PDA

View Full Version : Harvard Law School offers Free Online Course on Copyright Law



RebelHill
12-10-2013, 07:40 PM
Harvard Law School offers Free Online Course on Copyright Law

After a successful first experience in 2013, Professor William Fisher will offer the networked course, CopyrightX, again this spring, under the auspices of Harvard Law School, the HarvardX distance-learning initiative, and the Berkman Center for Internet & Society. The course explores the current law of copyright and the ongoing debates concerning how that law should be reformed. For more information, please see http://copyx.org/.

Like the inaugural offering, in 2014 CopyrightX will offer an online course to approximately 500 participants, divided into 20 “sections,” each taught by a Harvard Teaching Fellow. This group will constitute one of three layers within CopyrightX: the other two are the Harvard Law School course on copyright and “satellite” sections taught in countries other than the United States. Participants in each layer will have the opportunity to engage with and learn from the participants in the other layers.

The 500 students in the online component of CopyrightX will be selected through an open application process that opens on December 13 and closes on December 23. We welcome diverse and international participation; please read about admissions process here: http://copyx.org/logistics/admission/.

Please share the call for applications widely within your channels. Feel free to redistribute this
email and to share this tweet from the Berkman Center.

Davewriter
12-10-2013, 08:08 PM
GREAT share!
Thank You SIR!

meshpig
12-11-2013, 12:47 AM
Copyright Law mostly protects ownership of copyrights once they'v been sold on; it might sound like an exciting prospect but just look at the facts :)

RebelHill
12-11-2013, 06:11 AM
Im afraid that's quite untrue... It protects ownership for all owners, whether they're own the rights through being the creators or having purchased them, not to mention holding up exceptions for uses where copyright does not apply. Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for you yourself to look at the facts. (:

saranine
12-11-2013, 07:03 PM
Copyright law enables huge megacorp companies to make spurious claims against youtube videos. The only aim is to get the videos taken down, especially ones with critical reviews of software, computer games etc.

Perhaps that is cynical. But sometimes you have to be cynical. Law is one thing. How it is used in the real world for ulterior, commercial purposes can be another thing altogether.

RebelHill
12-11-2013, 07:45 PM
Copyright law enables huge megacorp companies to make spurious claims against youtube videos. The only aim is to get the videos taken down, especially ones with critical reviews of software, computer games etc.

Unfortunately also wrong on both counts... copyright law, like all laws make no distinction as to who deserves protections... hence, copyright law protects all rights holders, be they small creative individuals, or mega corps. You can be cynical all you like about the behaviour of megaCorp in its pursuit of litigation beased on copyright claims, but that's not the same thing as the law itself. But this same argument could be extended to the small individual rights holders also... If I were the creator of a work, and some other person/entity made some use of some part of it in some fashion which I didnt like, and I thought I could at least construct a basic argument to base a case upon, and I had the resources to pursue it... you can be damn sure I would. Maybe Id have a case, maybe I wouldnt... that'd be for the courts to decide. You could call my actions in those circumstances "spurious" if you like, but sorry... its my right to try and defend my property if I feel so justified and motivated... is it not?

As for the "take down videos with critical reviews"... this is also garbage, as the copyright laws of most countries grant exceptions to claims of infringement for a number of uses, one of the best established being review or critique. You'll find such exceptions listed in section 110 of the US copyright act, article 10 of the EU Directive on copyright, and international agreement on the rights of countries to make such legal exceptions in article 9 of the Berne convention, and article 10 of the WIPO treaty.

Given the nature of the business many of us are in here... I consider this sort of thing pretty important to know and, generally, what people THINK they know about copyright law, is usually VERY far from the truth.

saranine
12-11-2013, 08:08 PM
I am not sure how to paste a video on this site. Here is a link to an interesting video. By the way its author is a law graduate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfgoDDh4kE0

robertoortiz
12-11-2013, 08:08 PM
Ugh guys, Rebel hill is right. Trust me I know, I work developing training videos and animation about IP law.
If you are an artist who plans to make a living from you art you have an OBLIGATION to learn more about your rights as an artist.

For starters did you guys know that no one can force you to copyright your work?

That part of the Berne Convention.
"Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic; it is prohibited to require formal registration (note however that when the United States joined the Convention in 1988, it continued to make statutory damages and attorney's fees only available for registered works)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_an d_Artistic_Works

Or that all artwork is Copyrighted the moment of creation? That if someone wants to use your artwork WITHOUT your permission in the US , according to US law they cant?

I strongly encourage all to read more about the copyright act of 1976>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976

saranine
12-11-2013, 08:29 PM
Yeah. OK. Under international law Japan isn't allowed to hunt and kill our lovely whales either in the southern ocean.

Is that cluckhead Stephen Harper going to succeed at claiming the North Pole?

Laws. Crazy things they are. Not a big fan of them myself.

I am not saying that Rebel Hill is wrong. My point is that laws in a law book are one thing. But when the rubber hits the road it's a lot more complex, immediate and practical. For instance legally nobody can force you to sign a contract. But the employer throws a contract at you, says "sign it" and you think of your house, car, livelihood etc and you squiggle your signature onto it.

spherical
12-11-2013, 11:37 PM
The thing that many do not understand is that said contract then becomes its own "law" until it may or may not be overturned in court. IOW, if you sign a contract that is against the Copyright Laws, that is your prerogative to do so and you reap the results of same. If you later bring some affront to court in a suit, the judge will likely ask if you agreed to this contract that circumvents the established law that is on the books. If yes, you should have stayed in bed.

spherical
12-11-2013, 11:49 PM
If you are an artist who plans to make a living from you art you have an OBLIGATION to learn more about your rights as an artist.

Agreed. I answer questions on this topic every week.


For starters did you guys know that no one can force you to copyright your work?
<SNIP>
Or that all artwork is Copyrighted the moment of creation? That if someone wants to use your artwork WITHOUT your permission in the US , according to US law they cant?

I'd offer that these two statements would benefit from clarification. There is a bit of ambiguity, here, that may confuse some that are not up on Copyright Law.

The first statement, to me, would be better written: "No one can force you to register your copyright. The second statement says why it isn't essential to register.

Statutory Copyright, which is what "all artwork is Copyrighted the moment of creation" means, removes the requirement for registration in order to obtain basic protection. Registration does provide addedl protection in the form of additional punitive damages that may be recovered; beyond a cease and desist.

meshpig
12-12-2013, 01:50 AM
I am not sure how to paste a video on this site. Here is a link to an interesting video. By the way its author is a law graduate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfgoDDh4kE0

Just use the insert video tag

saranine
12-12-2013, 01:54 AM
A nice video lol:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfgoDDh4kE0

spherical
12-12-2013, 02:12 AM
Great video. Rght off the top of my head, I can think of at least 8 places where it would be good to be seen.

meshpig
12-12-2013, 02:16 AM
Im afraid that's quite untrue... It protects ownership for all owners, whether they're own the rights through being the creators or having purchased them, not to mention holding up exceptions for uses where copyright does not apply. Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for you yourself to look at the facts. (:

Yes but what do you own if it's just an artwork or a song, if you get my drift? Fine if you are already trading in something with an exchange value like software or as i said something with providence.

It's about as relevant to artists as unfair dismissal laws are to casual workers in practice.

Most of what you mean by copyright will fall more under contract law where you can actually make significant ground as the subject of an unfair contract.

spherical
12-12-2013, 02:39 AM
Yes but what do you own if it's just an artwork or a song, if you get my drift? Fine if you are already trading in something with an exchange value like software or as i said something with providence.

You seem to be dismissing artwork and music as inferior to software; having no value and therefore not worth protecting. Far from it. Art and music have lasted centruies. Software, not so much. If there is anything temporal, that is it.

meshpig
12-12-2013, 02:51 AM
A nice video lol:

Not such a far cry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne)... :)

meshpig
12-12-2013, 03:01 AM
... Another classic example was the one against "Men at Work" which they lost to the owners of "Laugh Kookabaurra Laugh (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-04/men-at-work-plundered-kookaburra-riff-court/321624)".

RebelHill
12-12-2013, 05:41 AM
I am not sure how to paste a video on this site. Here is a link to an interesting video.]

Yeah great...

But again, all that has to do with is activities on youtube, and abuse of YTs own copyright reporting system which IS NOT a court of law. Youtube has its own corporate policy on how to deal with claims of copyright infringement, whilst this has to be stringent enough to protect the rights holders (else YT would be liable for infringement) it does NOT have to stand up for materials where the user/uploader is privileged by exceptions... thats entirely up to YT itself.

If you had your own website, on which you published such videos yourself, then it would be you that the owners would have to make such claims against and, provided that you were within your rights to use said material... you could just REFUSE and let them take you to court if they really thought they had a case.

So Im afraid that this whole deal is simply representative of people abusing Youtbe's own policy and youtube IS NOT THE LAW.

RebelHill
12-12-2013, 05:46 AM
... Another classic example was the one against "Men at Work" which they lost to the owners of "Laugh Kookabaurra Laugh (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-04/men-at-work-plundered-kookaburra-riff-court/321624)".

Yup... and perfectly legitimate...

One person wrote a tune... someone else used that same tune in their own work without any kind of permission, compensation, etc. Has not the original creator be wronged? (also its a great example of the OPPOSITE to what most people bang on about, where a "small guy" is the one suing some megaCorp... and winning).

meshpig
12-13-2013, 12:00 AM
Yup... and perfectly legitimate...

One person wrote a tune... someone else used that same tune in their own work without any kind of permission, compensation, etc. Has not the original creator be wronged? (also its a great example of the OPPOSITE to what most people bang on about, where a "small guy" is the one suing some megaCorp... and winning).

Well no, if you know both songs the semblance of one in the other is very slight if not completely arbitrary. By the same token, "Winnie-the-Pooh" is now a Disney character as A.A. Milne is long forgotten. It's all too legitimate and when it pans out probably restrictive... I mean the idea of being able to copyright a photograph which is %99 predetermined by the technology itself is an artificial imposition of the idea of "free will" and "originality" when such things sort of obvioulsly occur elsewhere on another level.

meshpig
12-13-2013, 12:21 AM
Yeah great...

But again, all that has to do with is activities on youtube, and abuse of YTs own copyright reporting system which IS NOT a court of law. Youtube has its own corporate policy on how to deal with claims of copyright infringement, whilst this has to be stringent enough to protect the rights holders (else YT would be liable for infringement) it does NOT have to stand up for materials where the user/uploader is privileged by exceptions... thats entirely up to YT itself.

If you had your own website, on which you published such videos yourself, then it would be you that the owners would have to make such claims against and, provided that you were within your rights to use said material... you could just REFUSE and let them take you to court if they really thought they had a case.

So Im afraid that this whole deal is simply representative of people abusing Youtbe's own policy and youtube IS NOT THE LAW.

Well you'd hope as i guess you're hoping too that you'd get your sh*t together in time for a corporate legal assault. I don't think it's just a case of being "within your rights" as you will be summarily crushed before you can say Jack Sh*t :)

spherical
12-13-2013, 03:08 AM
I mean the idea of being able to copyright a photograph which is %99 predetermined by the technology itself is an artificial imposition of the idea of "free will" and "originality" when such things sort of obvioulsly occur elsewhere on another level.

Uhhhh... no. Simplistic, at best. Look, as an illustrator, I often rail at photographers who create images in the relative time frame of a "click" of the shutter release; where it takes me days, weeks or months to create an image in acrylic on illustration board by placing each and every element there by hand. Seems an inequity. Still, there are some photographs that exist that are true masterpieces. I know, I'm a photographer as well and have captured, sometimes stalked, glorious images. If you have any knowledge of what it takes to wield a large format (8"x10") view camera, you know what I mean by "stalking a shot". It takes a lot of patience, stamina, guts to get the image you seek; especially when you only have so many sheets and so much light available. There's little "predetermining by the technology", other than it's a method of capturing photons on emulsion. All else is in the hands of the person who decides which photons to capture and which to let fly undisturbed. That is copyrightable.

RebelHill
12-13-2013, 05:58 AM
Well no, if you know both songs the semblance of one in the other is very slight if not completely arbitrary.

Well, the test used by courts (generally) is one of "substantial similarity" (often with the proviso of "to an ordinary observer", which usually means the jury)... So you don't think its similar enough, clearly other people do.


By the same token, "Winnie-the-Pooh" is now a Disney character as A.A. Milne is long forgotten. It's all too legitimate and when it pans out probably restrictive... I mean the idea of being able to copyright a photograph which is %99 predetermined by the technology itself is an artificial imposition of the idea of "free will" and "originality" when such things sort of obvioulsly occur elsewhere on another level.

And now you're just rambling, near senselessly... I dont even have any idea what your point is supposed to be anymore.

RebelHill
12-13-2013, 06:08 AM
I often rail at photographers who create images in the relative time frame of a "click" of the shutter release

Photographs are indeed a tricky one, as they can require a great deal of skill to produce, or very little. Generally if one person has taken "the same" photograph as another person, they're usually only judged to have infringed copyright if the original image contains more work than just pushing a button... Did the original photographer purposefully pose/position people/things in the frame, setup, or orient things so as to use a particular lighting effect, etc. The law seeks to be blind as the the qualitative nature of creativity (so can't rule that one piece of art is better, or more artistic than another), but does in some cases, photography being one, take into account the quantitative nature of creativity brought to bear in a work, to determine the extent to which a photograph was purposefully crafted into its particular outcome.

There is ofc, a second side to photo copyright, which involves not copying another persons image "in creation", but in distribution... So no matter how "crappy" your original picture in terms of skill (and thus unprotected by the terms described above)... if someone plucks it and uses it in a magazine, or website, or whatnot without your permission, then that can be an infringement of your copyright in the image.

JonW
12-13-2013, 01:56 PM
For us at the bottom end of the world.

http://copyright.org.au/


I did a few of the various courses years ago and they didn't cost anything. They were each only a couple of hours and they provided information.

spherical
12-13-2013, 07:05 PM
There is ofc, a second side to photo copyright, which involves not copying another persons image "in creation", but in distribution... So no matter how "crappy" your original picture in terms of skill (and thus unprotected by the terms described above)... if someone plucks it and uses it in a magazine, or website, or whatnot without your permission, then that can be an infringement of your copyright in the image.

Just the other day, I clued a person in who was miffed that news services picked up "a photo" that he had posted and didn't display a copyright notice or credit him. The situation was that he was watching a video stream and did a screen grab. There's a fine line but a clear difference that governs copyright in cases like this. A screen grab of a stream is a copy of a single frame of the video produced by someone else. It isn't a "photograph" in the strict sense of the word. The copyright is theirs from the moment the property was created. The still is a copy of a portion of it. Had he stood in the hall, framed his own shot, pressed the shutter release and taken essentially the same image, the copyright of that image would be his. Even if it was only the timing or positioning, his creativity went into it. He created it as an original image, where no prior copyright existed. Copyright notices do not need to be present in order to claim copyright. This is called Statutory Copyright and protects the work from the moment of creation. A copyright notice is always advisable, but not essential. So, the credit that should accompany the image that was copied should be that of the copyright holder, whether it be the company or the videographer. It would depend upon their agreement who owns the copyright to the video. In any case, I am sure that they both are quite happy that it had been distributed.

meshpig
12-13-2013, 11:42 PM
... And now you're just rambling, near senselessly... I dont even have any idea what your point is supposed to be anymore.

That the idea of a "copy" as an inferior form of an "original" comes from Plato and perhaps doesn't fit so well with the modern world of mass production and digitisation?

meshpig
12-14-2013, 12:15 AM
...In any case, I am sure that they both are quite happy that it had been distributed.

My point exactly, what a convoluted and subjective lot of nonsense. The fact that it takes you longer to make an image with a large plate than it does using an automated machine is only vicariously included in the statutes...

- Georges Suerat (d.1891) once remarked that as a Painter he'd "... like to be paid by the hour". Obviously photographers bill by the hour whether they produce 1 or 1000 images.

meshpig
12-14-2013, 12:44 AM
Jurisprudence aside, Harvard? A bunch of crooks over selling the American dream :)

Surrealist.
12-14-2013, 12:58 AM
Great offering. Based on this discussion I recommend everyone here do this class! :D

Even some of the people who have it pretty much right, are missing a few important points.

If you can't do the class, you should spend some time here:

In the US:

http://copyright.gov/

And to know what is what, (most people get it all jumbled and confused and mixed bag of nonsense and personal bias, motives and whatnot that have absolutely nothing to do with the law), go here for some further clarification.

http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/trade_defin.jsp

in The UK:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about.htm

You want the facts go to the source. And talking about it only fuels more misunderstanding, assumptions and so on IMHO.

If you are an artist, you are obligated to know this law. And if you are in any area of the entertainment or content creation business, you need to know this stuff and preferably should have a lawyer who deals with this kind of thing.

Did you know that this law even applies to things you create for clients? And do you know how and under what section of the law that governs this?

Check it out. You should know this stuff.

Mostly we let it slide. No contracts, nothing. All good. But you get into t situation you could have someone walk all over you and not even know what hit you.

Something along these lines just happened to me on a job. Details not important.

Luckily I knew my stuff.

It does make a difference when things get messy.

meshpig
12-14-2013, 01:37 AM
... a second side to photo copyright, which involves not copying another persons image "in creation", but in distribution... So no matter how "crappy" your original picture in terms of skill (and thus unprotected by the terms described above)... if someone plucks it and uses it in a magazine, or website, or whatnot without your permission, then that can be an infringement of your copyright in the image.

... Copyright begins with the protection of booksellers in the new printing environment not authors be them pornographers or whatever. Then applied to images via Daumier ( I think ) to a series of Intaglio prints. I mean you're obviously on a bit of a law and order rave so do tell us about the last time you fronted up to an insurance company claiming copyright infringement :)

spherical
12-14-2013, 01:52 AM
My point exactly, what a convoluted and subjective lot of nonsense. The fact that it takes you longer to make an image with a large plate than it does using an automated machine is only vicariously included in the statutes...

- Georges Suerat (d.1891) once remarked that as a Painter he'd "... like to be paid by the hour". Obviously photographers bill by the hour whether they produce 1 or 1000 images.

Well, the fact that it takes me, figuratively speaking, a magnitude longer to create an image, element by element by hand working in acrylic on panel, than it does for me to make an image with a large format camera, than it does for a studio photographer to set up a shot and then snap a hundred variations, than it does anyone with their phone to grab a quick shot and post it makes the vicarious inclusions in the statutes even more onerous.

Here are but two examples (far more detail than is shown at this small size):
118698 118699
When I would show these, I'd get: "Oh, you put the background in. Nice job." Uh, no, the whole image is a painting; from scratch.

There is one notable exception. The one on the right was on exhibit at the George Eastman House in Rochester, New York. An illustrator whom I had long respected was up close examining it. I sidled up unbeknownst as he said to his wife: "Wow, I bet it took him forever to get that Helvetica typeface right." Exactly. Helvetica is one of the most difficult typefaces to draw accurately by hand; especially when there are letters repeated. He knew. I have been ever appreciative since.

spherical
12-14-2013, 02:06 AM
\If you are an artist, you are obligated to know this law. And if you are in any area of the entertainment or content creation business, you need to know this stuff and preferably should have a lawyer who deals with this kind of thing.

What Surrealist said... I've lost count of the number of times I have had to dispel incorrect ideas and set people on the right path; both consumers and creators. There's lots of misinformation out there, lots of assumptions. The ubiquitousness of the Internet and "anything on the Internet is free do do with as I like" just fuels this rampant free-for-all fever; making it more and more difficult for creators to own their Intellectual Property and make a living.

If I had a buck for every wanker who landed in my inbox thinking (s)he was being original in saying: "We're a non-profit... let us use your work for free and lots of people will buy from you from the exposure you'll receive." I wouldn't have to make tough decisions on which software or hardware I would invest in. I'd have them all. People have died from "exposure".

meshpig
12-14-2013, 02:36 AM
... makes the vicarious inclusions in the statutes even more onerous. (et al)

Nice pics Squire: "Wow, I bet it took him forever to get that Helvetica typeface right." must have been one of those moments where you know you will exceed him?

I'm no cynic I just think copyright will inevitably evolve out of the closed quarters of Platonism. Otherwise it's a good idea to have a serious contract lawyer at hand.

meshpig
12-14-2013, 02:57 AM
What Surrealist said... I've lost count of the number of times I have had to dispel incorrect ideas and set people on the right path; both consumers and creators. There's lots of misinformation out there, lots of assumptions. The ubiquitousness of the Internet and "anything on the Internet is free do do with as I like" just fuels this rampant free-for-all fever; making it more and more difficult for creators to own their Intellectual Property and make a living.

If I had a buck for every wanker who landed in my inbox thinking (s)he was being original in saying: "We're a non-profit... let us use your work for free and lots of people will buy from you from the exposure you'll receive." I wouldn't have to make tough decisions on which software or hardware I would invest in. I'd have them all. People have died from "exposure".

Well WTF then are you going to do when you do have a buck for every wanker? I'm sick of hearing this TEA party crock where people who ought to be able to make a serious buck can't because somehow it's the Government's fault. Like P*ss off, get real.

glebe digital
12-14-2013, 04:37 AM
This site has proved quite handy for finding © infringers:
http://tineye.com/

happy hunting

meshpig
12-14-2013, 05:34 AM
Yeah good on you Glebe. Climate Change Skeptic expert hack and a man who thought Jacques Derrida was some kind of hysterical crusader in the name of post modernism.

glebe digital
12-14-2013, 05:44 AM
Still keeping things 'on topic' I see! :bangwall:

meshpig
12-14-2013, 06:20 AM
Whatever, you obviously have never encountered the Harvard MBA syndrome.

RebelHill
12-14-2013, 06:48 AM
If you are an artist, you are obligated to know this law. And if you are in any area of the entertainment or content creation business, you need to know this stuff and preferably should have a lawyer who deals with this kind of thing.

Absolutely, for anyone working in the creative industries (as many of us here are) it's important to have access to the right kind of information (and interpretation of that info) regarding this sort of stuff. And since most dont have a legal department on hand to advise on the day to day points we run across, the only option is to know it for yourself.

Surrealist.
12-14-2013, 09:15 PM
Indeed, and to clarify when I said have a lawyer, I don't mean each individual artist necessarily. I mean for example if you are in this as a business hiring people and setting up contracts with artists. If you don't know this stuff, at least study up on it, then get some boiler plate contracts or hire a lawyer to draw some up.

As an indi film producer this was part of the deal. Doing contracts with artists, getting release forms and all that sort of thing. The ugly but necessary business side of it. If you don't have these things, a distributor will not touch your film!

And for artists, study up, definitely, and if you ever get into a serious situation, get a lawyer who deals specifically with this kind of thing. Case law is huge on this. Why it takes a good experienced Lawyer trained in the case history of copyright, current cases and recent changes to the law. Also to study the laws themselves is the half of it. It also does you good to goggle or hit the copyright section of a law library and leaf through cases. This happened to me with a Trademark. A guy took one right from under my nose I was using. Stupid me. Hit the books, the law library. Found out the facts. Realized I was screwed. Because he used a Layer who new the law, and made all of the moves I should have made. I had gotten a cease and desist letter from them, and a threatening call from his lawyer. After I studied up however, I called up his Layer and set HIM straight. I had enough of a case (county records a few years prior of use of the name) that if they had pursued me they would have likely lost. Because that particular point they had blatantly violated would have weakened their case against me. So in that case for me it was pay a bunch of money to a Lawyer for a case I probably could not win (had I gone on the offensive), or using the knowledge I got to make the necessary changes in the name I was using not to conflict with their registered mark - dispute the claims from the lawyer that were false- which was that could not use any variation. BS. They were blatantly violating the law and case history I had studied up on regarding that point. After setting their lawyer straight on it, I never heard from them again.

The moral of this story is fairly obvious.

spherical
12-14-2013, 10:31 PM
Nice pics Squire: "Wow, I bet it took him forever to get that Helvetica typeface right." must have been one of those moments where you know you will exceed him?

Now that I recall, it did have that moment, yes, but I'd still have to go a far piece; as far as 2D illustration goes. He's pretty darn good. That's why his observation meant so much and was a welcome complete surprise. That reaction is what I had strived for, for so long. Not only from he but from any viewer. Most of my colleagues are not as, shall we say: Renaissance as I. I've probably left him in the dust, with my having embraced digital painting, 3D modeling and now 3D printing to add to my painting and engineering abilities and skills. Still, I sincerely value his recognition of my effort. In many senses, that is all that really matters. Many people miss that point.

spherical
12-14-2013, 10:45 PM
Well WTF then are you going to do when you do have a buck for every wanker? I'm sick of hearing this TEA party crock where people who ought to be able to make a serious buck can't because somehow it's the Government's fault. Like P*ss off, get real.

Ummm.. I'm seriously biting my tongue right now, because it reads like you're getting in my face for not just giving my work away and calling ME a Tea Party subscriber. Not in the frakking least!

The point I was making was that I spend a LOT of time dealing with people who want MY work for free, while they hide behind a: "non-profit", "we don't have a budget", "fair use", "academic" ploy. As if people who work for non-profit corporations don't take home a pay check. Non-profit is a tax position. They make plenty of money. As if scientists who want to use my accurate and fully researched images to illustrate their paper don't make a living and buy groceries, gas and pay their mortgage. Their unconscious position is: "Well, artists do this for 'fun'. Why should they be paid for it?"

Everyone should do for a living that which they would do for no pay. That people do not is their own fault.

meshpig
12-17-2013, 03:35 AM
Yes that's a good point and I agree but everyone is doing free work, unbillable work all the time more and more and Government has become a teet for anyone with half an idea to suck on. My point about the TEA's is simply that there's a whole lot more to it than the standard idea of the masses expecting a free lunch.

- It's not that artists do stuff for fun but since Michelangelo reluctantly painted the vault in the sixteenth chapel, the idea of "Art" has been one of "philosophical" generosity. The concept of Art though is dead or at least false in my opinion so what then is an artist? I mean really it's a question of the value of Labour, ( bearing in mind the Unions were borne out of Artisans forming Guilds ). Copyright only enters the picture as hearsay, when it's no longer about skilled craftsmen making things by hand.

spherical
12-17-2013, 03:46 AM
I give up. "Everyone" shouldn't be doing free work. When you do, you undermine all, including yourself. Few seem to get that point. And, it's "Sistine".

meshpig
12-17-2013, 03:52 AM
Now that I recall, it did have that moment, yes, but I'd still have to go a far piece; as far as 2D illustration goes. He's pretty darn good. That's why his observation meant so much and was a welcome complete surprise. That reaction is what I had strived for, for so long. Not only from he but from any viewer. Most of my colleagues are not as, shall we say: Renaissance as I. I've probably left him in the dust, with my having embraced digital painting, 3D modeling and now 3D printing to add to my painting and engineering abilities and skills. Still, I sincerely value his recognition of my effort. In many senses, that is all that really matters. Many people miss that point.

It's good to have people that you admire lest you see through whatever you're doing and it comes crashing down :)

meshpig
12-17-2013, 04:06 AM
I give up. "Everyone" shouldn't be doing free work. When you do, you undermine all, including yourself. Few seem to get that point. And, it's "Sistine".

"Sistine" is Sixteen. it's the sistine, as in the "sixteenth" chapel. Personally, it all comes out in the wash and often am happy to do whatever. It is curious though.

allabulle
12-17-2013, 04:13 AM
I thought it was named after Pope Sisto but I could be wrong.

meshpig
12-17-2013, 04:37 AM
I thought it was named after Pope Sisto but I could be wrong.

Pope Sixtus IV? That's one story but I was there not so long ago and it seems the story now is he didn't renovate it so much as it was a special accomodation but "Sixtinum" fits both with the name and it being the sixteenth chapel. I mean it's the Vatican so not high on the believability scale either way :) i kinda like it though.

glebe digital
12-17-2013, 07:40 AM
The concept of Art (post-Michelangelo) is an interesting sideline.......up until that point guild artificers produced 'art' to a strict brief, for a specific client, and to an agreed 'semi-fixed' budget. Didn't things started to change rapidly after this point, until we reach the 20th century & 'art' was by then largely produced prior to any end-buyer being known, and over time the gallery owners became the big winners?

Point being, perhaps the "work for free/low-pay/waive copyright for the exposure" is the gallery mindset encroaching on the world of the modern artificer......CG after-all still has something of the Wild West about it.

Ernest
12-17-2013, 11:30 PM
It's interesting how a (n allegedly) system glitch created a massive discussion over the Internet on whether it's OK for a company to disable the streaming content that its customers have purchased just because they want to show it exclusively on their channel.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/12/cant-stream-that-christmas-movie-you-bought-on-amazon-blame-disney/

meshpig
12-18-2013, 05:05 AM
The concept of Art (post-Michelangelo)
Point being, perhaps the "work for free/low-pay/waive copyright for the exposure" is the gallery mindset encroaching on the world of the modern artificer......CG after-all still has something of the Wild West about it.

That's a good point glebe, as in "we" wouldn't know anything about Michelangelo or any of the 'private' collections prior to the recollection of the Renaissance by the Brits just before the "Age of Enlightenment" and the advent of public museums. The so called "capitalist sign"; signification under "capitalism" as opposed to some Imperial order where something escapes that isn't strictly of the signifying chain...

- The Venetian school ( Titian, Tintoretto etc.) as opposed to the very strict and coded products of Byzantine art.

118757

alexos
12-18-2013, 06:32 AM
Pope Sixtus IV? That's one story but I was there not so long ago...

Well, there are two other "Cappella Sistina" in Italy - one in Rome, commissioned by pope Sixtus V, and one in Savona, commissioned by the same Sixtus IV as a memorial for his parents. I'm going to refrain from commenting on the apparent size of those chaps' egos, but man - but anyway, I doubt it can have anything to do with "sixteen", because that's "sedici" in italian and "sedecim" in latin, neither of which comes even remotely close to sounding like "sistina". Forgive my pedantry :)

ADP.

meshpig
12-18-2013, 05:20 PM
Yes you're right, thanks for that :)