"Taking an image without permission from the creator is copyright infringment!!"" not if they upload it to a public gallery like this. if it were, wed all be in violation of their copyright since every single one of our computers downloads the image to the hdd (via caching) when we view it.

"No, it's not even a copyright violation. That only comes in if you DO something with the image. " Not at all. Where did you get this idea from? Downloading an image for personal pleasure doesn't even give you a "fair use" defense. It's like saying that stealing 1,000 is OK as long as you don't spend it. "...not if they upload it to a public gallery like this " Completely Wrong. The location of the image has nothing to do with it. "...if it were, wed all be in violation of their copyright since every single one of our computers downloads the image to the hdd (via caching) when we view it." Wrong. Default transmission over the net is exempt, a clause included to prevent ISPs from being sued for copyright. Another thing. Permission = Written permission. There is no such thing as someone saying to themselves, "It's OK for people to download my images." That's not permission. At the very least, it would be something beneath the image stating explicity that downloading for personal use was OK.

With the same argument: There are no copyright of pictures unless it is written explicitly below the image......., etc,etc, etc

"Another thing. Permission = Written permission. There is no such thing as someone saying to themselves, 'It's OK for people to download my images.' That's not permission."

Section 106:

** 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works**
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

There is no copyright law definition for "authorize" nor for "permission" stipulating that permission must always be "written"; therefore it is up to the discretion of the copyright owner as to what form the authorization takes place. Just because the majority of time permissions are set in written form - usually for contractual purposes as evidence against willful infringement - it does not mean that this is the case 100% of the time.

Besides, if they wrote in a thread that they authorize such use, then it is, in fact, "written permission"; further dismissing your objection. :0P

Also there is a stipulation under Fair Use (Section 107) for "nonprofit educational purposes". Therefore, if someone is using a copyrighted work to educate themselves without profitting from the act, it is viable Fair Use according to the law.

My point about permission didn't reference copyright law. What I'm saying that just because a person doesn't mind if someone grabs their image, this doesn't make those who then take that image immune to violating copyright, in the same way as the theft of an object is no less theft just because the owner doesn't want it any more. They have to explicity make this known, hence written permission, which is the only feasible solution when dealing with web copyright. And yes, if it's written in a thread then of course that's OK. I never said otherwise. "Therefore, if someone is using a copyrighted work to educate themselves without profitting from the act, it is viable Fair Use according to the law." lol! I know that. But are you trying to tell me that people are downloading images in order to educate themselves about artwork! I wouldn't like to tell that to the judge! :D

Among all this arguing, please notice that "de minimis non curat lex", "the law does not concern itself with trifles".

"My point about permission didn't reference copyright law."

Which is why I did quote it, since it is the law to go by when dealing with copyright issues. :0)

"What I'm saying that just because a person doesn't mind if someone grabs their image, this doesn't make those who then take that image immune to violating copyright..."

... as long as the use does not exceed the rights allowed. Theft is only considered theft if the owner says it is.

"But are you trying to tell me that people are downloading images in order to educate themselves about artwork!"

Read the previous responses. Many people do download images to try to learn from them and figure out how to do certain effects, etc.

===

"Among all this arguing..."

No arguing involved. Just a discussion about what is and what is not applicable under copyright law.

"...the law does not concern itself with trifles"

How about truffles? Surely they would have something to say about truffles! :0)

"Not at all. Where did you get this idea from? Downloading an image for personal pleasure doesn't even give you a "fair use" defense. It's like saying that stealing 1,000 is OK as long as you don't spend it." um, no. what a horrible example. stealing $1,000 would deprive someone - wether an individual or company - of that money, since currency is finite. downloading an image does not deprive the owner of the image, it merely makes a copy. if you insist on using the money argument, then use it properly: counterfeiting $1,000 would be somewhat of a better example, although still inaccurate. so what youre saying is, that during my last visit to an art gallery when i photographed a variety of sculptures and paintings, ive committed a copyright infringement? and ive also somehow 'deprived' those artists of their work? when an artist creates a work and submits it to a gallery - wether digital or traditional - they are not simply 'contributing' to their viewers, its a give & take situation. they provide the art, the viewers provide the feedback, recognition, fame, money, etc etc for it. to treat them like unruly children and remove their ability to save the work for non-profit, later personal viewing is disrespectful and ungrateful. if someone is so against it, then they should refrain from posting their art in public galleries and just paint it and keep it locked up in a safe at home where noone can ever see it. (ack had to wait 9 hrs to post this, damn power outages)

I was not talking about food. Look up "trifle" in a good big dictionary. De minimis non curat lex. The law does not concern itself with very small matters.

"Look up "trifle" in a good big dictionary" I think even a bad small dictionary would have "trifle" in it. ;) "so what youre saying is, that during my last visit to an art gallery when i photographed a variety of sculptures and paintings, ive committed a copyright infringement?" Very possibly, yes, depending on the nature of the art. Help me out here - I'm not getting snotty, but what is about the concept of "just LOOK" that people don't get? :) It's not your right to take away anything at all from a viewing experience except for a memory. Hey, I'm not saying I'm whiter than white here. I have dozens of Vallejo and Bell images on my HD for my viewing only, but I'm not trying to convince myself that I have a right to have them there. I know it's wrong. My point being that taking steps to safeguard the artwork of the few should not be vetoed by the masses who are doing things they really should not do. Personally, people I'm bothered about are not those who just download images for themselves, but those who pass them off as their own, or use them without permission on their sites. As for the argument that these people know how to get around image grabbing security - why should this be true? They're so talentless they can't even product their own art, so why should anyone believe they're fully familiar with the intricacies of browser technology? "...if someone is so against it, then they should refrain from posting their art in public galleries and just paint it and keep it locked up in a safe at home where noone can ever see it." As in, "Don't post your art unless you mind it being stolen?" I don't think that's much of a solution. One option would simply to have an checkbox on everyone's Rendo home page, saying whether they wanted security on their images or not. Security could mean anything from right-click disable to image server request validation, overlay GIFs, etc. I don't know how Rendo is organised - perhaps heavy security would be too much of a task - but deterred security as an option would be simple to put in place.

Here is the poll results. Yes, make the changes. 12.3% No, keep it as is. 79.3% Don't care. 8.4% Keeping it as is. thanks tammy

should complain that Renderosity is doing nothing to help safeguard their graphics. They voted that they wanted freedom to download anybody's graphics without restrictions. They should not complain now that Renderosity is not doing anything to protect their own graphics. We all knew the right click wouldn't solve the problem....but it was an attempt to do something. You voted to do nothing. So don't complain. You just lost your right to whine. And don't bother emailing me that I missed the point. I understand the point all too well.

Im with ya on that one Dialyn...Not sure how much longer I want to be affilated with this site either...The very few here that spoke up in favor of this change {however small} were in fact acting as a community, the others I fear were acting out of greed and self interest. The ones who would like for their images to be at least watched for image theft here should post it in another thread...for the ones who could care less if your images are lifted and used for whatever purpose need not respond..we already know who you are, and the way you feel :|

Disabling right click and turning off the tool bar are not effective. Personally, on my site I have script that does turn off the tool bar but neither one of those will stop people from stealing images. It may stop people from using images as wallpaper. It will also keep people from using the right click to make images show up that perhaps don't fully download. It will affect those who use right click to navigate and open links in new windows, etc. But it will not stop theft.

To hold this site responsible is ridiculous. The change proposed is not a solution.

Plaster the word copyright all over the image, watch for theft and report it. Have an admin contact sites that use Renderosity images. I agree with watching out for theft but not agreeing with the proposed solution does not indicate anything suggested.

And for what it's worth, I missed the vote completely while on vacation.

Skimming through this thread.. maybe something as simple as adding a statement when you upload your pics allowing or not allowing people to download your works or use them in anyway.

Where'd ya get to go for vacation Kendra? Hope ya had a blast :) Stormrage: Thats a very good first step IMO..One could always return here and point out to the theif "See what that says? It says LOOK, BUT DO NOT TOUCH!" or something like that ~lol~

Vegas! But it was half business. We go to a trade show there every August so it's a heck of a lot of walking. :)

Oooooooooo Nevada..way kewl ;)

No thankyou. Nevada is mostly hot desert and next to no places to scuba dive. Las Vegas does not interest me, and I don't gsmble and I don't want to gamble; for the reason why, see Gamblers Anonymous, or read the Rigveda book 10 hymn 34.

:|

I don't blame anyone for avoiding Vegas but it's all how you look at it. I enjoy taking my kids there. There are a lot of shows for kids if you look around, my son enjoyed Blue Man and Lord of the Dance. The roller coasters, the water park at one, the Star Trek experience, Sigfreid and Roy's secret garden, not to mention the Treasure Island sidwalk pirate show, the Mirage's volcano and Bellagio's water show. This year I'm taking them just to see Caesars Magical Empire.

Summer is their slow time because of the heat but we only ventured out to the stip at night as the trade shows take up the days. And on gambling, if you have a gambling problem, definitely avoid it but if you're the casual gambler like me here's what you do. Never drop money in a casino that isn't going to give you something back. Track what you drop and get it back in comps. Even the little gambler can receive comps. We had our show tickets paid for, a few meals paid for and a bit of cash back and all because we kept our gambling to the casinos we were staying at at tracked everything. If you track, the casinos will send you offers. We stayed there during a convention for less that you'd imagine and we don't gamble much at all. It's all how you do it. It's like adult disneyland :)

Oh! Lord of the Dance! Now, Im not much into tap dancing, but those people are awesome! {hope those are the ones you are talking about hehe}