Let's talk copyright and plagiarism

[thecrystalrook]

A fun topic that every artist probably will come across in their lifetime. The tragedy of Darth Plagiarism the wise. Darth Plagiarism the wise was a dark lord of the--

I mean-- Yea, you know what I mean
ANYHOO.

Recently a friend of mine found out that someone they were close with online was an art fraud. Everything this person posted in the last 9 months - every piece of artwork, piece of music, was stolen and passed off as their own. Several people were fooled and were even promoting the artwork for them on their socials!

This has prompted me to throw this advice out to everyone who is serious about their work. For the love of god, register your work with the library of congress (or whatever the equivalent is in your country if you're not from the US). I know artwork is automatically copywritten the moment it's put into tangible form, but the burden of proof is still on you to prove its yours in the legal system. I hope none of you ever have to deal with going as far as getting law involved to protect your artwork, but this is where we're at in the digital age. It costs about $65 currently to register a work. I know, it's pricey. But if you're serious about your work, and you make your money from it, most definitely strongly consider dumping the money. It'll save you headaches down the road if/when you have to fight for yourself and can pull that sweet documentation out.

No, NFTs are not a solution for this
Thanks for coming to my ted talk

[TheLemmaLlama]

Hecc. I was hoping not to see a thread about this topic anytime soon. But now that it exists, I feel compelled to drop this:

(Note: I don't 100% agree with this guy - at the very least, crowdfunding for profits isn't going to work until there's a critical mass of people doing it. But I do think the law ain't gonna help us as small artists. I assume the art fraud situation was resolved without going to court?)

[RobertBMarks]

Hecc. I was hoping not to see a thread about this topic anytime soon. But now that it exists, I feel compelled to drop this

If there was a downvote option, I would use it for this. I used to see this nonsense all the time - people who don't understand the difference between copyright and trademark and patents. They are not the same. The only way to own an idea is to patent it. Works of literature do not fall under that category. Back in the days when I was a regular on Slashdot, I had argument after argument with copyright abolitionists who kept raising objections to copyright law that had nothing to do with it - all they ever talked about was trademark and patent law, which they equated to copyright law.

(To give an example, when Steamboat Willie falls into the public domain, Disney will still own Mickey Mouse - that's because Mickey Mouse is protected under TRADEMARK LAW, which has different rules.)

And, frankly, if the maker of that video can't answer the questions he raises within the first 3 minutes of the video, s/he is not qualified to speak on the subject in the first place.

You cannot copyright an idea. The law does not allow you to. In fact, the law specifically protects the creation of derivative works based on the ideas of others. What it protects against is plagiarism and what it ensures is your right to decide what you want to do with your own work. Without copyright law somebody could copy your work, attach their own name to it, pass it off as their own, and there isn't a damned thing you could do about it. That is what copyright protects you from.

But I do think the law ain't gonna help us as small artists.

Speaking as somebody who sorted out a dispute with Amazon Kindle by emailing them a scan of a copyright certificate, this is wrong. Yes, the law will help small artists, but you need to educate yourself on how to use it and know what your rights are under it.

[Teira]

Yeah I was thinking about whether or not I should get my comic copyrighted, especially now that its finished.

[RobertBMarks]

Yeah I was thinking about whether or not I should get my comic copyrighted, especially now that its finished.

Your comic is protected under copyright - that protection came into existence for every single page of panels the moment you completed it. What registering the copyright will do is prove is provide you with evidence that you are the copyright holder and the date the copyright came into existence.

Think of it as a form of insurance. Hopefully you won't ever need to show the certificate to anybody, but it's better to have it available if you do need it than to lack it when, for example, somebody steals your work or Amazon decides to declare that you're not its author when you try to publish it on their platform.

[TheLemmaLlama]

Ah, maybe I shouldn't have posted a video about intellectual property in general in a thread about copyright and plagiarism in particular XD Ah well, I've started it, so might as well see it through :]

And, frankly, if the maker of that video can't answer the questions he raises within the first 3 minutes of the video, s/he is not qualified to speak on the subject in the first place.

He does, though I understand if you don't want to spend 44 minutes in order to find out. (Again, he's an IP abolitionist in general, which means he's against trademarks and patents as well as copyright :])

the law specifically protects the creation of derivative works based on the ideas of others.

Is it legal to (assuming you credit the original creators)):
A) make a fancomic with all original art and writing, without profiting off it?
B) make a fancomic with all original art and writing, while profiting off it?
C) make an edit of an existing work (e.g. take a comic and redraw 2 panels), without profiting off it?
D) make an edit of an existing work (e.g. take a comic and redraw 2 panels), while profiting off it?

For any of the above that are illegal, is it because of copyright law, trademark law, or something else?

(And yes, I know fanfic and fan edits are everywhere, but can the original creators sue if they wanted to?)

what it ensures is your right to decide what you want to do with your own work.

What is an example of something that you cannot choose to do with your work if copyright no longer exists?

Without copyright law somebody could copy your work, attach their own name to it, pass it off as their own, and there isn't a damned thing you could do about it.

In short, (according to the video) the 'damned thing you could do about it' is to expose the fraud as a fraud; people hate being lied to and will inevitably support you over the fraud (and simple timestamps with date of upload is sufficient proof for most people that you're the true creator). One of the comments under the video puts it better than I could:

When I think about it, most call out posts for art theft and stuff are not to protect profits or something like that. It’s to give the creator recognition and not let others steal work they didn’t make. Even when public domain stories that have been repurposed over and over still are often traced back to their original creators i.e. grim’s brothers fairytales. There is literally no reason for people to honor these fairytales as no one adapts them directly, the original creators and their descendants don’t hold claim to them, and if you stole them word for word, no one would sue you. However, we still go “hey, by the way, this thing you like was based off this old story” and copies of the work are more preservation efforts (with a profit motive) than a profit scheme.

Speaking as somebody who sorted out a dispute with Amazon Kindle by emailing them a scan of a copyright certificate, this is wrong. Yes, the law will help small artists, but you need to educate yourself on how to use it and know what your rights are under it.

Alright, I didn't know that. I'll concede that I didn't consider there might be smaller ways to use the law than straight up taking someone to court or hiring a lawyer (that is accessible enough and easy enough to educate yourself about that it's not like you might as well hire a lawyer).

I'd still like your input on my above questions though. I'm still not entirely convinced that the pros outweigh the cons ^^;

[RobertBMarks]

Is it legal to (assuming you credit the original creators)):A) make a fancomic with all original art and writing, without profiting off it?B) make a fancomic with all original art and writing, while profiting off it?C) make an edit of an existing work (e.g. take a comic and redraw 2 panels), without profiting off it?D) make an edit of an existing work (e.g. take a comic and redraw 2 panels), while profiting off it?

All of these are copyright infringement, and none of these are derivations of IDEAS.

What you ARE allowed to do is:

1. Use the scenario suggested in a prior work with your own original characters inspired by characters from a prior work (such as my entire novel).

2. Use excerpts from somebody else's work for purposes of demonstration or commentary (aka fair use or fair dealing).

3. In the case of video games, stream the game while providing commentary and/or parody (this is sufficiently transformative to make it into a derivative work).

What is an example of something that you cannot choose to do with your work if copyright no longer exists?

1. Decide who gets to publish it.

2. Sign an contract in which the publisher pays you royalties for your work (if you don't own the copyright, you have no clout for negotiation).

In short, (according to the video) the 'damned thing you could do about it' is to expose the fraud as a fraud; people hate being lied to and will inevitably support you over the fraud (and simple timestamps with date of upload is sufficient proof for most people that you're the true creator). One of the comments under the video puts it better than I could:

Congratulations, you have exposed them as a fraud. What you haven't done is STOP them, or make the plagiarized edition go away. With a copyright you can hire a lawyer and get an injunction. Without one, the only right you have is to complain and hope that enough people care - or remember a year later - to make a difference.

I'm still not entirely convinced that the pros outweigh the cons ^^;

One gives you rights in regards to your work and protects them under the law. The other gives you nothing. This isn't a hard calculation to make.

[TheLemmaLlama]

Thanks for your answers! I think I understand copyright better now :]

1. Decide who gets to publish it.

2. Sign an contract in which the publisher pays you royalties for your work (if you don't own the copyright, you have no clout for negotiation).

So in short, it lets you restrict what other people can do with your work rather than increase the number of things you can do with your own work. Do you see how one might find it absurd to think of copyright as giving more freedom?

Congratulations, you have exposed them as a fraud. What you haven't done is STOP them, or make the plagiarized edition go away. With a copyright you can hire a lawyer and get an injunction. Without one, the only right you have is to complain and hope that enough people care - or remember a year later - to make a difference.

If no-one cares a year later, it probably means the plagiarized edition is in some obscure corner of the internet that no-one even remembers exists. If people are actually paying attention to it, then darn right people are gonna care; people aren't going to hate being lied to any less after any number of years XD

One gives you rights in regards to your work and protects them under the law. The other gives you nothing. This isn't a hard calculation to make.

I agree that on an individual basis, copyright benefits the copyright holder -- and I certainly don't fault anyone for making use of copyright in the world we currently live in. (Again, I don't agree with everything in the video; crowdfunding for profits is only going to work if everyone's doing it; otherwise you're at a strict disadvantage compared to the people crowdfunding only for production costs and using copyright to profit from distribution).

But in the long run, (apart from the bit where it prevents people from lying about being the creators of your work) I'm not convinced that copyright benefits creators as a whole.

Pros of abolishing copyright: small artists can now profit from fanwork and fan edits. It's way easier to be noticed when the work you do is on something people already care about.

Cons of abolishing copyright: creators can no longer profit from distribution. But if this applies to everyone, earning money at production will become the norm. The video explains why this isn't really worse than earning from distribution from 6:02 onwards (and yes, I know, he's talking about IP in general rather than just copyright, but the spirit of the argument still applies to copyright). In particular, he explains why 'people stealing your work and making money off of it' won't work, and why people who profit off of fanwork (new albeit unoriginal content they create with their own labour) don't threaten the profits of the original creator of the work it's based off of.

Copyright really messes with incentives too. I'm incentivised to paywall my content, which goes against every instinct I have as a creator who wants to show my work to as many people as possible. It actually messes with my skull. In a world with no copyright, the profit incentive is aligned with the drive to spread one's influence; the amount people are willing to pay you to create is directly correlated with your reputation, so making your work as accessible as possible is always in your best interests because it means more people know about you.

(And I'm not even mentioning how abolishing copyright benefits audiences, which is admittedly the bigger focus of the video despite its title.)

Anyways, I doubt this discussion is gonna change either of our minds, but it's nice to air our thoughts on the matter

[RobertBMarks]

So in short, it lets you restrict what other people can do with your work rather than increase the number of things you can do with your own work.

Wrong. It does both. It also allows you to protect the integrity of the work, AKA prevents somebody else from changing it in a way that you would never approve and then passing it off as yours.

So in short, it lets you restrict what other people can do with your work rather than increase the number of things you can do with your own work. Do you see how one might find it absurd to think of copyright as giving more freedom?

No, I don't. That's like saying that the right to own a house is absurd because it takes away the freedom to squat in somebody else's basement.

I agree that on an individual basis, copyright benefits the copyright holder -- and I certainly don't fault anyone for making use of copyright in the world we currently live in.

But in the long run, (apart from the bit where it prevents people from lying about being the creators of your work) I'm not convinced that copyright benefits creators as a whole.

And now your position is self-contradictory. Copyright is assigned to the creator upon the completion of the work. You are now agreeing that it benefits creators while arguing that it doesn't.

Copyright really messes with incentives too. I'm incentivised to paywall my content, which goes against every instinct I have as a creator who wants to show my work to as many people as possible. It actually messes with my skull.

That's just you - that's not copyright's fault. There is nothing in any copyright law or treaty that requires creators to sell their work. What copyright does is leave the decision of how the work is to be distributed in the creator's hands - that's it. If you want to put your work behind a paywall, copyright guarantees your right to do that. If you want to put your work in the public domain, copyright guarantees your right to do that too.

It reminds me of an argument years back with somebody who was insistent that copyright law was preventing his work from entering the public domain until long after his death. He didn't really appreciate me pointing out that if he wanted it in the public domain he could put it there at any time, and the only thing actually standing in the way was HIM.

Don't assume that because you have a hang-up about something, it therefore follows that everybody else does too.

[thecrystalrook]

Your arguments for abolishing copyrights do nothing to benefit the creator, but do a world's of benefit for those trying to steal content. How is this a good thing?

[TheLemmaLlama]

Wrong. It does both.

Alright, give me an example of something that you cannot choose to do with your work if copyright no longer exists that does not involve restrict what other people can do with your work :]

It also allows you to protect the integrity of the work, AKA prevents somebody else from changing it in a way that you would never approve and then passing it off as yours.

Cool. I agree that people shouldn't lie about who made the work the way it is. So people shouldn't claim to have created something they didn't create, AND people shouldn't claim that a modified work was actually the original, 100% created by the original creator.

I'm arguing for a law that prevents this kind of lying, but allows someone to change your work if they don't try to pass it off as yours.

No, I don't. That's like saying that the right to own a house is absurd because it takes away the freedom to squat in somebody else's basement.

There's a difference between 'it's absurd to think this grants freedom' and 'it's absurd to endorse this, period'. I'm pro-owning the house you live in, even if it means people can't squat in other people's homes, but I can acknowledge that it takes away other people's freedom without giving the home owner any actual freedom. (But it's worth it for the security it gives to the home owner.)

It's cool if you think preventing others from doing shit with your work is worth the security it affords you, but it's weird tbh to act like 'it gives you more choices'.

And now your position is self-contradictory. Copyright is assigned to the creator upon the completion of the work. You are now agreeing that it benefits creators while arguing that it doesn't.

My argument was not contradictory. Things can be beneficial to the individual, yet make things worse overall for everyone if everyone does it. Have you heard of the Prisoner's Dilemma? This is the same type of argument.

No matter what the other person does, individually you will always benefit from testifying against the other person/using copyright. But if both of you testify against each other/use copyright, you will both be worse off than if neither of you testify against each other/use copyright.

That's just you - that's not copyright's fault. There is nothing in any copyright law or treaty that requires creators to sell their work. What copyright does is leave the decision of how the work is to be distributed in the creator's hands - that's it. If you want to put your work behind a paywall, copyright guarantees your right to do that. If you want to put your work in the public domain, copyright guarantees your right to do that too.

It reminds me of an argument years back with somebody who was insistent that copyright law was preventing his work from entering the public domain until long after his death. He didn't really appreciate me pointing out that if he wanted it in the public domain he could put it there at any time, and the only thing actually standing in the way was HIM.

Don't assume that because you have a hang-up about something, it therefore follows that everybody else does too.

I'm talking about economic incentives, not law. I never said that copyright forbid anyone from putting their work in the public domain. What I am saying is that without copyright, it becomes economically feasible to put your work in the public domain because everyone is doing it.

Right now, I suspect most creators only paywall their content because it's the only way they could make money off of it. If they could make their work completely accessible AND get paid equally well while doing so, I suspect they'd do it in a heartbeat. Without copyright, this could be a reality.

I've also noticed you haven't addressed any of these points:

Pros of abolishing copyright: small artists can now profit from fanwork and fan edits. It's way easier to be noticed when the work you do is on something people already care about.

Cons of abolishing copyright: creators can no longer profit from distribution. But if this applies to everyone, earning money at production will become the norm. The video explains why this isn't really worse than earning from distribution from 6:02 onwards (and yes, I know, he's talking about IP in general rather than just copyright, but the spirit of the argument still applies to copyright). In particular, he explains why 'people stealing your work and making money off of it' won't work, and why people who profit off of fanwork (new albeit unoriginal content they create with their own labour) don't threaten the profits of the original creator of the work it's based off of.

(And I'm not even mentioning how abolishing copyright benefits audiences, which is admittedly the bigger focus of the video despite its title.)

I assume this is because you haven't watched the section of the video I've bookmarked, and not because you actually agree with this. (Which is valid, you don't have to engage in this debate any more than you have the time/desire to :])

Your arguments for abolishing copyrights do nothing to benefit the creator, but do a world's of benefit for those trying to steal content. How is this a good thing?

If things remain unchanged for Group A, but get strictly better for Group B, I don't see how that's a bad thing. I think good things are good, all the time, regardless of whether people 'earned' it or 'deserve' it. If Group B only benefits by harming Group A, then that's bad, but my point is that Group B can benefit at absolutely no cost to Group A.

I would also dispute that 'Group B' here is 'those trying to steal content'. Group B is people who make fan content and fan edits who are completely honest about the origins of the work they display. My proposals do nothing to benefit actual frauds who lie about where the work came from. You are free to still consider these people 'content thieves', but dishonesty is where I draw the line. These people are often creators themselves, and I want creators to be rewarded for doing stuff (which includes editing and expanding on the works of others), not owning stuff (e.g. sitting on work you've already done) :]

---

Edit, for posterity:

No, and I'm done playing rhetorical games with you.

Unfortunately when you conflate a bunch of concepts and miss the nuances of an argument, being pedantic and splitting hairs is necessary to clarify things in a discussion.

Remember when I conflated copyright with other forms of IP like trademark^, so you went on a whole schpiel about how copyright doesn't protect ideas, only works? Instead of implying you were messing with me, I went along with it and actually tried to listen to you, in case I was missing some nuance in my understanding of IP.

But apparently when I do it, it's 'playing rhetorical games'.

The OP posted a PSA - and a good one - about how creatives on this site can protect themselves from having their work stolen. You replied by arguing that those protections should not exist in the first place.

When you title your thread 'Let's talk copyright and plagiarism', of course I'm going to want to 'talk copyright and plagiarism'. If the thread was titled 'PSA about copyright and plagiarism' or 'Tip to protect yourself from plagiarism', I wouldn't have tried to discuss it.

You have hijacked this thread for a position that can actively harm the creatives on this site by leading them away from an understanding of their legal rights and legal protections for their work.

Dude, what? Arguing that a legal protection shouldn't exist doesn't lead anyone away from understanding the facts of what the legal protections, which currently exist, do in the current world we live in. I'm not denying facts, spreading misinformation or telling people to stop listening to info on how to use said legal protections.

For a self-proclaimed centrist who once said "there is an intolerance of the beliefs of others these days that I find quite heartbreaking", you sure come down hard on the beliefs you don't agree with.

^

allegedly, via the video? I can't actually remember where I or the video even did this, but my memory is fallible, so let's go with it.

[RobertBMarks]

Alright, give me an example of something that you cannot choose to do with your work if copyright no longer exists that does not involve restrict what other people can do with your work :]

No, and I'm done playing rhetorical games with you.

The OP posted a PSA - and a good one - about how creatives on this site can protect themselves from having their work stolen. You replied by arguing that those protections should not exist in the first place. You have hijacked this thread for a position that can actively harm the creatives on this site by leading them away from an understanding of their legal rights and legal protections for their work.

What happens next is up to the mods.

[joannekwan]

[joannekwan]

Closing this before things get heated. And OP didn't seem to want to start a counter discussion anyway.

[joannekwan]