Time to debunk IP in digital art and photography once and for all

Started Aug 21, 2013 | Discussions thread
Mikhail Tal
Regular MemberPosts: 281
Like?
Re: Time to debunk IP in digital art and photography once and for all
In reply to JamesMortimer, Aug 23, 2013

JamesMortimer wrote:

Mikhail Tal wrote:

JamesMortimer wrote:

57even wrote:

Ask a copyright/patent lawyer. IP is a legal concept not a moral or logical one, so your argument is a complete waste of energy.

Also, isn't the concept of "change" one that is visible, for IP?

You have to change something so it is visibly different by 20-30% at least.

Is this figure of 20-30% figure something just a guess? Or is it written down somewhere? There is no way to objectively quantify the degree of visible change from one image to another that cannot be easily circumvented. For example I can just add 25% more pixels around the outside of an image in a white border, and now I've technically met the criteria. Or I can apply +0.5 EV to 20% of the image and again I meet the criterion of being visibly different. Percentages don't belong in this discussion at all.

I got those numbers from an online report on IP law, referring to digital image copying and theft.

(it was a few years ago, so, no I don't have a link, sorry)

The Issue is multi-fold. Any change has to stand up to scrutiny by the judge in the case.

If you added a border around the image such that you've added 30% of a change, the judge will still say it's the same image.

Same goes for a colour change - a judge will look at it and say that all you've done is fiddle with the colours.. but it's the same photo.

If you took a photo and turned it into a Monet-style digital painting, a judge might say that you've altered the image beyond the intent of the IP laws.. but it's still "might".

And therein lies the problem. If you make a "new" image and it is impossible for you to know whether it is different "enough" from the original from which you were inspired, then it is patently unfair to prevent use of this image.

Essentially, the original thing applies - it's your own ethics that matter.

Oh if only that were true! Then everyone could copy as much as little as they please. That's why I advocate for the repeal of all IP laws.

If someone is the thieving internet scumbag type then they will feel no moral twangs over changing a few pixels and saying it's theirs.

The honest person doesn't even need to ask about IP law definitions - he/she knows if he's doing the wrong thing.

Fair enough, the situation I despise is when I honestly feel I have made enough of an edit to someone's photo for it to be considered transformative or unique, and then some judge bans me from profiting from it because his personally disagrees, just as a matter of opinion. I can handle a trial in the court of public opinion because then I state my case or how it is transformative and have only ostracism tao deal with if I am found guilty.

So, you're right - percentages are for lawyers to fart about with, not really to discuss..

And they shouldn't even be for that.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow