Quote - Oh, on the legal side of it, your points are all valid.  I wasn't trying to dismiss them outright.  Just that it's an impossible task to enforce broadly, and yet some artists (not in this thread specifically) seem to think it should be done, or seem to expect this kind of protection.

Yeah... I think if someone got all up in arms about their image occasionally being downloaded, I'd wanna give them a kick in the pants for a reality check and a lesson in PR.

At the same time, if someone claimed it's their right to download someone's image, I'd wanna give them a smack up-side the head and send them too for a reality check, and a lesson in good manners.

Someone systematically downloading gallery images/harvesting them, is just wrong... I'm sure it happens, and I have no idea how it could be detected and stopped. One can only hope for karma to step in.

Haha, in a perfect world if someone likes an image they'd tell the author they like it a bunch and wanna have it on a desktop, and the author would be super flattered and humbly grant them permission. Perhaps in some other universe this actually happens!
Personally, if I do want to have someone's image in my desktop for a while, I send them a PM saying I really like it and asking if it's okay, or something to that effect. Sometimes people are all excited about it, other times I never hear back, and with a tiny twinge of guilt, I put it on my desktop for a while anyways.

FWIW, I have no problem with anyone downloading my gallery posts and saving them to view later, or to keep for themselves, or even to send to other people provided they don't pass them off as their own work or try to ally them with any commercial enterprise or political party.

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - Again, I ask, how does it harm you when or if someone saves an image you posted in a public gallery?

 

So, if I like your artwork, you don't mind if I download it and print myself some posters, right?
I mean it's much cheaper and convenient then contacting you and asking you for permission and paying you for the trouble, and also, this way I avoid you realizing that if people really like them, you might be able to sell them.
Then I can tell 100 of my friends they can do the same - beacause of course, it is on your online gallery afterall. Why bother you with potentially selling prints of your work.
I mean, no harm done, since you're not selling them right now, and whom in their right mind would put an image of what they want to resell online anyway.

Anyway, above is an illustration of using your logic. As you can see, there CAN be harm done. Immediate or future.

Again, that's talking "redistribution", not just simply right clicking and saving to your hard drive to view it at your liesure. Doing absolutely nothing to the image other than viewing it.

Are you saying I print an image for my viewing pleasure, that's redistribution, but if it's kept on a hard drive, it's not redistribution?
I thought for redistribution, it has to change hands.
If I tell people where online an image can be found for download, I'm not redistributing it.

I'd love to stay and take part with this discussion but I have an international death squad climbing through my windows.

See you all later.  Or not, as the case may be.

Banzai!!!

I've heard the argument that 'most women secretly want to be raped' therefore it shouldn't be a crime. Pretty extreme, but it does happen. I’m sure there are lunatics, idiots and psychopaths in the world, but I don’t hang around with them, nor have I witnessed many rape trails. Even so, I find it hard to believe that in this century, on this planet there are lawyers defending their clients with the argument that “the rape wasn’t a crime because no one was killed.” That was the wacky addendum to the bent analogy that flung “rape” into this argument like a simian dung projectile. Anyway, back to your claim that no one is harmed in people downloading images, first, you have no way of asserting that as a fact. It's only a speculation, and speculations aren't good enough for making laws. Anyone who puts an image up online has agreed that it can be downloaded whether they realize it or not. If there is any harm, I maintain that it was self-inflicted. To argue that the “intent” of the down loader to retain the image is what constitutes a “crime” when in fact the image is automatically retained anyway is a magical, voodoo-style concept that has no place in modern law and rational discourse.

If you refuse to take even 5 minutes to look at how copyright law works, why waste your time here?  You could be stealing all sorts of copyrighted material instead of posting nonsense about how you think copyright law ought to work.  Just steal what you're going to steal and justify it to yourself however you care to.

*If I tell people where online an image can be found for download, I'm not redistributing it.

*If someone calculatedly makes an image (which is not his own) available for redistribution, then he is violating the copyright of the image.   Nobody is disputing that.    You are equating the simple possession of an image with an intent to infringe its owner's copyright, which is an utterly nonsensical standpoint.

Rather than muddy the waters again (though more subtly this time by suggesting that I long to steal instead of accusing me of rampant piracy outright.) I suggest you deal with the indisputable fact that Canadians have the right to click and save your images to their hard drive. If you find this to be theft, unacceptable and injurious, it would be wise to remove your images from the galleries posthaste. In addition, I would point out that there are more than copyright laws out there, and some cover the area of libel where you have proven yourself to be less than law-abiding.

It's a bit dense of you to point me towards the exception in Canadian law - **I'm the one that brought it up.

**I'm rather surprised and disappointed that you're so liberty-oriented when it comes to stealing copyrighted content, but you're ready to cry to a lawyer when someone spells out that obvious fact.  I've used the word "steal" from the outset, because that's what intentionally copying material that you know to be copyrighted is.  You are welcome to run this past a lawyer to see if you have a good case for libel.  Bring your checkbook.

Quote - which is an utterly nonsensical standpoint.

.

That's nice.

It's a bit dense of you to point me towards the exception in Canadian law - I'm the one that brought it up. Yes, after it was demonstrated in a long interaction with Acadia you conceded the point. Yet despite the proven fact that it is legal for Canadians to "steal" your work, you still waste your time on senseless debate. Why aren't you emptying your gallery to defend yourself from this atrocity? I'm rather surprised and disappointed that you're so liberty-oriented when it comes to stealing copyrighted content, Nice spin. Liberty-oriented doesn't equate to rampant piracy, nor does advocating sanity equate to criminal activity. but you're ready to cry to a lawyer when someone spells out that obvious fact. Distort and convolute the record all you want, but you won't change the fact that, despite your Latin pretensions of the finer points of debate, you resorted to the sleaziest tactic of them all. If, at some point, I was refused access to the Rendersoity market place because of your baseless, malicious assertions, I would have the grounds--though not the revenue--to sue you. Rest easy on that checkbook cushion of yours in the certain knowledge that cash subverts justice. Perhaps you could bring a lawsuit against Renderosity for distributing the images you uploaded. Is that what you're planning?

Quote - It's a bit dense of you to point me towards the exception in Canadian law - **I'm the one that brought it up.

**I'm rather surprised and disappointed that you're so liberty-oriented when it comes to stealing copyrighted content, but you're ready to cry to a lawyer when someone spells out that obvious fact.  I've used the word "steal" from the outset, because that's what intentionally copying material that you know to be copyrighted is.  You are welcome to run this past a lawyer to see if you have a good case for libel.  Bring your checkbook.

Ha! 
I noticed the same thing.

Ha! I noticed the same thing So because I think that click and save on my images is harmless, I can't hold the opinion that assault and battery is a crime? Interesting logic from the Amen chorus.

Knock it off, kids.

uh oh - time for kitty pictures?

Quote - Yes, after it was demonstrated in a long interaction with Acadia you conceded the point.

Uh, hello, **I was the one that demonstrated it.

**Since Karen seems to think this is disruptive I guess I'll quit trying to drive basic legal facts through various thick skulls.  Do keep me informed of how your lawsuit plans develop, after your lawyer explains to you the fundamentals of copyright law that is.

Couldn't resist, eh? Ah well, bring on the kitties.

Quote - shakes head sadly
Guess it's time for some NINJA DETH SQUOD KITTIES ZOMG!!11!!!

Heu... Is it permitted to right-click and save the kitty? (for private viewing of course...) LOL

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - > Quote - Again, I ask, how does it harm you when or if someone saves an image you posted in a public gallery?

 

So, if I like your artwork, you don't mind if I download it and print myself some posters, right?
I mean it's much cheaper and convenient then contacting you and asking you for permission and paying you for the trouble, and also, this way I avoid you realizing that if people really like them, you might be able to sell them.
Then I can tell 100 of my friends they can do the same - beacause of course, it is on your online gallery afterall. Why bother you with potentially selling prints of your work.
I mean, no harm done, since you're not selling them right now, and whom in their right mind would put an image of what they want to resell online anyway.

Anyway, above is an illustration of using your logic. As you can see, there CAN be harm done. Immediate or future.

Again, that's talking "redistribution", not just simply right clicking and saving to your hard drive to view it at your liesure. Doing absolutely nothing to the image other than viewing it.

 

Are you saying I print an image for my viewing pleasure, that's redistribution, but if it's kept on a hard drive, it's not redistribution?
I thought for redistribution, it has to change hands.
If I tell people where online an image can be found for download, I'm not redistributing it.

When you said "print posters", I assumed you were talking about posters for sale or to give away, not just to put into a binder or hang on your wall for you to look at.

Quote - Heu... Is it permitted to right-click and save the kitty? (for private viewing of course...) LOL

You'll have top ask the Ninja Kitty, so you don't get into using celebrity likeness trouble.

Umm... and... just what kind of a private viewing would you have with a kitty??? :blink:
Nevrrr mind, I don't think I wanna know...  :closedeyes:

[quoteWhen you said "print posters", I assumed you were talking about posters for sale or to give away, not just to put into a binder or hang on your wall for you to look at. 

Yea, I hear ya, I probably didn't make that clear enough...

Karen, what does 11!!! mean?  I'm not up to speed on the cool comutereese slang...

It's like ! without the Shift key.  :lol: 

Quote - It's like ! without the Shift key.  :lol: 

oooh, like !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111!!!!!!!!!!!
LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!1111!!!
I like that one!

Speaking of exclamation mark, I read somewhere that it's a typical 'girl thing' to use a lot of exclamation marks in online typing, IM's, forums and emails. 
Since reading that I've gotten very !!! self-conscious !!!

According to Terry Pratchett in Masquerade, "...All those exclamation marks, you notice? Five? A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head."

Quote - According to Terry Pratchett in Masquerade, "...All those exclamation marks, you notice? Five? A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head."

That right there is my favorite reason evah.  :lol:

Quote - According to Terry Pratchett in Masquerade, "...All those exclamation marks, you notice? Five? A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head."

Oh, no! I read it and totally don't remember the part.
Terry Pratchett definately needs to be read more then once!

I haven't re-read Masquerade in a while, but when I pulled it out last night to find that quote, I found bite and claw marks on my copy.

Are you sure you haven't re-read it, Connie? :lol: