Re: Re: Kelly v. Arriba Soft (new opinion from 9thCir.)

Quoting "Robert F. Bodi" <lawlists[_at_]bodi.com>:
>Here is where Keith misses the whole point of copyright. The
>problem is that there is NO QUALITY issue, because copying is
>EXACT. Hence, nobody is going to PAY for a work if they are
>legally allowed to get it for free. That goes for graphics images,
>books, music, etc. Copyright gives the person who did the
>intellectual labor some ability to control his work, and gain
>some monetary value for it. Why would somebody hire Linda for her
>work if they could take it without consequences?

Here is where Bodi misses the whole point of the paragraphs I quoted from Linda's website. They expressed a disapproval of artists giving away their own creations in competition with artists (like Linda) who are selling their own creations. There was no reference to Linda competing against her own work there.

Keith

(I re-quote those paragraphs below:)

4. Sometimes artists are their own enemy.

Surprised? Well, it is sad but true. Some artists do not see the big picture. Others just can't say no when they are asked. Some don't really care about their fellow artists and the damage that can be caused by careless actions. When artists allow others to incorporate their work in a background set, it is perfectly within their copyright to do so. However, given the climate of the internet and the unconscionable infringement of copyrighted images, is this wise? I ask these artists, how is anyone to know whether a license was obtained to use your image on a given background once it is used elsewhere on a dozen homepages? Allowing this use adds to the problem and clouds the issue. Webmasters use your permission to do "renderings" of your work as an excuse when they swipe another artist's image. "Well, so and so let me do it, so I thought you would be honored."  

For those consummate professionals who offer their art for awards and backgrounds, maybe your image has had a good long run and made lots of money for you in stock sales, but what about the newcomers who have their images stolen and used? Until netizens are aware that ONLY licensed images may be used in this way, it's unfair to sell or permit the use of art that's obviously not designed originally as web decor. I believe this so much that I do not even make my own fantasy art into web backgrounds. If I did, you can bet that there would be a dozen others who would decide to make their own rendition of my work without my knowledge.  

For those talented amateur artists who say, "Professionals are stingy because I GIVE my work away." I think you have got the wrong idea about the golden rule. It's not, "I don't care if you do it to me, so that gives me the right to do it to you." If you don't want to make a career with your artistic talent that's fine. Does that give you the right to try to wreck other artists' incomes? Give away your art if you want, but make it clear that this is your choice, and it's definitely NOT standard WWW practice. Then maybe your visitors won't expect professionals to join you. And please, don't use your free offerings to actively compete with professionals for jobs. It's not a hobby for professionals. It is their livelihood. Received on Tue Oct 14 2003 - 20:18:09 GMT