Discussion:
From Arizona.
Can a clear clarification be made about internet copyright infringements such as using an image or textual content from another website that does not belong to you.
I was under the impression that Plato's eloquently descriptive interpretation of what an "expression of thought and the idea" is, to be the foundations and the practical way of determining what intellectual rights belongs to the creator. Since we know what Mount Everest looks like, surely, only an expression of it can be a work of someone expressing the mountain.
For example, if I created an entire page of what a Honey Bee is and took my own picture of a bee. Could I protect all of that textual content and the digital image of the bee?
Can I protect my expression even though all I have learned about the bee is from others and I would use a manufacturers camera to capture the image of a bee. I will have done no creativity other than the expression of the subject.
And do I have the right to use the same skills that I have learned from an teacher and a photographer. I am a student of a master and I do not want a future possibility where the master can claim I expressed my interpretation on a given subject that looks very much like theirs.
Whatever I write about the bee would already be known and the image of the bee is also well known. But the actual text and image of the bee being written and expressed solely by my interpretation, do I then have the right to _protect my expression_ or the actual content?
Any thoughts on this will be appreciated.
Answer:
From Arizona.
Can a clear clarification be made about internet copyright infringements such as using an image or textual content from another website that does not belong to you.
I was under the impression that Plato's eloquently descriptive interpretation of what an "expression of thought and the idea" is, to be the foundations and the practical way of determining what intellectual rights belongs to the creator. Since we know what Mount Everest looks like, surely, only an expression of it can be a work of someone expressing the mountain.
For example, if I created an entire page of what a Honey Bee is and took my own picture of a bee. Could I protect all of that textual content and the digital image of the bee?
Can I protect my expression even though all I have learned about the bee is from others and I would use a manufacturers camera to capture the image of a bee. I will have done no creativity other than the expression of the subject.
And do I have the right to use the same skills that I have learned from an teacher and a photographer. I am a student of a master and I do not want a future possibility where the master can claim I expressed my interpretation on a given subject that looks very much like theirs.
Whatever I write about the bee would already be known and the image of the bee is also well known. But the actual text and image of the bee being written and expressed solely by my interpretation, do I then have the right to _protect my expression_ or the actual content?
Any thoughts on this will be appreciated. If you create text about a bee, and take a picture of a bee, you own the copyrights to the text and to the picutre. Of course, you can't control other's use of any facts that you might have used in your text, but you can keep others from cutting and pasting your text as written. You can also keep others from using the photograph the you took.
I'm not sure if that answers your questions. Maybe you could rephrase your questions in a simpler manner?
Answer:
If you create text about a bee, and take a picture of a bee, you own the copyrights to the text and to the picutre. Of course, you can't control other's use of any facts that you might have used in your text, but you can keep others from cutting and pasting your text as written. You can also keep others from using the photograph the you took.
I'm not sure if that answers your questions. Maybe you could rephrase your questions in a simpler manner?
Thank you divgradcurl.
I appreciate your taking time to explain about the text and picture. Many thanks.
In order to explain in a more simple manner. I plan to display my own write-up and pictures I have taken myself, in my own website.
But the skills I learned are from others. What I write and what I do in photography may look very similar to the masters that I learned from. Things may end up looking like their work. Or at least a derivative of their work.
Could they then see me as a competitor and sue me for using against them in competition what I have learned from them?
The subject matter is the same. But my expression of the subject matter will inevitably look plagiaristic copies of their work and will contain the masters influence because what I learned is from them.
Answer:
You can't copyright a techique. Take Ansel Adams, for example -- he has some very famous pictures of Yosemite Valley. If you were to take an Ansel Adams phot, and reproduce it, that would be copyright infringement. However, if you figured out the exact day of the year, time of day, and location, and maybe even equipment, that Ansel Adams used in his shots (maybe Ansel himself led you to the place and gave you the information) and took YOUR OWN picture, you are NOT infringing on Ansel's work -- you have created your OWN picture, and you own the copyright to it.
Unless your work is an ACTUAL derivative -- where you actual took some part of someone else's work and copied it, or used it as the basis of a new work -- then just because you use the same (or similar techniques in creating your own new creative work does NOT mean that you have created a derivative work.
Think about it -- almost nobody (in fact, probably nobody) works in a vacuum -- everyone has learned techiques from another, or, if self taught, been inspired or moved by others work. If techiques, or "look and feel" was generally copyrightable, nobody would be able to create. County songs are recognizeable as "country" because they contain some elements that they share with other country works -- if those elements were copyrightable, there would be no more country music.
In fact, copyright law exists BECAUSE we want to spur creativity. By giving an artist the right to control the reproduction and distribution of his or her own work, we incentivize the artist to publicly display his art -- he knows it can't be stolen from him without recourse. But others can be inspired by the art, and then go on and create their own art. That's the whole point of this exercise.
NOTE: Some people may argue that copyright, as it currently exists, does a lousy job of incentivizing or spurring creativity. However, the basic concept of copyright is to incentivize and inspire, and that's all I am discussing here.
Answer:
You can't copyright a techique. Take Ansel Adams, for example -- he has some very famous pictures of Yosemite Valley. If you were to take an Ansel Adams phot, and reproduce it, that would be copyright infringement. However, if you figured out the exact day of the year, time of day, and location, and maybe even equipment, that Ansel Adams used in his shots (maybe Ansel himself led you to the place and gave you the information) and took YOUR OWN picture, you are NOT infringing on Ansel's work -- you have created your OWN picture, and you own the copyright to it.
Unless your work is an ACTUAL derivative -- where you actual took some part of someone else's work and copied it, or used it as the basis of a new work -- then just because you use the same (or similar techniques in creating your own new creative work does NOT mean that you have created a derivative work.
Think about it -- almost nobody (in fact, probably nobody) works in a vacuum -- everyone has learned techiques from another, or, if self taught, been inspired or moved by others work. If techiques, or "look and feel" was generally copyrightable, nobody would be able to create. County songs are recognizeable as "country" because they contain some elements that they share with other country works -- if those elements were copyrightable, there would be no more country music.
In fact, copyright law exists BECAUSE we want to spur creativity. By giving an artist the right to control the reproduction and distribution of his or her own work, we incentivize the artist to publicly display his art -- he knows it can't be stolen from him without recourse. But others can be inspired by the art, and then go on and create their own art. That's the whole point of this exercise.
NOTE: Some people may argue that copyright, as it currently exists, does a lousy job of incentivizing or spurring creativity. However, the basic concept of copyright is to incentivize and inspire, and that's all I am discussing here. Divgradcurl,
Thank you very much for your articulate reply to my question. It explains a great deal. In particular the possible derivation of an acquired skill by a student.
So what you are explaining is that a master cannot prevent a student from using what the student has learned from the master. This indeed should be the case, at least what I thought. After all, why learn anything from that master if the skill then cannot be used or a derivation of it.
Thanks too for your explanation of a copyright being a concept to inspire rather than to put off creativity.
Very interesting points, many thanks.