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 57even, Aug 24, 2013

57even wrote:

Mikhail Tal wrote:

57even wrote:

Mikhail Tal wrote:

57even wrote:

Mikhail Tal wrote:

57even wrote:

Mikhail Tal 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.

What exactly do you think the law is based on if not morality or logic? My argument is that IP laws are logically bankrupt. You are welcome to attempt to refute my argument.

I long ago gave up second guessing how lawyers would interpret such a situation. Logic and the law don't always have much to do with each other.

Let's simplify this into a syllogism: Laws are supposed to be based on morality or logic. Some laws are not based on morality or logic. Therefore disagreeing with these laws is a complete waste of energy completely logical and appropriate.

Generally when I look into these things, there is some reasoning behind them, however laws regarding creative rights are pretty daft. Doesn't mean you should be allowed to make derivative works without some kind of acknowledgement, financial or otherwise.

Every work is a derivative work. You derived all of your work from others' work that you saw, even if you didn't copy it directly.

But there is a difference between writing a new arrangement of a song, and writing a new song in the same style, no?

The only difference is in degree, and it is impossible to define with objective parameters. There will always be songs that some consider new arrangements and some consider new songs in the same style, and the dispute is impossible to resolve because these are subjective interpretations. That is why IP cannot logically exist: because it cannot be accurately defined.

At which point it becomes a matter for a jury.

Either you want no IP at all,

Correct. The only exception I would consider is stole or gained impermissible access to REAL property in order to gain the intellectual property. So if I hacked into your computer and stole your image, you may have grounds to sue me for damages in addition to pressing criminal charges. But if you grant someone even so much as viewing or listening access then all bets are off, even if there are rules against recording, which are of course completely ridiculous because you can't ban someone from recording with their brain.

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