Renderosity Forums / Bryce
Welcome to the Bryce Forum
Forum Moderators: TheBryster
Bryce F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2024 Nov 26 10:16 am)
Subject: we are all doing something illegal..acc to adobe..
- 1
- 2
So I wonder if this would be O K>
The image was Adobe®Photoshop®ed...LOL...wonder how they're ever gonna enforce this bit of insanity in forums world wide. Xerox® had much the same problem and I still say can you xerox this for me as it's the habit of ages. I never saw hide nor hair of a successful suit from Xerox® Corp. on this either.. ...
Once
in a while I look around,
I see
a sound
and
try to write it down
Sometimes
they come out very soft
Tinkling light sound
The Sun comes up again
Not to offend any corporate lawyers or weasels out there but f**k Adobe !!! Hope I'm not out of line here. Why is it that the government can see Microsoft as a monopoly but Adobe gets away with it ? How many companies have they scarfed up in the past few years ? I know about Macromedia and AutoDesk, I'm sure there are others also.
"Any club that would have me as a member is probably not worth joining" -Groucho Marx
there's a place for everything...
I can see all this as a way to communicate properly about a Company product... legal talk ..etc...
but to make me.. no... force me to write something in a particular way or else I can reap consequences..
Is B..L SH.t... I like to think of my self as a free individual.. I can speak and write as I like....
I'm sure they are just covering their asses in some legal way...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content Advisory! This message contains profanity
WTBF!!! Adobe should be glad that its products are in the lexicons of spoken languages. Other companies would give their eyeteeth to have that kind of brand recognition that they and Microsoft have. What are they going to do,send out secret spies/police to monitor the public adherence to their stupid policies??? Are they so rich and mighty that they can tell me what to say and how to say what I want to say??? Thought police, they ain't!!!
The BLASTED BLOODY FOOLS can kiss my arse on the way to the short pier while taking a long walk, preferably in the Gulf of Mexico during the next hurricane! :m_fit:
===========================================================
OS: Windows 11 64-bit
Poser: Poser 11.3 ...... Units: inches or meters depends on mood
Bryce: Bryce Pro 7.1.074
Image Editing: Corel Paintshop Pro
Renderer: Superfly, Firefly
9/11/2001: Never forget...
Smiles are contagious... Pass it on!
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday
I have no problem with all this. It's their duty to correct people on the proper usage of their name; otherwise, they could lose it forever. Cases in point:
Escalators. That used to be a proper noun -- I think it was the brand name of the leading manufacturer of those things; I'm not even sure what the generic term would have been.
Trampolines. Same as above.
Yellow pages. Used to be there was only one Yellow Pages, but a bunch of other companies put out similar phone books with yellow pages, and now all such books are generically called yellow pages, and the original company -- because they weren't diligent about protecting their name -- now has to call itself Yellow Book.
Names in danger of losing their trademark if they're not careful:
Wite-Out. People use white-out as the generic, but it's really correction fluid. Brand name is Wite-Out.
Kleenex. Generic is facial tissue.
FedEx. Used to be Federal Express, but people used the shortened FedEx to mean to ship it quickly ("Can you fedex this to New York?") that they changed their name and assiduously protect the shortened version, too.
Rollerblades. Generic is in-line skates.
Another I'm not sure about:
Weedwacker. I can't remember if it's one word or two, but it's a brand name of a particular kind of gardening tool or spray. It's becoming a generic for those yard trimmers.
There are more, but these are the ones I remember off the top of my head.
Oh, yes, and the generic for Xerox is photocopy.
Outrageous terms such as these, or the famous google chrome one or several ones in your microsoft software, discreet paying you to rat out illegal use of their software back when they owned 3dsmax, etc. It's all common and no one really cares if you break them. Its easy to write a rule, but a lot of the most outrageous claims cant even be forced by law.
You see this especially often with trademarks or liability agreements. Some businesses try to write off any liability in their agreements but if there is a law that says they are responsible for cetain things, you can still sue them and their license wont mean a thing. Rules are nice as long as they dont cross the laws :-) the rest is mostly bluf, because often times, bluf works :-)
(_/)
(='.'=)
(")(")This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
signature to help him gain world domination.
Quote - Oh, yes, and the generic for Xerox is photocopy.
Now y' tell me...30 years too late...LOL, I also started Canon-izing my work when Canon came out with a superior machine, heh heh heh.. ...
Once
in a while I look around,
I see
a sound
and
try to write it down
Sometimes
they come out very soft
Tinkling light sound
The Sun comes up again
Quote - Easy solution, change the tool. "This image was GIMPed" is nice and simple.... 8-)
Uh....yeah if you want association with being 'crippled' which is what put me off the program really...it was always crippled some how...LOL...as in I gimped my foot and don't walk so good...heh heh heh.. ...
Once
in a while I look around,
I see
a sound
and
try to write it down
Sometimes
they come out very soft
Tinkling light sound
The Sun comes up again
Why, hello Rosie!
... of all the photoshopping (noun deleted) ! ! * It's bad enough they have been putting unwanted pestware into their programs since their beginning...
Now, Adobe is trying to tell us how to spell, giving us unwanted grammar lessons and generally just being a pest ! !
............. Say, isn't pretty close to the definition of stalking ? ?
- no Bovines were in any way injured in the making of this post.
What a load of bollocks. Do you know how many times I've HOOVERED my carpet?
Available on Amazon for the Kindle E-Reader
All the Woes of a World by Jonathan Icknield aka The Bryster
And in my final hours - I would cling rather to the tattooed hand of kindness - than the unblemished hand of hate...
next thing you know, the brand Cellophane will be a generic...what rot...;)
yup...I Gimp my stuff...;)
Actually, I worked at IBM (as a temp) for a while, and they were the ones who would snap 'Photocopy!' every time I said Xerox...;)
I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit
anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)
Quote - Actually, I worked at IBM (as a temp) for a while, and they were the ones who would snap 'Photocopy!' every time I said Xerox...;)
There are two sides to everything.
Competitors don't want you to say "Xerox" instead of "photocopy" because if people are in the market for a photocopier, they might just go out and buy a Xerox copier without even thinking about the competition.
Xerox doesn't want you to say "Xerox" instead of "photocopy" because if people are in the market for a photocopier and they think "Xerox" is just another word for "photocopier", they might look at all the competitors' products and not even realize there's a Xerox company that makes photocopiers, too! Like all those times you might ask someone to buy you some Kleenex, and they go out and buy you the cheapest facial tissue on the market, the kind that's rough and gives you a red nose when you blow, because they think Kleenex is just another word for facial tissue.
Actually I think this just goes to show how words enter the english language. Strangely perhaps, the worst culprits are the Americans.(No offense) bringing to our glorious tongue words such as 'burglerize', de-virginize', 'forensicated' and many more bastardisations than I can think of atm.
Available on Amazon for the Kindle E-Reader
All the Woes of a World by Jonathan Icknield aka The Bryster
And in my final hours - I would cling rather to the tattooed hand of kindness - than the unblemished hand of hate...
I used to be a copy editor. Companies really have to protect their intellectual property (i.e. branding). I would get complaints like, "in your description that the suspect was wearing "Levi's", unless it was verified that the suspect wore Levi(R) brand denim jeans..."
Paperclip, Aspirin, Eraser among many others were all name brands that lost their copyright protection and now can be used by anyone.
Usually when your trademarked product name is put to common usage to describe things or even altered into a verb form, believe it or not - that's a good thing. It tends to mean that you're at the top of your game for some reason, and therefore fairly common. And this familiarity is what makes the name ubiquitous in terms of usage.
Most people don't ask for a tissue, they ask for Kleenex.
Some people don't say copy, they say to Xerox it.
I don't ask for glass cleaner, it's Windex I need for that job.
A lot of people don't say I'm going to look it up on a search engine, they just Google it.
Or with photomanipulation (already covered), it's PhotoShopped.
Some people ask for a Coke, when they mean any cola-type beverage in general.
It's not often a product name gets a bad connotation in common usage, but sometimes it happens. Spam for instance.
Your friendly neighborhood Wings3D nut.
Also feel free to browse my freebies at ShareCG.
There might be something worth downloading.
Ah yes! Spam spam spam spam spam spam spam......wonderful SPAM!!!!!!!!
Spam and chips, sausage, egg, beans and spam, chips, egg, peas and spam........
Available on Amazon for the Kindle E-Reader
All the Woes of a World by Jonathan Icknield aka The Bryster
And in my final hours - I would cling rather to the tattooed hand of kindness - than the unblemished hand of hate...
Quote - Usually when your trademarked product name is put to common usage to describe things or even altered into a verb form, believe it or not - that's a good thing. It tends to mean that you're at the top of your game for some reason, and therefore fairly common. And this familiarity is what makes the name ubiquitous in terms of usage.
I agree that it tends to mean that you're at the top, but I disagree that it's usually a good thing. Just ask the people who used to work at the companies who made the products mentioned earlier. Once those companies lost sales to competitors and once people forgot that the words they were using were brand names, those companies were on the way to extinction and later ceased to exist.
Just imagine. Let's say I need to make a correction on a term paper, and having seen people use a bottle of white fluid on something like this and calling it "Wite-Out" I think, I need some white-out. I ask you to buy me some, and you (thinking of white-out as a generic term) get me, oh, maybe PaperMate correction fluid or PaperMate LiquidPaper. Who loses out in a situation like this? Wite-Out®, the company that makes Wite-Out® brand correction fluid. They lose a sale. They lose brand recognition. They slowly lose their means of existing.
Heck, people have been using "white-out" as a generic for correction fluid for so long, I'll bet most people didn't even know that Wite-Out® was a brand name.
And that, to Wite-Out, is NOT a good thing.
I can't believe no-one has mentioned LEGO bricks...
______________________________________________________________________________________
Check out my Elemental Hexagons deck, created with Photoshop, Bryce, MojoWorld, and Poser
Copyright, trademark law, patents whole damned lot needs abolished, scrapped and set fire to.
it does NOT protect you the artist, we ordinary bods cannot afford lawyers.
it's only about protecting immortal organizations who have more power than governments.
Note the immortal bit. A corporation doe snot age and die like normal dictators.
I coudl go on on this at length, but basiclaly folk are having their rights removed bit by bit, and folk acept it, stupidly, as long as we assume:
a) it makes things cheaper for us (it doens't, the corporates set up monopolies and unfair trade practices, see the cost of Photoshop!!!)
b) Protects our work (it doesn't, we cannot aford lawyers and see the Orphan Work act for how insane it's got)
c) It's all for "the good". Haha!! See recent history for hard proof that idea is ridiculous. Politicians wouldn't know honesty or common sense if it bit them :D
We've been fed the "Mushroom Treatment" to accep tthe corporate line.
See the RIAA & MPAA's unbelievable actions.
"I'd rather be a
Fool who believes in Dragons, Than a King who believes in
Nothing!" www.silverblades-suitcase.com
Free tutorials, Vue & Bryce materials, Bryce Skies, models,
D&D items, stories.
Tutorials on Poser imports
to Vue/Bryce, Postwork, Vue rendering/lighting, etc etc!
thats actually not true, copyright laws are very valuable, theres plenty of things you can do if someone breaks your copyright, dont forget these laws can help small beginning corporations just as easily as large multinationals. and whats wrong with protecting your ideas? If you did all the work, you earn the right to decide who you share it with.
A) there are rules against monopolies, see the various lawsuits that are currently running against microsoft, google, yahoo, etc. there is increasing pressure on monopolies to allow more competition and stop unfair trade policies and this pressure will continue to grow.
As for photoshop, yes the price is high, but dont forget there are imense amounts of manhours involved in making these software packages. All these programmers need to be paid as well. amongst the various other costs involved.
B) You dont neccesarily need to protect your work from some multi million dollar industry.. there are smaller scale threats.
C) And why is it not good for you to be able to protect your work? Would you like spending months of your life programming software or making art or wiritng a book to just have it shared everywhere for free?
Theres some fear against large businesses, but dont forget without these large institutes numerous beneficial developments would not be possible. Someone needs to invest the costs and the manhours.
(_/)
(='.'=)
(")(")This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
signature to help him gain world domination.
Rayraz,
see patent law and how that's stiffling products that could save lives.
Microsoft doesn't give a damn about those lawsuits, see how much money it has.
See how it built itself up, with many lawuits against it for many acts, which did nothing to stop it.
People are selling away their freedoms....
I'll show you another exmaple which I hope brings this whole stinking mess crashing down, at last:
Spore, the game's DRM system, SecureROM which has wrecked many people's PCs, and that's far from the 1st case of such so-called "anti-piracy" software doing that (I had 3 hard drives fail in a row some years ago, due to such software and I had bought the damned games, yet I, the honest guy gets screwed).
Piracy and logic finally brought the bloated prices and illegal systems of some of the big software apps down to more sane levels.
Small companies can get wrecked by piracy, mostly if their app has limited use. But the wider an app is used, the more piracy is free marketing and training in it...that was the dirty secret the "Big boys" didn't want to talk about.
There was no damned way ordinary bods could afford their apps, the only way to get market share is to have a lot of folk using their apps, and training in them takes years...so a Catch22 situation that required piracy to exist, lol
That's why the finally brought out "personal learning editions". of their apps.
If you think that's crazy, here's a snippet of the hypocrisy in the music business:
The big record companies paid companies to monitor which songs were traded most on P2P networks, so they would know which tracks were most popular.
And the general consensus was that tracks over 15 year old made up for over 75% of those traded.
Why? To an extent, older demogrpahics for having PC/broadband, but largely, the recent music is mostly crap, because the greedy record companies only wanted cheap "fluff" product, which has no "staying power", and thus, they wrecked their own business. LOL.
That's a simplification of course, changing habits, such as mobile phone costs of teenagers etc also eat into music money, so all combined, is why the record ocmpanies are nose diving, not because of piracy, it's piracy that made interest in music recover in ways.
Again, you need wide spread user base as KEY, to make money. Folk who download a track for free will thus listen to music off the cuff to try it, thus may enjoy it and go buy tracks, also they don't want albums where 90% of it's not wanted, they want single tracks.
I have family in the music biz and they loathe the big companies who gobble up the lion's share of profit, and therefor bands stay independant, make money from gigs, merchandise, and online sales far better they can with the "leeches".
Everyone with common sense knows that but the RIAA etc bang away and all they do is make folk hate them, refuse to buy their product or work for them and...the corporates nosedive. Serves them right. They don't give a hoot about the artist or the music, all they care about is $.
We don't have "Capitalism" we have "Corporate Oligarchies". Consumer laws only catch up, like criminal laws, when heinous abuses hurt many folk, alas. They are a step behind the curve.
Also the sheer power and multi-nation spread of the corporations, means it's very hard to deal with them, indeed. They can just threaten to move to another country and thus take jobs...
As said, we've all been fed the "Mushroom Treatment", because who owns the media, who has billions to promote the views they want...? ;)
Only living human beings should any "copyright protection". And that primarily so that they are always identified as the "creator".
Allowing unreal things like corporations to have copyrights, is incredibly dangerous, you are giving power to an immortal, ammoral entity with no concern except shareholders (Who're often the execs nowadays).
Corporations do not exist as real things, I have never met one, have you? They are fictional co-operative units. Thus they should never have rights that trump those of real people.
Sorry for the sort of political spiel :)
"I'd rather be a
Fool who believes in Dragons, Than a King who believes in
Nothing!" www.silverblades-suitcase.com
Free tutorials, Vue & Bryce materials, Bryce Skies, models,
D&D items, stories.
Tutorials on Poser imports
to Vue/Bryce, Postwork, Vue rendering/lighting, etc etc!
Quote - Microsoft doesn't give a damn about those lawsuits, see how much money it has.
They have lost several big lawsuits lately, even had to release some source code, thats progress if you ask me. They lose increasingly many lawsuist these days, thats why i said there is a rising trend towards taking the threat of monopolies serious and doing something about it.
Quote - People are selling away their freedoms....
how?
Quote - Spore, the game's DRM system, SecureROM which has wrecked many people's PCs, and that's far from the 1st case of such so-called "anti-piracy" software doing that (I had 3 hard drives fail in a row some years ago, due to such software and I had bought the damned games, yet I, the honest guy gets screwed).
As crappy as that is, it is the anti-piracy software that causes this, not the copyright law. Without a copyright law there would still be a stimulus to try and make copying difficult.
Quote - Piracy and logic finally brought the bloated prices and illegal systems of some of the big software apps down to more sane levels.
Small companies can get wrecked by piracy, mostly if their app has limited use. But the wider an app is used, the more piracy is free marketing and training in it...that was the dirty secret the "Big boys" didn't want to talk about.
Yet without the constant efforts to limit piracy the music business might already have gone tits-up long ago. If we all would pirate all our music, what would musicians live from?
If small companies can get wrecked by piracy, then how does that make copyrighting a bad thing?
Quote - There was no damned way ordinary bods could afford their apps, the only way to get market share is to have a lot of folk using their apps, and training in them takes years...so a Catch22 situation that required piracy to exist, lol
which is why simple individuals arent sued..
Quote - That's why the finally brought out "personal learning editions". of their apps.
i see no problem here?
Quote - If you think that's crazy, here's a snippet of the hypocrisy in the music business:
The big record companies paid companies to monitor which songs were traded most on P2P networks, so they would know which tracks were most popular.And the general consensus was that tracks over 15 year old made up for over 75% of those traded.
Why? To an extent, older demogrpahics for having PC/broadband, but largely, the recent music is mostly crap, because the greedy record companies only wanted cheap "fluff" product, which has no "staying power", and thus, they wrecked their own business. LOL.
That sounds very logical to me, but i still dont understand how this makes copyrights and trademarks bad? The current commercial music business is aimed at making quick money, there is no one trying to hide that.
Quote - That's a simplification of course, changing habits, such as mobile phone costs of teenagers etc also eat into music money, so all combined, is why the record ocmpanies are nose diving, not because of piracy, it's piracy that made interest in music recover in ways.
Again, you need wide spread user base as KEY, to make money. Folk who download a track for free will thus listen to music off the cuff to try it, thus may enjoy it and go buy tracks, also they don't want albums where 90% of it's not wanted, they want single tracks.I have family in the music biz and they loathe the big companies who gobble up the lion's share of profit, and therefor bands stay independant, make money from gigs, merchandise, and online sales far better they can with the "leeches".
Everyone with common sense knows that but the RIAA etc bang away and all they do is make folk hate them, refuse to buy their product or work for them and...the corporates nosedive. Serves them right. They don't give a hoot about the artist or the music, all they care about is $.
We don't have "Capitalism" we have "Corporate Oligarchies". Consumer laws only catch up, like criminal laws, when heinous abuses hurt many folk, alas. They are a step behind the curve.
Also the sheer power and multi-nation spread of the corporations, means it's very hard to deal with them, indeed. They can just threaten to move to another country and thus take jobs...As said, we've all been fed the "Mushroom Treatment", because who owns the media, who has billions to promote the views they want...? ;)
Only living human beings should any "copyright protection". And that primarily so that they are always identified as the "creator".
Allowing unreal things like corporations to have copyrights, is incredibly dangerous, you are giving power to an immortal, ammoral entity with no concern except shareholders (Who're often the execs nowadays).Corporations do not exist as real things, I have never met one, have you? They are fictional co-operative units. Thus they should never have rights that trump those of real people.
Sorry for the sort of political spiel :)
all very valid stuff, but i still dont get how this makes trademarks bad..
(_/)
(='.'=)
(")(")This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
signature to help him gain world domination.
Yet without the constant efforts to limit piracy the music business might already have gone tits-up long ago. If we all would pirate all our music, what would musicians live from?
Bollocks! I'm sick of hearing that the music comapnies could sell cds cheaper if there was no piracy. Yeah right! Without piracy they would rack their prices up as far as they could. For 60 years record companies have been ripping us off.
Hey! did you miss the CD revolution? Or maybe the 8-track farce? Or even the Compact Cassette thing?
How much money did the record companies make by releasing all those LPs again on CD? Oh and of course re-mastering and taking away that undefinable thing that made music what it was on LP and was lost when it gone digital!
I have NO sympathy for Sony or the others. They habitually screw the artists and the punters. Wanna tell me how a cd costs maybe $10 in the USA but costs $25 in the UK?
This whole thing is one big rip-off. They give us the technology and make us pay through the nose for it and then scream like stuck-pigs when we actually learn how to use to OUR advantage.
Back in the 50s, after the WW2, the UK gov went nuts trying to get everyone to buy a car because it would bring investment and jobs and improve the economy. Now they tax us stupid with road tax, gas tax and vat and try to stop us using the cars. Anyone notice how they're NOT trying to stop us buying them?
Oh I hear how they want us to buy smaller cars for the environment, but the taxes will remain and get higher year after year.
Getting back to the apps, I agree that maybe smaller companies can suffer because of piracy, but how many of them will take the bundle of $ bills and sell out to the big boys given half a chance? Didn't DAZ do that with Bryce? And don't tell me it was for the love of Bryce. It was for the sales they hope they could make.
Nuff said.
Available on Amazon for the Kindle E-Reader
All the Woes of a World by Jonathan Icknield aka The Bryster
And in my final hours - I would cling rather to the tattooed hand of kindness - than the unblemished hand of hate...
bryster, i was talking about the balance between trying to limit piracy, and the piracy thats still happening. I'm not saying piracy is all doom and gloom, it has had its effects on the industry in both positive and negative form. But if nothing would be done to slow piracy, and piracy would run havoc, no one would pay anything for music..
(_/)
(='.'=)
(")(")This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
signature to help him gain world domination.
Quote - C) And why is it not good for you to be able to protect your work? Would you like spending months of your life programming software or making art or wiritng a book to just have it shared everywhere for free?
Believe it or not, some of us are crazy like that. :woot:
Only thing it may cost is a bit of credit where credit's due, otherwise known as citing attribution in regards to source material. Of course getting donations or paid offers to make similar works wouldn't hurt any.
And yes I do sell some things too. I figure I'm not going to sweat the copying of those items provided that: 1. They aren't resold such that someone else makes a bigger profit from those things than I am. 2. I still see a fair amount of sales of those items when they are actually made available for sale. (And frankly the only reason I sell some things is because not enough people bother to donate.)
I think what screwed up copyright in the U.S. is that the original social contract in regards to it was broken by some fairly recent legislation. Things were supposed to be available to the public domain after a reasonable amount of time (and it was a fair amount of time to profit off of such works without too much resting on one's laurels), that's no longer the case. The guy who did that piece of work should ski off a cliff and impale himself on a tree. ..Oh wait! :lol:
Your friendly neighborhood Wings3D nut.
Also feel free to browse my freebies at ShareCG.
There might be something worth downloading.
RayRaz,
As I implied, we've been fed the "Mushroom Treatment" for over 50 years...the Soviets had propaganda, so did we, ours was better. Think I'm kidding, go read up on how the PR companies and think tanks spiralled in the Cold War and were roped in by big business to "push" us into certain directions (and by the "spooks", very scary stuff).
Art psychology is part of it (seriously, lol)
I think most of us know the one about *"Putting necessities at far side of the store, to make customers walk by luxuries, thus inticing them to buy".
*That's a simple, obvious part of it.
Now, go look at current commercials...also, if you've been part of an actual item in the news, I bet you, what is reported is often heavily slanted, one way or another (sides don't matter, only that some shmuck is slanting everything their way)
As TheBryster notes, here in UK, we were pushed to buy "cars"...they got rid of the electric trams, which were a vastly safer and more efficient form of transport, which would cost many billions to reinstall now, and instead we got the "automobile" to sacrifice up our environment, civic planning, family, friends and kids to...
folk go on about terrorism etc, bah, pathetic, cars kill the same amount of folk in one YEAR that the Troubles in Northern Ireland killed in 30 years. And that's with the toughest road laws and regulations in the world.
US death toll is 30,000/annum on the roads approx (iirc, 25,000 a year are murdered by comparison?)
at one time in early 70s, again iirc, the death tool was 120,000 a year!!
yet we accept that slaughter. Do you see? Every year or two in the USA, a Hiroshima bomb wipes out a town...on the road, spread out, every day, every hour...and we accept that horror.
Much of that could have been stopped a long time ago, but no one has the chutzpha to do so...because, they control us, by seduction. "The car is GOD!"
(Ever seen "They Live" maybe not literally true, lol, but the point is valid, manipulation by media, we accept the Soviets did it, but somehow think "Our side" wouldn't do it...haha!! yeah right they wouldn't...)
All about "The Mushroom Treatment" ;)
What's this have to do with copyright? SAME THING. We, plebs, are sold the idea it's a "good thing" by the Big Companies. As TheBryster points out, say for the music industry, it's a load of crap! ;)
If somone tries to con you, you tell 'em to get stuffed!! Whatever they are peddling is not for your benefit.
I'll give you an example, a female singer for a (short lived) top US band was interviewed a coupel of years ago.
The company made $4 million, she, personally got $44,000.
So, what the hell use was copyright there? Except to...the big company. (She sued them iirc).
Also see how stars like James Garner were ripped off by studios.
The Orphan Works Act is jsut complete insanity, lol. It sounds good some of the ideas that it was supposed to be about but, as folk know and fought about, it was a gigantic rip off.
Anyway, the concepts of copyright is fine...but like Capitalism, Communism, any form of governance, Religion or anything else we Humans make, in practice it becomes a monster. Greed,uncaring bureacracy, shyster lawyers etc all end up twisting things. As Churchill so aptly pointed out about Democracy: "It's the best of a bad bunch!"
Lawyers here refused to accept a £75 to £91/hour pay deal for government assisted cases (ie, poor schlubs like you and I). Think about it, they may actually charge £100 to £300 an hour for non-assisted cases. No way in hell can ordinary bods afford that, and if they dont' have a good clear chance of winning they won't take it if they are "no win/no pay".
So, say "Company X", a billion dollar company steals your work. They figure they can either tell you to get stuffed, as no way you can afford that, or they pay you off with a pittance, say $10,000 to get lost, but make a fortune from your work.
Please see how the big companies have been pushing copyright and IP laws, they should be being driven by artists for fair protection..they are not, they are being pushed for protecting monopolies.
The current financial disaster was long warned of...but no one wanted ot here. Same thing in this case ;)
We need an intenrational agreement on copyright, as 21st century communicaiton requires that.
We need it to protect individuals , not companies, this includes individuals in groups who collaborate on projects. Law should protect real people not ficticious immortal entities.
We need it to protect the creator's right as the original maker, as it's prime point.
Monetary concerns be damned, because there's too much divergance and abuse on such things, ick. Those should stay at a national level.
Agreeing on a law that states that "Person X shall henceforth always be declared the creator of the work, and this right can never be repealed", will help artists, NOT companies, as it should be.
For example, Joe works for Marvel comics, he makes a big spread for them...whiel the characters of marvel are their's...who made the artwork? WHo does it REALLY belong to? The painter/drawer, that's who, not Marvel.
Who in Marvel really should hold a control on characters? the person who designs 'em, not Marvel.
That atitude though, cannot be allowed by Big Business. All they care about is dominance, not the artist, not freedom or common sense.
Again, sorry for the divergence, it's not a simple thing to merley debate "copyright" as if it were merely a legal thing, you have to look at it from many angles, to see "outside The Matrix" ;)
"I'd rather be a
Fool who believes in Dragons, Than a King who believes in
Nothing!" www.silverblades-suitcase.com
Free tutorials, Vue & Bryce materials, Bryce Skies, models,
D&D items, stories.
Tutorials on Poser imports
to Vue/Bryce, Postwork, Vue rendering/lighting, etc etc!
I don't really see the point of conflating copyright issues with current economic and political issues unless you simply just don't have any other good arguments. I think most people would agree with you that it's because of big companies' influence that we still use energy hogging cars instead of cleaner, more efficient trams, but how does that all relate to copyright? Very little.
Though you didn't really bring it up, I will grant you that many copyright laws are what they are now mostly because a big company like Disney wants to keep Mickey Mouse from falling into the public domain, but jeez, admit that it helps the little guy, too. It is not all one big conspiracy theory with the corporations waiting to jump on every little guy's endeavor.
There's a movie coming out soon about some guy who invented the windshield wipers. True story. The big car companies stole his idea, and he had to fight to get his due. Patents, trademarks, and copyrights are available to everyone. It's just that big companies are savvier at using them than most individuals are. That's why it pays to have a healthy respect and knowledge of them.
So, instead of railing at big companies for using the laws to their advantage and encouraging everyone not to honor those same laws simply because they protect those companies, why not educate people on using the laws to their advantage as well?
Take your Joe working at Marvel, for instance. When he signs on to work for them, he SIGNS a contract saying that his artwork is work-for-hire, thus the rights belong to THEM. After all, he is creating artwork that uses characters created by someone else. Stan Lee, for instance. How do you think Stan and Marvel would feel if Joe created spreads with their characters and started selling them on his own for his own benefit? Dude. If Joe is all gung-ho about owning his own work and profiting only himself, maybe he should create his own characters, come up with his own comic book series, get it published on his own, and make his living THAT way. There is no one stopping him from doing that, after all, but he chooses to work at Marvel because they already have a following, a consumer base -- they pay for the Marvel name and not some knock off.
But if working for The Man really bothers Joe all that much, the copyright laws protect him just as much as they protect Marvel. He can always refuse to sign that work-for-hire contract and set out on his own and create Joe Comics. And so long as his characters are his own, original, and not something created work-for-hire for some other company, it's his and his alone. He can sign on other artists to do work-for-hire art for HIM, and he can benefit off THEM if he so wishes.
See? Outside The Matrix was just another matrix. You don't have to break all the laws of the universe to get around it. You just have to find ways to use what's there to your advantage.
- 1
- 2
Privacy Notice
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
*First things first.. a gazillion apologies to everyone out here.. haven't forgotten you all at all.. it's just that...life has been treating me so brutally..that I haven't been able to bryce, nor settle down. forgive me.
I know I owe Thebryster and Fran the biggest apologies ever can imagine for not getting back to them. I'll send you site mails telling you why. Please forgive me though.*
Anyway.. getting back to this post..
According to the Adobe website..
"Proper use of the Photoshop trademark Trademarks help protect corporate and product identity, and Photoshop is one of Adobe's most valuable trademarks. By following the below guidelines, you can help Adobe protect the Photoshop brand name.
The Photoshop trademark must never be used as a common verb or as a noun. The Photoshop trademark should always be capitalized and should never be used in possessive form, or as a slang term. It should be used as an adjective to describe the product, and should never be used in abbreviated form. The following examples illustrate these rules:
Trademarks are not verbs.
CORRECT: The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.
Trademarks are not nouns.
CORRECT: The image pokes fun at the Senator.
INCORRECT: The photoshop pokes fun at the Senator.
Always capitalize and use trademarks in their correct form.
CORRECT: The image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software.
INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.
INCORRECT: The image was Photoshopped.
INCORRECT: The image was Adobe® Photoshopped.
Trademarks must never be used as slang terms.
CORRECT: Those who use Adobe® Photoshop® software to manipulate images as a hobby see their work as an art form.
INCORRECT: A photoshopper sees his hobby as an art form. INCORRECT: My hobby is photoshopping.
Trademarks must never be used in possessive form.
CORRECT: The new features in Adobe® Photoshop® software are impressive.
INCORRECT: Photoshop's features are impressive.
Trademarks are proper adjectives and should be followed by the generic terms they describe.
CORRECT: The image was manipulated using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
INCORRECT: The image was manipulated using Photoshop.
Trademarks must never be abbreviated.
CORRECT: Take a look at the new features in Adobe® Photoshop® software.
INCORRECT: Take a look at the new features in PS.
The trademark owner should be identified whenever possible.
Adobe and Photoshop are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries.
For more information on the proper use of Adobe's trademarks, please refer to the general trademark guidelines."
Ok.. who is the lawyer around here???