I'll keep this brief. Basically there's new legislation coming which will affect everyone involved in creative illustration whether it be comics, photography, or any illustrated work.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49422
As the petition states:
"Unless your works are registered or plastered with a watermark, anyone can use your copyrighted work for their own commercial and personal gains provided they have made a small effort to search for the original owner. If no owner can be found, they are free to do with it whatever they want.
There is nothing to stop people simply removing data embedded in digital files and pleading ignorance to the original author of the work."
Life can often be tough enough for freelance artists and this kick in the teeth isn't helping matters at all. Artists may find their imagery copied from their websites for the financial gain of others and there's nothing they can do to prevent it. Publishers will have to invest in more measures to protect their imagery so may make even more cutbacks in origination.
The legislation makes no sense, and has not been thought through properly. If you oppose this legislation please click on the link above and sign the petition. Thank you.
9 comments:
If it takes the heat off the filesharers I'm all for it so I for one will ***not*** be signing the petition.
Art should belong to the public. !!!
What does it matter that anybody else profits from a drawing ***after*** you have been paid for it?
That is really stupid, I hope it doesn't pass.
I'm sorry, but that's a very selfish attitude 'Anon'. Any law that makes copyright theft easier (and more or less decriminalizes it) is morally wrong. It's not about whether "art should belong to the public", it's about people being able to appropriate your work as theirs. The artist (and/or copyright holder) decides if the work should be public or not. No one else. You have no entitlement to take what isn't yours.
Regarding your third comment; a) why SHOULD anyone get away with profiting from artwork they didn't do? b) The legislation would cover ALL artwork, not just works already paid for. All those images on DeviantArt by people hoping to break into the industry could be appropriated by morally bankrupt corporations or individuals for their own financial gain without giving a penny to the artists.
Whichever way you look at it, this legislation is wrong. But if you're only interested in your selfish, lazy 'filesharing' then you simply won't 'get' that will you?
You summed it up, George. Thanks.
That's just so much white noise. If you put artwork online then its public, End of. You don't want others to share your artwork? Then don't put it online.
I see. So if you stole a car it'd be the driver's fault for leaving it outside his house? And if you cleared the shelves of a bookshop and stuffed the books under your coat it'd be the shop's fault for putting them on display? Gotcha. Good luck with that.
No wonder you wish to remain anonymous.
I'd go with a policy of ignoring anonymous comments Lew. Its not worth responding to the trolls. Also would like to add that another community who will be hurt by this are bloggers. A number of blogging communities are quite upset by this legislation. Photos play an important role in raising a blogs profile. A good image can get you a lot of traffic. When someone takes that image and uses it without acknowledging the source or asking for permission it deprives the blog of traffic which means less revenue for the blog owner. This is already a big problem for bloggers. This legislation will make things worse. See this post for a good explanation of why it hurts bloggers:
http://www.lovefromtheoven.com/2013/04/29/sharing-recipes-stealing-recipes-why-original-sources-matter-not-just-to-bloggers-but-to-everyone/
And on that front Lew, did BleedingCool have permission to use this (and, if so, has it increased sales?):
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/05/12/viz-comic-on-roy-lichtenstein-by-lew-stringer/
Post a Comment