If anyone is interested, I posted pictures of the recent art competition, including one of the first place master copy. Just click on the link in my signature.
Quote:
There we go. That's what this all boils down to. You refuse to post a stance on your own values. Yet you're trying to tear down someone else's. That's not respecting other people's values, it's just trolling for a confrontation. If you really want a serious discussion instead of a constant ribbing of each other over inane things, step up.|
Originally Posted by Juggertha
Again, I'll state - my values are my own - and really are far too complex to be given word here. I don't have to share them, and truth be told, couldn't - there are just far too many values at play. That's why a lot of my posts on this thread have been questions.
|
Everyone who's posted their particular stance on the subject here has opened them selves to criticism, but displayed a valid position on the argument. You haven't. Dissent isn't an opinion, it's a reaction.
The most amusing part of this whole thing is that this behavior is what you can't tolerate from anyone else. If anyone disagrees with you, you blow up and try to label them as a misfit, yet you do the exact same thing. Nobody here is an angel. You're not free from hypocrisy and sin either, don't try to rationalize it like you are. You live in a mighty big glass house.
Once more, if you wanna have a serious discussion and not an argument, then meet your opponent on equal terms. Prove that you're not just being a belligerent troll and take a real stance. At the moment, you're not in a debate, you're the guy in the corner yelling "NO U" over and over again.
http://www.virtueverse.net/wiki/Massacre_Melanie -the original Fire/Dark Corruptor -
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=115217
The Guide to BURN
Quote:
This is an example of art theft. You flat out copied a majority of the lines and the pose from the original. Frankly, I wondered how you managed to do such fantastic work when you were just learning how to create your own art, but I never thought you'd taken a pre-existing image. |
Originally Posted by Pyro_Nympho
So this would be an example of which? Swiping, copying, improper use of reference, or "the original was changed enough so that you wouldn't think of the original when you looked at it, so it's kinda ok"?
|
I would have had a lot more respect for you, had you posted that you took the pose from something else, when you first posted this. Not being upfront about it is what the majority of the problem is. Because in doing so, you attempt to claim credit for the entire image, when it's not entirely yours. The "theft" that goes on is recognition. You stole the original artist's recognition for all the effort they made to create the original.
If you had posted the source in the beginning, I would have been informed and not attributed the queen entirely to your work. It still would have been marred by copying, but you'd be taking credit only for what you added. Sadly, now I'm wondering what else you might have taken from other pieces too.
http://www.virtueverse.net/wiki/Massacre_Melanie -the original Fire/Dark Corruptor -
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=115217
The Guide to BURN
Juggy--
Pyro asked me a straightforward question and I gave a straightforward answer. You should try it some time.
Your values are too complex to state here in regard to this issue? You can't be summarized in the way that most major 20th century thinkers can? You, unlike professional artists and educators, can't boil down your thoughts to a simple take on this issue?
If you don't want to define yourself, you leave it to others to form a view based on your various statements. The view I get is that you base your behavior on 1. What you can get away with. 2. What suits your needs at any given time. I don't see anything complicated about it. The only reason I'm even asking about your values is that you call into question the authority of things like copyright law.
Zekiran's post was off the rails but refreshing in it's honesty. She believes that all professional artists swipe from each other as a matter of course--and they are all ok with it. She's ok with it. And someone like me shouldn't be pushing my morality around here. I don't agree with that, but at least its clear where she stands. I'd love to hear more opposing viewpoints. Or people who agree. Or people who just don't relate to it at all. But political correctness isn't a viewpoint.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
Quote:
This is a proper example of acceptable use of reference. While having copied the pose from a photograph, Juggy took the photo himself, thusly having supplied himself with his own references. It would be the same as 'stealing from himself' which you can't do. Everything in the picture has been brought to the piece by Juggs himself, so this is perfectly acceptable.|
Originally Posted by Juggertha
 |
Now, he did use a pre-existing copyrighted character, but within the context of the picture, he's making reference to the Doctor Strange character. If he instead said "this is my original character" then we'd have a different situation. The situation gets more gray when the character being copied isn't a widely known character and people start thinking it belongs to you, when you don't credit the source. In those cases, it's best to always give the source material, to avoid potential problems in the future. This is the role that context plays within the work. If you didn't know who Doctor Strange was, you may very well think that it's an original character. The fault would lay somewhere between the artist and the viewer, though the artist can always control what the viewer sees, so in my book the onus is on them.
This is also the answer to your problem of the sports car. When you're referencing it, you're trying to show the view that "this is a specific model car." If you said "this is my car that I designed" then things would be very different. This is the same as creating works with specific people within them as well. Adding a celebrity into your work is showing the viewer that you were trying to render a particular person. As long as the viewer recognizes the subject, it's not an issue. If you say it's a specific subject you were trying to render, the viewer won't think it's your original creation even if they aren't knowledgeable about them. If I drew Juggs and you drew Mel, nobody would claim we were stealing each other's characters here, because the context here on the forums is clear. If you did it elsewhere, where that information isn't so clear and also didn't say that it was someone else's creation, then things get muddy again.
http://www.virtueverse.net/wiki/Massacre_Melanie -the original Fire/Dark Corruptor -
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=115217
The Guide to BURN
Quote:
Drew Struzan is given movie stills and character shots from studios to work with, and he traces right off the stills. Its interesting to watch, because you can completely see how tracing isn't a short-cut to awesome. If he wasn't as skilled as he is, tracing wouldn't help. |
Originally Posted by Lousy_Day
I am not sure if this is a counter example to Boris, but I would like to mention Gil Elvgren, one of my new favorite artists. (Pino is the other one.) Elvgren worked extensively with references, too. Here you can see some comparisons of his references and final paintings:
http://underpaintings.blogspot.com/2...l-elvgren.html Although he copies his references closely, he isn't cheating or stealing because he shoots his own photos and pays his models. What I really admire about Elvgren is that he really knew how to make his painting better than his references. The same can be said about Andrew Loomis as well. So many artists copying from photo references only hope to be as good as photographs, and I have been guilty of this. |
His traces are just to get the "busy-work" done quickly. You can see the posters turn into art when he begins his rendering process. He uses a number of different techniques to breathe life into the scene. There's spattering, airbrushing, painting, colored pencil. It looks like so much damn fun. And in the end we have those completely iconic movie posters.
I don't think you can work off reference much more closely than he does for his construction phase, but the point is in the end the poster is light-years away from the simple movie stills.
This thread is an interesting read. It's just a shame you waste so much time discussing values.
This sums it up for me:
Quote:
You need to use references otherwise you end up like me: rubbish background, very little objects in the finished piece, lack of studies of textures, etc... | Reference is a really good thing to use to improve our work. <un-relevant snip> people should be using reference almost constantly if they can to produce better work. But the way they should be doing it is by deciding what they want to do and then fleshing out that idea as much as possible on their own. Then, when they've reached the point where there are problem areas that are beyond their ability to visualise/address--they get reference of those specific areas and use it to improve the quality of their image (and learn the anatomy, etc.) |
Here's the worst possible case scenario - Gene Simmons' Son Plagiarizing Bleach: http://community.livejournal.com/bleachness/446299.html
Blatant tracing/rip off and trying to make money out of it. The rip off is so constant that we're way passed the "homage" point.
Quote:
Wow... that makes even that old Liefeld affair seem subtle...
|
Originally Posted by Swissy
...Here's the worst possible case scenario - Gene Simmons' Son Plagiarizing Bleach: http://community.livejournal.com/bleachness/446299.html
Blatant tracing/rip off and trying to make money out of it. The rip off is so constant that we're way passed the "homage" point. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Suichiro
This is a proper example of acceptable use of reference. While having copied the pose from a photograph, Juggy took the photo himself, thusly having supplied himself with his own references. It would be the same as 'stealing from himself' which you can't do. Everything in the picture has been brought to the piece by Juggs himself, so this is perfectly acceptable.
|
So where does stock photography fit into this? That is, photo references taken for the deliberate purpose of being used as reference material for artists of all mediums. Especially stock photography that's for sale? (two seconds on google and you'll find several sites doing a thriving business). Do artists who use stock photography to create pieces 'mar' their work? Are they just ripping off the photographer?
Speaking as a photographer (rather than a line artist, as most of you seem to be) it is entirely impossible for me to partake in my chosen medium of art without using some form of reference
. I must take a picture of something. By many of the definitions outlined here, that makes anything, any picture I take, a derivative work. Using the car example, if I want a picture of a sports car, and I take a shot of a Porsche, regardless of the technique I use, or the tools, or the style: I am still 'photocopying' someone else's design work. There is no getting around the fact that photography does not 'create' anything new and original in the eyes of most people (especially line artists <3).Except that it does.
One of my favorite photography books on landscaping is titled, "Painting with Light". I think the title alone is descriptive of what the author's view of (landscape) photography is, and I do not disagree, I would extend the metaphor to all forms of photography.
This is especially important when these days, a photographer's work is hardly done when the studio session is over, there is arguelably even more work to be done in the dark room/photoshop (depending whether using film or digital), transforming the raw photoage into something more expressive. very photo photos are as impressive or stunning right out of the camera. Sometimes you get lucky, but most of the time it's a process.
So here I am, taking a shot of a model from a studio shoot (lets further complicate the issue and say someone besides me designed her dress, someone else did her hair, and yet another person did her make up), and I begin using photoshop to airbrush her; perhaps even changing the color and tone of her original dress, make-up or hair. Or smudging her hair out to something more pleasing to the eye. What if the pose is derivative of something well known, such as Marilyn Monroe's windy dress pose? (And how much of that was Her skill as a model, or the camera man's skill with a camera?)
Who does the credit go to? The Model? The Make up artist? The photographer? How much do I have to change before the work becomes mine? (not speaking legally, I know the answer to that.)
T.S. Elliot is often misquoted as saying 'Good Writers borrow, great writer's steal.' (He didn't by the way, despite what the internet tells you.) And the sentiment is usually (when not being used as an excuse for being lazy) interpenetrated as good work inspires great work. We all (as artists) rely on each other to go from Good to Great. If we are forbidden from using other artists as inspiration, in even broad strokes (such as style, form, etc) then what the Heck are we doing forming communities as artists? You are better off (and safer) sequestering yourself and never looking at anyone else's work. Of course that's not true, and I don't believe anyone here thinks it is.
Anything after that though is a matter of degrees, and where you draw the line. (pun intended.)
Don't feel too bad about your photography... for writers to be artists they have to come up with their own language or they're just copying the words and sentence structures other people made up!
I do that too
Quote:
I really didn't mean for it to dominate parts of this thread the way it has. But I don't know how you discuss something like theft without discussing the values behind it. You include this Bleach thing as a blatant example of a rip-off. That reflects certain values.| This thread is an interesting read. It's just a shame you waste so much time discussing values. |
If Juggy comes along and says that this happens all the time in Asia and there's nothing wrong with it--where does that leave you?
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
Snowlily--
I draw a distinction between representation and actual production. If I design a car, or a dress, or a specialized power tool--I generally have legal protection from somebody else taking my design, branding, etc. for use in production . Representing those things in art does not equate to stealing because I am creating something new--my representation of the thing.
We are talking about two different categories of creation. Actual design work to create something. And artistic work to represent something. There are certain legal limitations to representing things---but for the most part, I'm free to create the things I have perceived in my life, in exactly the same way I'm free to observe them in the first place.
The issue comes from copying, lifting things of the same category. If I design a car and take it out for a ride, I can't complain if someone draws a picture of it. I can seek recourse if they steal my engineering and design elements to create their own car (this is a simplified example).
Likewise the issue in art theft stems, not from representing real world creative works of other people, but from incorporating the representations of other people in your art. Maybe Adam Hughes uses a model as reference for a picture of Wonder Woman. I'm free to use the same model as reference for my picture of Wonder Woman. I'm not free to use Adam's drawing as a basis for mine. And by basis I mean taking his specific artistic solutions to rendering that woman--the placement of his lines, shading, etc. in order to represent her.
I'm not saying to not use Adam Hughes or any other artist as inspiration in your art. The question is: are you cannabilizing them?
Photomanipulation and 3d are usually flavored by the perception that the artist is using things that he or she did not create. There has been a lot of contoversy in digital circles over the years on this account, because digital art has always fought the stigma that "the computer does the art." I think there is much wider acceptance of this sort of thing now--within the general guideline of proper citation is followed and permission has been given for the use of stock/assets. It's similar to writing where the author quotes other works.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
Quote:
I understand that wasn't the initial intention. But really, the title of this topic should be "Your values, art and you". No?|
Originally Posted by FrozenDeath
I really didn't mean for it to dominate parts of this thread the way it has. But I don't know how you discuss something like theft without discussing the values behind it. You include this Bleach thing as a blatant example of a rip-off. That reflects certain values.
|
Quote:
| If Juggy comes along and says that this happens all the time in Asia and there's nothing wrong with it--where does that leave you? |
Different places, different views and different schools in a subject that's not an exact science. Throw some conscience and morality and the topic just ends up resembling religion topics in certain other forums.
-My values are better than yours!
-NO U!
Just keep it, you know, technical?
Anyway, without wanting to derail, I reiterate that this topic is great and interesting read (in my eyes). Much better than the sugar-coated "showing off my commissions - look how much money I spent"-type threads.
I'll go back to lurking now.
Someone was kind enough to pass me the link to this article. A legal expert talking about plagiarism in comics:
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?p...ticle&id=25053
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
Quote:
I have to disagree. This isn't the worst case scenario. Greg Land is the worse case scenario to the point of blatantly stealing other artists works/poses without even making changes. He's the Penultimate hack in the comic book industry.|
Originally Posted by Swissy
This thread is an interesting read. It's just a shame you waste so much time discussing values.
This sums it up for me: You need to use references otherwise you end up like me: rubbish background, very little objects in the finished piece, lack of studies of textures, etc... Here's the worst possible case scenario - Gene Simmons' Son Plagiarizing Bleach: http://community.livejournal.com/bleachness/446299.html Blatant tracing/rip off and trying to make money out of it. The rip off is so constant that we're way passed the "homage" point. |
Of course Land traces photo-reference which is really an up in the air subject as if thats using the reference or just pretending your a xerox machine. It's his outright theft of other artists art that i find pathetic.
http://jimsmash.blogspot.com/2008/02...d-ripoffs.html
http://jimsmashextended.blogspot.com...recycling.html
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FrozenDeath
Something occured to me in the course of this discussion. People keep bringing up the comic industry as an example of copying being prevalent or even "no big deal." Well let's say, just for the sake of argument, that it does go on all the time. Let's say that the editors at Marvel want the product produced quickly and are encouraging artists to copy things in order to turn the work out at a fast pace (I still have no reason to believe this is the case).
Marvel owns the artwork. The presumably own the artwork for every magazine they've published. In that case, they are within their rights to rip themselves off all day long despite how crappy and uncreative that is. There would only be a stink if the copying was of some other company's material and they made an issue of it. I have the right to cannibalize all the work I've ever done if I want. It's mine. It has no bearing on whether it's right or wrong to lift things. Likewise, comic companies are free to steal from themselves. That doesn't lend weight to the idea that it's okie dokie to lift from other people. |
http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/Pac...t-146500.phtml
Djeannie's Costume Creator Overhaul Wishlist
Carnie Base
"Once the avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote" -Kosh
I find it HIGHLY amusing that an article about copying other peoples works is hotlinking images from a website that doesn't seem to really appreciate it 
Quote:
Heh yeah I got a chuckle out of that myself |
Originally Posted by Frost
I find it HIGHLY amusing that an article about copying other peoples works is hotlinking images from a website that doesn't seem to really appreciate it
|
Djeannie's Costume Creator Overhaul Wishlist
Carnie Base
"Once the avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote" -Kosh
Quote:
I believe that I have posted as the majority have posted on this thread. I've given a general opinion (in my first post), I've stated some hypotheticals (in many posts), I've tried to answer some hypotheticals (more recent pages), and I've posted examples from my own work.|
Originally Posted by Suichiro
There we go. That's what this all boils down to. You refuse to post a stance on your own values. Yet you're trying to tear down someone else's. That's not respecting other people's values, it's just trolling for a confrontation. If you really want a serious discussion instead of a constant ribbing of each other over inane things, step up.
Everyone who's posted their particular stance on the subject here has opened them selves to criticism, but displayed a valid position on the argument. You haven't. Dissent isn't an opinion, it's a reaction. |
If you think that somehow makes my contribution to this thread trolling or something of the like, by all means, report it. Because personally, I feel I've added another perspective (and experience) to this thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FrozenDeath
Juggy--
Pyro asked me a straightforward question and I gave a straightforward answer. You should try it some time. Your values are too complex to state here in regard to this issue? You can't be summarized in the way that most major 20th century thinkers can? You, unlike professional artists and educators, can't boil down your thoughts to a simple take on this issue? If you don't want to define yourself, you leave it to others to form a view based on your various statements. The view I get is that you base your behavior on 1. What you can get away with. 2. What suits your needs at any given time. I don't see anything complicated about it. The only reason I'm even asking about your values is that you call into question the authority of things like copyright law. Zekiran's post was off the rails but refreshing in it's honesty. She believes that all professional artists swipe from each other as a matter of course--and they are all ok with it. She's ok with it. And someone like me shouldn't be pushing my morality around here. I don't agree with that, but at least its clear where she stands. I'd love to hear more opposing viewpoints. Or people who agree. Or people who just don't relate to it at all. But political correctness isn't a viewpoint. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FrozenDeath
I really didn't mean for it to dominate parts of this thread the way it has. But I don't know how you discuss something like theft without discussing the values behind it. You include this Bleach thing as a blatant example of a rip-off. That reflects certain values.
If Juggy comes along and says that this happens all the time in Asia and there's nothing wrong with it--where does that leave you? |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Juggertha
Copyright law is not universal, and if truth be told, it is somewhat new. The concept of being able to sue someone for taking your intellectual property has not been around for all that long - and many nations don't recognize it. Heck, one could argue that most civilizations were built on it.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Juggertha
Having lived overseas for nearly a decade, I've come to realize that different countries (and people I suppose) view copyright infringement very differently. No, I'm not talking about widespread bootlegging of DVDs in SE Asia, but serious legal matters. I've seen cases of big name companies suing local ones for Copyright infringement, in what appeared to be a pretty obvious case, and losing.
When I asked local lawyers about it, I was shocked to hear how different their thinking was from mine - certain shapes/patterns/whatever cannot be copyrighted, and even if said image came close to being a copy, then you still have to prove damages. |
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?p...ticle&id=25053
"Ethically, any taking is too much in the case of plagiarism. In the case of copyright infringement, that's a different standard. I think there has to be more taking than one panel here or there."
And he goes on to talk about many details of why a copyright case is so difficult - basically the same details that surprised me when I talked to lawyers here.
So do me a favor, if you're going to quote me, at least bother to use my own words.
Quote:
To sum up:| You can guess my values all you want, but that's just it - guessing. I honestly could care less what you guess. But as I've said before, I'm not about to jump through your hoop - I don't need to. Almost no one has posted their 'values' in relation to this issue beyond some general thoughts - and that's what I did on page one. You chose not to quote it, and you chose to take issue with other things that I have written. That's your call, but again it shows your inclination for focusing on me. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that you had issues with me. |
1. I don't care
2. You can't make me.
3. Nobody else had to, so why should I?
4. You take issue with my position, therefore it must be personal.
You've got it backwards. I started this discussion, and after stating that you didn't think it was appropriate for this forum you changed your tune and decided to hang around to muddy the waters. I've stated my values. I've critiqued your comments about cultural relativism (which you completely blew off). And you keep coming back like a broken record to remind me that you don't have to take a stand on anything. It's hilarious when you say you don't care--coming back again and again and again in this thread to protest the same thing really supports that.
I didn't quote you. I said "if Juggy comes along and...". You are familiar with the word "if"? It's a hypothetical.
Also the quote you have about the lawyer is again very revealing about your mindset. He says that "Ethically, any taking is too much in the case of plagiarism." Do you understand? Ethically--in terms of values of right and wrong. ANY taking is too much in a case of plagiarism.
But law and ethics are not the same thing. Just because you cannot pursue a case of copyright infringement doesn't mean that plagiarism hasn't occured or that no wrong has been done. It just means the case is too difficult to prove in legal terms.
My "guess" about you was spot on. Your first order of business is to determine what you can get away with (ie what the law will permit). That determines you "values" vis a vis swiping.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
I think this discussion can and has dissolved into infinite scenarios and possibilites. Given that the laws are different everywhere there is never going to be "one set of rules for all" I also do not believe that that is what FD was intending. I don't feel that he is forcing his opinions in anyones face (or however someone wants to word it) because they do not have to read it. He states what his idea of a proper reference was and I think he makes some really valid points. As a cake decorator I am often appalled at how many times people get angry with me because I will not draw a copyrighted character. Legal issues aside, i just feel it's wrong. I didn't create Mickey Mouse, or Spiderman. I cannot deny that I have done things like that in the past, but due to hearing different artists opinions on the matter, I saw things in a totally different light.
I would feel appalled if I created a completely original character and found out later on that someone had made profit (or not) on my design without my permission. Is it likely that Disney is going to sue me for drawing mickey mouse on a cake? Probably not very, if they even found out about it at all. Whenever I do reference something, I don't try to copy it exactly. Say I want to draw a deer (which has happened) I go over and get a magazine off the shelf and thumb through it. I basically know what a deer looks like but I want to make sure my proportions aren't horribly askew. I will look at several different photographs and (try to) draw something out based off of those.
If I saw a cake that I really liked and wanted to copy it and I asked the person who created it if they minded and they said no, I would feel no guilt about reproducing it. I would not, however, take credit for such a creation (and I don't, this has actually been happening at work a lot lately, we get these fliers with suggested ideas for product use) and I make sure to point out where credit is due.
As far as changing something into something else: If you took anything from the original and used it, it's stealing (defined as:to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force) There really is no grey area there. Sometimes people will think it's acceptable and sometimes they won't, so people shouldn't get upset when they get called on it.
Quote:
Stock photography by it's very nature was done for the express purpose of reference. In it's creation, the artist has given you permission to copy it for any use you want in creating new works. That's like me going outside with a stand that has cupcakes, with a big sign saying "Free cupcakes, have some!" Nobody can steal them when I'm freely giving them away.|
Originally Posted by Snowlily
So where does stock photography fit into this? That is, photo references taken for the deliberate purpose of being used as reference material for artists of all mediums. Especially stock photography that's for sale? (two seconds on google and you'll find several sites doing a thriving business). Do artists who use stock photography to create pieces 'mar' their work? Are they just ripping off the photographer?
|
When it comes to how much I'll respect the artist for using stock photos as references, I will always give more credit to the one not using reference. They put 100% of their own work into the piece, unlike the one who copied from a ref. No matter what you do, when you copy something, it's never entirely yours.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Caemgen
Don't feel too bad about your photography... for writers to be artists they have to come up with their own language or they're just copying the words and sentence structures other people made up!
|
http://www.virtueverse.net/wiki/Massacre_Melanie -the original Fire/Dark Corruptor -
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=115217
The Guide to BURN
Quote:
I've discussed many things on this thread - some on the topic, some on my views, and some in relation to yours. You seem to like to cherry pick the latter (just look at how you quoted me on page one).|
Originally Posted by FrozenDeath
To sum up:
1. I don't care 2. You can't make me. 3. Nobody else had to, so why should I? 4. You take issue with my position, therefore it must be personal. You've got it backwards. I started this discussion, and after stating that you didn't think it was appropriate for this forum you changed your tune and decided to hang around to muddy the waters. I've stated my values. I've critiqued your comments about cultural relativism (which you completely blew off). And you keep coming back like a broken record to remind me that you don't have to take a stand on anything. It's hilarious when you say you don't care--coming back again and again and again in this thread to protest the same thing really supports that. |
Quote:
| I didn't quote you. I said "if Juggy comes along and...". You are familiar with the word "if"? It's a hypothetical. |
"If Juggy comes along and says that this happens all the time in Asia and there's nothing wrong with it--where does that leave you?"
How about
"If FD come along and says that everyone who swipes is going to hell, then where does that leave you?"
or
"If FD comes along and says that his rules are the ones that people should follow then where does that leave you?"
Referencing other people as 'hypotheticals' can be a tricky game, and can often come across as something far different.
Quote:
| Also the quote you have about the lawyer is again very revealing about your mindset. He says that "Ethically, any taking is too much in the case of plagiarism." Do you understand? Ethically--in terms of values of right and wrong. ANY taking is too much in a case of plagiarism. |
Ethics and values are personal (/cultural), laws are codified and easy for all to observe.
Quote:
| But law and ethics are not the same thing. Just because you cannot pursue a case of copyright infringement doesn't mean that plagiarism hasn't occured or that no wrong has been done. It just means the case is too difficult to prove in legal terms. |
Quote:
| My "guess" about you was spot on. Your first order of business is to determine what you can get away with (ie what the law will permit). That determines you "values" vis a vis swiping. |
-------------------------------------------
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Swissy
This thread is an interesting read. It's just a shame you waste so much time discussing values.
|
Quote:
Abyssmal understanding of law and ethics. I think you mistake ethics for opinion or personal belief. And to base your view of right and wrong solely on law is a farce. No wonder a simple question is too complex for you to answer.|
Those are his ethics. I have no idea if his ethics and mine are the same. That's why we don't enforce ethics - we enforce laws/rules. Ethics and values are personal (/cultural), laws are codified and easy for all to observe. |
The only reason I ask about your values is that you offer up justification for theft. It's that simple.
Use me in any hypothetical situation you like. Just make it actually relevant to the discussion, that's where you tend to fall down.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
http://underpaintings.blogspot.com/2...l-elvgren.html
Edit: ok, hunted through my drive for a self-reference that wasn't half-naked.
This looks kind of goofy, but it's an example of how I use myself in my art.