First Of All, Your Work Hasn't Been Stolen

Your image can't be stolen....first off, you gave it to the web.

If I give my wallet to someone to hold and it is stolen. It wasn't stolen from me.

Dan, just wondering what your definition of newbie is here.

So if you let someone borrow your car so they can run to the doctors office, you have given it to them and they never have to return it? I don't think so

I'm not really interested in arguing with Dan, but I find it pretty funny that he thinks telling a "newbie" their work hasn't been stolen is going to "diffuse the situation."

"Dan, just wondering what your definition if newbie is here."

Primarily people who don't know what infringement is.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

I'd like to know how you know, Dan, that members whether oldies or newbies are being told their artwork is being "stolen" by "other" online artists? You mean no one on FAA/Pixels would say this just everyone else online...

I think Dan defines a "newbie" as being someone who doesn't believe Dan's definition of infringement is correct.

Okay, thanks for that

I can't not get into more of a discussion here than I really wanted to. Copyright infringement is theft, actually. It might not be on the same level as stealing someone's wallet or their car, but it is, in fact, theft. To say it's not is like saying hacking your credit card number isn't theft either. Afterall, nothing tangible has been taken, right?

Dictionary.com defines the word steal as

steal
[steel]

verb (used with object), stole, stolen, stealing.

1.
to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force:
A pickpocket stole his watch.

2.
to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

The second definition seems especially relevant to this discussion, don't you think? And just because the "copyright police" aren't going around arresting people for this doesn't mean it's not a crime.

CJ, you only have to look at the titles of infringement threads and the language being used by artists in their responses to discover that it is the artists themselves who are perpetuating the myth. Lawyers don't file suits saying "stolen" when they mean "infringement."

There are documented cases where judges have reprimanded lawyers who use the terms "stolen" and "thief" in their court rooms during infringement hearings and trials, saying the terms are inaccurate and simply meant to incite a jury.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Joseph, it's easy to understand how artists arrive at the term "steal." They feel something has been stolen. Inaccurate, but understandable.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

But at it's most basic level, it is theft. They come and take our image from a web site and put it somewhere else.

And, yes, I know you're going to say that our image is still on the web site, but it is still theft in that someone we haven't given permission to has put the image somewhere else without us kmowing.

Isn't there a difference between those who take images without authorization to resell (bad) and those who don't know any better and use others' images to create memes and post on FB? I see these all the time -- far too many, lol. I've always been tempted to ask the FB posters where they got their image, but I just don't care any more.

Joseph, theft is physical removal of an object where the owner of said object is deprived of it's use. He/she no longer has the object or use of the object.

You are talking about infringement. So am I. Completely different.

If someone came to your house and made an exact duplicate of your car and drove it away -- but your car was still in your possession -- would that be called theft? Would you feel violated?


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

"Isn't there a difference between those who take images without authorization to resell (bad) and those who don't know any better and use others' images to create memes and post on FB?"

You bet there is. Willful vs unwillful infringement.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Dan has an anti-copyright agenda.

Forum rules prevent me from going further.

Not at all, David. I have a "Stop calling something what it isn't" agenda :-)

Artists who become upset over "stolen merchandise" and stay in the game long enough to discover the proper response to infringement waste a lot of time trying to solve their problem through the wrong channels. It's unneeded frustration for them.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

"If someone came to your house and made an exact duplicate of your car and drove it away -- but your car was still in your possession -- would that be called theft? Would you feel violated?"

When that's actually possible, get back to me.

The more relevant analogy would be someone steals your credit card number and uses it. You still have your card, but they're using it as their own.

No Dan

Do a search on all your posts about copyright. You tell people that registering is a waste of time, that they're not likely to prevail in a suit, recover damages, that the length of copyright protection is too long, etc.

Every position you've taken has been against one aspect of copyright law or another.

David, the length of copyright is MUCH too long. That's for sure. Yes, I am aware Disney doesn't agree.

Look at the others you've cited in context. Sometimes true, sometimes not true. It depends.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

"The more relevant analogy would be someone steals your credit card number and uses it. You still have your card, but they're using it as their own."

Who's money are they using? Not yours. You won't be charged. However, that could slide into Identity Theft. That's real and it's an acceptable use of the language.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

If someone comes into my home and takes my computer that houses the only records I have of my images, then they have stolen my images.
Anything short of that is copy without the right.

Marlene

If you license the use of your images for a living and someone uses an image without payment or permission, that is theft of service.

David,

I'm with you! Seems Dan has this perpetual stance about using images from others and stuck on the "stealing" word. It's not stealing to Dan, but to most photographers, somebody took something without permission, so for most folks, that's stealing, regardless if you want to call it something else, like infringement. The artist was "harmed", infringed upon and that's not right, regardless of the wordage!

I find the use of the word "stolen" as a description of some event, is fine for out of court and explains to everyday people what happened, rather than my image was "infringed"upon. Tomato/Tomahto.......

Dan being a "designer" and a consumer of images, might explain where he's coming from, vs what we see as the creators of images.....

Rich

The terms piracy and theft are often associated with copyright infringement. The original meaning of piracy is "robbery or illegal violence at sea", but the term has been in use for centuries as a synonym for acts of copyright infringement. Theft, meanwhile, emphasizes the potential commercial harm of infringement to copyright holders. However, copyright is a type of intellectual property, an area of law distinct from that which covers robbery or theft, offenses related only to tangible property. Not all copyright infringement results in commercial loss, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that infringement does not easily equate with theft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

So Roger

Infringement (a legal entity unto itself) must for many people be called theft, even though it is not if itself theft?

Then call it theft lol

Call it what you want but when you go to court you will, in all likelihood, be going for infringment by someone. Unless it was theft of course..;)

Someone want to explain to me what difference it makes if the person doing the complaining uses the term stole or infringed?

Are we really suggesting that people have no right to voice that concern unless they can state in it in terms that we need to hash out here? Really?

The entire issue should not be boiled down to implying that a person that is wronged has to be able to speak in the legalese that everyone accepts. One's command of the English language should not be the issue here. The issue here is the use of one's artwork. How that complaint is filed or expressed by the person that feels they have been wronged is NOT going to be in question when the proper authorities get involved. They are only going to be worried about the facts, not the semantics.

I will and I suggest that everyone else continues to express what they consider wrongdoing in the terms they feel necessary. A bigger problem would be that wrongdoing would go unreported because people would be afraid of not expressing it in the proper terms and being criticized for it.

Very true. Personally I will continue to say infringed but absolutely get it when people say stolen.....we All understand what they mean so, being good respectful members, should help them with that issue.

I just use 'infringed' when talking to them and don't repeat the word stolen.

RE: "So a new artist discovers he/she has infringement issues. Who is teaching them to announce that their work has been "stolen?"

To me,

That comment, is so demeaning to new artists.

New Artists don't have to be taught, when they see their work being taken, in other words stolen, without their permission by others for profit, that it's outright thievery..whether it's called, legally, "Infringement" or not...

New Artists do have brains to think for themselves.

Advice is fine...but lecturing not so fine

Agree with you there Roger. 100%

Dan,

Before you tell me I am spewing I said $30k not $150k because I know all of that. The $150k is with a full fledged lawsuit and proof of willfully defrauding the artist. That is very hard to prove in court. The $30k is the actual max without that high a bar. Note the $150k is five times the $30k, without looking up references etc there is a reason for that.

I have studied this well.

The point is to leverage a settlement and not expect the $30k anyway.

Stop shooting the messenger and discuss things on their merits.

Dave

LAMO! Drew. (big smile!)

Wrong thread... removed... sorry...

I, like others, think that it is all semantics. It does not matter what the artist calls it as long as their lawyer knows what to call it if and when it is brought to court.

Drew,

Very funny, but not everything is wonderful for some folks. That's Life.

Dave

Property can be stolen.
Intellectual property is property.
If I display my art in a public place I have not given up my property rights.

"Stolen" is a word that fits the situation of copyright infringement.

You can't create a specialized meaning for the word to the exclusion of all other usages.

The fact that police won't arrest someone for infringing my copyright is irrelevant. They won't conduct an investigation and arrest someone who steals my newspaper off of my driveway.

Property can be stolen.
Intellectual property is property.
If I display my art in a public place I have not given up my property rights.

"Stolen" is a word that fits the situation of copyright infringement.

You can't create a specialized meaning for the word to the exclusion of all other usages.

The fact that police won't arrest someone for infringing my copyright is irrelevant. They won't conduct an investigation and arrest someone who steals my newspaper off of my driveway.

"The fact that police won't arrest someone for infringing my copyright is irrelevant. They won't conduct an investigation and arrest someone who steals my newspaper off of my driveway. "

Oh, good! I was getting a little worried I may get caught! lol

Seriously though, that is a good point.

Even Shakspere weighed on this:

"What's in a name? that which we call stolen
By any other name would smell just as rotten"

Floyd,

I saw that play off Broadway.

Dave

David....


....."an infringer of copyright is liable for the copyright owner’s Actual Damages and any additional profits of the infringer",.... If the owner cannot prove damages there is no compensatory reward.....proving Statutory Damages is far more expensive and burdensome with a reward starting at $700....which is an hourly rate for a good attorney and usually not worth the gamble for work that has little or no notoriety.

"17 U.S. Code § 504"

My input:

Mark this on your calendars as satisfying the semi-annual (used to be more often at times) forum "discussion" (argument?) of copyright theft/infringement.

Y'know, nit-picking among primates is not just a matter of hygiene, it's a manner of soothing and bonding.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Knowledge will not make you less effective. The words we choose matter because they are a reflection of our thinking. We have nothing to lose and much to gain by striving for accuracy in our thinking and in our language.

When an artist says "stolen" but means "infringement" in the presence of other artists who have a better understanding of their profession, it's a red flag that advertises sloppy thinking and sloppy language. It doesn't serve us well to think in such inaccurate terms and, in fact, it holds us back.

Sloppy language interferes with our ability to communicate with other artists, patrons, business people, prospects, designers, associates, licensees and erodes our credibility in front of those who know better.

In other words, will people give you a pass for being a quirky artist or will they pass on you altogether?


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Probably give us a pass for being human. And worried. If not then what type of people are we really.....

I'm sorry Dan. see def 2
If someone steal s one's intellectual property then it has been stolen.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/stolen

One of my biggest pet peeves on social media is when someone corrects an obvious typo. The relates here because its just a poor choice of words. You know what they mean.

Pass the popcorn

Brian, if you start eating that you'd better do the hoovering later!

"Sloppy language interferes with our ability to communicate with other artists, patrons, business people, prospects, designers, associates, licensees and erodes our credibility in front of those who know better."

Who was that mentioned the condescending tone? lol

I find this is difficult to accept. Plus I have just never found it to be true in all of my dealings. Anyone that would be that shallow is probably not someone I would want to communicate with at any length. Sounds like a judgmental prig to me. Certainly questionable as to rather I would want to do business with them.

This whole 'argument" stolen vs infringement is the epidemy of nit-picking if you ask me.

"I find this is difficult to accept."

Thus, I have made this thread to discuss it :-)

"Inaccurate use of language is not only objectionable in itself. It is damaging to the soul." ~ Socrates


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Stolen is not inaccurate.
Infringement is just more case specific.

Quoteth Sam Antics, "Tomato-Tomahto, let's cal;l the whole thing off....."

Rich

Obviously, this thread has not been useful for people who think language doesn't matter.

This has been about expressing ourselves in a professional, intelligent manner, and helping our fellow artists speak with accuracy and confidence about an issue that has or will affect most of us.

As I said earlier, knowledge will not make you less effective. Quite the opposite.

I have enjoyed most of your posts and thank you for participating. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online