I like that, I try to at least learn more about a subject that I don't know much about, I think it's better if everyone knows a little bit about something. I was just curious because you seemed to know so much lol.
All my studies are informal, so I don't have to worry about being graded or losing a job at some firm, haha. But I read and study various legal texts (books, essays, court-publications, etc) to make myself understand law better. (I'm currently snooping around the U.S. Copyright Office's page right now!). My position is that you don't necessarily need to have some symbol attached to your name, e.g. Phd, to be able to meaningfully engage in areas like law. It takes work, though.
After yet another day of thinking about this, I think I've narrowed it down a bit more. Some talks of "rights" that went on are better thought of as saying: "I think we should do (or not do) X." Simply, it's a policy question of what to do, what to do. It's just that went rights and copyrights came in, it became a separate issue directed towards a certain end (but it was still relevant, I think). Going even further in, it also seems that most are talking about unregistered copyrights.
Whatever the case, I think it was good to get some ideas out there, then work at examining them.
It was a very interesting post and I was reading the comment the other day.Just at the most interesting part I had the oportunity to remember that I had to be working and not reading the otaku comments.So it was a "back to work" moment.I will go more with your perspective since it's more atached to "facts" and not so much at "perception".
It's good to find a save heaven in the section of art.I think the most endangered parts are wallpapers and cards.It seems unlikely that it happens and in any case maybe we should be prepared.Maybe it's time for a comment backup if there is a chance.
Mmm, I see. So many times do I feel that we'll see that word, 'rights', and we feel like it must mean something significant, but nobody really understands the implications of it. It is really one of those words too abstract and funny sounding to feel like it actually holds concrete weight and value, but yet it somehow does.
I guess it depends on who you are though. Often the word 'rights' gets thrown around just for the sake of justifying a fanartist's feeling on the subject of their artwork without taking much into consideration.
I also agree with the communal debate over the new policy, I just wonder how many will take it seriously though once it's implemented..
I'd also like to ask if you don't mind, do you study/have studied law? Because you sound like you're on top of things when it comes to the issue. It's a good thing to know.
Well, I found something odd about the idea of fan artists declaring they have "rights", but not quite making it clear exactly what those rights are. I'm still not sure what to make of statements that claim the site might be doing something illegal with its policy. I'll admit that it's tricky to disentangle the various statements I see here and there, while also trying to see if they're using terms like "rights" and "illegality" in an informal sense. But at times, it looks like they mean it in a strictly legal sense, when they might actually mean it in a looser sense. That's where the trouble arises, I think.
Personally, I'm glad to see them talking it out like this, making efforts to get it right or workable or consistent.
Perhaps she did not meant for the argument of copyrights to be irrelevant; because they certainly are relevant and should not be disregarded. I think she just meant it as that they don't exactly pertain to "fanart" in the sense that the person who creates "fanart" is aware that they are rendering an existing work. So they may not be exactly stealing a concept or character if they are cognizant to whom the content belongs to. So we disregard 'rights' in the sense that we understand that we make replications of a work, but aren't reproducing them in a way that hurts the creators' and their profits.
It is certainly hard to differentiate, especially in legal terms. I'll admit that I am not so acquainted with legalese, or any of the fine print so to speak, but there are certainly cases where the law and our actual actions and motives don't fit. Kind of proves that we as a civilization not as tied to rules in concrete matters as we think. We aren't the most rational either. The world would be a better place is everyone did follow the rules or informed themselves of such things. And especially with a sticky word like 'rights', it would be nice to clear of the ambiguity of it, even if the concept itself is really an ambiguous thing no matter how black and white the law reads. If that is what you're getting at. If not, disregard this and carry on.
corn
I'm a veggie, dawg (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 01/22/12 | Reply
@Pleiades Rising:
I like that, I try to at least learn more about a subject that I don't know much about, I think it's better if everyone knows a little bit about something. I was just curious because you seemed to know so much lol.
Pleiades Rising
Otaku Idol (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 01/21/12 | Reply
@corn:
All my studies are informal, so I don't have to worry about being graded or losing a job at some firm, haha. But I read and study various legal texts (books, essays, court-publications, etc) to make myself understand law better. (I'm currently snooping around the U.S. Copyright Office's page right now!). My position is that you don't necessarily need to have some symbol attached to your name, e.g. Phd, to be able to meaningfully engage in areas like law. It takes work, though.
After yet another day of thinking about this, I think I've narrowed it down a bit more. Some talks of "rights" that went on are better thought of as saying: "I think we should do (or not do) X." Simply, it's a policy question of what to do, what to do. It's just that went rights and copyrights came in, it became a separate issue directed towards a certain end (but it was still relevant, I think). Going even further in, it also seems that most are talking about unregistered copyrights.
Whatever the case, I think it was good to get some ideas out there, then work at examining them.
AngelBest Dream
Holy Knight (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 01/21/12 | Reply
It was a very interesting post and I was reading the comment the other day.Just at the most interesting part I had the oportunity to remember that I had to be working and not reading the otaku comments.So it was a "back to work" moment.I will go more with your perspective since it's more atached to "facts" and not so much at "perception".
It's good to find a save heaven in the section of art.I think the most endangered parts are wallpapers and cards.It seems unlikely that it happens and in any case maybe we should be prepared.Maybe it's time for a comment backup if there is a chance.
Angel
corn
I'm a veggie, dawg (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 01/21/12 | Reply
@Pleiades Rising:
Mmm, I see. So many times do I feel that we'll see that word, 'rights', and we feel like it must mean something significant, but nobody really understands the implications of it. It is really one of those words too abstract and funny sounding to feel like it actually holds concrete weight and value, but yet it somehow does.
I guess it depends on who you are though. Often the word 'rights' gets thrown around just for the sake of justifying a fanartist's feeling on the subject of their artwork without taking much into consideration.
I also agree with the communal debate over the new policy, I just wonder how many will take it seriously though once it's implemented..
I'd also like to ask if you don't mind, do you study/have studied law? Because you sound like you're on top of things when it comes to the issue. It's a good thing to know.
Pleiades Rising
Otaku Idol (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 01/20/12 | Reply
@corn:
Well, I found something odd about the idea of fan artists declaring they have "rights", but not quite making it clear exactly what those rights are. I'm still not sure what to make of statements that claim the site might be doing something illegal with its policy. I'll admit that it's tricky to disentangle the various statements I see here and there, while also trying to see if they're using terms like "rights" and "illegality" in an informal sense. But at times, it looks like they mean it in a strictly legal sense, when they might actually mean it in a looser sense. That's where the trouble arises, I think.
Personally, I'm glad to see them talking it out like this, making efforts to get it right or workable or consistent.
corn
I'm a veggie, dawg (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 01/20/12 | Reply
Perhaps she did not meant for the argument of copyrights to be irrelevant; because they certainly are relevant and should not be disregarded. I think she just meant it as that they don't exactly pertain to "fanart" in the sense that the person who creates "fanart" is aware that they are rendering an existing work. So they may not be exactly stealing a concept or character if they are cognizant to whom the content belongs to. So we disregard 'rights' in the sense that we understand that we make replications of a work, but aren't reproducing them in a way that hurts the creators' and their profits.
It is certainly hard to differentiate, especially in legal terms. I'll admit that I am not so acquainted with legalese, or any of the fine print so to speak, but there are certainly cases where the law and our actual actions and motives don't fit. Kind of proves that we as a civilization not as tied to rules in concrete matters as we think. We aren't the most rational either. The world would be a better place is everyone did follow the rules or informed themselves of such things. And especially with a sticky word like 'rights', it would be nice to clear of the ambiguity of it, even if the concept itself is really an ambiguous thing no matter how black and white the law reads. If that is what you're getting at. If not, disregard this and carry on.