Some thoughts on the free exchange of ideas on the HAMB.

[Nads]

Another post on '54 Chevys got me thinking about this subject.
It seems someone posted a picture of a well known silver flaked car then someone else posted the same pic but with a 'copyright' disclaimer.
It seems to me that with the internet being what it is it's nigh on impossible to prevent this from happening.
Perhaps me getting torqued at the 'owner' of said photograph was wrong but it's naiive to think that such things wouldn't or shouldn't happen.
Maybe because I have no profit motive involved with this lark I don't give a shit if my ideas are ripped off. In fact I have been blatantly stealing ideas from magazines, shows and the internet for everything I've ever done.
If you're going to be 'traditional' about this stuff then you have to know that a precedence exists for everything being done today, and the only way to do that is to liberally rob the graves of those that went before us.
And also there have been posts on here about designers who felt that their ideas were stolen, without credit, and used to build cars for high end clients. The fact that I think those cars are ugly ass pieces of shit is besides the point.
So what are you fellas gonna do about it?
Sue everyone who you feel has ripped you off?
Stop putting images on websites that are freely available to anyone that knows how to navigate a mouse?
Let's face it as sacred as I think this car 'culture' thing is, there's no getting around the fact that we're in an age where every image is downloadable in a nanosecond and the ideas in that image along with it.
And until some software comes along that makes it possible to only view the image without copying it, y'all are gonna have to live with the fact that a picture of you whacking off in the bushes might appear on the internet somewhere.

[Antibilly]

Yea what he said!!!!!!! http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[Tman]

Shouldnt the guy that owns the silver 54 get royaltees? Did the photog have him sign a release? Is he using the image legally? What is the wind sped of an unladen swallow?

This discussion you started is a slippery slope.

[prime mover]

the technology might be there, I've been on a few sites where right clicking an image doesnt offer any options.

[Petejoe]

[ QUOTE ]
the technology might be there, I've been on a few sites where right clicking an image doesnt offer any options.


[/ QUOTE ]
You can capture any image on the internet with a good image program. It's just that the images don't have good quality for reproduction. I say...stay off the internet if you don't like the idea of free information. After all..Wasn't that what the internet was originally about.
Swallen speed or swallowing speed...Its all a matter of preferences,

[autocol]

prime mover, that's no security. if you're looking at the image, you've downloaded it, and can use it again. that whole right-click thing will stop me from saving an image, sure... for about 4 seconds.

as for the internet, you're really pretty stupid to put anything on it which you REALLY want to keep to yourself. i've got about two, maybe three ideas which i think have serious merit and i would do well to develop them. i'm always very careful to keep them to myself. anything else i post on the net (most of which has nothing to do with cars or the HAMB) is open slather.

[Donzie]

I thought the idea of copywriting something was so that someone else couldn't use it for profit. Showing pictures on the HAMB that someone else took, who "profits" from that?
I was a little unsure as to what the photogarpher was getting at when he made that comment. Was he just taking credit for the photo or was he really mad that someone else used it? I have lots of photos on my web site of '49-'52 Chevys that I've borrowed from the HAMB. I use them as a reference for anyone building such a car. I'm not making any money or profitting in any way from it, I just thought it would be helpful. If I have a photo or photos on my site that "belong" to someone and you don't want me to use them, just say so and I'll gladly remove 'em.

[Nads]

See Donzie, it's that easy right?
I think some of us really do do it for the love, not for the glory of having a wonderful website or to get kudos for our photographic skills.
I just don't get the idea of being pissy about something that you let loose of your own accord.
It would be kinda like going to Mardi Gras and the people throwing out trinkets saying, "Hey don't touch those, they're ours, you can look at them and God forbid you take one and give it to your friends."

Having said this, I know that our own Esteemed Boss has had the HAMB and it's various images and formats ripped off blatantly many times.

Yeah, it's a slippery slope alright.

[Smokin Joe]

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldnt the guy that owns the silver 54 get royaltees?

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope. Once you roll it out into the public anyone can take pictures of it. Now, if you set up a special photo session with a photographer with the express purpose of selling or publishing the pictures, you may be entitled to whatever the agreed upon deal is between you and the photographer. You're being paid for your time and effort in setting up the picture and making your car available. Same as a model. But if your car is parked out in the public where anyone with a camera can snap a picture, they don't need to pay you to use it. If you happen to run into George Bush at McDonalds and snap a pic you can sell it to the newspaper without paying George Bush or McDonalds royalties. As a photographer, you can sell your picture many ways.
Sell it outrite, all future uses to the buyer.
Sell a 1 time publication use.
Sell an exclusive use
Sell a publication use that still allows you to sell to others.
etc.
Bottom line is you own the picture and can sell it or give it away as you choose. If you put the picture on your website so people can look at it, you still own it. If someone prints calendars for sale or makes money off it, then you've been ripped off unless you've given them the rites. You'll probably lose money trying to collect tho.

[C9]

Here's the way I understand the copyright bit far as photos go.

If the subject - people, specific person or car is in public, shooting pics of them/it is fair game.
So is publishing it and making a buck or two.
The photographer is the owner of the picture and can do with it what he wishes.
It's when you start using a famous - or not so famous - person to endorse a product without their permission that the trouble starts.

As far as the printed word goes, as soon as you have it down on paper - or screen - it's your intellectual property and cannot be used by others without your express permission.
Except for titles. Titles are not copyrightable. if you want to write a book and call it "Gone With the Wind" feel free to do so. Don't be surprised when it doesn't sell because no matter how well it's written it will be compared to the original and that usually hurts rather than helps.
Books should be copyrighted with the Library of Congress ($30.) as a form of getting a specific date of creation down legally.
In some cases it can be difficult to prove who wrote what first. (Forms available for download on the L of C site.)

Ideas are not patentable although processes and methods are.
If you have an idea on how to make cast aluminum roller rockers at home and can turn them out using a novel and cheap method, put the info on the net or elsewhere, expect some enterprising guy to grab it and run.
What you need to do here is either make a working model and patent that or list the process with the Patent Office.

I understand music works the same way as books do and that you can register music with the Library of Congress.
The old bit of mailing them to yourself and not opening the envelope/container the music is in doesn't work too well.
It could help, but you're not fully protected.

[hankcash]

[ QUOTE ]
the technology might be there, I've been on a few sites where right clicking an image doesnt offer any options.


[/ QUOTE ]

well.... then hit the "print screen" button on your keyboard... open Photoshop or Paintshop and hit Ctrl and V.

fuck em, it's your pic now!

If you are going to post a pic on the web, you are exposing it to BILLIONS of potential scammers, scoundrels and scumbags....
Feel free to rip me off at www.coollows.com (http://www.coollows.com)
If you want to protect a photo... don't ever put it on the internet!

HC

[Antibilly]

where is this thread please I need a refresher

Oh and nads if you show me your boobs Ill give you all my beads http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[burger]

you can steal my pictures and I wont give a fuck.

[Fat Hack]

Hell, I wouldn't put ANYTHING on the 'net that I wouldn't want someone else to see/use/steal/borrow!

Cartoons, photos...it's all free game as far as I'm concerned...once you post it on the internet, it just became public property, like it or not.

I've had magazines take my written letters and use large chunks of them word-for-word under someone ELSE'S by-line...and others have compensated me for my written contributions. I never expected to be paid OR ripped off...but it all balances out!

I've had HAMBers PM to ask if they could use, modify or copy my drawings, photos, etc. I find it cool to some extent that they ASKED, but in my opinion the permission is implied the moment you hit "submit", "continue" or "enter"!

[hankcash]

Hack-

you are 100% correct...

HC

[Junkyard Dog 32]

This is a good topic, and one I've thought about, often.

The point of "profit" is a good one, but a copyright is a copyright.
Say there's a bitchin' Gremlin low-rider in "Ol' Skuul Sparkz" magazine, and I wanna show it to you dickheads.
Can I scan it and put it on here? I'm making no money. I'm not sharing the information contained in the entire magazine, just showing you a pic. No different than if we were sittin' around drinking cleaning products and I said, "Hey, look at this car in this magazine I bought."

Like many things, once you "change" something, doesn't it become a different thing? Like this freeze frame I did from my A/G DVD. I bet it got copied and saved within a minute of my posting it... and I bet I see it, again. Cool! I'd be flattered if someone thought to save it, for use later. Take it.
http://img51.photobucket.com/albums/v156/junkyarddog32/YerMother.jpg

It's illegal to mutilate money, but you can cut up a coin to make a necklace or a ring, and call it ART, so it's okay.

The internet is a beautiful thing to some, and the final straw in the breaking of the back of humanity to others.
Personally, I see many merits. The instantanious sharing of ideas, from cancer research to TMAN's swiss cheese frame rails. Some reasearcher in Germany might be on the verge of discovery and see TMAN's post and say, "WHY didn't I think of that! I'll shoot holes in this chromosome and make it look cooler. Then future generations of children will be born ready to break speed records on the salt flats."

The dawning of a "NEW" idea.

To copy someone is one thing...
To take what they have made, and improve on it, is another.

This just came to mind...
George Barris... He gave us that awesome interview on MFS...
He took stock cars... the design rights of which were owned by the auto makers... cut them up and wrote HIS name on them. Who owns the rights to the Bat Mobile?

Personally, I think an image or idea on the internet has been GIVEN to the world.
Here's an example of that gift...
Go on EBAY and type in "old car photo", or something.
You'll get 300 auctions from folks selling B&W pictures.
Some have printing across the image and little strips of paper, to say, "This image is NOT a gift. If you want it, you must buy it."
Others, just put the picture on there, as if saying, "Here... take the image, but if you want the actual photo it's gonna be $3.99."

I'm copying and printing them and using them as wallpaper for my outhouse.
Hey... You can have that idea, too.... my gift to the world.

Going back to the Gremlin...
I feel like copying a pic from a magazine is one thing, and copying the whole magazine is another.

I put one of JIM MARLETT's pics in FLAT-TOP's truck auction.
Linked to his site...
Did I do something illegal? Do I owe Jim royalties?
Will Natalie regain her memory and marry Bill?
Find out NEXT time on....

"Free exchange of IDEAS on the HAMB"


JOEhttp://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Paul]

I had this great idea for a pattent,

so I gathered up some bushes and went on down to the pattent office.

when I stood behind the bushes and pulled my pants down

the lady said "don't bother, that's been going on for millions of years"

so I walked home with my bushes under my arm and my pants around my ankles.

.......

How about when someone borrows a picture off the HAMB and uses it on the cover of a catalog,

like what was done to k members car?

Paul

[Cword]

Lots of mentions of "profit" in the previous posts.

What about courtesy?

Seems to me that’d be the best reason for keeping track of where a picture or story came from.

Stuff posted to the public domain is quickly out of reach of the originator, and most folks have Fat Hacks attitude that we’re giving this stuff to everyone, but when someone chooses to re-use those contributions he ought to be courteous enough to attribute his source, if possible.

It’s not about profit so much as respect for each others contributions.

Those folks who’re in it for the profit, don’t belong.

[Junkyard Dog 32]

[ QUOTE ]
but when someone chooses to re-use those contributions he ought to be courteous enough to attribute his source, if possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I, often, right click pictures on the internet, and view their "properties". Alot of times, that will lead you to the source, and some pretty cool sites, you might otherwise never see.

JOEhttp://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[hatch]

Nothing is new...everything is a copy....or a new mixture of old ideas.

[Buick59]

Smokin Joe is exactly right. As a photographer I have found my pictures on other people's web site's more than once. The only thing I ask of them is that they give credit where credit is due or at least ask to use it on their web site. Now if they use said photo for commercial gain or in some kind of AD......YES I DO HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM WITH THAT! With that said I post photo's so people can enjoy them. Why fuck else would I bother taking pictures If I were to just hide them under my bed and congratulate myself on how good a photographer I was. I get a kick out of people diggin my shit......that's part of the reason I do what I do.

Nuff said

[4t64rd]

I think I'm going to publish a 14"x17" coffee table book of hot rod photographs using 72dpi images, how much do you think I could sell it for?

[Junkyard Dog 32]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'm going to publish a 14"x17" coffee table book of hot rod photographs using 72dpi images, how much do you think I could sell it for?

[/ QUOTE ]

$19.95...? I'd buy it 'cuz I don't have a computer in the shitter. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

JOEhttp://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[username]

if you are going to use someone elses image why not just ask? if you are going to be using the image for a biz venture shouldn't the photographer be compensated? for their time, film, processing, assistant, travel, all the phone calls and FedEx's that it takes to get just one "job" from a client? there is alot of work to get just a single frame that is good. most people get paid for their work, why would you want to screw someone out of their paycheck? put yourself in their shoes. and I have been ripped off, it sucks.

[Tman]

I know that Joe, I was just stirring the pot http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[KCsledz]

[ QUOTE ]
prime mover, that's no security. if you're looking at the image, you've downloaded it, and can use it again. that whole right-click thing will stop me from saving an image, sure... for about 4 seconds.



[/ QUOTE ]

Not entirely true! Just looking at the image does not mean that you have downloaded it otherwise people would embed self executing viruses within the image itself like they do with illeagal music downloads. If you know the technology you can keep people from taking it DIRECTLY from you site. Flash sites do not allow you to take the images. Also if the image is set as a conventional rollover that resets when you mouse off of it you can't grab any images.

However to get around that I will take a screen shot of a flash image from off of my desktop. The disappearing rollover image can be removed too if you know how to get around it.

Your other option is to not put up high res images on the net. Reduce the size and quality to have them only optimized for screen viewing.

[A32Flathead]

[ QUOTE ]


Your other option is to not put up high res images on the net. Reduce the size and quality to have them only optimized for screen viewing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what I do, and likely all the other photographers/artists on this site.

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[blueskies]

Plagerism is the most sincere form of flattery...

I'm an Architect, doing high end residential stuff. About the time one of my projects was complete, I was driving through a "low end" neighborhood, and there it was, an exact duplicate of my design, apparently reduced on a copy machine to get rid of square footage. I'm still pissed thinking about it, and the moron that did it freely admits to ripping it off. Would cost me me more $$$$ to fight it than it's worth though. I decided that if bits of my work start popping up around the landscape, I should just be proud of my flock... Doesn't mean I don't want to send Guido and Bonecrusher over to kick some ass though. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Pete

[SoCalCarCulture]

Well since I started all this by claiming my photo - which is really all I was doing.

I don't care how you guys use my images for your personal uses or they wouldn't be on the web. I think this thread has pretty much spelled it all out, a little courtesy of mentioning where the images came from when you use them goes a long way. If you use it for commercial purposes then it's a different story.

Nads - I wasn't ripping you for using the pic, just gratifying my own ego so no hard feelings.

One well known Hamber liked one of my images
enough to use it with his handle...

http://www.daign.com/livejournal/lights.jpg

[daign]

Who me? http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif Yup I dig on your photos and site all the time. You have awesome coverage and your interest in the angles and nooks and crannys of automotive design mirrors my own.

Some people take the time to put "COPYRIGHT 2004" all over their images, but it really is flat out obnoxious to me. I wish more people were like Dave and assumed that if his images are used, he will be given the proper credit and respect he deserves.

Yet if this is a touchy subject, I would gladly change my icon. Theres no shortage of pics of my own taillights. They just aren't as nice as Dave's.

-Dane

[Roadsters.com]

Boy, I could tell you some stories about people who have stolen my site's content without giving me credit and represented it as being their work. Perhaps another time.

For a couple of months back in 1998 I added a Javascript that disabled the "right mouse click" function, and I was bombarded with requests from children wanting to use some of my site's pictures for their class projects.

The two Web pages linked below, written by some well-informed attorneys named Oppedahl & Larson, provide some accurate answers to legal issues relating to laws and online copyright issues:

http://www.patents.com/weblaw.htm

http://www.patents.com/copyrigh.htm

Here's a link to their site's first page, with an index to its contents:

Oppedahl & Larson Intellectual Property Law Web Server
http://www.patents.com/

I've had a link to their site on my site since 1996. They have helped me in the past, and I recommend them.

Dave
http://www.roadsters.com/

[Donzie]

Nothing is new...everything is a copy....or a new mixture of an old concept.

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif Anyone get this?

[porknbeaner]

KCSledz
You can imbed malicious code in an image and as long as the file remains on your computer its functional. Some sites do it with exploit all the time. When you are viewing an image on your computer it is downloaded for all intents and purposes. When you go off line just check your temporary files.
As far as the whole image/copywrite thing goes. I see no problem with someone using one of my images if they aren't doing it for a living and passing it off as thier own.
If you really want to protect your images as far as getting credit on the web just watermark them. I don't see the use in it myself. If I have something that I'm so proud of that I don't want anyone to see it I just keep it locked up. Course that's just me I guess.
And btw it is really nice when someone asks to use something prior to use. I guess its kind of old school to do so but its still nice.

[SoCalCarCulture]

[ QUOTE ]
Who me? http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif Yup I dig on your photos and site all the time. You have awesome coverage and your interest in the angles and nooks and crannys of automotive design mirrors my own.

Some people take the time to put "COPYRIGHT 2004" all over their images, but it really is flat out obnoxious to me. I wish more people were like Dave and assumed that if his images are used, he will be given the proper credit and respect he deserves.

Yet if this is a touchy subject, I would gladly change my icon. Theres no shortage of pics of my own taillights. They just aren't as nice as Dave's.

-Dane



[/ QUOTE ]

Dane

No it isn't a problem at all, and thanks for the nice comments!

[DrJ]

When I first got on the Net I would bookmark sites I wanted to return to to look at people's pictures or text again but found that a large number of them would disappear or move or be changed after a few months so I learned that if there was an image or knowledge I wanted to look back on again I best save it to a Zip disc, before it disappeared.
Zip discs cost money, so this “service” is an expense for me.
If I want to see the pictures of Chopper John in Australia turning a 4 door Hudson into a 2 door, I've got them, in color.
If you bought his book you have them in black and white but the color pictures are no longer available on the Net because he takes them down and replaces them with a net version of the next installment of the book (Kustom Rodder).
See where I'm going with this?

Ok, so you save, steal, borrow, archive, whatever you want to call it, a picture from the net.
It's maybe anywhere from 40K to several hundredK of space. but the title line won't let you, well me anyway put the whole URL on it as a title so some, maybe most? of the sources get forgotten in time.
But at least someone has them saved as a backup for the future!

After all, they're just fuzzy low rez pictures.

I have seen people ask for pictures of their own back from anyone who might have saved them and been GLAD that someone "stole" them.

When the camera was first developed, some peoples thought it would steal their soul if they let their picture be taken.
Now I realize "LAWYERS" have made it legal for anyone to take a picture of anyone or anything and that person or the owner of the thing doesn't seem to have any rights about the matter at all but the "stealer of the soul" of the picture can claim ownership of what has been recorded....
I really don't know what I think about that particular concept of ownership.
I've "sold" the right's to print copies of my pictures to magazines along with my particular arrangement of words I "stole" out of a Webster's English language dictionary, and I think that is slightly amazing that that "property" is worth anything at all.
Especially since I've just given away many more of my stolen English word arrangements here on the HAMB.

Why does a photographer get to go to a car show and take pictures of someone else's "ART WORK" and then claim sales rights to the pictures of someone else's "art work"?
Transfer that logic to someone with a tape recorder going to a live outdoor concert and recording a music performance and then releasing a CD of those music artist's artwork, their performance, and claiming the music on the recording is his property by the mere fact that he recorded it in public and he alone has the right to all the profit?
Isn't that what a photographer does, records something?
I find and have always found this difference confusing.

Maybe it's because I find the funding of Paparazzi and therefore the Paparazzo's constant invasion of some people's private lives disgusting.
But I tangent too much... http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Also, in my view, there's a difference between a photograph that is an “art work” (some of, most of, Buick59's shots are "art works",) and a mere snap shot documenting a place or event.
4t64rd requested I send him a picture of my hotrod so he could make some artwork from it because I won a "guess the answer" a long while back, but I don't have and haven't remembered to take a worthy picture of it to send him yet.
In other words, I don't have any "art" worthy pictures, pictures that I would consider to have value, of my truck. just a few snap shots, and I think most of you know what I mean when I talk about the difference.
(I still need to do that don’t I?)

The studio pictures of cars in Rodder's Journal are "ART".
That picture of the silver flake Chevy at a car show was a nice snap shot.
No better or worse than a few dozen other's taken the same day probably.
In fact I have a similar picture I took of the same car from the same angle at the last Anti Blessing.
Yes, it still belongs to the photographer, but it's value is in it's historic description of a time and place, not necessarily it's sale-ability.
And unless it’s sale-ability can be shown to have diminished I’m not sure there’s a legitimate beef here.
Maybe a “Hey, I didn’t think anyone cared enough about my pictures to actually archive them and post them as good examples, I’m honored!
Rather than insinuating that someone “stole” a “copyrighted” image,
would have been a more honorable response, and wouldn't have sparked this thread.

Good topic Nads...!

Should we all “copyright” our custom cars so we can claim royalties when someone copies the way we frenched the tail lights?

Do all the people using the HOP UP logo for an avatar have permission from Mort?
If you're direct linking to HOP UP, you are costing Mort money you know!

Has anyone wondered if Ryan has permission to use the picture of the geeks looking under the hood of the Falcon at the top of this page? And is the permission from HOTROD Magazine or from the guy who took the picture? Or is there a statute of limitations that one can figure ran out on it? ( I don’t know, do/did you Ryan?)

It all boils down to mostly money value, if there is any, and a very little honor and fame.

If someone really wants recognition for their pictures, they should emboss or subscript on them with their copyright. Then get pissed if someone photoshops it off the picture.

[63CadGuy]

[ QUOTE ]


Not entirely true! Just looking at the image does not mean that you have downloaded it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Not entirely true. By the nature of your web browsing, virtually everything is downloaded to your computer, just look in the cache file sometime and you will see a months worth of websites you've been too, along with their photos. That is why there has been such controversy over copyright and the internet.

My opinion is this, if you use someone's picture for profit then copyright comes into play, if your doing what we are doing and just looking at someone's picture I have no problem with that.

[Junkyard Dog 32]

[ QUOTE ]
I have seen people ask for pictures of their own back from anyone who might have saved them and been GLAD that someone "stole" them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rocky, I think, is a good example. Didn't he loose the pix of his '33 and one's of his dad's Model A truck in a computer crash... the photo, of which, was used in the REWARD thread? Correct me if I'm wrong.

If it is a money thing... copyrights, patents, insurance policies, whatever...
are ONLY as good as the money you have to get a lawyer to fight for it.

Just like anything... The lawyers get all the money, anyway, so it just ends up being faught on principal.
What's the point, then?


JOEhttp://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[CrazyDaddy]

Good post ! Along the same lines, if you posted some info about yourself or someone you knew, concerning an illegal activity, could that info be used as evidence ? For example, the OT post concerning firearms recently. If any of the HAMBers on that post mentioned a firearm that was not legally registered, etc., could the 'bureau' use that info ? My guess is, yes. Be careful what you post.

[Roadsters.com]

In the US, there are hundreds of people who work in law enforcement who spend much if not all of their time at work looking for bad guys in chat rooms and on message boards. A couple of weeks ago, at least six of them here in Phoenix were shown on the evening news, in a segment about sex crimes.

Another reason to be careful what you say is that, according to an attorney I talked to years ago, comments that someone makes on a message board that may lead to a libel or slander suit could also name the owner of the message board partly responsible for any damages.

Dave
http://www.roadsters.com/

[Nads]

Dave Lindsey, I didn't use your photo, someone else did.
If you recall I did mention that it was a really nice photo, you're a good photographer.
All's I'm saying is that once images are out on the internet, it's a free for all, and artistic types ought to know that from the get go.

[hatch]

Everything in your life has been a copy...from learning how to wipe your ass to building cars....we all learned what we know from someone else...things are borrowed all the time....everybody...including the people on this board do it...and you are lying to yourself if you deny it....

[autocol]

[ QUOTE ]
Not entirely true! Just looking at the image does not mean that you have downloaded it.

[/ QUOTE ]


well, actually, it is entirely true. an image on a computer is a bitmap. a series of coloured dots. if you're looking at the coloured dots, you've DOWNLOADED the information. it may not be sitting as a file named "car.jpg" in a file called "recently downloaded files", but you certainly downloaded it. well, perhaps "downloaded" is the word causing confusion. let's just say that you have "accessed" it.

it's the same with flash stuff. sure, there's no immediately obvious way to snatch images or sounds off a flash site, but someone that knows what they're doing can rip whatever they want out of a flash site in seconds.

some people make an image file out of text, which does two things: a) prevent people from using CTRL-C CTRL-V to copy it, and, b) take a lot longer to download. again, it may not be in a nice, easily accessible format, but the INFORMATION is still there. i could save it and either type it out again, or run a text-recognition program (which, with written text have an accuracy of close enough to 100%) to steal and re-use the information.

my point is that you can make it HARDER to access information that you place on the web, but once it's there, it can be "got".


interesting point about someone recording a public concert and selling the result, DrJ... it's extremely difficult to say when an image goes from, using your terminology, "snapshot", to "art"...

i guess society decided that, for convenience's sake, an audio recording is ALWAYS a snapshot, and a photo is ALWAYS art. the photo therefore claims it's own copywrite, the recording does not.

but hang on... brain ticks over.... if i stand in the street and record someone saying "hey, that's cool" (just as i could take a photo of the beckham's desperately trying to look happy as they go shopping), do THEY own the copywrite, or do i? that's the audio equivalent of a snapshot, in a way...

hmmm...

what about if i take a hi-res photo of a canvas painting? is my photo "art"? can i sell it (printed large enough to make a wall-poster) by claiming that my IMAGE is the art deserving copywrite, not the subject itself? probably not. or does the distinction as to "what is art" - and whether the original or the recorded image can claim copywrite - depend on what is being captured? if the captured image is of just 'life', the image can claim to be art, if the captured image is of existing art, then the image can claim no such copywrite as art in itself...

but if that's true, and the copywrite of the image of a lovingly reworked custom belongs with the person who captured the image, then the car is just "life"... not "art" in and of itself. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

that seems unfair.

but then, cars are my "life"...