Poll of the Day > Which form of copyright infringement is more unethical in your views?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Gr8M8 posted...

And probably selfish.

Don't censor my posts if you're going to "quote" them.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Don't censor my posts if you're going to "quote" them.

Fine. But are you taking any of my responses seriously, or are you just dismissing them?

---

SpeedDemon20 posted...

I think stealing/reposting art from artists is very bad, especially if there's a watermark or signature in the corner and they just crop it out. Like really? You can't just give the person credit? The art is already there, freely available to view at no cost... and people just take it for their own. Worst offenders are those that request commissions and offer "exposure" as compensation. Holy crap. Just pay them!

There are art thieves who believe giving credit means giving up freedom.

Indeed, unpaid commissions are just free requests.

---

Piracy is not wrong in most cases, however reposting artwork without permission is (it can be considered art theft if you repost it as your own).
---

Gr8M8 posted...

Fine. But are you taking any of my responses seriously, or are you just dismissing them?

Which posts did I dismiss?
---

As an artist, I personally get more upset when people post without my permission. They can add/subtract things and therefore present my art in a different light without any of my input. If someone sees it and doesn't know better, they may think that was how it was intended to be presented.

Gr8M8 posted...

Reposting creators' artworks without permission

Going with this. A good artist should always be credited.

---

wwinterj25 posted...

Going with this. A good artist should always be credited.

What about a bad artist?
---

Revelation34 posted...

What about a bad artist?

They should get better.

---

Revelation34 posted...

What about a bad artist?

Why would you share/commission artwork you think is bad?

---

Muscles posted...

Why would you share/commission artwork you think is bad?

You mean, from an artist you think is bad? I would suggest separating the art from the artist, but again, don't make excuses to gain popularity by stealing an image you didn't make. It's that simple.

---

DDirtyDastard posted...

As an artist, I personally get more upset when people post without my permission. They can add/subtract things and therefore present my art in a different light without any of my input. If someone sees it and doesn't know better, they may think that was how it was intended to be presented.

Indeed, editing someone's art just makes it worse.

---

Muscles posted...

Why would you share/commission artwork you think is bad?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/79142892/947791182

Gr8M8 posted...

You mean, from an artist you think is bad? I would suggest separating the art from the artist, but again, don't make excuses to gain popularity by stealing an image you didn't make. It's that simple.

Wat. A bad artist has nothing to do with separating their work from them. If their art is bad then it's bad and has nothing to do with their personality.
---

Hot takes here.

---

Revelation34 posted...

If their art is bad then it's bad and has nothing to do with their personality.

Reposting "sub-par" artwork without consent is still ethically questionable, as it may encourage users to harrass the artist, directly.

---

Gr8M8 posted...

Reposting "sub-par" artwork without consent is still ethically questionable, as it may encourage users to harrass the artist, directly.

Wat.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Wat.

Seriously, this is why people need to know the consequences. This really has happened with artists who make art of "questionable themes." I've seen the harassment with my own eyes on YouTube, DeviantArt, Tumblr, and other sites.

---

Gr8M8 posted...

Seriously, this is why people need to know the consequences. This really has happened with artists who make art of "questionable themes." I've seen the harassment with my own eyes on YouTube, DeviantArt, Tumblr, and other sites.

We're talking about bad art, not questionable themes.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Hot takes here.

What do you mean by that?

Revelation34 posted...

We're talking about bad art, not questionable themes.

I'm sure they're the same thing; "questionable" is probably a better word to say.

---

Gr8M8 posted...

What do you mean by that?

"Questionable" is probably a better word to say regarding quality.

No questionable is something that artists like Shadbase make. Don't google him unless you have safe search on.
---

One final bump, in light of what's been going on with Nintendo.

---

Gr8M8 posted...

One final bump, in light of what's been going on with Nintendo.

Nintendo are being idiots.
---

Gr8M8 posted...

Making non-profit fan art out of love = Not OK
Reposting others' art without even credit = OK

That's what I'm basically hearing. Do mind that individual creators need a lot more support than big companies do, and art theft isn't the way.

What the fuck are you babbling about? Reposting art isn't necessarily covered under fair use. And fair use is a bedrock of freedom of speech. Without it, you would need creators' permission to post reviews about their work, which would be fucking stupid.

At any rate, I can't believe your troll topic is still up.

Revelation34 posted...

Copyright infringement isn't theft.

Depends on the usage.


---

Zeus posted...

Depends on the usage.

It just isn't. Theft is physical.
---

Revelation34 posted...

It just isn't. Theft is physical.

Except it's not, is it? You can steal somebody's thesis. You can steal somebody's idea. The idea of theft as it relates to intellectual rather than physical properties is hardly a controversial idea.

---

Zeus posted...

Except it's not, is it? You can steal somebody's thesis. You can steal somebody's idea. The idea of theft as it relates to intellectual rather than physical properties is hardly a controversial idea.

A thesis would be written so yes that is physical. You can't actually steal ideas by definition. Copyright infringement is copying while actual theft is taking.
---

You can't steal ideas themselves. You can steal all tangible benefits the idea's existence might offer. Where ideas have no practical value outside of those tangible benefits, practically speaking, you can steal ideas.

---

Revelation34 posted...

A thesis would be written so yes that is physical. You can't actually steal ideas by definition. Copyright infringement is copying while actual theft is taking.

A thesis is less the piece of paper than it is the ideas behind the paper being stolen. And clearly you can steal ideas by definition, because the definition of stealing is taking somebody that doesn't belong to you.

In fact, when I google "stealing," the dictionary result that comes up literally includes the following:

dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as one's own.
"accusations that one group had stolen ideas from the other were soon flying"

So I'm not entirely sure what definitions you're relying upon.

---

adjl posted...

You can't steal ideas themselves. You can steal all tangible benefits the idea's existence might offer. Where ideas have no practical value outside of those tangible benefits, practically speaking, you can steal ideas.

This is about art, right?

---

Zeus posted...

So I'm not entirely sure what definitions you're relying upon.

The biggest distinction people usually make between piracy and theft is that the owner doesn't actually lose whatever is being pirated. It's like fire: you can light your own torch from a fire, but that doesn't take away any of the original fire. Now, fixating on that distinction ignores the less direct harm of piracy (namely that it creates a culture of devaluing the pirated products, as well as putting those who put work into creating the stuff at a disadvantage relative to the thieves), so it's not an ideal way to look at the issue, but it's the rationale used nonetheless.

Gr8M8 posted...

This is about art, right?

It's about anything.

---

adjl posted...

The biggest distinction people usually make between piracy and theft is that the owner doesn't actually lose whatever is being pirated. It's like fire: you can light your own torch from a fire, but that doesn't take away any of the original fire. Now, fixating on that distinction ignores the less direct harm of piracy (namely that it creates a culture of devaluing the pirated products, as well as putting those who put work into creating the stuff at a disadvantage relative to the thieves), so it's not an ideal way to look at the issue, but it's the rationale used nonetheless.

It's about anything.

Since the majority of people would never buy the product they pirated the creators are not at any disadvantage.
---

Forgot to post this before but here.

https://gizmodo.com/the-eu-suppressed-a-300-page-study-that-found-piracy-do-1818629537
---