CompuServe Thread

#Project Files

22 messages in this thread
#2318From: Michael S. FlynnDec 8, 1994 6:57 PM
Bruce, I've had conversations with Jenee before. It seems that each forum can make its own rules, and what one forum considers unacceptable, another may have no problem with. The case in point was an image that was created and rendered in Animaster: Master. I had been disillusioned at the lack of detail that I saw in the posted images that other artists had uploaded of spacecraft from Star Wars, so I created my own models and did a few renderings. When I posted them to the HAsh library, Jenee left me a message saying that the image could not be posted without written permission from LucasFilm/LucasArt. I thought that was strange since there is all manner of file, anims, and sound clips available for Star Wars, Star Trek, Babalon 5, etc. in the SF Multimedia Forum. So I asked and was told that each forum makes its own judgement. I have since uploaded an image of TIE/Ins to the Star Wars library in the SF Multimedia Forum, and it appeared in a few days. I then put together a package that included a couple of renderings nd all of the project files and maps for anyone with AM to download so they could do there own renderings with the models I made. This SEA file is the one that has not appeared. Michael S. Flynn
#2322From: Bruce Herzog, M.D.Dec 8, 1994 7:50 PM
Hi Mike, CompuServe was given notice by the owners of the Star Trek copyright to remove all Trekkie material…I suppose similar things are possible with Lucas Arts material. The GGG is looking out for infringements prudently. They are the ones who will be out of pocket if suits occur. Bruce
#2335From: Michael S. FlynnDec 9, 1994 11:59 AM
Bruce, Thanks for the info. Michael S. Flynn
#2337From: Bruce Herzog, M.D.Dec 9, 1994 1:30 PM
Ain't the Information Superhighway grand? Bruce
#2339From: Chris DukeDec 9, 1994 2:31 PM
Bruce, I am curious, what does the law say about such matters. Where does artistic freedom end and copyright infringement begin ? If the artist doesn't profit by his interpretation is he violating the law ? Wondering, Chris
#2346From: Bruce Herzog, M.D.Dec 9, 1994 5:13 PM
Profit has nothing to do with it..GO GRAPHSUP and check the files in the copyright and other LIBrary. There's a file that does a better job of it than I could. CIS makes a profit on every download… Bruce Herzog Graphics Forum Staff NY 09-Dec-94 at 6:10p DST
#2372From: Chris DukeDec 10, 1994 2:47 PM
Bruce, I did as you suggested and downloaded several files from the GRAPHSUP forum concerning the copyright issue. They made for some interesting reading. But regardless of all the lip service copyright infringement gets in these forums I must say that CompuSpend's inforcement of these rules is inconsistent at best. Exactly what Star Chamber decides which uploads are allowable and which are not ? Chris
#2377From: Bruce Herzog, M.D.Dec 10, 1994 4:32 PM
The GGG lawyers and Larry Wood determine what is and what isn't kosher. Bruce
#2350From: Michael S. FlynnDec 9, 1994 7:30 PM
Chris, I just spent 2 hours typing some info on copyright laws for you and anyone else interested, and after I filed it, it just vanished. To make a long story short, you have almost no right to use anyone elses copyrighted work outside of the Fair Use law. When I calm down, I'll re-type the info. Michael S. Flynn
#2357From: Bruce Herzog, M.D.Dec 9, 1994 9:28 PM
Mike the info is available in the GRAPHSUP forum in the copyright and other LIBrary. Bruce
#2373From: Chris DukeDec 10, 1994 2:47 PM
>> I just spent 2 hours typing some info on copyright laws for you and >>anyone else interested, and after I filed it, it just vanished. Michael, Did you try a universal search of your hard drive. My CIM will occasionally put files in directories not associated with my CIM software. And thanks for the effort. Chris
#2359From: Pawel BodytkoDec 9, 1994 9:41 PM
>>>If the artist doesn't profit by his interpretation is he violating the law ? Why not?… After all the copyright laws exist to protect those who either create or pay for original artwork. In my opinion the harm is greater if you give away stolen work than when you sell it. At least when you sell it you attach some value to it — giving it away suggests that it is worth nothing… Now, I do think it is perfectly all right to copy somebody's work as a learning experience… (After all we have to start somwhere), but running around with it causes all kinds of trouble… I would hate to see somebody to come to my office showing me a copy of my work saying in effect: "Look I can do it, too!" — Oh yea? If you can do it too, how come you forgot to create something new? Pawel
#2362From: Michael S. FlynnDec 10, 1994 1:47 AM
Pawel, Using copyrighted material as a learning experience falls under the Fair Use law and is legal. This also applies to software, although the software companies would rather you did not know it. Even though the license says that you cannot reverse engineer the product, the law says you can if you are doing it only to gain an understanding of the software's underlying ideas and procedures. DV Magazine's contributing editor Steven Blaise wrote a short article on the subject of copyrights in the November issue. Michael S. Flynn
#2368From: Bruce Herzog, M.D.Dec 10, 1994 8:26 AM
Hi Pawel, The speculation over what is as isn't covered by copyright is presented in files in the GRAPHSUP forum in the section on Copyright etc. Copying material to learn is considered fair use..of course that implies that you don't give it away or sell it..It's for you alone…Even program disks allow you to make backup copies for your own fair use. Bruce
#2379From: Chris DukeDec 10, 1994 6:10 PM
>>After all the copyright laws exist to protect those who either create or >>pay for original artwork. Pawel, So how do POP artists get away with using the work of others ? Does Warhol's estate pay a fee to the Campbell Soup Co. every time a print of "100 Cans" is sold ? If I claim my version is a parody do I receive carte-blanche ? Looking for clarification, Chris
#2386From: Pawel BodytkoDec 11, 1994 2:50 PM
>>>So how do POP artists get away with using the work of others ? .. Does Warhol's estate pay a fee to the Campbell Soup Co. every time a print of "100 Cans" is sold ? Chris, I have no idea. (I am just an artist). Maybe the difference is that Warhal was creating/selling artwork and not canned soup and Campbell Soup Co. never had any interest in entering the art business with their cans? I am sure that if they intended to sell their cans to museums they would make their lawyers pretty bussy… <BG> Have you've heard about the lawsuit filed against Corel and their grand price winner (talk about bad choice!) by a photo stock agency for copying one of their photos? The guy claims "a fair use" but anybody who sees both pictures together will see a shameless knock-off… (the photograph is much better, I must add). The funny thing is that Corel is killing all the stock agencies with their $17.95 royalty free 100 pictures on PhotoCD… (you can get a square 20,000 shots for under $800 and I remember paying that much for oneshot, one time use to the Image Bank). Pawel
#2402From: Chris DukeDec 12, 1994 7:21 PM
Pawel, No, I wasn't aware of the Corel/stock photo lawsuit. But then again I don't particularly like stock photography or clip art for that matter. I suppose the lesson of this example and others is that every artist should endeavor to create work that is completely original. But I for one have never seen a piece of visual art( graphic design,architecture,fashion design, photography, etc…) that wasn't based partly or solely on something that preceded it. We humans do not live in a vacuum and therefore cannot be expected to create in a manner that would suggest we did. Unfortunately this thread has drifted away from its original concern, CompuServe's copyright infringement rules. My gripe with CI$ is its inconsistent inforcement of these rules. If CompuGrinch is going to put its foot down in this forum it had better do so in all of the forums online. Now on a lighter note, I was wondering if you had uploaded any of your work to CIS. I am always curious to see how others are using AM. If your worried I promise not to infringe your copyright 😉 Chris
#2410From: Pawel BodytkoDec 13, 1994 9:52 AM
>>>Now on a lighter note, I was wondering if you had uploaded any of your work to CIS. I am always curious to see how others are using AM. If your worried I promise not to infringe your copyright 😉 Chris, No, I have not. So far all my work has been either for paying clients or too dear for my heart to put into public domain… This will change within 2-3 months, since I am working on stuff for my own marketing and will be interested in showing off the stuff… (I don't have much faith that CIS will do any legwork for me, but it won't hurt either). You are absolutely right about the vacuum and how we influence each other… This is a good reason to keep a lot of things away from the easy grab… especially if it is the "idea" that makes them special, not the expression of it. As i understand, the copyrights laws don't protect "ideas" at all. The smart thing to do is to get paid first, then let the others "get influenced". Pawel
#2338From: Chris DukeDec 9, 1994 2:31 PM
MIchael, How about uploading your work to Hash's BBS instead ? Just a thought, Chris
#2344From: Michael S. FlynnDec 9, 1994 4:28 PM
Chris, Because for the past few months, getting onto the BBS has been one giant pain. I might try again though. Michael S. Flynn
#2374From: Chris DukeDec 10, 1994 2:47 PM
>> Because for the past few months, getting onto the BBS has been one >>giant pain. I might try again though. Michael, For what its worth, getting a successful connection seems easier during the week than on weekends. At least that has been my experience. Chris
#2356From: Christopher HoffmanDec 9, 1994 8:00 PM
Next time Mike… Just label it "SHIP"… Or "My Project"…. <BG> Then you can claim insanity… I put Star Trek-Type on mine… And besides the extended time for it to show up, no problems occurred… Hmmmmm again…. Christopher Hoffman