 |
gregory
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 3281 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
To be fair, CC said art, not tarot art.
|
|
|
CastleCrest
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 167 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Thanks to everyone for answering My question -
I thought I understood, but wanted to be 100% clear.
I hope it is clear also that I do not support file sharing & the stealing of
other peoples hard work. I am an artist & have had my art & client stolen.
That said - I can be a little slow at times & making sure I understand something
without question can take me a little longer than some people.
The online world is difficult for me to communicate on - I'm Trying!
Again Thanks,
CC
|
|
|
Reece
Member
|
I am glad we had this conversation. I know my whole attitude about how images are shared, event the way I share images, on the Internet is completely changed now. Last edited on Wed Jun 23rd, 2010 05:26 pm by Reece
|
|
|
skad1
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | Dallas, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1255 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
What Adam and Baba is basically telling us that we should never buy anything on the secondary market. If it's not 'fresh' from the publisher we are very, very bad people for buying it.
I understand the point they are trying to make, but I am getting tired of being called bad because I bought tarot on the secondary market. Yes, I try to make sure I am not buying pirated material, but I still reserve the right to buy used material.
|
|
|
CastleCrest
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 167 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
skad1 wrote: What Adam and Baba is basically telling us that we should never buy anything on the secondary market. If it's not 'fresh' from the publisher we are very, very bad people for buying it.
I understand the point they are trying to make, but I am getting tired of being called bad because I bought tarot on the secondary market. Yes, I try to make sure I am not buying pirated material, but I still reserve the right to buy used material.
IMHO it is more complicated than that.
Collector by nature want to see the art they have invested in gain value.
Knowing what to buy & when is part of collecting.
It seems easy enough to understand why people reprinting art &
selling it as an original printing can hurt their business.
That said if you buy enough decks over time your bound to end up with a
pirated copy of something.
I've not really been given the cause to think about like this before.
Sort of like when my good friend became a police officer.
The nightly news changed a great deal for me.
Supporting Pirates is Bad - there are degrees to which it happens.
Lets not throw the baby out just yet!
|
|
|
skad1
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | Dallas, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1255 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Adam, that makes perfect sense to me. I think part of this discussion drifted away from the idea of digital pirating. We got caught up in the idea of 'purchasing a priated copy' and away from 'printing a pirated image'.
|
|
|
BabaStudio
Member
|
skad1 wrote: What Adam and Baba is basically telling us that we should never buy anything on the secondary market. If it's not 'fresh' from the publisher we are very, very bad people for buying it.
I understand the point they are trying to make, but I am getting tired of being called bad because I bought tarot on the secondary market. Yes, I try to make sure I am not buying pirated material, but I still reserve the right to buy used material.
That's not even close to what I was saying. I was simply asking people not to buy decks that they believe to be pirated. It's often not at all difficult to tell. For example, I have seen three instances on forums of people offering to print off our decks from digital files and sell them to buyers. That is a clear bootleg - there wasn't even any attempt to cover up what was being sold - and I would hope that people here would not buy it. Would you like people to buy goods that have been stolen from you?
Rather than understanding the reason that I am talking about this here - to encourage people to boycott such thieves - you are effectively parodying what's being said, even if that's not what you mean to do. No-one has called you a "very, very bad person". I don't think name calling would be particularly constructive, do you?
I was asking people not to support pirates. It's not in the interests of anyone who wants to see tarot publishing thrive. It's got nothing to do with secondary markets and if you got that idea, then maybe things aren't clear - our bootleg deck/s do indeed come straight from "publishers". Criminal publishers who steal our work.
Unfortunately, I am rapidly getting the impression that there is not much support here for boycotting pirated decks. That's your choice. It isn't mine. I won't knowingly support theft of my work, or that of any other tarot artist.
Last edited on Wed Jun 23rd, 2010 09:08 pm by BabaStudio
|
|
|
gregory
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 3281 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Trouble is that we seem to have two separate discussions going. Adam worries about his decks showing up on torrent files; Karen about actual and blatant bootleg printed copies. I don't like either one, but I do also take Skad's point that it isn't always easy to tell till it's too late and you've bought it, when you are dealing with - e.g. - e-bay.
I think we all agree that it isn't such a hot idea to buy a deck that you KNOW is a pirate copy of one that is going to deprive the genuine publisher of income etc.
On the other hand I confess that if I were offered a yellow or orange de Laurence at a price I could afford, I'd buy it.... .
And actually I think everyone here has knowingly bought pirated/bootleg decks in their time. My knowing purchase was the Hexerey. Anyone else (other than debra) want to fess up ?
Last edited on Wed Jun 23rd, 2010 08:50 pm by gregory
|
|
|
AdamMcLean
Member
|
BabaStudio wrote:
Anyway, I am rapidly getting the impression that there is not much support here for boycotting pirated decks. That's your choice. It isn't mine.
Which pirated decks are particular culprits ?
A few have emerged from Russia - Tarot of The Old Path, Buckland Romani, Golden Dawn Ritual Tarot (Cicero) and your own tarot that you mentioned. China has produced a few as well, and India recently the coloured Light and Shadow.
I cannot actually immediately recall any emanating from the USA or Western Europe.
There are printed decks which infringed copyright in other ways - The Hello! deck which infringed Hello Kitty, and a number of decks using Disney characters which do not seem to have been published, but I don't seem to locate actual pirate printings issued in the USA or Western Europe.
|
|
|
BabaStudio
Member
|
gregory wrote:
And actually I think everyone here has knowingly bought pirated/bootleg decks in their time. My knowing purchase was the Hexerey. Anyone else (other than debra) want to fess up ?
I can genuinely say I never knowingly have. In fact, when one notorious bootlegger from Eastern Europe came to our studio I asked them to leave - and take their decks with them.
By the way Gregory, we are not really talking about such different things. Once Adam's decks get on to torrent files, people will print them out, and may sell them on. Similarly we see our decks pirated in much the same way - individuals offering to print off and sell digital files one by one - as well as whole prints runs by "publishers" who specialise in theft. It's a continuum.
|
|
|
gregory
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 3281 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
AdamMcLean wrote: I cannot actually immediately recall any emanating from the USA or Western Europe.
There are printed decks which infringed copyright in other ways - The Hello! deck which infringed Hello Kitty, and a number of decks using Disney characters which do not seem to have been published, but I don't seem to locate actual pirate printings issued in the USA or Western Europe.
There are certainly pirate Hello Kitty decks from the US, bootleg versions of the one that was withdrawn after Disney (?) took Rosales to court. On nasty thin paper, I gather. (No I don't have one, but there have been threads.)
|
|
|
BabaStudio
Member
|
AdamMcLean wrote: BabaStudio wrote:
Anyway, I am rapidly getting the impression that there is not much support here for boycotting pirated decks. That's your choice. It isn't mine.
Which pirated decks are particular culprits ?
There is a Bulgarian publisher who seems only to do bootlegs. I know (by talking to them) that they don't pay licensing fees. If I recall correctly, they pirated a popular deck by Lo Scarabeo, but there are others.
Our Bohemian Gothic Tarot was issued in March by a Russian publisher. For you, perhaps what happens in Russia does not seem to matter because it isn't in the West. For us, it does as it's a growing market for us and it's very close by, so decks can make their way here also. As far as we understand, the same publisher may also be doing our Victorian Romantic, but I'm less sure about this.
A whole heap of US Games decks were pirated in Russia. A colleague of ours reported this to Stuart Kaplan a couple of years back and he seemed very appreciative of her efforts.
Perhaps one thing I need to be more clear about is the fact that you can actually effectively lose copyright on work if you ignore pirating. I worked in brand and identity management for some years and this is something we were repeatedly told by the legal dept. If you allow pirated copies to happen and don't act, then you would have a very poor case if you ever had to go to court to defend your copyright - so effectively copyright becomes worthless if you don't defend it on every instance. Losing copyright means a complete loss of livelihood for a studio. It would close us down.
By the way, Adam, one might also broaden this discussion to items like jewellery, teeshirts, bags, greetings cards and so on. You will probably, sadly, come across images from your decks reproduced in that way too. Again, I would urge people not to buy these if they recognise a deck image and can be pretty certain it's not licensed.
Last edited on Wed Jun 23rd, 2010 09:07 pm by BabaStudio
|
|
|
CastleCrest
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 167 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
BabaStudio wrote:Unfortunately, I am rapidly getting the impression that there is not much support here for boycotting pirated decks. That's your choice. It isn't mine. I won't knowingly support theft of my work, or that of any other tarot artist.
I don't get that feeling at all - not to mention the many people that read these threads & never post.
I'm in the learning as I go phase.
It's hard to comment as you absorbing information -
at least for me!
gregory wrote:
And actually I think everyone here has knowingly bought pirated/bootleg decks in their time. My knowing purchase was the Hexerey. Anyone else (other than debra) want to fess up ?
I bought a German Thoth deck on AT that I'm guessing is pirated.
I didn't know at the time or really even think about it.
A friend was asking about a German Thoth & when I posted I was directed
to (Can't remember their name) a thread where someone was in Germany
& bought these.
After receiving it - I'm not sure what the story is with it?
Looks like it could be pirated?
|
|
|
gregory
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 3281 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
I think that is indeed the Hexerey.... It was quite obviously pirated - but I for one took the view that neither the artist not the creator was going to suffer... and anyone wanting a "proper" Thoth would not have been happy with it.
|
|
|
nicole
Member
|
Are we all hiding our Ipods ? 
|
|
|
Chronata
Member
|
I'll fess up to owning a Russian Buckland Romani
The one that's the small size with the borders.
I didn't buy it though, it was given to me.
and I will also fess to liking it more than the original.
|
|
|
debra
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1115 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
BabaStudio wrote:
Perhaps one thing I need to be more clear about is the fact that you can actually effectively lose copyright on work if you ignore pirating. I worked in brand and identity management for some years and this is something we were repeatedly told by the legal dept. If you allow pirated copies to happen and don't act, then you would have a very poor case if you ever had to go to court to defend your copyright - so effectively copyright becomes worthless if you don't defend it on every instance. Losing copyright means a complete loss of livelihood for a studio. It would close us down.
I think this is not precisely correct. It's not that you would automatically have a "very poor" case.
IF you decide to take someone ("Mr. X") to court and sue them for copyright theft (an expensive proposition), and
IF you have knowingly ignored other similar copyright violations, and
IF you have decided to sue Mr. X because he has money (he could pay a large enough court-ordered compensation to make it worth your while) and
IF other copyright violators are less wealthy and therefore not so much worth your while to sue, and
IF Mr. X knows that you deliberately let others get away with it but not him, because he's got more money, and
IF he can prove all of this in court,
THEN your case (for punitive damages, that is) is weakened.
I think...there's a particular viewpoint you might expect to come from the legal department of a firm specializing in brand and identity management. After all, these people are being paid to anticipate every worst case scenario and manage it for corporations who have the money to pay for such specialists. I do hope you have consulted an attorney on what is realistically required to protect your assets as a small business, since it sounds like following up on every case is quite onerous.
Last edited on Thu Jun 24th, 2010 12:16 am by debra
|
|
|
Reece
Member
|
I thought much changed after the Internet. The machine you use essentially provides a time stamp that cannot be altered.
Also, copyright is such a tricky issue that in America the Founding Fathers enshrined it in the Constitution: intellectual property.
Hopefully in this day and age it isn't as easy to lose your copyright as it was pre-information super-highway.Last edited on Wed Jun 23rd, 2010 10:55 pm by Reece
|
|
|
papoon
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
BabaStudio wrote:
[ If you allow pirated copies to happen and don't act, then you would have a very poor case if you ever had to go to court to defend your copyright - so effectively copyright becomes worthless if you don't defend it on every instance. Losing copyright means a complete loss of livelihood for a studio. It would close us down.
This isn't actually the case. It's a common confusion with Trademark law where you do need to actively defend your trademark or risk losing it. The only way you can lose your copyright is to expressly relinquish it.
|
|
|
forkissima
Member
|
Papoon is right, you can't lose copyright because someone pirates your intellectual work. On punitive damage, the legal system in Europe is very different, here you can't rake millions in punitive damages. The judge estimates your loss of sales and orders the violator to sop his activity and maybe a bit of extra compensation for all the hassle. So here it's not worth going after someone who's well-off because the judgement will be the same as going after someone who doesn't have much money.
I can't confess to anything  as I've never owned a pirated deck and hope that will never buy one unintendedly.
|
|
|
gregory
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 3281 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Reece wrote: I thought much changed after the Internet. The machine you use essentially provides a time stamp that cannot be altered.
Also, copyright is such a tricky issue that in America the Founding Fathers enshrined it in the Constitution: intellectual property.
Hopefully in this day and age it isn't as easy to lose your copyright as it was pre-information super-highway.
I bet you CAN change the time stamp....
Tests.
OK - so if I have a document - as I now do - that says it was created in 1944.....
|
|
|
BabaStudio
Member
|
papoon wrote: BabaStudio wrote:
[ If you allow pirated copies to happen and don't act, then you would have a very poor case if you ever had to go to court to defend your copyright - so effectively copyright becomes worthless if you don't defend it on every instance. Losing copyright means a complete loss of livelihood for a studio. It would close us down.
This isn't actually the case. It's a common confusion with Trademark law where you do need to actively defend your trademark or risk losing it. The only way you can lose your copyright is to expressly relinquish it.
I said "effectively" lose it. I know you can't actually lose it. The point is that it can become indefensible in court which means that effectively you don't have it anymore - i.e. to be really, really clear, what I am saying is that your copyright becomes useless if it can be shown that you haven't defended it.
|
|
|
BabaStudio
Member
|
debra wrote:
I think...there's a particular viewpoint you might expect to come from the legal department of a firm specializing in brand and identity management. After all, these people are being paid to anticipate every worst case scenario and manage it for corporations who have the money to pay for such specialists. I do hope you have consulted an attorney on what is realistically required to protect your assets as a small business, since it sounds like following up on every case is quite onerous.
Debra, honey, please read what I said. I did not say I was working in a "firm specializing in brand and identity management." I was actually working in one of Europe's biggest telcos.
I was, in fact, working there in the brand and identity management dept as a design manager.
Just to be pedantic (as I can see I need to be in this thread  ) I did later work in a design agency that's very well known for brand and identity creation - but design agencies do not generally manage identities, they create and implement them. I'm never heard of firms specializing in on-going brand and identity management though I suppose they may exist - but I doubt they would do well as that part of identity management is nearly always done in-house. Or it was in every corporate I ever worked with. I suppose the recession may have changed this (pedantry, pedantry ) but I'm talking about some time back.
But to bring this back to the point. We are being damaged - and yes, it is onerous to follow up on every case, (and I thank-you for your concern Debra, that's appreciated). Adam is being damaged, and so are many other people who publish.
It's very simple - that's why I asked people here to support a boycott of pirated work. But it's a decision for every individual. Your decision.
Last edited on Thu Jun 24th, 2010 11:33 am by BabaStudio
|
|
|
nicole
Member
|
I believe copyright theft is unfair and I would not scan images to make a deck or buy pirated decks but I'm serious about the Ipod music post. I would be shocked if there were not people here who are adamant about artist/publishers rights and yet have illegal music.
|
|
|
CastleCrest
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 167 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
I'm Curious - (about Pirated decks)
These two decks come up for sale today:
ARCUS ARCANUM TAROT DECK---German edition
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/arcus-arcanum
TAROT OF THE TRANCE TAROT DECK--$15--BELGIUM PRINT! http://www.tarotgarden.com/database/images/t-decks/trancecards.gif
Just wondering if these are pirated decks?
One says German Ed & the other Belgium
Is that common to have pirated copies made in other countrys?
Looking on info on how to spot pirated decks!
My wife is from Europe & always buys me a few decks when away.
There often decks I have but in Czech.
It's nice for her when we work together so she can see the title in her native speak.
I'm just trying to get a handle on how often this happens & what to watch for.
I'm not really sure where to draw the line?
How would someone know?
Last edited on Thu Jun 24th, 2010 06:08 pm by CastleCrest
|
|
|
BabaStudio
Member
|
CastleCrest wrote:
My wife is from Europe & always buys me a few decks when away.
There often decks I have but in Czech.
It's nice for her when we work together so she can see the title in her native speak.
All the decks in Czech published by Synergie are licensed and legal. The easiest way to know is probably simply to ask here or on other tarot forums. There are usually some people on these forums who know - or have a pretty good idea - which decks are pirates and which aren't.
|
|
|
AdamMcLean
Member
|
How delightfully Amerocentric !
The Arcus Arcanum by Günter Hager and Hansrudi Wäscher was published in 1986 by AG Müller / Urania Verlag.Europe is, in fact, the true home of tarot, and quite a few tarot decks emerge from here. Not everyone copies American originals.
|
|
|
papoon
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 499 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
BabaStudio wrote:
papoon wrote: BabaStudio wrote:
[ If you allow pirated copies to happen and don't act, then you would have a very poor case if you ever had to go to court to defend your copyright - so effectively copyright becomes worthless if you don't defend it on every instance. Losing copyright means a complete loss of livelihood for a studio. It would close us down.
This isn't actually the case. It's a common confusion with Trademark law where you do need to actively defend your trademark or risk losing it. The only way you can lose your copyright is to expressly relinquish it.
I said "effectively" lose it. I know you can't actually lose it. The point is that it can become indefensible in court which means that effectively you don't have it anymore - i.e. to be really, really clear, what I am saying is that your copyright becomes useless if it can be shown that you haven't defended it.
I know what you said (I quoted it in my post). However, you are simply wrong. A copyright holder can choose to pursue some infringements and not others without rendering their copyright useless.
Consider, for example, the world of fan fiction. Fan fiction is clearly infringement of the copyright holder's right to "derivative works." However, the holders of such valuable properties as Star Trek, Buffy, Harry Potter, Twilight, etc. (to name only a few of hundreds of valuable pop culture IPs), have typically chosen not to pursue the fan fic communities, as they realize that vibrant fan communities are good for their properties. (One exception being Anne Rice,who does pursue fan fics based on her works.) Either way, that choice in no way weakens their copyrights (if it did, you would see universal aggressive pursuit of fan fiction).
Likewise, copyright holders have the right (and, in fact, the responsibility) to make prudent decisions about which infringements to pursue based on a variety of considerations, including the scope of the damage to the value of one's IP, the likelihood of a positive outcome, the cost of action, etc. Making those choices does not affect their ability to pursue subsequent infringements.
|
|
|
skad1
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | Dallas, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1255 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
AdamMcLean wrote: How delightfully Amerocentric !
The Arcus Arcanum by Günter Hager and Hansrudi Wäscher was published in 1986 by AG Müller / Urania Verlag.Europe is, in fact, the true home of tarot, and quite a few tarot decks emerge from here. Not everyone copies American originals.
I don't think it's Amerocentric, in fact I am somewhat insulted by the idea. It makes us seem like the arrogant ones. But other posts have made it seem like most of Russian (and russian federation countries) are fakes. Karen's post was very helpful to say which ones are valid publishers, without that info how are we supposed to know. are there other publishers that are ok or known bad ones?
|
|
|
AdamMcLean
Member
|
without that info how are we supposed to know.
It surely can only take a few minutes research on the Internet to discover that the first edition of the Arca Arcanum was published by AG Müller and that the American version was later.
|
|
|
nicole
Member
|
AdamMcLean wrote: How delightfully Amerocentric !
The Arcus Arcanum by Günter Hager and Hansrudi Wäscher was published in 1986 by AG Müller / Urania Verlag.Europe is, in fact, the true home of tarot, and quite a few tarot decks emerge from here. Not everyone copies American originals.
The question was 'Is that common to have pirated copies made in other countries?' and in fact the two countries mentioned were Germany and Belgium.
WTF 'Amerocentric?
|
|
|
AdamMcLean
Member
|
I am afraid I just found this rather amusing as most of the later US Games decks were printed in Belgium, by well known specialist playing card publisher.
|
|
|
truelighth
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1069 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
BabaStudio wrote:
That's not even close to what I was saying. I was simply asking people not to buy decks that they believe to be pirated. It's often not at all difficult to tell. For example, I have seen three instances on forums of people offering to print off our decks from digital files and sell them to buyers.
Unfortunately, I am rapidly getting the impression that there is not much support here for boycotting pirated decks. That's your choice. It isn't mine. I won't knowingly support theft of my work, or that of any other tarot artist.
That reminds me of a deck I bought a year ago (or longer, I don't remember) from the Italian Ebay. It was an auction for a majors only and I liked the look of the image they showed, although it also seemed familiar. But then, oh well, I bought it on a whim.
When I got it, it was clearly a pirated deck. It was actually a Lo Scarabeo deck, but then badly printed out and laminated. I immediately contacted the seller and told them they were selling illegal goods. They took the deck back and I got my money back. But their activity didn't cease until a good while after  .
Anyway, about the fessing up.. I already fessed up that I got the Golden Tarot from Kat Black from that Kalender. I actually did buy that knowingly and after I got the real Golden Tarot. I only got it, because some cards were changed by US Games from the original art of Kat and because it was cheap. But I do regret it. I wouldn't do that again.
And yes, in my RWS collection there are several decks you could call bootlegs. I am afraid that is a side effect of actually trying to get your hands on every RWS version and clone. The DeLaurence is a famous one, the Merrimack edition was also not licenced I think. To me the BOTA always seemed like a copy of the RWS and the Holy Order of Mans Tarot that again looks very much like the BOTA could also be considered a bootleg.
Another famous one is the Hoi Polloi Tarot. I don't think Hoi Polloi ever got permission to print that one, so another bootleg. I think the Tarot Sutra was also published without permission from US Games? I am also not sure about the Adam Fronteras version. Both of those use the original art from Pam, but have it recoloured. The Bert Bakker is another one I am not sure off, did US Games give permission to Bert Bakker to publish it? Probably not. And what about the Waite J.K., was that one licenced? For that matter, we can't even be sure if the Pam-D was not actually an illegal copy (it looks that way, since the quality is that of a poorly photographed Pam-A) or maybe even the B/C versions too.
Then there is that Edith Waite deck I got last year. And the Russian Spiritual Evolution tarot, which is actually the RWS with a few different extra cards (new artwork though). And a bunch of others that may or may not fall under the category bootleg. But I guess in a way every RWS clone can be considered a bootleg?
Anyway, what I meant to say in those last paragraphs and fess up, is that if you plan on having every RWS version, recolouring and clone, it is sometimes hard to avoid bootlegs. But I do try and avoid it and I definately don't knowingly buy pirated copies of other decks.
Last edited on Thu Jun 24th, 2010 09:58 pm by truelighth
|
|
|
gregory
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 3281 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
nicole wrote: I believe copyright theft is unfair and I would not scan images to make a deck or buy pirated decks but I'm serious about the Ipod music post. I would be shocked if there were not people here who are adamant about artist/publishers rights and yet have illegal music.
ACTUALLY - I don't even have an Ipod. 
|
|
|
debra
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1115 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
2 words:
Jason Lang.
|
|
|
BabaStudio
Member
|
Well, I don't have an Ipod and I've never heard of Jason Lang.
Last edited on Fri Jun 25th, 2010 11:23 am by BabaStudio
|
|
|
BabaStudio
Member
|
papoon wrote: BabaStudio wrote:
papoon wrote: BabaStudio wrote:
[ If you allow pirated copies to happen and don't act, then you would have a very poor case if you ever had to go to court to defend your copyright - so effectively copyright becomes worthless if you don't defend it on every instance. Losing copyright means a complete loss of livelihood for a studio. It would close us down.
This isn't actually the case. It's a common confusion with Trademark law where you do need to actively defend your trademark or risk losing it. The only way you can lose your copyright is to expressly relinquish it.
I said "effectively" lose it. I know you can't actually lose it. The point is that it can become indefensible in court which means that effectively you don't have it anymore - i.e. to be really, really clear, what I am saying is that your copyright becomes useless if it can be shown that you haven't defended it.
I know what you said (I quoted it in my post). However, you are simply wrong. A copyright holder can choose to pursue some infringements and not others without rendering their copyright useless.
Consider, for example, the world of fan fiction. Fan fiction is clearly infringement of the copyright holder's right to "derivative works." However, the holders of such valuable properties as Star Trek, Buffy, Harry Potter, Twilight, etc. (to name only a few of hundreds of valuable pop culture IPs), have typically chosen not to pursue the fan fic communities, as they realize that vibrant fan communities are good for their properties. (One exception being Anne Rice,who does pursue fan fics based on her works.) Either way, that choice in no way weakens their copyrights (if it did, you would see universal aggressive pursuit of fan fiction).
Likewise, copyright holders have the right (and, in fact, the responsibility) to make prudent decisions about which infringements to pursue based on a variety of considerations, including the scope of the damage to the value of one's IP, the likelihood of a positive outcome, the cost of action, etc. Making those choices does not affect their ability to pursue subsequent infringements.
Fan fiction is in a totally different category because no-one makes money from it. The point about copyright infringement of decks is that there is usually money involved (yes, even in the Multiply case - they sell products with dreadful prints on them of everything posted). We DO in fact have to pursue every case where there is money being made - and we do.
I suppose we can go on like this for ever, disagreeing on our interpretation of the law. But I am not going to risk our studio by not pursuing each and every rip-off of our work that we are aware of. I guess it's easier to say "don't bother" if it's not your livelihood.
|
|
|
gregory
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 3281 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
debra wrote: 2 words:
Jason Lang.
Indeed. 
Jason has posted here at some length about how he believes he is within his rights. And as some have said - the rights of museums to prevent one using one's own photos of their exhibits is questionable and in the courts as we speak. Which is pretty much what Jason did. And yes - as you know, I know the guy and have all his decks. They may be very dodgy in one way - but they aren't bootlegs of the tarot decks of other, which was what this all started with.
And there is this thread, too.
And this.
But I just said I didn't have an iPod - in answer to Nicky's post about illegal music.
|
|
|
BabaStudio
Member
|
Oh those decks? Well, the point is that if you follow the Bridgeman/Corel precedent (which Wiki is attempting to clarify with a second case though I'm not sure how far they got with that) then any museum or gallery image that in itself is out of copyright can be used. Museums, galleries and image libraries are obviously fighting this, but I have a hunch they will lose. It'll be interesting to see.
However, are all the decks that Jason Lang produces of artists who are out of copyright? I thought Frida Kahlo, for instance, is in copyright. But I've never looked into her work in particular.
Last edited on Fri Jun 25th, 2010 11:50 am by BabaStudio
|
|
|
gregory
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 3281 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
I doubt it.... But although I admit that his decks may be suspect - they aren't quite doing the class of damage that - for instance - pirating your decks in Russia is. IF he copied them from books (I'll ask some time, but Toronto does have EXCELLENT art galleries and he does travel) I guess the decks could in theory hurt the sale of the books - though I doubt it; an art book of that quality would have more than 22 images, even if he had used only one book - and he uses details rather than the whole picture, as a rule.
But other than that he isn't losing anyone any revenue, or damaging their reputation. That doesn't make it OK, I admit.
|
|
|
CastleCrest
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 167 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
nicole wrote: Are we all hiding our Ipods ?
My Ipod has no pirated music - I never do the down load thing.
That said I'm a Dead Head & their music is available with having to pirate it.
I buy Cd's of music I want to hear.
Many of My friends are in the music bizness so I have a lot of
feeling & concerns with pirated music.
|
|
|
debra
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1115 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
BabaStudio wrote:
I suppose we can go on like this for ever, disagreeing on our interpretation of the law. But I am not going to risk our studio by not pursuing each and every rip-off of our work that we are aware of. I guess it's easier to say "don't bother" if it's not your livelihood.
Who says "don't bother"?
No one I can see.
I see only the assertion that you have confused copyright and trademark, and the suggestion that you consult a lawyer about your own specific situation.
We do as we please I guess.
Good luck.
Last edited on Fri Jun 25th, 2010 12:35 pm by debra
|
|
|
BabaStudio
Member
|
debra wrote: BabaStudio wrote:
I suppose we can go on like this for ever, disagreeing on our interpretation of the law. But I am not going to risk our studio by not pursuing each and every rip-off of our work that we are aware of. I guess it's easier to say "don't bother" if it's not your livelihood.
Who says "don't bother"?
No one I can see.
I see only the assertion that you have confused copyright and trademark, and the suggestion that you consult a lawyer about your own specific situation.
We do as we please I guess.
Good luck.
Good luck to you too Debra :) Bye for now.
|
|
|
nicole
Member
|
Heads up to anyone here who publishes decks :
http://visualtarot.com/tarot/index/
FWIW - please do not think my comment about the Ipods meant that it is ok to steal - I was just musing on how people pick and choose what is 'ok' and what is not
|
|
|
gregory
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 3281 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Oh believe me - we ALL know about this one - it's further up this thread. But they are more scammers who then extract cash from your bank account/credit card. JMD has a page about them on the ATS site....
NASTY bit of work. There is a really scary thread on AT about it all....
|
|
|
goldenweb
Member
|
nicole wrote: Heads up to anyone here who publishes decks :
http://visualtarot.com/tarot/index/
FWIW - please do not think my comment about the Ipods meant that it is ok to steal - I was just musing on how people pick and choose what is 'ok' and what is not
I've already contacted them Nicole - I noticed Mary's Hezicos was there too.
I haven't an IPod, or a mobile phone come to that.
This is a somewhat sombre thread, with much to-ing and fro-ing between people who are basically on the same side. United we stand and all that...
Pen
|
|
|
13TH Tribesman
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 18th, 2009 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 35 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Greetings all,
I am looking at this forum having seen some things on ebay which bring questions of copyright infringement to my mind.
Specifically, I refer to the Rider Waite jewellery and non-Tarot card related paraphenalia. Same for the Visconti-Sforza jewellery and such - are the copyrights on these not applicable? Certainly US Games must continue to have the copyright on Rider Waite, so what is their stance on these items - does anyone know?
And for the Visconti-Sforza, I can imagine that copyright has somewhat different issues due to antiquity - although presumably if these items used images from modern reproductions (Particularly with the re-drawn cards absent from the original decks, obviously) then the infringement would indeed be such...
I do have an 'ulterior' motive...I am thinking about producing collage art based upon some of these very old decks, but do not want to break any laws, or transgress any moral code. So, I have no interest in the Rider Waite deck, on this level, for these purposes, but learning about the applicability of copyright in that case would inform that decision with respect to other images of similar/greater age. With the Visconti-Sforza, well, I should be very interested to know about the status of Prints sold, items of jewellery and so on, as I think that if those people selling these are permitted to do so, then I cannot see any problem in reproducing all, or part, of an image within a piece of art, or come to that, an item of clothing etc.
So (Gently now) I am asking for your advice - preferably based upon actual legislation, rather than guesswork...
My sincere thanks to anyone who can advise - while I seek advice, I am not seeking to hold culpable any advisor in the event of an error I may make, should the advice be positive, and encouraging, but wrong.
"13th"
|
|
|
gregory
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 3281 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
USG do NOT have copyright on the RWS any longer - ran out in 2009, as I recall - and it will be out of copyright in the UK in 2012.
There is a link to a lot about that on Holly Voley's page. No time to look now, but if you can't find it, PM me.
|
|
|
13TH Tribesman
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 18th, 2009 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 35 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Thanks Gregory, I have scanned through that site and some which she links to, most illuminating, although it would seem that the items of jewellery etc on ebay (at least of RWS) would have been problematic. Visconti Sforza however seems not to be so, although preumably specific reproductions would still be in copyright.
Can anyone help me with the 'Astro-Mythological Lenormand/Grand Jeu'? Could images scanned from a deck from over a century ago and incorporated into artwork be considered an infringement of Grimaud's copyright on the modern reprint of this deck?
And, finally, I hope you are well, thank you for taking the time to respond to my question(s).
13th
|
|
|
Current time is 05:43 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
|
|
