Now I’m confused. What’s the difference between plagiarism and using an image one didn’t create (as the Chinese themepark is doing)?
And why does it matter who owns an original work? The point is that it is original, and someone owns it. If a publisher owns it, it’s because the person who originally wrote it sold it to the publisher. Do you think that once it is out of the creator’s hands, it shouldn’t be protected as property?
If one is legally using an image someone didn’t create, they asked permission first. This theme park, however, is plagarism.
Also, since Donald appears to be wearing pants, I can’t believe I didn’t think of this earlier:
“I used to run a line of Mickey Mouse massage parlors, until those jerks at Disney shut me down. I told them I’d change the logo, put Mickey’s pants back on, but they wouldn’t listen. Some folks you just can’t reason with.”
Right. I should have said:
Now I’m confused. What’s the difference between plagiarizing a written work and illegally using an image one didn’t create (as the Chinese themepark is doing)? I was responding to Diogenes’ claim that he “despises plagiarism,” but at the same time thinks that “the concept of intellectual property is a load.” I find these statements to be contradictory.
I’m indifferent to what happens to it once it’s outside the creator’s hands. I don’t see it as transferrable property.
My distaste for plagiarism has less to do with feeling like the source has been stolen from than with loathing the laziness of the plagiarizer.
I don’t get it…it still has the same value. I guess it just doesn’t make sense to me that it’s OK to steal property of any type that has intrinsic value and equates to a means of livilhood for the owner of said property. If the publisher paid for it fair and square, then why should they not reap the benefit? And why should someone who did NOT purchase it be allowed to reap the benefit?
I don’t believe anybody can really “own” it. I know that legally they can, and I’m not agitating to change the law, I just don’t care if some giant corporation gets its pretend “property” poached. It’s not like the Disney company created any of those characters, so why should they have any more control over them than I do?
But bear in mind, I’m an anti-corporate, borderline socialist. I’m a radical. I know that.
But pro cheap knock-off that hurts workers.
Yeah, like all those rich musicians that think they own the rights to songs and us poor schubs should have to pay for them. What a crock! That’s just notes in a certain order, no way to own that. Right, Dio?
I once made a living performing songs that other people wrote. Never paid them a dime.
One thing I will say. You should give proper credit to the artist or creator if you use something. I guess I do care about credit. I just don’t care about money.
I’m indifferent to what happens to it once it’s outside the creator’s hands. I don’t see it as transferrable property.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
I’m a songwriter, or at least I used to be. I had a band try to steal one of my songs once. It annoyed me. I wouldn’t have minded if they played it as long as they gave me credit.
One of the bands I was in recorded a couple of CD’s after I left the band. They recorded some of the songs I had written while I was in the band. They gave me credit on the insert cards but I never got any money. I was happy with that.
Why should I expend my creativity or effort to create something that someone else has already come up with, that I can just exploit for my own gain with no effort of my own? What is inherently despicable or loathesome about laziness? And even if it is inherently negative, why should it be more distasteful than theivery? The former hurts only me; the latter hurts someone else. You can call such a mindset radical or socialist if you like, but it doesn’t seem to make logical sense.
Furthermore, it’s not at all clear why you would care whether the artist received credit or not. If your belief that credit is deserved stems from an acknolwedgement that as the creator, the artist owns the product of his or her creation, then surely it is up to him or her to decide the value of the product he/she owns. So it’s nice for you that you don’t care about money, but a lot of people can’t afford that attitude – especially those who try to make a living from creative effort. For a lot of people, the value of a product is best described with dollars, not liner notes, because you can buy stuff with the former. Like food.
Me, too. As a child, the Disney charcters never appealed to me. I was a Bugs Bunny man, those guys.
Here in Thailand, where we’re awash in fakes, too, Disney-themed clothing is also considered adult wear. Especially Winnie the Pooh (he’s Disney, too, right?). Women for the most part, younger adult women, but I’ve spotted a Winnie-the-Pooh shirt on my wife’s cousin when she was in her 30s.
I’ve no sympathy for Disney either myself, but I’ll point out it’s not just Disney. They’re ripping off some Japanese characters, too, so I’m sure Japan will get in on it.
And as for legality in China, I seem to remember either Starbucks or MacDonald’s – pretty sure it was Starbucks – launching a successful copyright-infringement suit in China. The authorities there – and here – will get tough if the big-gun lawyers start getting into the action.
Heh heh heh…right…
I suggest a trip to Shanghai is in order.
Really? If we are then you can file suit vs the USA for their violation, and so can various other nations and NGOs. Oddly none have. Nor have you. Please tell me what International Judicial body or US Court has ruled that we are in violation of our treaty obligations? Yes, I know the War in Iraq is pretty nasty and it doesn’t seem like it should be legal, and various legal nitwits have said it is illegal. But US Courts have ruled it is legal under US Law, and no International body with juristiction has ruled it is illegal. (That’d be the UN Security Council, and yes, the USA does have Veto power, but it hasn’t had to use it yet, either, has it?)
And I don’t get how you think that business that *you *consider large and successful can be stolen from. Dudes in China think that *you *are large and successful- is it OK if they steal from you? :dubious:
I can see it if it was a case of need. Dudes in China don’t need fake Zippos, they can buy other lighters if they need them. Of course, they don’t need to smoke either.
Right, Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck certainly weren’t created by Disney.
You’re assuming the purchasers KNOW it’s a fake.