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

Started Aug 21, 2013 | Discussions
Mikhail Tal
Regular MemberPosts: 281
Like?
Re: It's the judge ...
In reply to Sante Patate, Aug 22, 2013

Sante Patate wrote:

Mikhail Tal wrote:

Sante Patate wrote:

Independent creation is a defence to a claim of copyright infringement, and to establish copyright infringement it is essential to prove that there was actual copying. So, if the similarity was truly a coincidence you have not breached copyright.

The only way to actually prove that copying took place would be seize the device on which the copying took place and analyze its operational history. Otherwise all you have is circumstantial evidence which cannot solely constitute proof of copying.

No. Copyright breach requires copying. If you claim that my image breaches your copyright you have to show, at a minimum, that I could have copied your image, and that the similarity between yours and mine is so extreme that independent creation is unlikely. If you can't explain how I could have copied (because your image is unpublished and I have never been anywhere near your studio or your computer, eg), my claim of independent creation will prevail.

if the alternatives being "unlikely", in terms of theoretical probability, was enough to constitute proof, I could prove God doesn't exist, among other things. But obviously that's not the case. Proof is a specific term that applies to mathematics referring to a statement that is true "a priori", as in, by definition.

The law does this all the time: "reasonable care and skill", "reasonable belief", "due diligence", etc etc; if you don't like it, too bad.

"If you don't like it, too bad."

So in your opinion no law, even one that is completely illogical, should ever or will ever be modified or repealed? Nor should one ever advocate for said change on the medium of one's choosing, as I am doing here?

You are not trying to modify or repeal "a" law, you are trying to overthrow all the vast areas of law that depend on judgements about what is "reasonable under the circumstances". That standard has developed not because the law is an ass, but because that standard allows decision-making the sensitivity to circumstance on which justice depends.

It also renders legal justice entirely subjective, which makes it no more credible than vigilante justice or anything else outside the scope of the law. The only difference is that "legal" justice belongs to the people with the most eminent means of enforcing it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
57even
Senior MemberPosts: 6,347
Like?
Re: It's the judge ...
In reply to Mikhail Tal, Aug 22, 2013

Mikhail Tal wrote:

Sante Patate wrote:

Mikhail Tal wrote:

Sante Patate wrote:

Independent creation is a defence to a claim of copyright infringement, and to establish copyright infringement it is essential to prove that there was actual copying. So, if the similarity was truly a coincidence you have not breached copyright.

The only way to actually prove that copying took place would be seize the device on which the copying took place and analyze its operational history. Otherwise all you have is circumstantial evidence which cannot solely constitute proof of copying.

No. Copyright breach requires copying. If you claim that my image breaches your copyright you have to show, at a minimum, that I could have copied your image, and that the similarity between yours and mine is so extreme that independent creation is unlikely. If you can't explain how I could have copied (because your image is unpublished and I have never been anywhere near your studio or your computer, eg), my claim of independent creation will prevail.

if the alternatives being "unlikely", in terms of theoretical probability, was enough to constitute proof, I could prove God doesn't exist, among other things. But obviously that's not the case. Proof is a specific term that applies to mathematics referring to a statement that is true "a priori", as in, by definition.

The law does this all the time: "reasonable care and skill", "reasonable belief", "due diligence", etc etc; if you don't like it, too bad.

"If you don't like it, too bad."

So in your opinion no law, even one that is completely illogical, should ever or will ever be modified or repealed? Nor should one ever advocate for said change on the medium of one's choosing, as I am doing here?

You are not trying to modify or repeal "a" law, you are trying to overthrow all the vast areas of law that depend on judgements about what is "reasonable under the circumstances". That standard has developed not because the law is an ass, but because that standard allows decision-making the sensitivity to circumstance on which justice depends.

It also renders legal justice entirely subjective, which makes it no more credible than vigilante justice or anything else outside the scope of the law. The only difference is that "legal" justice belongs to the people with the most eminent means of enforcing it.

Of course justice is partly subjective. That why we have juries who have to be convinced of the evidence and argument. In a civil case they only have to be convinced on the balance of evidence not on the grounds of beyond reasonable doubt.

If I use a source digital image then change every pixel randomly I get a mess. But if the result has a recognisable relationship to the original, then it's copying even if every pixel RGB value is different, just as transposing or writing variations on a musical theme is breach of copyright, even if NONE of the final notes are the same.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
drh681
Forum ProPosts: 12,124Gear list
Like?
Re: Time to debunk IP said the art thief.
In reply to Mikhail Tal, Aug 22, 2013

Or perhaps someone who has something to hide.

Your argument is that self serving seeming.

-- hide signature --

Photons by the bag.
Gravitons no longer shipped outside US or Canada
-----.....------
You got a camera, now go out and get a life; or at least a picture of one!

 drh681's gear list:drh681's gear list
Nokia Lumia Icon
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
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 22, 2013

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JamesMortimer
Senior MemberPosts: 1,492
Like?
Re: Time to debunk IP in digital art and photography once and for all
In reply to 57even, Aug 22, 2013

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
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:

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
57even
Senior MemberPosts: 6,347
Like?
Re: Time to debunk IP in digital art and photography once and for all
In reply to Mikhail Tal, Aug 23, 2013

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Time to debunk IP in digital art and photography once and for all
In reply to Mikhail Tal, Aug 23, 2013

Get a life.

People have a right to what they create.  Is somebody starts with a clean pallet and creates something from nothing it should be theirs for life.  In general nobody should have a right to jack with it and incorporate it into their work with out some sort of permission from the creator.

All the pixle mumbo jumbo is just a bunch of mental masturbation to help one feel good about steeling somebody's work to create their own bastardized trash.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
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 23, 2013

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mikhail Tal
Regular MemberPosts: 281
Like?
Re: Time to debunk IP in digital art and photography once and for all
In reply to Todd Ka, Aug 23, 2013

Todd Ka wrote:

Get a life.

no u

People have a right to what they create.

What they create is a data file with color information. They have a right to that file and the information contained within it. What they don't have a right to is an idea that cannot be defined by sensory parameters. Anyone can claim to have have had any idea at any time and such claims are completely unfalsifiable.

Is somebody starts with a clean pallet and creates something from nothing it should be theirs for life.

This never happens. Nobody ever starts with a clean pallet; everything they have ever seen, heard, and experienced is already on their pallet. If you talking about literally a blank pallet, such as an all-white digital canvas, that's easily circumventable (by compositing, etc).

In general nobody should have a right to jack with it and incorporate it into their work with out some sort of permission from the creator.

"In general" isn't good enough for a law, because then the law can be applied differently to different people for no other reason than random subjectivity between different arbiters or even the same arbiter.

All the pixle mumbo jumbo is just a bunch of mental masturbation to help one feel good about steeling somebody's work to create their own bastardized trash.

No it's just a way to refute your arbitrarily interpreted generalizations. I can produce an image that you think I took from someone else even when I didn't, and I can produce an image that you don't think I took from someone else even though I did.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mikhail Tal
Regular MemberPosts: 281
Like?
Re: Time to debunk IP said the art thief.
In reply to drh681, Aug 23, 2013

drh681 wrote:

Or perhaps someone who has something to hide.

Your argument is that self serving seeming.

-- hide signature --

Photons by the bag.
Gravitons no longer shipped outside US or Canada
-----.....------
You got a camera, now go out and get a life; or at least a picture of one!

Wow, conspiracy theory much? Let the wild speculation and personal attacks begin because you can't refute my argument, amirite?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sante Patate
Senior MemberPosts: 4,315
Like?
Think first ...
In reply to Todd Ka, Aug 23, 2013

Todd Ka wrote:

People have a right to what they create. Is somebody starts with a clean pallet and creates something from nothing it should be theirs for life. In general nobody should have a right to jack with it and incorporate it into their work with out some sort of permission from the creator.

So, you think it should be illegal to photograph buildings?  Bridges?  Sculpture in public places?  Signs?  Billboards?  People on the street wearing original clothes designs?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Think first ...
In reply to Sante Patate, Aug 23, 2013

Sante Patate wrote:

Todd Ka wrote:

People have a right to what they create. Is somebody starts with a clean pallet and creates something from nothing it should be theirs for life. In general nobody should have a right to jack with it and incorporate it into their work with out some sort of permission from the creator.

So, you think it should be illegal to photograph buildings? Bridges? Sculpture in public places? Signs? Billboards? People on the street wearing original clothes designs?

Note the "in general" disclaimer.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JamesMortimer
Senior MemberPosts: 1,492
Like?
Re: Time to debunk IP in digital art and photography once and for all
In reply to Mikhail Tal, Aug 23, 2013

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".

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

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
57even
Senior MemberPosts: 6,347
Like?
Re: Time to debunk IP in digital art and photography once and for all
In reply to Mikhail Tal, Aug 23, 2013

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?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
drh681
Forum ProPosts: 12,124Gear list
Like?
Re: Time to debunk IP said the art thief.
In reply to Mikhail Tal, Aug 23, 2013

Mikhail Tal wrote:

drh681 wrote:

Or perhaps someone who has something to hide.

Your argument is that self serving seeming.

-- hide signature --

Photons by the bag.
Gravitons no longer shipped outside US or Canada
-----.....------
You got a camera, now go out and get a life; or at least a picture of one!

Wow, conspiracy theory much? Let the wild speculation and personal attacks begin because you can't refute my argument, amirite?

It's a morally bankrupt argument on it's face.

-- hide signature --

Photons by the bag.
Gravitons no longer shipped outside US or Canada
-----.....------
You got a camera, now go out and get a life; or at least a picture of one!

 drh681's gear list:drh681's gear list
Nokia Lumia Icon
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
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 23, 2013

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sante Patate
Senior MemberPosts: 4,315
Like?
Re: Think first ...
In reply to Todd Ka, Aug 23, 2013

Todd Ka wrote:

Sante Patate wrote:

Todd Ka wrote:

People have a right to what they create. Is somebody starts with a clean pallet and creates something from nothing it should be theirs for life. In general nobody should have a right to jack with it and incorporate it into their work with out some sort of permission from the creator.

So, you think it should be illegal to photograph buildings? Bridges? Sculpture in public places? Signs? Billboards? People on the street wearing original clothes designs?

Note the "in general" disclaimer.

In general, "in general" means nothing.  What you really mean is that photographs - your personal work - must be strictly protected from any form of un-authorised use, while anything that you might wish to use to create a photograph must be totally unprotected.  Well, that is going to be hard to write into the law, and any IP law sufficiently draconian to achieve the protection you want for your own work is going to make creating your work impossible.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
drh681
Forum ProPosts: 12,124Gear list
Like?
Re: Time to debunk IP in digital art and photography once and for all
In reply to Mikhail Tal, Aug 23, 2013

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.

"The best Song Ever"  Controversy(sort of)

-- hide signature --

Photons by the bag.
Gravitons no longer shipped outside US or Canada
-----.....------
You got a camera, now go out and get a life; or at least a picture of one!

 drh681's gear list:drh681's gear list
Nokia Lumia Icon
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
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
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads