Stop posting articles for other GN'R fans to enjoy, it's stealing! (was Brain in Modern Drummer)

[freedom78]

You can easily argue that those are independent, creative, artistic acts.  The legality of that issue may not be clear (i.e. see the AP versus the guy who made the Obama poster), but it's difficult to argue that reading words and retyping them is art. 

The argument has been that you can't take somebody else's work and make it your own by altering it.

That's exactly what you do when you plaster a logo on a photo and call it a wallpaper. Some of them even feature the creator's name on them with no other credits.


Are you saying that if Gypsy took a scanned photo, altered some color balances, maybe re-sized it and put some additional copyrighted artwork on it, that it would be considered art and therefore ok?




/jarmo

I'm fairly certain that I said it was legally questionable. 

But in all honesty, my first response to the article wasn't "Hey, that's illegal/immoral/credit thievery!" so much as "Hey, that's horribly hard to read, with that watermark behind it at every 0.5 cm." 

[jarmo]

I'm just trying to understand what the people who object are objecting to mostly.

Since watermarking is such an offense, I'm sure making wallpapers out of copyrighted material and presenting it as your own work is just as bad.

Now you were kinda backtracking and saying it's art.

So I'm trying to figure out where the line between stealing and art goes. I know you said it's not legal, but you didn't seem to object.

This isn't necessarily aimed at you personally, but to all those who say the watermarking equals altering a picture to present it as your own work.


Maybe I'll have to tell gypsy to take some Photoshop lessons and then she can present her scans as art and everybody will be happy?


I personally don't really object to either because I understand why people do them.

There's a lot of talented people out there who do amazing wallpapers and it would be a shame to have them stop just because a few people object to the copyright infringements. People who don't even own the copyrights themselves.

And you can't really accuse me of being a hypocrite because many of those same GN'R wallpapers use GN'R artwork that belongs to the band.....  But maybe you can twist it around to meaning that I'm promoting stealing from GN'R. 



/jarmo

[freedom78]

I'm just trying to understand what the people who object are objecting to mostly.

Since watermarking is such an offense, I'm sure making wallpapers out of copyrighted material and presenting it as your own work is just as bad.

Now you were kinda backtracking and saying it's art.

So I'm trying to figure out where the line between stealing and art goes. I know you said it's not legal, but you didn't seem to object.

This isn't necessarily aimed at you personally, but to all those who say the watermarking equals altering a picture to present it as your own work.


Maybe I'll have to tell gypsy to take some Photoshop lessons and then she can present her scans as art and everybody will be happy?


I personally don't really object to either because I understand why people do them.

There's a lot of talented people out there who do amazing wallpapers and it would be a shame to have them stop just because a few people object to the copyright infringements. People who don't even own the copyrights themselves.

And you can't really accuse me of being a hypocrite because many of those same GN'R wallpapers use GN'R artwork that belongs to the band.....  But maybe you can twist it around to meaning that I'm promoting stealing from GN'R. 



/jarmo

I don't know that I ever used the word "stealing", and I don't intend to.  I don't think there's been theft, and if the magazine in question didn't like what had been done, I would hope their first move wouldn't be to call the police. 

Now...there is something to be said about art.  I didn't build a building, but if I paint a picture of it, it's art (crappy art, in all likelihood, in my case).  Obviously, this is getting philosophical, and there is no clear line in such an issue.  But there's a difference, on one hand, between someone coming along and completely renovating a building and transforming it and, on the other, changing the name above the door.  One might be art; the other is not.  The questions I would have would be about the intent. For example:



Now, the artist claims that his rendering of this portrait so significantly changes the original that it is, in and of itself, a new creative act, and not "stealing" the original.  His purpose, clearly, was artistic.  And while I may be inclined to agree with the artist, I noted that the law has yet to speak to this case.  I suppose a similar argument would apply to most fan art.  You're allowed to make a copy of something for personal use, so the creation itself isn't illegal.  If they tried to sell it, I suppose it might be, but this isn't Metallica, so I can't imagine GNR suing the fans for something like that, even if it were illegal.  Not to mention that some of the pics likely don't even belong to the band, and have probably been spread around the net so much that ownership is a lost question.

Anyway, taking that photograph (not the painting), I can watermark it to show ownership to the AP or to the site where I found it, the NY Times, or to myself.  But only one of those created it in any way.  The NY Times just copied it, as did I. 

The real questions comes back to "why watermark it?".  It wasn't artistic.  It wasn't meant to claim ownership.  It was meant to claim credit for the scans and transcription.  ALright.  Fine.  I'm more than happy to give credit for that.  One might put "Pics scanned and interview transcribed by GypsySoul" at the bottom, and that would be fantastic.  She deserves credit for buying the mag and putting in the time to type it out and all that.  But the watermark isn't the right credit for that.  They generally indicate ownership.

[D]

I think the big point is, Gypsy didn't watermark it to "Claim Ownership" and people berated her as if that was what she was trying to do.

Everyone learns something cool from time to time and they use it when applicable.

Doing the watermark or writing Gypsy Soul on it for me is the same thing............


it is one of those things I always felt was "Understood" on the internet.

I feel like people want to complain, so they attack and go overboard with the watermarks when maybe that isn't the real issue.


IF I see something and it has a watermark on the internet, I say "Oh, that site must have been the first to scoop the interview and put it up.  I don't go WOW HTGTH took some amazing photos.

[lynn1961]

It makes it look like the pictures belong exclusively to this site, which they don't.  

You fail to realize that they were put up here for the members of this board first and foremost.

The poster doesn't post or care for other forums. She did it for us.

I'm not saying it belongs to this site. I'm just saying a member here did something for the board she posts at.



Everybody wants to point out how much this site sucks. But they still like to come here to get stuff to copy and paste elsewhere. It's kinda funny.....

We suck, but we're good enough to copy from as long as you don't necessarily have to mention that it came from here. 

I've not been around all evening and am a few pages behind here, so bear with me please.

First of all, here we go again.  This shouldn't even be an argument or discussion.  It is what it is.

I realize they were put up for this board and that's great that she did that.  All I'm saying is the watermarks looked - well - ok - stupid.  I don't know who put them there or why.  I'm not insulting or taking away from what was done.  All I'm saying is this whole thing started over the watermarks which shouldn't have been there in the first place because it made it look like it belonged exclusively to this site, when it didn't - all legalities and crap aside.  That's all this was about.  That's it.  Is that why it was done? So no one would copy and paste it?  Magazine articles exist elsewhere on the internet, so don't necessarily have to be copied and pasted from here. 

Personally, I think doing a mass ban doesn't really solve anything, was unwarranted, and things could have been handled differently.  

Your friends couldn't handle a civilized discussion.

Insults were thrown around like usual.

Instead of being civil about it, people who didn't even READ the article were taking the whole thread off topic with their whining and personal attacks.

Well, the entire thing got out of hand, with many other posters included.  Telling someone to go fuck themselves doesn't help set up the situation well, at all.  That's intolerable and shouldn't be allowed by anyone. 

The thing is, this is just crazy.  Everyone was pissed off and acting irrational and unreasonable.  It clearly got out of hand.       

[lynn1961]

My problem with the whole stealing vs stealing argument was

U got one person doing the same thing if not worse, condeming and shouting down someone else for doing it.

It would be like cheating on your wife and then cussing out your friend and telling them what a bastard they are for cheating on theirs.


Sure posting an article from a magazine can be seen as "Stealing" but we've always been able to post magazine stuff cause a lot of people may not have access to this magazine.

Jarmo got a rap for being anti sharing for whatever reason and I don't get it. We've always shared magazine stuff, live boots etc

Somehow he not allowing leaks transformed him into this holier than thou Anti everything person and I don't think it is fair.

As Gyspsy said, IF they truly have the interview up.......... I don't see the complaint cause they are doing the exact same thing so why come in here being the copyright police when they are breaking way more copyright laws than Jarmo?

This whole thing started out not because of sharing, posting, copying and pasting or even copyrighting.  Who really gives a shit?  It's done all the time, between many sites.  It was the dumb watermarks, that's all.  It got out of hand after that. 

And this is the first time I've ever heard this site referred to as the Antichrist of sites. I saw that posted earlier, as well, but -  Really?!?   Oh come on.    If it's because of not allowing the leaks - well the leaks shouldn't have been allowed.  That's a whole other story though.

I just want to add that freedom78 makes a lot of sense, I think. 

The thing is, this whole thing got so sadly out of hand.  It was a simple thing over watermarks which some of us felt shouldn't have been there and again - it's not about legalities - just shouldn't have been.  It's that simple.  No argument.  No debate.  What does it hurt to seriously listen to what people have to say about things once in awhile and take it into consideration instead of making WW III out of it ?   

[Tatiana Kudrin]

Doing the watermark or writing Gypsy Soul on it for me is the same thing............

uh? i don't see how that can be the same thing.  it is certainly " better" that she used the watermark, however, i don't understand why she should do that in the first place. she's no administrator and this site isn't hers, so i'm a little puzzled as to why she did that thing.
also, that watermark thing was unnecessary imho because that kind of article gets (re)posted everywhere anyway. all them gnr sites would have had it sooner or later because anybody can scan/retype that kind of stuff if he has time on his hands. it can also be copypasted, 

i think watermarking should be done only when you have some interview you conduced yourself or pictures you took  - therefore it's exclusive stuff and it's understandable you want to watermark it. i don't get it why people want to watermark something that isn't theirs -like this article. Why? because they were the first one to post it or something?  that's just a way to flatter oneself in vain, imho. you can get the credits you think you "deserve" if people who repost your stuff mention your name somewhere in their post, ? la 'thanx to______'  , you know.

IF I see something and it has a watermark on the internet, I say "Oh, that site must have been the first to scoop the interview and put it up.  I don't go WOW HTGTH took some amazing photos.

if i see something that has a watermark on it, i think 'wow, this is copyrighted material and maybe i should ensure i can repost it'. it's all about the way we interpret things, i guess. 

[chineseblues]

I find it so funny that everyone who is opposed to the watermarking thing is from a certain site run by someone who got banned from here. I can't be the only person to notice this?

[radical tendency]

I find it so telling that most who are supportive of the watermarking of the thing couldn't form a logical argument if it were typed, scanned, and watermarked with step by step instructions. The digression of this thread into illogical hubris by some has me wondering what the hell they teach in schools these days.

Are not people embarrassed by the use of logical fallacies anymore?

Are they that ignorant that they don't recognize the foolishness of their argument?

[jarmo]

I find it so telling that most who are supportive of the watermarking of the thing couldn't form a logical argument if it were typed, scanned, and watermarked with step by step instructions. The digression of this thread into illogical hubris by some has me wondering what the hell they teach in schools these days.

Are not people embarrassed by the use of logical fallacies anymore?

Are they that ignorant that they don't recognize the foolishness of their argument?

If somebody's foolish, it's those who fail to take in any kind of explanations and reasons given for the actions.

There's very little of understanding in this thread.

All those people like to do is whine and whine. Very little of "Oh, I see. Now I understand why you do it even though I disagree with it".

Every explanation is just met with "you're a hypocrite and a liar" or "it's stealing".

Talk about foolish....



I personally don't see a lot of logic from those of you who oppose. There's not really much of a reason for this sudden outburst other than personal agendas as far as I can see.

I'm still interested in hearing more about the the fact that you don't seem to object to people making wallpapers out of copyrighted material and then presenting it as their own work.

This is something that has been going on for years among GN'R fans and on these boards.

Yet I don't recall any of these banned individuals making a fuss about it at any point in time. Which leads me to suspect that it's just personal against gypsy and/or myself.


I see this kind of behavior regularly, so it comes as no surprise.

People just look for reasons to attack me and/or this site. Out of personal reason and/or just to get some attention.

In this particular case it's very telling that most of those who are vocal about the whole issue are all sporting adverts for the same site.

I guess some have nothing better to do than to promote their own sites by starting shit and talking shit about others.

i don't understand why she should do that in the first place. she's no administrator and this site isn't hers, so i'm a little puzzled as to why she did that thing.

Yes, here we go again. Something that has been explained and here you are not understanding it.

Deja vu!


I'll break it down for you:

1. Gypsy posts only here (HTGTH).
2. She buys a magazine and transcribes (types) out all the words for other visitors on this site (HTGTH). She couldn't care less about what other people do on other sites since she doesn't post or visit anywhere else.
3. She posts the article for us here (HTGTH) because she likes this site (HTGTH).
4. She doesn't like have her "work" (transcription) posted on other sites besides this (HTGTH) because some people basically refuse to credit this site (HTGTH) due to their personal reasons.
5. The only credit she has been after all along is for people to know that even though they might hate this site (HTGTH), they are reading something thanks to an user here (HTGTH).


Now, if you still don't understand it, maybe you would if you had typed out articles for fellow GN'R fans for years and seen the same pattern repeat year after year.... You buy a magazine you don't even read normally, type it out, post it and then have some other guy post it on another forum without even a little "thank you". Just because the user who originally posted it posts on a site you're supposed to hate.

That's some petty shit right there.

But I suspect none of you have done anything close to what gypsy has done for us.

She gets very little back for the things she has given all of us.

Right now, the thing she seems to get most is shit from fellow GN'R fans who should be thanking her, but instead are attacking her for taking the time to provide us with something new (an article and photos).

She spent her own time, and money, on something she didn't have to do, and she gets shit for it. Even from people who contribute very little. Ironic.



/jarmo

[GypsySoul]

also, that watermark thing was unnecessary imho because that kind of article gets (re)posted everywhere anyway. all them gnr sites would have had it sooner or later because anybody can scan/retype that kind of stuff if he has time on his hands. it can also be copypasted, 

I can make the same argument but only take out the word "unnecessary" and replace it with the word "irrelevant"

also, that watermark thing was irrelevant imho because that kind of article gets (re)posted everywhere anyway.  all them gnr sites would have had it sooner or later because anybody can scan/retype that kind of stuf if he has time on his hands. it can also be copypasted 

IF I see something and it has a watermark on the internet, I say "Oh, that site must have been the first to scoop the interview and put it up.  I don't go WOW HTGTH took some amazing photos.

if i see something that has a watermark on it, i think 'wow, this is copyrighted material and maybe i should ensure i can repost it'. it's all about the way we interpret things, i guess. 

I think this is a good example of how 'gray' an area this is:

Zac Efron on the cover of GQ (mag)
Photo Credit:  Peggy Sirota/GQ

I believe x17online are NOT a part of the GQ writing/production staff and did NOT take these pics yet they watermarked the GQ mag cover and the other pic with their own website.  They listed the photo credit under the pic and they mentioned GQ in the text.

http://x17online.com/index.php?page=2

Apparently perezhilton posted ALL the Zac/GQ pics and just listed the mag and photo credits in the text.  I don?t believe perez is part of the GQ writing/production staff or took these pics neither.

http://perezhilton.com/2009-04-13-zefron-does-gq

[freedom78]

it is one of those things I always felt was "Understood" on the internet.

I feel like people want to complain, so they attack and go overboard with the watermarks when maybe that isn't the real issue.


IF I see something and it has a watermark on the internet, I say "Oh, that site must have been the first to scoop the interview and put it up.  I don't go WOW HTGTH took some amazing photos.

If someone who was a GNR fan with no prior knowledge of either HTGTH or Modern Drummer saw those pics, they'd absolutely assume that HTGTH was in some way responsible for those photos (i.e. they took them, the own them...whatever).

And if I find your underwear in the woods and write my name in them to claim credit for having found it, not a single damned person who sees that name will think that it's anything but a claim of ownership.  Everyone would think "why is D wearing some other dude's undies". 

I find it so funny that everyone who is opposed to the watermarking thing is from a certain site run by someone who got banned from here. I can't be the only person to notice this?

You realize of course that that means that everyone supporting watermarking is from a certain site run by someone who banned a bunch of people.  See...the reverse is true.  And equally irrelevant.

I think this is a good example of how 'gray' an area this is:

Zac Efron on the cover of GQ (mag)
Photo Credit:  Peggy Sirota/GQ

I believe x17online are NOT a part of the GQ writing/production staff and did NOT take these pics yet they watermarked the GQ mag cover and the other pic with their own website.  They listed the photo credit under the pic and they mentioned GQ in the text.

http://x17online.com/index.php?page=2

Apparently perezhilton posted ALL the Zac/GQ pics and just listed the mag and photo credits in the text.  I don?t believe perez is part of the GQ writing/production staff or took these pics neither.

http://perezhilton.com/2009-04-13-zefron-does-gq

So because someone else does it makes it right?  Got it.

[GypsySoul]

I think this is a good example of how 'gray' an area this is:

So because someone else does it makes it right?  Got it.

So you just have selective reading, right?  Got it.

[freedom78]

I think this is a good example of how 'gray' an area this is:

So because someone else does it makes it right?  Got it.

So you just have selective reading, right?  Got it.

Not at all (and nice job of not actually presenting a substantive response).

[GypsySoul]

I think this is a good example of how 'gray' an area this is:

So because someone else does it makes it right?  Got it.

So you just have selective reading, right?  Got it.

Not at all (and nice job of not actually presenting a substantive response).

If you bothered to read ALL the responses instead of selecting only those you want to attempt to spin, you would have read why I believe my using the watermark is irrelevant and an example of why it seems that placing it on photos and such seems to be a gray area.

[jarmo]

The real questions comes back to "why watermark it?".  It wasn't artistic.  It wasn't meant to claim ownership.  It was meant to claim credit for the scans and transcription.  ALright.  Fine.  I'm more than happy to give credit for that.  One might put "Pics scanned and interview transcribed by GypsySoul" at the bottom, and that would be fantastic.  She deserves credit for buying the mag and putting in the time to type it out and all that.  But the watermark isn't the right credit for that.  They generally indicate ownership.

Keyword "generally".

We obviously explained the reason to you and you understood it.

So there's at least some hope.....


Maybe you can guess the reason why your alternative of just putting the text below the picture doesn't "work"?



Regarding the whole art theory.

GN'R wallpapers aren't just redrawings of photos. They are essentially altered versions of copyrighted images.

But guessing by the lack of objection to wallpapers over the years, that's fine. It's ok to put a copyrighted band logo over a copyrighted photo and then put my name on it.

And I'm the hypocrite.... 



/jarmo

[mallrat]

Legally or illegally I don?t care . The whole watermarking thing is lame. 

The whole fingerprinting thing does work in this case.  It would be like me putting a GPS tracking system in your car so I can track were you are going. 

As for the wallpaper stuff.  If you feel so strongly against it! Take the thread dealing with  out of here, Jarmo. 

[radical tendency]

I find it intriguing that the offending parties have been evicted, yet the thread continues to grow to gargantuan proportions without the "Whiners". Seems  a bit contradictory to your previous claims wouldn't you say? 

[jarmo]

I find it intriguing that the offending parties have been evicted, yet the thread continues to grow to gargantuan proportions without the "Whiners". Seems  a bit contradictory to your previous claims wouldn't you say? 

Did you notice that the personal attacks and insults have stopped?

Legally or illegally I don?t care . The whole watermarking thing is lame. 

That's your opinion and you just can't accept that others who get you stuff for free disagree.

As for the wallpaper stuff.  If you feel so strongly against it! Take the thread dealing with  out of here, Jarmo. 

I'm not against it.

I guess it's another point you have managed to either miss or ignore. Not surprising.

The whole point was brought up by me since you claim putting a name on an image equals claiming ownership. So if I make a wallpaper out of copyrighted images and put my name on it, do I claim I made the original logo/artwork and took the photo used in the wallpaper?

Of course not!



I don't object to fingerprinting images or fans using copyrighted photos/logos to make cool looking wallpapers (unless it's done to make money).


I'm just trying to figure out why some of you object to one kind of photo manipulation while something else that's been going on for years in the open (wallpaper making) you have no issues with.


But I'm the one labeled a hypocrite because I refuse to let your friends rip off GN'R on a site I started.....





/jarmo

[mallrat]

Maybe cause in their opinion it's lame.

I didn't miss your point , but you did such a good job comparing the two that It actually made question the wallpaper thing.


Ripping off the band how?

they aren't getting money for anything ..