Well, there goes GD, then. Why bother debating anything if no one can ever be convinced to change their mind?
I’ll take your word for it. Doesn’t matter, though - I don’t judge an axiom’s truth by its popularity.
I suppose that’s true, and I’m not about to get into trademarks. Still, you get the point - if you make an exception for one teary-eyed artist, you make an exception for all of them, and tears are pretty easy to fake.
Exactly. The artist’s emotional attachment to his picture doesn’t create an obligation for anyone else.
I answered this in the OP-linked thread; if you have more questions about it, please post them there. This is not a copyright thread, and my answer is not related to the artist’s emotional state.
Dodge? Ha! You just don’t understand what it’s like to support the public domain. If you did, you’d know how right I am, and how the pistachio joke is, in fact, a shining beacon of truth. When was the last time you wrote some free software? You’ve never done it, have you? Obviously you just don’t get it. Whooosh!
I’m sorry about this. I’m not certain you caught the limitations of my statement (that is, on re-reading, I’m not certain I made them very clear). I was only trying to imply that we owed a debt to an artist. It is simply common courtesy to acknowledge the author of a work that you admire. Part of that courtesy might include (see, I should have put a might in the original statement) respecting in some way (see, again, I should have included a modifier) the authors opinion as to the form the work should take.
As I recall from earlier threads, you did acknowledge that an artist should be able to expect that his work is attributed to him, did you not? Or at least that one should not plagerise other’s works. Does this not imply a debt of sorts that we owe to a artists?
As I tried to stress in the rest of my earlier post, however, I don’t think that respecting such feelings means granting the artist absolute powers over all uses of their work. It may, however, include granting them the right not to publish the work at all. That is, the right to decide for themselves what is and what is not their “work”. Can you not see similarities between the admonishment against plagerisation and an admonishment not to forcefully publish an artist’s work?
One thing I have learned about Mr2001 (and I don’t mean this in a bad way by any stretch of the imagination), is that you have to parse some of his writing more thouroughly than other people. He uses words more exactly than I am used to (and the only bad way I mean that is that I am envious). If you parse the OP very carefully, you may note that the second question was “inspired” by that earlier thread, but not lifted from it. That is, I’m not sure he meant to take an example directly from that thread and rehash it. In the OP to this thread, he specifically stated that the artist wants to control the uses of a work which she freely gave to another person. That is, the person in question did not simply happen to glance at the work once, the artist was involved in the decision to give the person the copy of the work.
Now, I’ll agree that there may be a subtext to the OP where he might consider copying the work for distribution a valid use and to which you would certainly disagree. But in this thread he has not proposed that anyone should have the right to gain access to any work at any time as you seem to keep implying that he is in fact saying.
One more try:
Not exactly. If you will notice, it is also possible that he is talking about someone who attended the funeral and so aquired a copy of the picture in a perfectly acceptable manner. Also, the way you phrased the possibly offensive use, you did not limit yourself to uses which involve distribution.
So, while Mr2001 is claiming that you cannot require by force that everyone who attended that funeral reverantly treat the booklet with high honor forever more, you are asserting that you certainly do have a right not to expect said portrait to be used as someone’s corporate logo.
If I may be so bold, you are both talking past each other to some degree.
I really hate playing the peacemaker. I’ll stop now.
Well, let’s put it this way: why bother telling the tone-deaf, partially hearing-impaired person about how offensive loud screeching is? They seemed determined not to get it the first hundred times you explain it. Odds are they’ll never get it. But they’re still going to be morally expected to not loudly screech around those who are not tone deaf and can hear.
Do you accept the “popularity” of the belief that one has a moral obligation to not crap on someone’s carpet? If you accept that popularity, why not accept this other?
Oh right—because, like the tone deaf person or the person who has no smell, you don’t get it, therefore . . . you don’t get it. And won’t accept it. No matter how many people tell you that they get it and respect it.
They don’t have to have tears. They only have to have the expectation, going in, that their work will not be published without their consent.
If they cannot have this assurance, then they will limit what works will be published. They will probably also lock everything they have created in a special room, where no one can see it, because after all, according to you, once a person casts their eyes upon something an artist has created, it’s open season to publish it.
Most in our society would prefer that it not come to that, so they’ve assured the artist (morally and legally) that they needn’t worry (morally or legally, anyway) about their works being published without their permission (especially their unpublished works).
But if you won’t get that? Oh well. Go sit next to the clueless tone deaf screeching person and the guy wearing the cat piss jacket.
I’ll just assume that you still believe what you stated there: that yes, you would want to control what the artist can charge for his work—you would not allow him to decide for himself what his work is worth to him.
Start a poll in IMHO, then, about how people feel about having their works (particularly unpublished works) used without their permission.
When have I told you how much control you were supposed to have (or not have) over your software? When have I told you what others can do with your software?
And while we’re at it, when have I told you what people should be morally allowed to copy and use in your home?
That is what he carefully wrote in this thread, however, he has reinforced, many times, the notion that an artist merely has to allow a person access to the contents of the house (a plumber coming to repair something) in order for that to be considered “access.” Therefore, he has conceded more than once, anyone who sees the work in someone else’s house, not just someone who is given the work, may then copy that work and distribute it (if they happened to have camera with them, for instance). This assertion is very well documented on previous threads.
He has deliberately (I suspect) avoided bringing up the concept of being in someone’s house as adequate “access,” precisely because he (I suspect) he realizes that it would go over like a lead balloon. But it still is what inspired this thread, and has been a major bone of contention in previous threads.
And neither am I, for that manner (see my comment about lining the birdcage with the artwork).
And he is asserting that I do not have that right (to prevent the drawing on the memorial service to be published in an advertisment). He has said it in previous threads, and there is no doubt in my mind that this is what he means exactly.
If, however, he wishes to retract such a desire (that the memorial service booklet art can be morally published by someone else, as long as they pay the artist), then he can proclaim here that he has changed his mind. It would be a great shock to me if he did that, but if he does, that’s dandy.
Well, we agree that plagiarism is wrong, but not why it’s wrong. I believe it’s wrong because it’s fraudulent, not because of any debt to the artist; if I put my name on a book that someone else wrote, I’m saying “I wrote this book”, which is a lie.
OTOH, I can’t say for sure that I don’t believe there’s some kind of debt to the author. An ethical obligation to pay him when you copy his works, as I described in the other thread, certainly sounds like a debt, and it’s not too far from there to owing him other consideration. I’ll have to think about that.
Not those particular admonishments, for reasons I explained above, but I think I see your point. I’m not sure what you mean about an artist deciding what is and isn’t his work, though.
Well, that’s a tricky point. In the 7-month-old thread which yosemitebabe is so fond of, IIRC I said an artist’s work shouldn’t be used commercially without permission. In the OP linked thread, however, I didn’t make that exception.
She’ll have to face a difficult choice: complain about people coming into her house to copy her paintings (old, idealistic thread), or complain about people using her work in advertisements (new, pragmatic thread)?
I know it’s popular, and I also agree with it. I don’t agree with it because it’s popular, though.
I’m not going to start believing it just because other people do. I’m not going to start liking pistachio ice cream, or country music, or church, or Chinese communism just because a lot of people like those either.
Surely there are also some popular beliefs that you don’t agree with, even though you know people who do.
I would not allow him to sit on it by setting the price at $800 billion. Anyone who’s interested in my full answer, and the reasoning leading up to it, can go to that thread–you know, the copyright thread–and read it themselves; while I’m sure you think you’re helping by pulling bits and pieces out of context, the hamsters also have a good memory, and they’re objective.
You must have forgotten our little exchange about idealism vs. pragmatism. Pity. For the purposes of the OP-linked thread (and by extension this one, when I fail to keep it on track, as I’m doing right now), the Kubrickstan Pragmatic Copyright Office will be run as I’ve described there.
I don’t recall you making that exception. I believe there was some mention of a cat food ad, and you stated (if memory serves) that the person who published the memorial portrait “set themselves up” for the work to be published somewhere else. I could be mistaken about that, but I do remember the cat food ad and I don’t recall you claiming that the cat food ad would be an inappropriate use.
Complain about both, since you’ve made both assertions.
Why do you agree with it? Because the smell of human shit on your carpet is offensive to you? Because you would consider the carpet “ruined” in some way if it had been shat upon? But what is an offensive smell? Some people may enjoy the smell of shit (and its texture, etc.) and may consider it an asset to their carpet. What is the definition of “ruined,” if the carpet can be cleaned? What if the person who shat on your carpet offered to pay for the cleaning of the carpet afterwards? Would that make their shitting on your carpet perfectly acceptable?
Just because it may be a popular belief that the carpet is ruined, is it really? And if someone does not believe it’s ruined, and indeed believes that human shit on carpet is a dandy thing, then should they claim that since they disagree with the idea that shit on carpet is a bad thing, then there should be no moral obligation for anyone to refrain from shitting on someone else’s carpet?
These are all things that are not likely to get a near 100% approval (at least not on these boards). Probably not even a 50% approval. These are also not things that require you to do something to someone else. If you like pistachio ice cream, you are not inflicting it on someone else. You just like it and believe it’s nice. Same goes for church, Chinese communisim (at least not in the USA), or the other things. You can believe in them, or not believe in them, without expecting others to endure the thing that you believe in.
But what you are proposing is that something that IF POLLED, a near 100% of the people (here and most anywhere else, no doubt) would find offensive, obnoxious, and morally wrong (particularly since it will be DONE TO THEM, rather than just being something that someone else “likes”), and you are trying to compare it to liking a certain flavor of ice cream.
Sorry. Unless you want to force everyone else to eat the ice cream, it just doesn’t compare.
There’s a popular belief that I can’t lift other people’s possessions from their homes and keep them. There’s a popular belief that I can’t drive on the left side of the street.
Which means you would not allow him to set his own price. Because you would not allow him the choice to not sell rights to his work. It’s either sell it (at a price not of his choosing) or have it wrested away from him.
Yeah. They can do that, and I doubt they’ll come up with a radically different opinion than what I’ve stated above. But by all means, I encourage them to wade through that thread and judge for themselves.
It may be that a utilitarian approach would be logical enough for Mr2001, though. So, we have an artist who does not want his/her work to be copied. The artist feels very strongly on the subject, and it’s worth mentioning that such feelings are not unreasonable or crazy. The artist would be very upset not to have his/her wishes respected. Is the potential good that might come from making unauthorized copies going to outweigh this harm? I doubt it. It’s not like you’re going to bring about world peace by posting illicit scans of someone else’s drawings on your website. So if you copy the art anyway, you’re needlessly causing the artist emotional distress and producing vanishingly small benefit to anyone else. The harm outweighs the good, so from a utilitarian perspective the act is wrong.
If the artist didn’t care one way or another about copies of his/her work then there would be no problem. It’s the strong emotional attachment to the art that allows for the possibility of harm in this case, and that’s why these emotions should be taken into consideration. Feelings exist. Hurting people’s feelings causes them pain. To ignore this when considering questions of ethics would be…illogical. Worse than that, I think it would border on sociopathy.
“Because it would make someone else upset” is a perfectly good reason not to do something. It’s a reason that might be outweighed by other, more compelling reasons, but it’s not one that should be ignored from the beginning.
Is that what your logic tells you? My logic says something entirely different.
Logic itself is NOT subjective. People can fail to apprehend proper logic, and they can commit logical fallacies. However, logic is by no means subjective. It may not be easy – indeed, a great many people lack a basic understanding of logic – but logic itself is not subjective.
First, yosemitebabe, your argument from emotions really doesn’t do anything for me, nor do your constant belittling comments about how Mr2001 just doesn’t get it. If I tell someone to quit wearing red because they’re fouling up the Kirlian vibrations in the office, and that their insensitivity to these Kirlian vibrations is no excuse, they’re under no obligation to cooperate with me.
However, there IS a certain popularity issue that comes into play, by virtue of the fact that we live in a society. We have to make allowances for other folks’ behaviors and preferences even when we don’t understand them or share them. There’s no hard and fast rule determining when a preference must be respected, but the more common it is, the more credence we should give it. Many, many people don’t want to see me defecating on a downtown sidewalk, and so even if there were no hygienic concerns, I can legitimately be forbidden from doing this public pooping. However, not so many people care about my long hair, or care strongly about it; therefore, I can’t legitimately be forced to get a haircut. (Or forced to wear long pants instead of shorts, or forced not to clean my ears out with my little finger, etc.)
With the sample question at hand, there’s a non-emotional reason why I can’t copy the unpublished artwork I see at someone’s house: allowing me to do so stifles artistic creativity. If my behavior is acceptable and predictable, then artists will be able to predict that people will copy artwork that’s left lying around the house. Some artists will then stop just putting art around the house; likely, this will mean they’ll be creating less art altogether, since they won’t have the incentive of beautifying their house with their art.
If you believe that the world is a better place in it with more art in it, then you’ll oppose allowing folks to copy unpublished art they see in an artist’s home.
However, if they are well aware that everyone in the office is upset by Kirlian vibrations being disturbed, and in fact, there’s a law regarding Kirlian vibrations, and you’ve debated with them time and again about Kirlian vibrations, and they’ve admitted that yes, they know the vast majority of people would be upset by the concept of disturbed Kirlian vibrations, then you’ve got a different kettle of fish, don’t you?
This whole exchange did not occur in a vacuum, nor did it just pop up overnight, with no prior history.
I was trying to link the concept of not publishing a work with the idea of plagerism. If an artist creates a painting and in order to do so he doodles some sketches beforehand, I think it should be his decision whether the painting or the sketches are seen as “his work”. I’m not sure I linked them very well, but that was what I was going for.
Did you feel that my third paragraph didn’t adequately address all these points? Please reread that: I think we’re in entire agreement on the popularity issue; my disagreement with you is over whether the “you just don’t get it” is a remotely relevant argument.
It sometimes comes to that, however. Just like it would come to that if you were to tell the person with no smell to stop wearing the cat piss jacket, because it smells. Then if the cat piss jacket person were to continually insist that they do understand how bad cat piss smells, while repeatedly being unable to prove any significant understanding (or how offensive it might be to those who can smell) then you’d eventually come the conclusion that they just don’t get it.
Thankx, pervert. Zagadka, what I had in mind was more along the lines of the gay marriage debate. Logically, it would cause no harm and the law is discriminatory, but it would offend certain people’s beliefs, so they’re the ones who get their way. Another example is saying, “Where were you when the towers fell?” as a rationale for invading Iraq. And then of course there’s political correctness.
Alhough far from precise, I support the “reasonable person” standard.
Well, it’s not clear at all that the harm would outweigh the good.
If one artist is very upset that his work is used, but a thousand people come to the web site and are a little bit happier because they see the drawing there, couldn’t that balance out?
If one of those thousand people is another artist, and he uses the drawing in a derived work which makes another thousand people a bit happier, couldn’t the net effect be to make people happier overall?
It’s hard to say for sure, since you can’t quantify emotions, but it’s very possible.
True. It seems to me, though, that the people who use the artist’s feelings as a reason don’t consider that they could be outweighed.
At first, you might think so. Until you realize that thousands of unhappy artists would now know that people will publish their work without their permission, with no regard for their sensibilities or feelings. So, these artists will now be far more careful about having any artwork out for anyone to see.
And eventually, the desire to be an artist will dry up. After all, artists are not treated with any respect: The message they’ll be getting is that their feelings don’t count. They aren’t allowed to decide whether their work is suitable to be published. They aren’t allowed to decide how much to charge for their work. They can’t even feel totally secure in having their work on display in their own home. For most human beings who feel entitled to some measure of dignity and privacy, these conditions would be pretty disheartening. So why bother? Just be a plumber, or a lawyer, and get treated with far more respect.
I think it’s about as clear as such a thing can be. We know the artist will be very, very upset. We don’t know that anyone else will be benefited at all until after the fact, and it’s staggeringly unlikely that any potential benefit will be more than a mild “Huh, that’s a pretty picture.”
Do you think making a thousand people go “Huh, that’s a pretty picture” is worth causing one person serious, devastating emotional distress? I don’t. Especially not since the people pleased could be just as well pleased by looking at any of the other millions of pictures already available on the web, or the new art of someone who actually wanted it posted on the web. There are plenty of talented artists who’d be happy to allow their work to be used without charge on someone else’s website, so I cannot see any justification for insisting upon having a particular image by a particular artist who doesn’t want it there.
I think almost anyone would agree that if the only way to, say, save a life were to copy an artist’s work then you should go for it, permission or not. But if the only reason on the other side is “Well, I just felt like making a copy of your art even though you didn’t want me to” then it’s unsurprising that this would not seem especially compelling.
