T-Shirt Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 25 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
Monkeylantern,

Re: "Would you like it if someone took all your designs, spent 10 minutes in Photoshop tweaking them, and then sold them as their own?"

Of course not, and that's not what I'm saying. If there is only a bit of token change for the purpose of getting away with intellectual property theft, that is reprehensible - no different from changing the registration plates on a stolen car and selling it as your own. However, if someone were to use one of my designs as the starting point for creating their own design, and that new design broadcast a different message from my own, based on a design concept that was original, I would not feel ripped off at all. In fact, I'd be pleased to have provided the foundation for the realisation of a new vision that worked artistically. I mean it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,512 Posts
Ross B said:
I wasn't actually asking the question, Solmu - it was rhetorical.
So? Rhetorical questions are only asked because the person doesn't want an answer - not because it's unanswerable. You were making an incorrect assumption, so I was addressing that.

Ross B said:
I was coming from a philosophical angle, not a legal one. I understand your points about copyright law (although I don't think it's anywhere near as black and white as you are insisting - the law rarely is with such matters).
The law is philosophical; it's one of the things that is often under-appreciated about it.

Of course it's not black and white - but it is easier to put it in those terms, and if I am giving advice it needs to be in those terms. Some things are clearly white, some clearly black. You pay a lawyer to separate the grey into further black and white - since I am not a paid lawyer, I have to err with the side of caution and lump the grey in with the black.

Ross B said:
My point, though, is that with many thousands of little Tshirt companies out there, the odds of anyone in the know actually seeing manipulated art in the first place to identify it are very tiny.
There are two prongs to getting caught - one is whether or not your work is identifiable, the other is it then being seen.

So I addressed one - identifyability - by commenting that it's a lot harder to evade that than one might think. The other - being seen - I didn't really address, but implied people may well not be caught (not exactly something I can guarantee ;)).

I agree with you that there are enough small companies out there that the majority of them most likely won't get caught, even if they are operating illegally.

The thing is, there are pretty much two options there - you're small enough to be under the radar (in which case you're not making a success of yourself and might as well not be doing this), or you are big enough to be seen and therefore get caught. Either way, you may as well not break the law. One doesn't pay, the other doesn't pay.

Ross B said:
Not that I'm advocating breaking the copyright laws...
If you're not advocating breaking copyright laws, why are you advocating breaking copyright laws?

Ross B said:
but my ANALOGY between the use of the 12 bar blues structure as a
Your analogy was flawed.

Ross B said:
Similarly, I would argue (philosophically, not legally, although I really do not think the two can always be neatly separated)
We're not here to "argue" semantics because you enjoy an argument, we're here to discuss practical advice on t-shirt selling (and, to a lesser extent, buying).

Ross B said:
I would contend that representational art should not be copyrightable at all.
That's a political contention that has nothing at all to do with these forums.

As it happens, I'm a copyleft advocate and don't approve of the current copyright system - I am not here to defend it and that's not what I was doing - I am here to describe its realities as they currently are. In the event that it changes to match your philosophical ideals, I will describe it in those terms instead.

Ross B said:
Can you copyright craft? I think not.
Another rhetorical question where you are, in fact, wrong. Craft can be copyrighted.


Copyright law is arcane, and our patchwork attempt to modify it (mostly for the sake of big business) has harmed our very development as a society. That's completely beside the point.

If you want to discuss what copyright law should or shouldn't be then start a thread in the lounge ("Is copyright law in need of reform?" for example), and people can choose to engage on that topic if they're interested. But muddying the waters by advocating copyright infringement as practical advice is not helpful.

(as a postscript, your posts would be easier to read if you used the inbuilt quote system instead of copy and pasting text between quote marks)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
Solmu

Sadly, discussion on any rational level does not appear possible with you, since your idea of argument appears to be to simply declare me wrong without providing any rational evidence other than that you say so.

eg: You were found wanting in your fatuous equating of the 12 bar blues structure to the 256 colour palette, but rather than concede on this point (any rational examination of the facts dumps your contention square on its bum), you simply resort to the schoolyard nah nah nah nah nah retort of "your analogy was flawed". Let's have a bit of sensible discussion here. I responded in depth as to why your parallelling of the blues chord progression with the 256 colour palette was invalid. How about you pay me the same compliment? If my analogy was flawed, as you claim, how so?

Your statement that "rhetorical questions are only asked because the person doesn't want an answer - not because it's unanswerable" is about as silly a comment as I've come across. It doesn't even make basic sense. Rhetorical questions function as an answer in themselves, not because the person asking them doesn't want an answer! And as for it being unanswerable - what on earth are you talking about?

And what's the "incorrect assumption" you claim I was making? I'm happy to debate anything I said, but it's difficult when I have no idea what you're on about.

I am NOT advocating breaking copyright laws, yet you insist I am. You seem to have trouble understanding much of the content of my posts, yet you know better than I what I am saying? Isn't that a little arrogant? Obtuse, even?

Craft can be copyrighted, can it? Give me a single example, anywhere. What utter rubbish. It's intellectual property that is copyrighted, not craft.

You dismiss my comment that representational art should not be copyrightable at all as "political" and declare it has nothing to do with these forums. Firstly, please explain how it is political. Secondly, since my comment directly addresses the question of copyright, which would appear to be the central concern of this thread, please explain how it has no relevance to this forum.

I take exception to your offensive and untrue accusation that I am advocating copyright infringement "as practical advice" or in any other way. I am not. None of my posts above are in any way expressed as practical advice. I am merely arguing a set of philosophical points which appear to be too challenging for you to properly comprehend. I doubt that many others are finding my arguments similarly challenging. Whatever, lacking comprehension does not give you the right to level completely unwarranted and insupportable accusations at me that amount to charging me with actively promoting criminal behaviour. Suggest you try thinking a little before you lash out as some sort of petulant ego-driven response to having your opinions challenged. You're a big boy now.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,512 Posts
I chose not to discuss certain points further with you because they had no relevance to actual copyright law (as opposed to opinions on what copyright should or should not cover) and its effects on running a t-shirt business.

I will make that same choice again now, as you have added nothing more of relevance.

Your childish goading does have its intended effect of making me angry, but I don't really see the point in responding in kind.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
27,689 Posts
Since we aren't lawyers here, if you really want answers to if it's legal to manipulate someone else's image and make money off of it, you should speak to a lawyer. This will also help if you want to know if or what will happen if you get caught.

Closing thread.

Please remember:

Forum Guidelines said:
Be Courteous!


Don't attack others with words. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Flaming, derogatory insults and hate speech will not be allowed in this forum. If you disagree with another member’s point of view, do so in a mature and civil manner. If someone seeks help from other forums members, please do not respond unless you have something positive or helpful to add. If you find yourself being flamed or insulted by another member, please do not dignify that person with a response. Notify a moderator or admin and let us handle it.
Feel free to continue the discussion/debate "off board".
 
21 - 25 of 25 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top