The new ACTA can effect our ability to use general pics for avatars and sigs.

[WhiteTigerForever]

As it says, The new ACTA can go as far as effecting our ability to general pics for avatars and sigs. Do you think the governments will go that far?  Please share with me your thoughts.  Thanks. :D

[Vekseid]

It wouldn't be difficult to argue that avatars serve a transformative purpose.

It's a concern of mine, but a minor one, and something I think the forum community (as in, the collection of all forums) as a whole could see spending a few $k to get a final ruling on, with a fair chance of success of being ruled as fair use. Especially as image recognition software improves and it becomes feasible to point thumbnails back to their original creator.

[WhiteTigerForever]

Your probably right but I am really glad to hear your thoughts on this.  Do let us know if we actually do need to make changes, etc. re. this issue.  The anime forums in general are being hit the hardest by all this I think, which has nothing to do with E. 

[Callie Del Noire]

It wouldn't be difficult to argue that avatars serve a transformative purpose.

It's a concern of mine, but a minor one, and something I think the forum community (as in, the collection of all forums) as a whole could see spending a few $k to get a final ruling on, with a fair chance of success of being ruled as fair use. Especially as image recognition software improves and it becomes feasible to point thumbnails back to their original creator.

I find it ironic since I would never have found some of my favorite artists (like the guy did your avatar, Royo right?) without a little 'showing' like we get online. I found a LOT of artists I would have never otherwise seen. I got something like 3 Ryo books on my shelf, a pair of Soryama books and a few others.

None of which I would have bought if I had never seen their stuff online.

[Vekseid]

Your probably right but I am really glad to hear your thoughts on this.  Do let us know if we actually do need to make changes, etc. re. this issue.  The anime forums in general are being hit the hardest by all this I think, which has nothing to do with E.

Elliquiy's position is not so fragile that a legal challenge would simply result in folding.

I find it ironic since I would never have found some of my favorite artists (like the guy did your avatar, Royo right?) without a little 'showing' like we get online. I found a LOT of artists I would have never otherwise seen. I got something like 3 Ryo books on my shelf, a pair of Soryama books and a few others.

None of which I would have bought if I had never seen their stuff online.

This sort of thing is why thumbnails have been ruled to be fair use, yes. That specific ruling covered one of the first image search engines, so avatars would need to show a different route. The social aspect of it brings in other, unique defenses to such charges.

[WhiteTigerForever]

That's great to hear Vek and wow....... on the legality complications, etc... esp. since I make my own.  Re: the artists... indeed, it hadn't been for the net, there are like 5 artists I adore that I would have never been exposed to or known about if it wasn't for it Calle...so I completely agree.

[Taymynx]

Wikipedia on ACTA per today's view
The agreement was signed on 1 October 2011 by Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States. In January 2012, the European Union and 22 of its member states signed as well, bringing the total number of signatories to 31. After ratification by 6 states, the convention will come into force.

And I always wondered about pulling someone else's artwork and using it for an avatar....without citing the artist, you are taking away any marketing benefit they might have otherwise acquired by uploading it to the net. The key question really becomes have they released it to public domaine or do they have the intention of owning it exclusively. A lot of users of the net no longer understand this fine line or acknowledge the copyright marks on things...abuse is really rampant. However, enforcement is problematic too.

I would love clarification on what happens to the intellectual property rights of something posted on E.  I would think that a publisher would avoid paying for something prepublished on the net, regardless of who owns it. Regardless, I would like to know how this was supposed to work before and after ACTA.

Anyone know?  If not, my son's best friend is an attorney handling intellectual properties. I can ask his thoughts and share them.

[WhiteTigerForever]

Wikipedia on ACTA per today's view
The agreement was signed on 1 October 2011 by Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United States. In January 2012, the European Union and 22 of its member states signed as well, bringing the total number of signatories to 31. After ratification by 6 states, the convention will come into force.

And I always wondered about pulling someone else's artwork and using it for an avatar....without citing the artist, you are taking away any marketing benefit they might have otherwise acquired by uploading it to the net. The key question really becomes have they released it to public domaine or do they have the intention of owning it exclusively. A lot of users of the net no longer understand this fine line or acknowledge the copyright marks on things...abuse is really rampant. However, enforcement is problematic too.

I would love clarification on what happens to the intellectual property rights of something posted on E.  I would think that a publisher would avoid paying for something prepublished on the net, regardless of who owns it. Regardless, I would like to know how this was supposed to work before and after ACTA.

Anyone know?  If not, my son's best friend is an attorney handling intellectual properties. I can ask his thoughts and share them.

That would be really great if you had time and could.  Many of my sigs and avis are unknown as to the original source, creator, etc.

[kylie]

And I always wondered about pulling someone else's artwork and using it for an avatar....without citing the artist, you are taking away any marketing benefit they might have otherwise acquired by uploading it to the net.

In a sense, yes...  But we could take so many different positions out of that. 

As has been mentioned, it isn't always true that recognition or market attention ends when no name is typed in there.  It really depends how you define benefit. 

I've looked up a good few images and found larger versions or sometimes, original artist names online.  I've also chosen to buy books from some artists whose names I didn't previously know -- but whose style I did recognize on the shelf because I saw some samples online earlier.  If I had not known what to expect in more of their work (without even knowing their name), then I might never have even looked inside those books.  I didn't track them directly from online to their cash registers, but I would never have given them cash if I didn't know more about them for free. 

It also helps for artists with more erotic work, that I could happen upon samples of their work in a place where I could happen upon the erotic parts quite comfortably.  As the rest of society stands, those are often places that are not too closely monitored for transparent trails of ownership.

The key question really becomes have they released it to public domaine or do they have the intention of owning it exclusively.

This is a fine question, but if they actually planned on owning it exclusively, then it's sort of confusing matters to emphasize that scenario in the same thread as above.

I think this could be better phrased otherwise...  What was their original intent for this work?  Was it that the material should be widely viewed? Perhaps that certain premium forms would become desirable for, and be purchased by a set of consumers?  Was it copied from a private collection without any permission?

I could add:  Are there situations where labeling every derivative work with a source name can be considered contrary to the public interest?  If not, then when exactly has a work been modified beyond recognition such that the issue becomes moot?  I suspect there is going to be a substantial grey area there.  Otherwise, any other piece of art with the vaguest resemblance might come under scrutiny as potentially being just a veiled copy.  Finally, the more producers rely on copyright suits, the more it becomes a question not of which artist was first, but who has the most money to spend in court.

[Taymynx]

In a sense, yes...  But we could take so many different positions out of that. 

...This is a fine question, but if they actually planned on owning it exclusively, then it's sort of confusing matters to emphasize that scenario in the same thread as above....

...I suspect there is going to be a substantial grey area there.  Otherwise, any other piece of art with the vaguest resemblance might come under scrutiny as potentially being just a veiled copy.  Finally, the more producers rely on copyright suits, the more it becomes a question not of which artist was first, but who has the most money to spend in court....

I think part of the point of the thread is to discuss the gray areas from both sides so as to really understand the implications.

I am required to upload art to a public site (photobucket anyone?), that people then can access and copy for whatever they want, in order for me to download it to a private site, like the internal E community. Was my purpose to give it to the world or to embellish a story someone is writing here?  To what level have I agreed that it is no longer mine?

And on the occasions I have worked with patent attorneys and inventors to bring a client's product to market, it was pointed out by the patent attorney that no copyright or patent is of any value without the owner's financial ability to protect it if the thief does not have deep enough pockets (like a corporation) to make it worthwhile for the suing attorney to agree to take on the case on a contingency basis.

ACTA gets into some pretty complex issues. Sites like E can sometimes be fraught with people that do not even realize that they are plagiarizing or violating copyright or trademark laws.

I briefly taught business classes at a tech college....I failed a group in the class who submitted plagiarised group on the same project because they assumed the teachers were too lazy to read the work.  I mean I had 6 or 8 papers that had the same embedded plagiarized works. They complained to the dean about being failed violating this cardinal rule written in the school rules. The Dean pulled me in and discussed the ramifications of following the law or marketing their programs and gave me no alternative other than to change my grades for them or quit.  The schools are not even teaching youth how to define these lines on obvious levels in come cases, let alone to debate the nuances. That is why I don't suggest trade schools as a source of a good education anymore.

I worry when Wis ti publishes beautiful works to the web because her works are her livelihood and since she doesn't have books published with it, odds are someone won't be inclined to find her in a book store (yet, Wisti...but eventually, huh?).  But I also worry that entire websites would be shut down because members didn't think it seemed fair to have to give the artist or author the credit.... 

This is a subject with many positions to debate. I think it would make an excellent high school debate team topic if it hasn't already been.