll resell it to whomever and wipe my ass with it whenever.

Duh, I never suggested otherwise. If I have transferred rights to you through a sale, I care less what you do with the work. However, I can still contractually limit how it is used and have done so in many cases.

No, read the f-ing constitution which does not use the word "property" (see wikipedia for when this fiction was created, clue: it wasn't the founders). It does use the words "limited time". Your "exclusive rights" - which are not property - lessen as you sell the product, based on the terms AND contract under which it is sold.

There has been no sale, so therefore no transfer of right to the work, unless explicitly given. While you do have a good point, it still doesn't change my potentiality to be liable in the situation I addressed above. Thanks for not caring.

Read and understand the law if you want to be an advocate of IP. As I have recommended to others, I shall recommend to you. This special, non-unique brand of stupidity by so-called creative types needs a trademark to help people like me to avoid accidentally supporting people like you.

By the way, you have about 99% of the politicians on your side with this issue so keep a lid on it. Overreach has been the downfall of the IP industry. Blowback is a bitch here too.

I'm not necessarily even advocating IP. I'm protecting my artwork, which I have every right to do. People just doing whatever they wish with something I consider sacred to me is not only disrespectful, it should be frowned upon. It's amazing to see that is not the case.

 

[low preference guy]

Duh, I never suggested otherwise. If I have transferred rights to you through a sale, I care less what you do with the work. However, I can still contractually limit how it is used and have done so in many cases.

Exactly, even most of us anti-IP people agree with this.

 

[CasualApathy]

Anyone reviewing this thread, take note that if you don't approach me for permission first and I see anything I create being used and I'm certain you knew about this thread, I will move right forward with cease and desist letters and if continued I will summon you to court to prove a point.

If I did that and you sued me, would that get me a free flight to the US?