In an link(www.dmusic.com/news/news.php?id=3420,article) posted earlier this week regarding the submission and win of an artist who claimed first prize with a creation not entirely his own, the question arose as to what exactly are considered to be the definitions of ripping, sampling, and plagiarism. I’m aware that the visual art community currently considers ripping to mean nothing more than stealing another’s work, but I hope to try somewhat redefining the nature of the word.

I see ripping as no different from sampling. To me, they are synonymous. They are both defined as taking another’s creation and somehow incorporating it into a new work. My definition does not distinguish between legal or illegal ripping/sampling because it is possible to accomplish it both legally and illegally. I infer no moral (or immoral) connotations from either of those two words. I also consider it feasible to do it legally or illegally multiple times in one new work. Plagiarism, on the other hand, cannot be argued. It is defined as the passing off of a new derivative work as an original creation without giving any and all original contributors proper credit and/or royalty. Also known to me as ripping off. It is wrong (and illegal) to plagiarize and should always remain wrong (and illegal). To me, the difference between ripping/sampling and plagiarizing is simply the difference between getting or not getting the original artist’s approval for profit.

Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s put semantics aside and think about the following dozen fine-line situations, which are entirely hypothetical. In no instance should you consider the original artist being contacted in any way (except, of course, in #1, for the purchase), so the question of legality should not be an issue. Which of them do you consider “a problem,” and which are either “not a problem” or, in fact, “desired?”

1. A photographer sells an original copyrighted photo to a client for $10. The client then turns around and prints up 1000 t-shirts boldly displaying the bought photo front and center.

2. Same situation as in #1, but this time the client is selling the shirts, now emblazoned with the client’s logo underneath the image, in the park for 15 bucks a pop, although they cost the client only $5 a shirt.

3. Same situation as in #2, but this time the client is selling the shirts in the park for $5 each, no more than he paid for the shirt, and without the emblazoned logo.

4. Same situation as in #3, but this time consider that the printed shirt also proudly displays the photographer’s name and contact info.

5. Same situation as in #3, but this time the shirts cost $6 each.

6. A songwriter goes to the store and buys an album that has been recently released by her favorite artist. She brings it home and promptly sticks the first 10 seconds of Track-5 into her spiffy new Akai S5000 sampler. After playing with the sound quite a bit (very nearly but not quite beyond recognition), she loops the results indefinitely and raps off a new lyric in an impromptu session, using the twisted sample as the entire backing track. She feels quite happy with how it sounds, so she considers it finished.

7. Same situation as in #6, but this time the songwriter makes 1000 copies and passes them off to friends presenting it as an original creation.

8. Same situation as in #6, but this time the songwriter makes 1000 copies and passes them off in the park presenting it as an original creation.

9. Same situation as in #6, but this time the songwriter makes 1000 copies and passes them off in the park presenting it as the original collaboration it really is.

10. Same situation as in #6, but this time the songwriter makes 1000 copies and for $1 each — exactly what she paid for the tape — sells them off in the park presenting it as the original collaboration it really is.

11. Same situation as in #6, but this time the songwriter makes 1000 copies and for $2 each sells them off in the park presenting it as the original collaboration it really is.

12. Same situation as in #6, but this time the songwriter copyrights the song and submits it to a publisher.


Just for the record, all 12 of the above situations are currently considered illegal. However, it’s obvious that some laws need to be changed. Where do you feel the line should be drawn? How much distributional control should remain with the original creator if it means extra exposure? While retaining control of profitable use, does free-form distribution help or hurt the copyright holder? Is it ripping or ripping off? Let us know your thoughts.

I simply view it like this:
If you didnt get permission, then you can't use it.

[doobybrain]

Then you haven't viewed it (or read it) broadly enuff. Read it again, my friend. See each situation as a separate event. Reflect.

Personally, I think that because they had no intentions of making a profit -- and made no profit -- they shouldn't have had ta get anyone's permission. Had they made a profit, then they should be required to give a rightful percentage to the original artist.

1) i think this is alright to do since no one is making money (except when he sells it), yet the original author is getting exposure.
2) this situation is wrong. by placing the logo on the shirt, the client is leading people to believe that he took the picture and is profiting from his own artwork. and he is making money off of the original authors work.
3) well, no profit made here, so i guess its no harm done. this is similar to #1.
4) im sure the author would be glad to see that he has been given credit for the picture, but still, he should've been told someone was making shirts with his work.
5) like in #2, i again think this is wrong because the author does not know about the shirts and the client is making money off of the author's work (even though it is a small amount).
6) this situation i believe is ok since no one is profitting nor getting exposure to any kind of work. also, the buyer is keeping the editing work to herself.
7) though it might be an original creation in the sense that she's the one who is heard in the track or mixed it up, she should at least tell her friends who the original author of the track was instead of simply saying that it was an original work.
again, she should have noted who the real original creator of the track was.
9) this is totally wrong this time. not only is she saying she created everything that you hear, she is also passing it out among strangers.
10) though she is not making any money, she is still not telling the truth that she did not creat the track all by herself. (sampling?)
11) she is making money off of somebody else's work (and she does not acknowledge them either). need i say more?
12) i think this is what sampling a song is? i still dont see it as completely right. not only is the real original track stil audible, but she is also trying to get it copyrighted and called her own.

From #6 down, i think this is what some of us would call sampling from a song. i know sampling is done in many of the songs we hear today, i think that all the artists should acknowledge the real original maker of the part of the song they are sampling. of course though, this would end up being a space waster on CDs and tapes because someone could be using a sample from a sample from a sample...etc. you get the idea.

as for 1-5, i feel that as long as the wrong person isnt taking the credit for someone else's work and as long as they arent making money off of someone else's work, then its pretty much ok. but i would agree much more if everytime, the original author got some kind of note saying that someone was using their stuff for a shirt (like in the example).

[doobybrain]

P.S. I've written only 3, dude.

it is NOT ok if no one is making money. i dont know what kind of logic youre using in coming to that conclusion.

no no. RIPPING is using somebody else's work as the majority of your image, then selling it or merely displaying it as if it were your own. In music, sampling is abundant. An artist might take samples from another artist's music (ie, prodigy sampled that clanging metal noise in Smack My Bitch Up from a WuTang Clan song) and use it in their own, but it does not account for the majority of the song. Also, artists who sample always give credit to the artist they sampled the noise from. So when a wallpaper designer takes an image and uses it slightly (ie as a form of collage or as a very small portion of the image) in their image, it is sampling. However, when any artist takes another artist's work and adds a touch or two of their own, this is not sampling. It is ripping AND ripping of AND stealing. So there. And no it is not okay when nobody is making money. Work is work. No matter what.

.:[liquisoft]:.
http://www.liquisoft.com/

liquisoft: well said!

--[ jark ]--

No need ta. Believe me, I'd rather read Simon than write Milla.

This was a very well thought out post. It shows that you challenged yourself enuff ta read into each sitch as a separate event.

Re your comment to #1, how will the original artist get exposure? The printing of the shirts is as far as it went. They didn't even leave the client's basement. Re #4, yes, I agree it would be nice and common courtesy for the original artist to be notified, but I truly don't feel it should be mandatory. Re #'s 9, 10, & 11: no no, doob, I think you misunderstand. She _is_ presenting it as a collaboration. That's what it is, and that's what she's representing it as. I would suggest that passing it off as an completely original creation would be a lot more of a problem than saying that you wrote it w/the person you borrowed from, i.e., a collaboration.

Good post. It's interesting to me that you see #'s 1-5 as entirely different from #'s 6-12 simply because one is photography and one is music. They're really not that different. It's still borrowing/ripping/sampling/whaddevaya wanna call it.

ummmmm... make your own shit. There ya go, problem solved. (Sean Combs is a stinking hack)

My logic is that I think proper payment is always due, but exposure can do nothing but HELP the original artist.

I agree. That's a good idea.

Okay, there's another person's perspective of the words. According ta you, ripping is wrong and that's the way it'll stay. Fine. I guess I just don't define them the same way as most folks. I'm sure we agree, though, that, while you may consider ripping a little more broadly than I do, the difference between right and wrong can mean getting or not getting every contributor's okay.

Re your last few sentences, I fully agree that work is work, but what does this say? How can it be harmful to the original artist if the original work (or any part thereof) is getting exposure. ...and how can the original artist be wronged if no one else is making money off the original work?

for #1, i accidently mixed that one with the ones under it...oops. =)
as for #4, i still stand by my thoughts that the author should be notified in some way or another.
# 9, 10, 11...i did misunderstand it. i agree with you that it would be a lot more serious if she did say it was all her own creation than saying that she did it with the original artist.

i agree that exposure does help the artist greatly, but dont you think that someone should get permission before taking on themselves to promote the artist?
i mean, it all comes down to rights of using an artist's material...(which sometimes includes their name.)

[doobybrain]

yes, good idea. then we wouldnt be hearing the same beats or sounds in a number of differnt songs.
as for pictures, people will be more creative.

[doobybrain]

I still have to contest the use of the word "ripping" as synonymous with "sampling". Ripping almost always bears a negative connotation. It implies that permission was not sought out or obtained. Sampling does not carry this baggage. In addition, if I take a fragment of one of my own works and use it to build something new, you could say that I am sampling myself, but it doesn't make much sense to say that I'm ripping myself. I much prefer "sampling" and "plagarism" to either "ripping" or "ripping off".

That said, here are my opinions on the various situations mentioned in Milla's article:

1-5. As soon as you put profit into the picture, the game rules change, IMHO. If you're selling them at cost or cheaper without permission, you could still get sued, of course, but I don't find such acts to be unethical. If you're making money, the artist should be making money too. The one exception to me is situation #2, where the company logo appears but no artist information is provided. To me, that's plagarism.

6-12. If the artist uses a sample of another artist and presents it as original, that's plagarism. If the artist is honest about samples used, that's acceptable as long as any proceeds are distributed fairly.

In my opinion, it's fine to sample without permission if no money is made. It's respectful to request permission whenever possible.

Sometimes, it's not possible, however. What about groups like Negativland that sample thousands of bits of sound from television, radio, music CDs, self-help recordings, etc. to create parodies and political statements about popular culture.

What about parody in general? How does one go about clearing a sample for a parody? "May I please have permission to use a sample of one of your works to make fun of you?" "No." If Saturday Night Live had to ask politicians for permission to mimic them, do you think they'd have a very high success rate?

And in general, I want to stress to all of you that believe that sampled music is inherently unethical: music is interpretive. Whether it's created by sampling waveforms or ideas or patterns, new music thrives on old music. It is a constant evolution. Sampling is a result of recent technology, but in essence it is just one more form of interpretation. Interpretation is good. There is a world of difference between what DJ Shadow does with OPM (otha' peoples' music) than what Puff Daddy does. Don't let the bad apples ruin your perspective.

What is not okay? To sample for personal use only? To sample and play for one friend? Two friends? A living room full of people? A party? An ampitheater? The (gasp) internet? Where do you draw the line, and why?

Certainly, sampling for personal use can't be wrong. I don't see how it's any different from making a mix tape for your car. Or making a backup copy of a piece of software. Or writing down your favorite lyrics in your notebook.

And if someone hops in your car while you're listening to your sampled piece or your mix tape, is it then that you must obtain permission?

If you scribbled the chorus to George Clinton's "One Nation Under a Groove" in your notes and somebody reads it, do you need permission from the P-Funk? If two people read it? If you read it aloud in front of a class? A campfire?

I just don't understand how sampling without permission is inherently wrong. On the other hand, it seems (perhaps deceptively) simple that money should be distributed fairly.

The exposure argument is valid, but it's a tricky one, because it assumes that all artists desire exposure. I'd say that most artists do, but not all.

Tell that to all the symphony orchestras.

...and btw, I also disagree that a sample can't be the bulk of the new work. If you'll notice, in #6, the entire instrumental accompaniment is a looped sample.

Why? Why should they be required to get permission to help the artist? No artist refuses beneficence. What's the difference if they know or they don't know why their work is known or who is responsible for making them famous? It just doesn't make sense ta me that I should need ta humbly request to help an artist.

*applauding*

...and you raise a good point that it can exist that not all artists desire exposure. Good point.

Semantics aside, bullseye.

*applauding again*

My whole point, dee, is that one shouldn't be required to ask for permission in all circumstances. Can't'choo see that? I agree that your friends followed the current laws to the letter, but I simply feel that they needn't've gotten permission since they were making no income from it. Get it?

Okay, yeah. Although the ripping of cd's to make unfettered files for reproduction of the same recording, and the ripping of artwork for a further creation are different, and only 1 o'them is really the point o'this article, the sharing aspect of your query is pertinent. The exposure issue is really at the heart of both, and I do feel that the free sharing of art is in question for both. Should we be required to ask for permission for either? I think not. ...er, that is, unless you're gonna make an income from said art and not pay the contributing creators. This is where it should be considered stealing. Stealing it while contributing to it is plagiarism; stealing it while not contributing is called bootlegging.

Try not ta confuse plagiarism and bootlegging.

good points you got there. some of them i agree and some i didnt even think of. im beginning to get a clearer picture...

[doobybrain]

i would like to revise my statement above:
after looking at this article carefully...i have come to the conclusion that you can use other people's work for your own general use. dont publicly display it or sell it for a profit. thats where it all starts to go wrong.

[doobybrain]

1-5 are all illegal, and righfully so - unless the client has the photog's permission to do any of the above.

6-12, don't know enough about the legalities of music to say.

so if i find a picture of a snowflake on the web somewhere and want to use it in my design to create something for the holiday contest--and then i win---is that wrong?

So, what'ch're sayin' is that because 1 is imagery and 1 is sonic, they should be treated differently as art under the laws. I wasn't askin' which were illegal, as I've stated that they all are currently considered illegal, but apparently you're one of the few people who thinks that less exposure is good, and that it should remain illegal to use someone's art for personal use. If you're an artist, I'll pity you unless you begin ta rethink it.

Well, I think simply creatin' yer own snowflake'd be a lot less controversial. However, ta answer yer question, yes, I think it's wrong to make money from someone else's creation -- even if it is just a pic of a snowflake. Try ta find the original artist, or take yer own shot.

Well, to the original question,

I feel that numbers 1-5 hinge on whether the client was sold THE work or a COPY of the work. If the work itself was what was purchased than the client can do whatever they wish with it reguardless of what the artist desires. If only a copy was purchased then I have a problem with #1, definitly #2, and #3. Numbers 4 & 5 would have to be a judgment call for me, if the artist has no plans to market that particular image it's one thing, but if he is marketting the image himself then it could be a problem- judgment call for the artist as I said.
I don't see any problem with #6, as this is a completely personal use which has no impact.
As for #7 and #8, I have a problem with proper permission and crediting of the work.
Numbers 9 & 10 still has a problem with obtaining proper permission while 11 has both those problems and royalty issues.
Number 12 is a problem because the 'sampled' 10 seconds makes up the entire background track, and I see it as having all the problems of 9-11.

Basically I have a problem with the use of an original, copyrighted work in just about any instance if permission is not aquired and credit is not properly listed.

P.S.

If you really like the work, don't use it without permission/credit-

Just be INSPIRED by it and create a work of your own which captures the look and feel of the original, but does not infringe upon it directly.

Okay, since nobody except doobybrain and RamenBoy (and perhaps shoggot) seems ta have the energy, incentive, courtesy, or perhaps comprehension, ta dig inta the various situations and offer their stances on them, I'm gonna tell ya what I think. Although I've recently been startin' ta lean toward the notion of "why help an artist who doesn't wanna be helped," I'm gonna stick w/the stance that every artist desires exposure for the sake of this explanation.

My take is that there is absolutely nothin' wrong w/#'s 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 10. Well … the only thing wrong in #'s 1 and 6 is that the new creation is just sittin' there rottin' away. #3 actually _helps_ the photographer, and #4 REALLY helps the photographer. There is nothin' wrong w/recouping your costs if you're the client. Likewise, #'s 9 & 10 can only help the original artist, while #10 also doesn't _hurt_ the new songwriter in the pocketbook. I feel that no permission whatsoever should be required in any of those cases.

#2 is wrong and immoral, and should remain illegal for obvious reasons. Do not attempt this at home.

#5 and #11, despite the fact that the original artist is given the rightful recognition, and despite that it is a relatively small profit, it is a profit nonetheless and therefore should be divided fairly amongst all contributors. The exposure is still good, but the profit theft doesn't offset the gain in exposure. PROFIT is where I draw the line!!!

#'s 7 and 8 are identical. Aside from friends or total strangers, there is absolutely no substantiating between the two. The only problem here lies in the lies. This is plagiarism, but the ripping off isn't monetary, it's intellectual, and the original artist should care only in that he or she is not getting recognized by anyone but the plagiarizer. The people in the park won't care, but the fraudulent songwriter may lose a few friends when they find out the truth. Because no money is bein' transacted w/her, though, the original artist should only give a marginal shit. Now, if someone were ta call the plagiarizer w/a contract for that work.....

....#12. Again, wrong, immoral, and should remain illegal. Whoever does this should be ashameda themselves, and if they play too many cards, they should expect to one day see themselves in court defending their devious ways.

Artists should love it when ya collaborate w/their stuff; we need only to include them fairly in the formula. No arguments there. But what's fair? My problem remains w.the idea that I feel that 6 out of 12 copyright infringement situations need to be decriminalized. Current copyright laws need to be changed.

Milla

...doobybrain, RamenBoy, realitysquared (and perhaps shoggot) seems...

I agree, this is the best solution.

Okay, so it's obvious that you think that permission should be required regardless of profit motive. I realize that it's difficult to try changing years and years of a certain way of thinkin'. However, if ya see nothin' wrong w/#6, how can ya possibly see sump'n wrong w/#1? They're essentially the same.

You also obviously adhere to the thought that each copy should represent a tangible product. This disappoints me.

Well, if you print up 1000 T-shirts and do nothing with them exept wear them yourself, then I really don't see any problem with it.

I don't think that I have a problem with the 'personal use' and 'private use' issues- just issues where the reproductions are available for public consumption.

As far as copies representing tangible products- if you are sold only a copy of the original work and not the original work itself, I view that as an express desire by the artist to explore other markets and avenues of exposure in the future. If the artist didn't care about this, then the original would be sold to the client and the client would be free to explore these options.

Ya see, that appears ta be where we differ. I don't see the copies of the art as products nearly as much as I see them as the service of bringing the art to the senses of yet another art lover.

...and your last sentence is not necessarily true. What if the original artist didn't care, yet simply wanted to keep a copy as a momento for him or herself?

My bottom line is this: If the given is that an artist desires exposure and recognition, I see nothing wrong with unbridled distribution (which is essentially what file-sharing communities are all about). Plagiarism is wrong, but not nearly as wrong as stealing an income from an artist, regardless of how much promotion you decided ta give without their permission. When one's plagiaristic ways bring in profit is when lying turns to embezzlement, and though both are considered theft, I believe only the latter should be legally punishable.

Milla

milla: you're missing one thing.

if you make t-shirt's of a photog's work, whether or not you give him credit or not, whether or not you make a profit - you're still potentially, at least, ripping him off.

IE, every t-shirt you sell (at cost or otherwise) is a t-shirt -he- won't sell.

Getting the original artist's permission just seems basic to me. I don't understand how it can be seen otherwise.

It's just hypothesis. The idea is that exposure is nothing but good, and an artist shouldn't stand in the way of his or her own exposure, regardless of the methods.

A download does NOT necessarily represent a lost sale! If someone in the park buys it AT COST, there is no guarantee that they woulda paid more to own a copy. All reimbursement in immediate cost is rightly put back into the promoter's pocket. I have no problem w/this, so long as the promoter makes no profit without my consent.

I'm really glad ta hear ya've been givein' it some thought. Shows I've been doin' my job well.

Shoggot and I appear to agree on this one, we both see the situation as the choice of the Artist and not the Client as to whether the work is placed up for public consumption, for free, at cost, or otherwise.

Not everyone wishes for public exposure, and those that do will not neccessarily want it reguardless of means and method.

i think it is wrong for you to take someone else's work and make money off of it. and even if you arent making money, if you are gonna show the work in public, at least say where/who you got the snowflake from.

[doobybrain]

permission is always a good thing to do if you are taking someone else's work. but if you arent making money off of it, then the exposure that the artists gets is always a positive one.

[doobybrain]

how are you ripping off an artist if he/she nor you are making money?

[doobybrain]

You, personally do not make money. Fine.

Did the company which printed the t-shirts make money? Perhaps the artist didn't wish to support that company.

Did the t-shirt manufacturer make money? Perhaps the artist didn't want to support that company.

Is the product you are selling at cost of a quality which the artist would like to see his work presented in? Did you check the product with him beforehand?

Perhaps it would offend this artist to see his work worn on a t-shirt altogether.

You have taken the artist's work and stolen it from him - art is sometimes defined as anything an artist declares to be art. A large part of that is presentation. You've just taken that part of the equation away from the artist.

Sorry, but I see justifications for this type of theft as being the bastions of thieving scum.

For those who do, I simply don't understand why they'd care.

...and where do you come off sayin' that the public "consumes" art?

First of all, it's not up to the artist to decide whether or not the client supports any of those companies. Let the artist contribute to the purchase of the shirts then.

Art is in the presentation, yes, but where we differ is that I seem to see the presentation in the art, not the pomp and pretense surrounding it, as you've suggested.

The various grades of reproductions should be of little concern to an artist who wants exposure, as should the means of exposure. How many musicians would be quite happy for you to be exposed to their work thru the shitass speaker of a transistor radio?

I wish you could stop thinking of it as taking the work from the artist and giving the work from the artist to the public, which, if that's the ultimate goal of the artist, he or she should have no problem with it, since they'd rather spend their time creating. ...unless, of course, they're insightless money-grubbing whores who still see every copy as a tangible sale. No theft is goin' on until an income is lost. But that's just mho.

i must admit that the more opinions i read, the more it all makes sense. and my first opinion wasnt that great or specific anyway. hehe

[doobybrain]

I think, at least for myself, it's an issue of controlling what happens to my personal work. Quite a bit of time and effort is expended planning and executing each piece and I simply have an issue with somebody who intrudes into what is, in essence, a intimate relationship.

Maybe it's just me being a control freak but I would like a say in what happens to the work to which I retain the rights.
If I didn't care, I'd sell the rights to a particular piece of work and probably be proud when I saw how the Client had reated it- or maybe I'd be flabberghasted and insulted.

I guess that it just boils down to each Artist deciding on their own what is okay and what is not. As far as what is legal and what is not legal, the Law is set to favor those who may have reservations about how their work is treated, copied, and displayed.

My old art teacher always said if you change something by 40% it is something you made. i dunno. but if you used mechanical means to copy something i consider that ripping off.
but say you like a movie poster and hand draw some of the scenes from the box and maybe change it around to suit you its is something you created only with some inspiration. or else landscape painters would just be ripping off god right?

I'm not sayin' you're totally wrong, just as I'm not sayin' I'm totally right. Mine is certainly not the only way to think.

Our only point of difference seems ta be that once I'm done w/my creation, my intimate relationship w/it becomes static, and it becomes part of my past (or my portfolio), while your relationship w/it appears to continue evolving.

I'm still learning, though, and I love bein' a student to other ways of thought. My main confusion still stems from the fact that I simply don't understand why an artist desiring exposure would care how the art is exposed, so long as no money is bein' lost. So far as I'm concerned, I want my work exposed it to the world.

I think for me, it boils down to being overly possessive of my work.
While I do desire that it be exposed to the world, I wish to retain some say in how that exposure occurs.
I, at the very least, want permission to be asked and to have details provided.

And if permission is not obtained? Would you not be happy w/the results anyway? ...the results bein' exposure, and perhaps requests for more work? I for one would be thrilled if someone were to take such a liking to my stuff that they, without any monetary motivation, began distributing it to the public. I'd be thanking them w/all my heart, not censuring them for goin' behind my back, or worse, suing them.

It depends on what my own intentions for the work in question.
If I planned to market it somehow, then maybe I wouldn't like to see someone else interfering.
On the other hand, if I had no concrete plans then I may actually like what they are doing on thir own.

In the long run, I would have to judge each situation on it's own merits.
If I decide that the situation is in my favor, fine and dandy- if I decide it isn't then it's nice to know that the Law is on my side.

I still don't understand. How would the exposure be considered interfering? Isn't it helping? What makes you think ya can't market your creation as well. Is this the same kinda reasoning that supposes that a download on Napster means one less person'll be buyin' that track?

I guess if the laws are gonna be biased, then they should be biased toward the creator. Now, if we could only get them to be changed, so that they'd be impartial.

Well, if someone is trying to market a creation, and somebody else is giving it away, or simply selling it at cost- without any permission from the creator- possibly undercutting the price of the creator then I see that as a bad thing.
Exposure is of course a good thing, but people are creatures of habit and assumptions- if they were given something for free, or purchased it at cost I think they would be far less likely to purchase it at the possibly higher cost set by the creator, who is most likely trying to make a profit, and who will be unable or unwilling to match the free/at cost prices offered by the unauthorized dealer.

If that segment of the marketplace is unwilling to change their expectations ("why should I buy it for $9.98 when so-and-so was giving it away in the park" or "$9.98? I got this from so-and-so for $3, I'm not going to pay three times the cost for this one!") then the unauthorized dealer has actually hurt the creator.

I disagree. How many imaginary prfitable sales do ya feel like dreamin' up?

I'm sorry ta say it, but this _is_ the same anti-Napster-type rhetoric I've been passionately lambasting for a long time now. It's the same line of thinking that spouts that if someone can get it for free from Napster ,then they're less likely ta buy it. Feh. :/

Well, I happen to have several friends who most certainly demonstrate that theory- They harvest Napster for what they want then collect them all for one of them to burn onto a CD.
None of them have purchased a single CD since Napster found a home on their computer.

In any event- it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. =)

Hey, I'd be willin' ta put our friends on the stand to see if they could testify under oath that they would have bought those trax had they not had file-sharing communities at their handy. Sump'n tells me their testimonies won't mean all that much.

I've also got several friends who subscribe ta that behavior, but I'd hafta say that most of them didn't even have a music collection worth mentioning before they were able to enter the world of file sharing. Does this mean they would've started one? Don't think so. However, I'd be willing ta bet the farm that the exposure has helped the artist. No money lost, yet another person has heard the work. The artist is happy. How can this possibly be bad?

On the other hand, I also know several people who've bought music at the store because they've been afforded the ability to preview them at home before they spilled out the cash. Now, these are sales that in all likelihood wouldn't've taken place. (Oh, did I mention that much of it was bought used?)

Then there are those like me. I had already invested LOTS of money in my record collection long before I had the opportunity to supplement it w/songs I've found in other people's collections.

So you see, there are several scenarios. The people we happen ta know don't necessarily represent the broadest spectrum of human nature. I think some of us need ta put aside our cynicism.

Well, as I've said before, I think that situations like these need to be judged on an individual basis.

As we've amply demonstrated here- you certainly can't paint everyone with the same brush so you really have to look at the details involved in each situation.

Exposure for an Artist, or Designer, or anybody else for that matter is pretty much always a good thing.
But I do expect the common courtesy of asking permission first- chances are I'll agree to what is proposed.
One of my most popular wallpapers, 'Far Within', was incorporated into a set of icons over at Skinz. Permission was asked for and gladly granted. It's the asking which makes an impression more than what project you're incorporating it into.

All I'm really trying to say is that in the event that something involving my work in the unforseen future seems objectionable to me, I can take comfort in knowing that the Law is supporting my side in the event that I feel action is warranted.

It's very easy to take a particular stand when presented with a hypothetical situation- sometimes your actual reactions will vary.

"So, how'dja hear about me?"

"Oh, some guy was over in the park passing out t-shirts w/your pic on them."

My response: "Really? Holy shit! I can't believe it. Why? What was his motive? Oh man, that's great; what can I do for you, sir?"

Your response (as I see it): "Really? Holy shit! I can't believe he didn't ask my permission! Now, what the hell did I do w/that lawyer's number. I'll be w/you in a moment, sir."

I'm just havin' a really difficult time understandin' why that guy in the park should hafta humbly ask me if I'll permit him to help me out. :þ

Btw, congrats on that Skinz thing. You do create some good stuff. I wish I were half as visually talented.

Well, I may not neccessarily react that way, I simply reserve the right to have that option.

Besides, what's the motive of this guy in the park anyway? If he's simply so worked up over something I made that he wants to reveal it to the world, I would assume he'd contact me anyway with his idea hoping to get me just as worked up about it.

But anyway, sitting here right now I'd have to say that I like having the Law on my side- even if I decide this guy in the park
is harmless.
I just want my options open when the guy who isn't so harmless comes along.

Besides, asking permission is a simple common courtesy- like saying "please" and "thank you" or "excuse me".

Unfortunately common courtesy is appears to be a dying artform- like chivalry.

You see, though, I believe that what you consider asking permission should in all actuality be called "giving notice" or sump'n like that. I agree that the odds are that the guy's probably gonna wanna contact ya anyway, but my point remains that I don't think it should be required for the "harmless." I think "asking permission" shouldn't hafta come inta play until a profit motive becomes an issue. Until then, though, the artist should be thanking the good samaritan (if we can find him). …and asking him what his motive is (I'd be curious, too).

I'm sorry to hear that you think common courtesy is no longer common practice. No one knows it like me, livin' where I do. Where I live (the NYC area), those like you and me who do practice it are the exception. I tend to find that people have a much better attitude overall toward others once I leave the northeast US. However, I must disagree that it's unfortunate that chivalry is dyin'. Chivalry is sexist bullshit and it _should_ die. If you wanna hold the door or help someone on w/their coat, I think you should do so because you're 1 heck of a nice guy and that's it. Believe me, a lotta women now get justifiably offended if they think you're bein' chivalrous rather than courteous.

.

You are right- I tend to lump 'giving notice' under the category of 'asking permission', that's probably why we seem to be on opposite sides on this issue.
It's not that I'm automatically offended when somebody uses my work (it wouldn't make sense for me to post it here if I did), but I would like to know what is being done with it.
As for chivalry, it was just the first example which popped into my head as I wrote- I do agree that much of it is sexist, but some of it has entered the realm of courtesy.
I work in retail, which contributes to my view that common courtesy is not so common anymore. I live in RI, and it has been commented more than once that the New England area has some of the rudest people in the US.

I actually have a wallpaper titled 'PerceptionCubed rendering right now which was inspired by the artwork of M.C. Escher- I'd be interested in your opinion because it closely resembles one of his works. Actually the simularity is so good that I find myself concerned about it, as I would hate to be infringing on someone else's intellectual property. I feel the work is differant enough to be considered original, but the issue still bugs me.

I _love_ Escher! I'll check it out right now.

*checking it out*

Okay, I'm back. Very cool. Personally, I don't think ya have anything ta worry about. Nothin' wrong w/bein' inspired by 1 o'the greatest. I for 1'd like ta see even more of the style, especially from someone like you who seems ta grasp it so naturally. You're quite talented, and I'm glad DevArt has been recognizing that.

Thanks a lot. I'm always concerned when I model something after another's work.

Anyway, it looks like we've played this subject out- we both seem to understand each other's viewpoint, and I agree with much of what you've said.
Intelligent debate is something I've been lacking lately, so thanks for the stimulating conversation.

I go to an art school and the thoughts here are very strict on copying or any of the like i know i sound kinda childish but if you cant do it your own way and have to copy something then your not an artist if you go at it for pure aestetic means or from the inside you create something that couldnt be copying even if you are just looking a a picture and adding your own touches and shades and whatever you want to it then you are an artist but id say there is a fine line between copying and rendering