Are Ideas Free? - from "Serious Discussions"

[MatthewV]

Are Ideas Free?

[MatthewV]

And because a picture is worth about 10,000 of my words...
This is what I do:

[3iff]

That's impressive.

[Jedo the Jedi]

"We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours."

Copyright has been extended a little much. I think it should protect those whose work is stolen with no significant alteration, but much art is based on perspective. If you use someone else's work to express something similar from another viewpoint, I think that's great. It might be nice to credit them for being the giant on which you have stood, but at the same time, we can't always remember or articulate our influences.

Nice work, by the way.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[extropalopakettle]

[Jack_Ian]

I think a classic example of this is the photo of Che Guevara by Alberto Korda.
Jim Fitzpatrick cropped this photo and used it to create the classic silkscreen poster.

He did not assert any copyright on the poster at the time because he wanted the message of revolution to spread.

Later the image became so iconic that it became extremely commercial with t-shirts etc. being produced in sweatshops using slave labour. In fact, it was so far removed from the original revolutionary message that Fitzpatrick, in 2011, announced his intention to assert his copyright on the image and gave it to the family of Che Guevara in Cuba.

Of course, now that Korda is dead, the companies have licensed the image from his estate, even though they are now obviously reproducing the cropped simplified silkscreen version created by Fitzpatrick.

Che must be turning in his grave. To think his image, that was supposed to inspire oppressed workers is in fact being used to oppress the very workers he supported.

[Jack_Ian]

Just came across this article that spells out the legalities in a digestible form.
A more nitty-gritty example Cariou v Prince.

[Scurra]

For me, a great recent example is the derivative work based on Harry Potter.
JK Rowling did not make a fuss about the enormously successful fan-fiction culture that grew up based on characters and situations that she had created. Whereas she did pursue the compiler of the Harry Potter Lexicon to court.

And both of those decisions - in my view - were absolutely correct. Indeed, I think that Rowling benefited immensely from the talent and creativity exhibited through fan extrapolation of her work because it kept the HP fan world alive during the several long hiatuses in publication.
Whereas something like the Lexicon was built (specific essays apart) wholly on Rowling's own work; it added nothing new and - as I think was argued in court - it badly diminished her own prospects of a similar work. One of those contributes something of artistic value, the other does not, but neither could have existed without the original work.

And thus to tackle extro's question: copying anything exactly that has been produced by another person is illegal. The problem is the grey area where something is clearly derivative but equally not a copy. The example Jack_Ian links to (Cariou vs Prince) seems to me to be easily on the "wrong" side of the line. But I do wonder: if Prince had replaced the Rasta with, e.g. a Naavi from Avatar, would the case would have been as clear cut? (Leaving aside the potential other court case from James Cameron, of course!) The picture would still have been clearly derivative, but it would probably have had artistic value in itself (which I don't think the version in the cited case had - or, rather, what it did have derived solely from the original.)
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[MatthewV]

One of the ideas I have been thinking about would be a book with a collection of puzzles. Written by the Grey Labyrinth. We have a huge archive of excellent work over in VSP-- enough that could be turned into several very unique books. The point of this wouldn't be to make money but to share the wonders of puzzles in a different form.
I have read puzzle books. Most of them are full of chestnuts.

Or to take discussions we have preserved and re-write them with characters in the style of Godel, Escher and Bach. The ideas would remain but the words and style would be edited to be more like a story with direction.

The reason for doing this would be simple. It is exciting to see a finished product. Fortunately it would be possible to give credit the individual contributions in a book.

But then there would be the legal mess of money. Because the ideas here are valuable they are no longer free.

[Jedo the Jedi]

Interesting.

I see the dilemma. I don't know about others, but from my perspective, the collection is your idea and that's what's being sold. You would be doing the leg-work of compilation and editing, and you obviously aren't going to be saying the ideas presented here are yours. That's the distinction I see.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[Jedo the Jedi]

You might want consent forms though...
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[MatthewV]

Part of the money issue is that I wouldn't want the hassle of taxes and other BS. And figuring out a way to legally give it back to the GL would be huge legal hassle.
Compiling and fixing typos in puzzles other people made is like polishing a statue and calling it your work.

[Jedo the Jedi]

No, it's like polishing a statue and putting it in a themed gallery. The themed gallery actually is your idea and your work, it just wouldn't exist if the artists hadn't made the stuff in the first place. You aren't claiming the statue is yours.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[Jack_Ian]

Reminds me of all those shareware and freeware collections that were available on CD for people that didn't know how to use bulletin boards.

You pre-interneters wouldn't know what I'm talking about

[Zag]

You're welcome to use any puzzle I've written here in your book, as long as you give me credit, and I'd be glad to sign something to that effect. I suspect that most others would feel the same way.

This would not apply, however, to some random person who is not a GL member and is just fishing for content. I do still consider the original puzzles I've written here to be my intellectual property, and I would seriously consider pursuing someone who stole them without asking.

If you were to attempt to publish this book through any reputable publisher, he would probably require you to get signed releases from the authors.
_________________

[MatthewV]

The book idea is a side. Mostly because it would be easy to easy to formally express credit.

What about when I browse through someone's photographs and take the idea. Like the irises on the pottery (the photo was also taken by me). Dragon Phoenix takes excellent pictures that capture very pleasing ideas. Would he be honored or offended if I started using the ideas I like on pottery?
Now if I was to do a series of work based on his photographs, I would ask for permission. Not because I feel I have to but out of respect.
The real question: could he say No?

Pottery is full of stealing ideas. The art is older then paper and almost as old as graffiti (cave art). In some ways I feel there are no new ideas just a blending of technical skill than things the artist enjoys.

[extropalopakettle]

[extropalopakettle]

[Jack_Ian]

From what I understand of the issue, if you just replicate the original without adding anything extra or creating a new view or message, then you have infringed the copyright.

If you take a single image from somebody and replicate that in a different form, such as painting it on a vase, and especially if you intend to sell this vase, then you are in essence preventing the original owner from entering the market and using their own art in this new way and is therefore illegal.
If you took a few images and made your own interpretation, based on them, then you could probably get away with it.
If that act of painting it on the vase somehow creates a new artistic message, e.g. you take a picture of water and paint it on a wine carafe with a cross on the base, symbolising the changing of water into wine, then you have added something new and not just replicated the original form and so you would not have infringed the copyright.

[MatthewV]

Jack_Ian-- are the irises on the vase a different idea from the picture of the flowers?

[Thok]

These days, entertainment is cheap. Entertainment focusing on specific characters, collected through specific channels, and recently expressed tend to be expensive.

Also, I generally think Mickey Mouse should have already come out of copyright/trademark (and it's a running gag that copyrights are extended to specifically protect Mickey.) As evidence, I'll point out one of the more interesting portrayals of Mickey in recent years is by Square Enix, a company that doesn't own him at all.

[jadesmar]

[MatthewV]

To answer my own question in post 20:
I want them to be the same idea. The photograph has a very nice composition; I have 20+ pictures of irises that don't get used as much. And I am still using the picture I draw from on current pieces.
Creating my own iris flower... won't look right.

[MNOWAX]

I believe this makes my point quite well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2De2cK1mDw
_________________
The Man The Myth The Legend
MNOWAX

[Dragon Phoenix]

[MatthewV]

I think that it is just the 25 year old inside me that wishes to go out and make a difference. As people get older, they tend to stop caring-- knowing perfectly well that if there wasn't a Grey Labyrinth there would be something else useful filling their life.

My realization was that the collected works of the Grey Labyrinth are truly amazing. And that in order for myself to appreciate puzzles I needed them printed out. As far as I have observed, people are either "on" or "off" the internet for quite a bit of time. Most of the time they are wasting it away. All of their time and energy is tied up with the frustrations of getting money.

Also, my generation grew up on computers. They are highly addicting but also unnatural. The internet was a blessing when I joined that our youth are never going to forget. Ideas are so much like babies. They are newborn babies setting out. It is amazing when they grow up in a good way. I will just say the life of Leonardo da Vinci enriched your life in ways you can never understand.

I grew up with the idea of completing the impossible knowing that it was impossible.

Here is my idea: to use the permission and content of the Grey Labyrinth to create something that will give back not only to myself but also to the entire world.
_________________
He tried to understand a phenomenon by describing and depicting it in utmost detail and did not emphasize experiments or theoretical explanation.

[The Great Crep'er]