jark...

Here's another of my cures for the common cold...and a better mousetrap to boot...

Let's assume that a site gets 1000 'dubious' uploads in a day....and has but 5 people to verify their veracity....

It takes an 'unfair' amount of time to verify all the Britney boobs as not 'original' photos, but a 'rip' of someone's elsewhere....

Change site coding to allow/enable a 'withdrawn from view pending verification' section....[when in doubt, pull out]...

And leave the responsibility for 'verification' with the 1000 people submitting the stuff....much better than 5 people chasing tails....

IF, that's 'IF' the verification is forth-coming then 'Britney's boobs' can be publicly displayed.

So all R-squared need do is look at a pic, think 'ooooh, dunno' and flick it into the 'pending' and auto-send a request for proof.

Then time-limit it even....a week later it's dumped for good if 'proof' doesn't show up...

Call the system 'enforced self-regulation'....call it 'Jafo's despotic rip policing'....whatever....

Or...

Show me how it won't work....

Doreen is right. I'm gonna stop doing what she mentioned.



Keep the peace.

bakerstreet: you say that by making an assumption that we see every submission to the site or peruse every section of the site on a daily basis. we have other issues that need handling as well as this issue.

if you are going to attempt to compare deviantART to some type of profit-from-illegal-content scenario then you are completely mistaken. do not try to spread FUD with nifty catch phrases and words that scare everyone away from P2P today.

furthermore, do you honestly think that we do not have legal advice? heh...come on now, be realistic.

if you are so concerned about the wellbeing of DA then *HELP SOLVE THE PROBLEM* some way. the best way would be to actually hit the *POLICY VIOLATION BUTTON* and then let the admins do the work from there on out. you would rather sit here and at deviantART and complain about it rather than being proactive though.

its easy to sit back and voice concern for a problem but when you do not want to attempt to help rectify it then you are just as much a part of the problem as those violating policy are.

I have not read this whole thread yet but one thing I have to say is while talking about site X on site Y might be diffecult, I believe that Mark Smitka is making a point for disussion. So since he is talking a intellegent approach to the thought it would be more like just asking people opininion of the site. Aslo keep in mind that he did post something like this there and this site is FAR smaller than DeviantART. Also keep in ming who hangs here on the messagboard (lack of cursing, very civil) as oppossed to Deviant ART.

So he is not just voicing an opinion but als intellegently asking what other think.

, that is the same response I got before i spent months on DA, clicking that damned button. The majority were/are still there after moderators were 'caught up'. My last post stands. The material I pointed out is there. You can't blame us for what is on your server.

You can't hit the first page of what amounts to a dozen-or-so problem sections in a day with 5 moderators? Do you know how silly that sounds? Anyone looking for copyrighted material on Devart can find it in seconds. The problem is you are strangling yourself with self-imposed, needless ethics. If you see Britney, delete her, if you see Tenchi, delete him. Your wallpapers>movies section isn't even feasable under your policy. You don't owe anyone an explaination for doing the safest thing for your business and the right thing for artists everywhere.

If your legal representation is telling you that it is enough to 'work on it' and still have a DB full of copyrighted material, I would get a second opinion. That argument has worked for no one so far.

I thought that surely you would have seen the damage this is doing tp Devart by now, but if you are okay with it, it is your site. I don't have to visit it, though I really, really regret having to avoid it.

!!! ---and BTW, P2P should scare people. There are very, very few legal uses for it and it is being monitored almost constantly. The justice department in the US is being pressured to prosecute people who *download* material rom Kazzaa and Morpheus ( http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,54460,00.html ). Jail and huge fines scare me, don't they you?

www_wired_com/news/politics/0,1283,54460,00.html

sorry for the broken link and the ranting. I'm done.

Isn't five individuals a bit small for a site as large and vast as deviantART? I would think that twenty would be the bare minimum.
As for expelling offenders, is there a way to deal with repeat offenders? Not only with deviantART, but with WinCustomize and others as well.

No, one last thing. Jark I find this statement offensive, it just keeps eating at me:

"...its easy to sit back and voice concern for a problem but when you do not want to attempt to help rectify it then you are just as much a part of the problem as those violating policy are."

That makes everyone responsible for your business to a degree that they are as bad as people who steal and upload. That just goes to show that the 'problem' you are referring to isn't the stolen work, but the outcry for change. I spent months hitting that button and uploading original work to your site. I made suggestions from all perspectives (even the ripper's), none of which were even entertained. You have what you want, there is no reason for any of us to complain anymore.

Forget it. That's enough for me. This kind of wasted time was why I stopped going to Devart to begin with.

the problem is not change nor policy. like i said, the admins dont visit every section of the site every day therefore we cant catch every violation every day. again, as i said, realitysquared is doing the majority of the policing of the various sections having already run all through the anime section on one occasion.

the statement i made that you take offense to is the simple truth. if someone is so concerned about it then help out somehow. sitting back and offering up armchair quarterback comments is not help but merely voicing concern. helping out actually involved initiative to institute the change.

i love how you make it sound as if i love all that you complain about. before you make accusations of that nature you would be better off suited to having conducted a little research first.

I think bakerstreet has a point about the images. But I think the point he is missing that jark is saying is that there are only 5 people policing the site. if he is seeing these images so easily, it does not mean that someone else will. That someone else is somewhere else doing something else. So those 5 people are looking over the 300 different sections for this matierial your finding. Aslo keep in mind that those 5 people are also doing other things for the site that has nothing to do with policing.

I have seen some pictures too, maybe even uploaded something I shouldn't have... but sometimes it is hard to tell, it is an opinion whether it is art or someone elses work. Thise who state that it is definatly someone elses work actually still have some space to still upload it as long as it has been minipulated in some way. What way, and how much..????? I have no idea. Is DA profiting off of copywrited material because some Joe Blow wants Brinteny's Boobs and come to the site more often to get boobs? Well, profit is a tricky word when DA is paying for the upload and download of the material. Also keep in mind that Joe Blow didn't click on any ads or is a officail member. He doesn't even pay attention to the ads that are there or closes the pop ups before he sees them.


So DA profiting from copywrited material seems a little far fetched. I think the spend more for material like that then get more. Populatiry of a site only gets you so much money from ads.


I do feel, though, that DA is getting pretty close to P2P. The funny thing about P2P is that I really felt there was a way to police the traffict through naming conventions, id reading programs for the mp3's (no id, it doesn't get uploaded)and other techniques that some people I know are working on as we speak. What really happend to P2P was the lack of policy and people to inforce the policy. Aslo the total misunderstanding of the music industry of P2P and wanting to stop it before they could analys it and us it to there benifit.


I thik DA is far from going down hill but there is a little bit to much noise. I think that is ok, though, in the long run might be a down fall if some one decides to sue or close DA because of the lack of enforcement. Of course that perosn would be much like the music industry by not understanding what is really going on and how they could use it as oppossed to destroy it.


I will be watching DA as well as other sites in the hopes that if it does happens. I am willing to do all I can to help.

So DA profiting from copywrited material seems a little far fetched.
Joe......Bakerstreet never said they were profiting.....he said they were 'benefitting from and distributing stolen copyrighted material'.

I find a few of your statements very interesting too.

Thise who state that it is definatly someone elses work actually still have some space to still upload it as long as it has been minipulated in some way.

That's just plain BS...........I'm sick of this attitude that if the artist isn't part of the skinning community it's ok to use his/her work without permission. manipulated or not, it isn't right.

. . . what hell hath I wrought?
One thing I'd like to interject at this point, as the thread has taken a few turns since I originated it:

The people posting here, myself included, are posting because they care about DA. Either because they now visit and contribute, or because they once did. I just think it's worth noting, although I guess it's obvious. Definitely lots of good thoughts here though.

Would this be an example of wht your talkin about?

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/717666

Not to shout him or her out but I want to understand fully what the arument is.

and I ment as far a manipulation is concerned, more than what is origanilly there. I am not sure if that is right or not depending on what is being manimpulated (wallpaper, image, or a image everyone an there mother saw or a skin of witch would be very hard to just change a little bit do to the fact that it is more of a detailed work.


any thoughts?

I personally think after spending time here on WC and DA al well as DeskMod, it is best to do your own work or get permission to base something off of someone elses. I am still waiting for a release to uplaod a Aaliyah DesktopX's just to find out that the images are pretty much free no since the site has closed and the artist past away. As free as they are, though, I can't release the DX's until I get a real confermation to do so. Must of what I got so far was "you can do it but if there is trouble don't involve me"

So technically I have the go ahead, but I still can't because it is not a clear consent. I know it is respectful and ok, but I can't do it because I still want the permission. Some of the guys I talked to was like "What is the problem?? Just go ahead!!"

Joe .... damn straight!

Joe: Dead artists have estates, and publicity images are owned by their entertainment company until they pass into the public domain. Aaliyah publicity images won't be public domain in your lifetime, you can bet on it. You might find other images of Aaliyah, taken by fans, press, etc., that the owner might let you use.

You can't even redraw an image, even if you do it entirely by hand. It is the right of the copyright holder to say who can and can't recreate their work in any form, whether that be cut-and-paste, or repainting the image in oils on canvas.

http://www.copyright.gov/faq.html ---that is a good link for any questions you might have.

But I like her so much


I just wanted to show how much I liked her and I can't seem to get the right permission.

Thanks bakerstreet, I was wondering about that. The people I have been talking o get permission just seemed so like "Go ahead just do it." And I was wondering if they were right.

bakerstreet: actually, you are completely incorrect on your assumptions regarding copyright.

>Dead artists have estates, and publicity images are owned by their
>entertainment company until they pass into the public domain. Aaliyah
>publicity images won't be public domain in your lifetime, you can bet
>on it. You might find other images of Aaliyah, taken by fans, press,
>etc., that the owner might let you use.

you really ought to read the page that you linked to before you speak about something that you obviously have only half a clue about.

this is from the copyright page (by my pasting this, according to you, would constitute a copyright violation, heh):

Q. How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?

A. Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentages of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See Circular 21 and FL 102.

Q. How much do I have to change in my own work to make a new claim of copyright?

A. You may make a new claim in your work if the changes are substantial and creative -- something more than just editorial changes or minor changes. This would qualify as a new derivative work. For instance, simply making spelling corrections throughout a work does not warrant a new registration -- adding an additional chapter would. See Circular 14 for further information.

LMAO...
Jark, you are the biggest ass... I wasn't even talking to you, but since you stick your neck out... joe is talking about making DesktopX objects with images of an artist.

your first point:
____________________________________________________________________________________

The referenced Circular 21 is "Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians", and according to FL 102:

"...U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.” "

So, quoting me would be considered ... that's why I didn't smack your ass.

but

making desktopX objects from pictures of a recording artist would not be 'fair use' unless you are stretching the definition of 'parody', thus my mention of it to Joe.




as to your second quote,
_______________________________________________________________________________________

quoting circular 14:

"WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to pre-
pare,or to authorize someone else to create,a new version
of that work.The owner is generally the author or someone
who has obtained rights from the author.Anyone interested
in a work who does not know the owner of copyright may
search the records of the Copyright Office.Or,the Office will
conduct a search at a fee of $75 *per hour.For further infor-
mation,request Circular 22,“How to Investigate the Copy-
right Status of a Work.""

Did I mention that I had nothing else to say to you?

Now that I look at the second Q&A in your argument, Jark, i think you misread it.

"
Q. How much do I have to change in my own work to make a new claim of copyright?

A. You may make a new claim in your work if the changes are substantial and creative...
"

that is talking about an artist getting a second copyright on a work of their own that they have substantially changed, not a third party mixing and matching someone else's work...

Small note: copyright remains active for about 70 (something like that) years after the holder's death. Estate or not.

Anyway, if Jark had read the next question in the FAQ he quoted, he would have seen my point, but he didn't.

"
Q:How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?

A:Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. See Circular 14.
"

And no doubt he won't come back now and admit that I wasn't "completely incorrect on your assumptions regarding copyright".

All that temptation and yearning to be a part of Deviantart has rushed out of me like diarrhea. Thanks Jark, you helped me dodge a bullet on that one. I'm going to bed.

My 2 cent:
DA is too big for it's own good!
enuff said!

now i must laugh. not once have i called you a name or been rude. i've merely been engaging in a healthy debate with you. now all of a sudden, with your back to the wall, you resort to petty name calling? you say that you dont like the DA message boards because of this very thing that you just did here. tsk tsk tsk. hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

anyhow...i never referred to anything regarding claiming copyright of a work. in fact, most of the individuals submitting to deviantart, who use copyrighted images in photo manipulations, are not creating for the purpose of copyrighting their work. they are merely creating derivative works. therefore, people are authorized to use images according to this document.

"There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentages of a work."

bakerstreet stated the following: "You can't even redraw an image, even if you do it entirely by hand. It is the right of the copyright holder to say who can and can't recreate their work in any form, whether that be cut-and-paste, or repainting the image in oils on canvas."

bakerstreet also said the following: "And no doubt he won't come back now and admit that I wasn't "completely incorrect on your assumptions regarding copyright."

you are absolutely correct that i wont come back and admit it simply because you are FLAT OUT WRONG WITH YOUR ASSUMPTIONS in the former paragraph.

bakerstreet said this as well: "All that temptation and yearning to be a part of Deviantart has rushed out of me like diarrhea. Thanks Jark, you helped me dodge a bullet on that one. I'm going to bed."

you've never really participated in the site anyhow. you never gave it a chance and you merely complained rather than attempted to *help* with the reconciliation of some of the outstanding issues the site has. personally, in all honesty, if anyone has lost anything here it is you. you decided to "leave deviantart" (as if one can actually *leave a website*) before this conversation and now that i've debated with you on various issues you take the easy way out and attempt to place the blame on me? heh...

snowman: mmhmm. what do you know anyways?