Never mind

[David M.]

Never mind

[Auric]

Hello David M.

Please let me offer you a mild but significant correction. Just because something is on the internet, that does not mean it is public domain. I strongly recommend that you and the rest of the folks on this forum carefully read US Copyright Laws.

What you see on the ArtCAM website for example is the intellectual property of the creator. Even when they give permission for its free use it is to ArtCAM users and not just to anyone else.

If you wish to use their products you should write to each and every creator of that product and ask for written permission.

I'm making sure you don't get sued. :shock:

[David M.]

That is why I specifically said I would NOT be using these for sale purposes, samples and tests for my own use are fine.

Very few of the pieces I saw were original (if any) and the rest are based on clip art that has been run through the software. Clip art holds no intellectual rights, and by running it through the software, that makes the 10% change to break any copyright, (if it was). I have been in advertising for almost 20 years and deal with copy right images almost daily.

However from an artists stand point I still will not sell someone elses files or images. I have no problem using "components" of images, but you will never find me basing a sign on someone elses work.

I debated even bringing this to the forum for several days because of just this issue, but I felt it was a good tool for people to test there machines and make some samples for there own use. If someone chooses to steal other peoples work then that is their choice, I don't condon this, but can't stop it either. I believe the people here understand my intentions and I hope will use these files respectfully and accordingly.

[bgoodman4]

When we post files on the ArtCAM Forum website we all understand that the models are possibly going to taken by anyone who wants to grab them but it is quite clear that these models were not intended for widespread dissemination across the net. For you to decide otherwise is hardly a favorable demonstration of your character, but there is certainly nothing other than your character preventing you from doing what you wish.

It is for precisely this reason that increasing numbers of ArtCAM users will no longer post these types of files. Thanks for making the ArtCAM website that much less beneficial to those of the ArtCAM community.

As for your comment that the models are not original or are essentially clip art I would like you to demonstrate how you know this. I can assure you this is not the case so I would strongly suggest that before you pass judgement on someone else's work you might want to make sure you know what you are talking about.

[applik]

Removed

[David M.]

I am not here to defend myself, I made a suggestion for testing only, take it or leave it.

[wmau24]

Wow, your idea of copyright is frightning. You think that money has to change hands to break copyright? So I guess if you buy a book and copy all the pages and put it on the web for free thats not breaking copyright. The real problem is, you don't own these images, thus you shouldn't be copying them and putting them anywhere. I guess your attitude would be: it ain't stealing if you don't get caught. Just because everyone else is stealing art, doesn't mean you have to too, and if you are going to steal, don't rub it in by posting it for others to steal.

[David M.]

Allpik I apologize, I in no way meant to say your stuff wasn't original, only that it was being distributed widly within the Artcam form. For all I now it might be Artcum clipart that everone with the program has access too.

This is the exact reason I hesitated to bring this to the forum, I have new machine and am ONLY testing it's abilitys right now, NONE of what I'm producing is for sale in anyway.

[David M.]

wmau24 - I am not infringing on any copy right by testing my equipment. Copy right is to protect the original creater of a product from someone who would otherwise take said product, reproduce it, and make a profit from it without license. What I am doing is in no way meeting this criteria, I am not avocating this, and have explisitly said just the opposite.

And by the way the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of copy machines in libraries and guess who won?

[wmau24]

David, I guess you just dont get it.


Oh and the library thing you mentioned is called "fair use" and is in no way associated with the internet or digital rights. I don't know how the internet equates to a copy machine. You can slice it any way you like, but putting copyrighted images on the web without the owners consent is ILLEGAL. And which part of testing your equipement requires you to post the images on a forum?

Anyway, the damage is done one way or the other, you may not realize the damage, but here it is: your posting makes artists and nice people in general shy about posting their images for fear that people will rip them off. Well you gave them another reason not to share....for that alone I would think that you would feel some remourse.

[RobertP]

Below is a little reading on Copyright laws that may be helpful. I dont think David was trying to be the villian here that he is being made out to be, laws are laws but....... it is very naive to assume that because there are laws that no one will break them in any way, yes when you post your work on the internet it is yours and is protected, but..it is still in a public domain where alot of people dont care about laws, so some risk is taken by the artist by posting his/her work. When I post some of my work, I know that someone somewhere is going to use it for themselves or even possibly profit from it, thats part of the game and I understand that.


http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

[David M.]

Thank you! this is my point as well. I can't be the only one who has stumbled upon this little loop hole, however I have been VERY clear on my SOLE INTENDED USE, from my first post.

I understand your concerns about copy rights, HOWEVER, I don't believe there is a court in the world that would give the case to a plaintiff that posts his/her artwork (finished files too boot) on the internet in a open to the public forum. I made a suggestion for TESTING (look at my words) if people choose to be moral or immoral is not in my control.

My morality is in tact and I can sleep just fine knowing my intended use without the wrath of moral justment being heaped on me.

[RobertP]

You know since we are on the topic of copyright laws here, lets go a little deeper, if we really want to be picky then the artist who made the images of Elvis and Yoda are in violation of those same laws. The character Yoda and his image was created and owned by Lucasfilm LTD, Mr Lucas is not very keen of unauthorized uses of his creations or likeness of his creations without his permission, I have seen it first hand from Lucasfilms staffed attnys. I am sure the "Elvis Camp" may have something to say as well. So.... should we really throw stones here? :wink:

[John]

So here's the thread Shari started.

http://forum.artcam.com/viewtopic.php?t=2499&highlight=shari

[yenne]

Before this gets out of hand, I'd like to step in with some advice for everyone involved.

Copyright protection is central to an artist's livelihood, but it's not likely that an equitable agreement will be reached under the conditions of hot tempers in an online forum. This debate frequently occurs in online communities, and at best a rule of etiquette has been established over the years. Namely, it's frowned upon to copy or link content directly from another public site, but it's usually considered okay to post a link to that other site. That way, the other site gets the traffic and advertising revenue, if any, and it gives the other site the ability to edit or remove the content if it is found to be incorrect or infringing.

Public forums exist to publish information and invite discussion. Common sense dictates that if you want to keep something private, either post it in private, or post it in a way that is unusable for reproducing the original artwork. Watermarked images and JPEG photographs communicate a point and invite a discussion without the artist needing to be overly concerned about theft.

Finally, we ask that you please do not refer to other companies' products by derogatory names in our forums.

Thank you,

[cajunpen]

Amen Britt. This Carvewright machine is enough for me to master right now - back to some talk about Carvewright and what IT can do. Thanks for the good intentions David M

[Robert]

You know since we are on the topic of copyright laws here, lets go a little deeper, if we really want to be picky then the artist who made the images of Elvis and Yoda are in violation of those same laws. The character Yoda and his image was created and owned by Lucasfilm LTD, Mr Lucas is not very keen of unauthorized uses of his creations or likeness of his creations without his permission, I have seen it first hand from Lucasfilms staffed attnys. I am sure the "Elvis Camp" may have something to say as well. So.... should we really throw stones here? :wink:

To put the record straight,i am the 'artist' who created 'Elvis' and 'Yoda' in artcam and i done so with the consent of the owners of these images as it is part of my job,so no i didn't break any copyright of the said images,and others for that matter!!
As an engraver it is my job to create these images for our clients for promotional use and commercial use as the images are actual dies to emboss their artwork!eg,dvd covers,book covers etc...
I don't mind people using the images of my creations,if they ask first and do not try to take credit for themselves.
I felt i had to clear that little issue up.
What i want to know is what other images of mine were used,and why wasn't i asked first?

[shabang]

Robert check your messages.

[Robert]

Robert check your messages.

Thanks for that 8)
I've left you a reply.

[David M.]

Robert check your messages, I left you something as well.

[Robert]

Robert check your messages, I left you something as well.

Thanks Dave, i have also left you a reply in your mail.