4 ms·

Honestly, I don't think this is stealing in more than just a technical sense. This is little different that a mashup or a cover of an older song. And some of

Honestly, I don't think this is stealing in more than just a technical sense. This is little different that a mashup or a cover of an older song. And some of the newer versions are a little better. Not a big fan of the concept of "intellectual property." The site itself is kind of fun.

mattermill 13y ago
Are you real?
- mparlane 13y ago
  Are you just fantasy?
hristov 13y ago
I think it is stealing and it is pretty bad. Intellectual property can be misused when it is used to capture something (whether an artistic expression or an invention) that is not very unique or inventive or creative and would have been easily used and discovered by many others had the original "inventor" or "artist" not created it. At that point, intellectual property becomes oppressive. But this is not the case here. These are unique artistic expressions. True they are simple, but it is impossible to imagine someone creating the same thing without knowing the original. There is practically an unlimited number of ways one can convey a logo. Protecting the rights of one logo does not meaningfully limit the rights of others (if you ignore the "right" to get artistic work done for free). In these cases we should allow the artist to have a right to their creation.
- allochthon 13y ago
  You've described the technical meaning of stealing very well. But I don't think it's ontologically possible for a person to own something like these logos. Such ownership is a legal fiction set up by legal traditions whose intellectual property protections have started to become more of a problem than a solution. Their remaining relevance it seems to me is to empower corporations such as IBM and Microsoft to extract rent (in the context of patents), and to give money to attorneys and politicians and lobbyists. It is hard for me to have much sympathy for the notion that such protections are in place in the present context primarily for artist making the logo (in the case of trademark, etc.) when there are so many other interests that hang just a little bit back in the background. In most cases on the site the copies are undeniably in bad taste. But not something to be protected by law, in my opinion.
  - xerophtye 13y ago
    Well considering people charge a lot for logo design, and apparently it does take expertise and effort (remember the Yahoo logo debacle?), so shouldn't it be a crime that some logo designer charges a huge sum of money and just copy pastes some other designer's hard work as his own? How would you feel if someone is making money off of your hard work? Btw I am not entirely sure if the original artist is pressing charges against the copies, but by law, you should have an option to. I support you in the fight against patent trolls, but this is just out right theft :/
    - kazagistar 13y ago
      I don't mind people earning money off my hard work? I already did it, and was already paid for it. The only problem I see is that customers are being scammed into thinking they purchased a unique logo... there is contract law to resolve such problems.
      - xerophtye 13y ago
        Well what if neither of you were contract-hired freelancers? What if you were employees? or founders of your own companies? That kinda chucks contract-law out the window. So how will you ensure people aren't using your company's logo as their own? Remember, it isn't necessary that the company would be willing to change their design/logo just because you are using it too. This discussion extends to design too. Nobody minds using someone else's design if it's good enough.
      - xerophtye 13y ago
        Oh and you might not mind it, but some people might. The law should provide them protection. The choice to press charges or not should be Yours. There SHOULD be a choice. Btw, since we are discussing copyrights as a whole, this reminds me of the oatmeal incident. Other sites just picking up his comics and using them to get traffic (and thus diverting traffic what would have been potentially his) is completely wrong. It is depriving him of his hard earned money via those visitors. Now shouldn't the Law help him get what is rightfully his? I think i understand where you are coming from, these things should never hinder creative process. And you are right. But copyrights exist fundamentally to guard against plagiarism. Not to say "i thought of this first! you can't think of it now!", but yes, sadly in recent times IP has come to that...
- kazagistar 13y ago
  There are demonstrations where, given a set of cues, or just a vague description of a products, designers converge of very very similar designs. We all live in the same culture, and are exposed to the same stimuli... unintentional or convergent replication of ideas is not only possible, but reasonably common. Additionally, many industries are IP-free, and are doing excellent nonetheless: recipes and fashion come to mind.

mattermill 13y ago

Are you real?

mparlane 13y ago
Are you just fantasy?

hristov 13y ago

I think it is stealing and it is pretty bad. Intellectual property can be misused when it is used to capture something (whether an artistic expression or an invention) that is not very unique or inventive or creative and would have been easily used and discovered by many others had the original "inventor" or "artist" not created it. At that point, intellectual property becomes oppressive. But this is not the case here. These are unique artistic expressions. True they are simple, but it is impossible to imagine someone creating the same thing without knowing the original. There is practically an unlimited number of ways one can convey a logo. Protecting the rights of one logo does not meaningfully limit the rights of others (if you ignore the "right" to get artistic work done for free). In these cases we should allow the artist to have a right to their creation.

allochthon 13y ago
You've described the technical meaning of stealing very well. But I don't think it's ontologically possible for a person to own something like these logos. Such ownership is a legal fiction set up by legal traditions whose intellectual property protections have started to become more of a problem than a solution. Their remaining relevance it seems to me is to empower corporations such as IBM and Microsoft to extract rent (in the context of patents), and to give money to attorneys and politicians and lobbyists. It is hard for me to have much sympathy for the notion that such protections are in place in the present context primarily for artist making the logo (in the case of trademark, etc.) when there are so many other interests that hang just a little bit back in the background. In most cases on the site the copies are undeniably in bad taste. But not something to be protected by law, in my opinion.
- xerophtye 13y ago
  Well considering people charge a lot for logo design, and apparently it does take expertise and effort (remember the Yahoo logo debacle?), so shouldn't it be a crime that some logo designer charges a huge sum of money and just copy pastes some other designer's hard work as his own? How would you feel if someone is making money off of your hard work? Btw I am not entirely sure if the original artist is pressing charges against the copies, but by law, you should have an option to. I support you in the fight against patent trolls, but this is just out right theft :/
  - kazagistar 13y ago
    I don't mind people earning money off my hard work? I already did it, and was already paid for it. The only problem I see is that customers are being scammed into thinking they purchased a unique logo... there is contract law to resolve such problems.
    - xerophtye 13y ago
      Well what if neither of you were contract-hired freelancers? What if you were employees? or founders of your own companies? That kinda chucks contract-law out the window. So how will you ensure people aren't using your company's logo as their own? Remember, it isn't necessary that the company would be willing to change their design/logo just because you are using it too. This discussion extends to design too. Nobody minds using someone else's design if it's good enough.
    - xerophtye 13y ago
      Oh and you might not mind it, but some people might. The law should provide them protection. The choice to press charges or not should be Yours. There SHOULD be a choice. Btw, since we are discussing copyrights as a whole, this reminds me of the oatmeal incident. Other sites just picking up his comics and using them to get traffic (and thus diverting traffic what would have been potentially his) is completely wrong. It is depriving him of his hard earned money via those visitors. Now shouldn't the Law help him get what is rightfully his? I think i understand where you are coming from, these things should never hinder creative process. And you are right. But copyrights exist fundamentally to guard against plagiarism. Not to say "i thought of this first! you can't think of it now!", but yes, sadly in recent times IP has come to that...
kazagistar 13y ago
There are demonstrations where, given a set of cues, or just a vague description of a products, designers converge of very very similar designs. We all live in the same culture, and are exposed to the same stimuli... unintentional or convergent replication of ideas is not only possible, but reasonably common. Additionally, many industries are IP-free, and are doing excellent nonetheless: recipes and fashion come to mind.