4 ms·

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. Suc

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...
b1daly 13y ago
All property is a legal fiction, is it not?
coldtea 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 The same is true for a car, an iPhone or a piece of land. Any ownership is not "ontological" or natural, it's just as "legal fiction" as intellectual property. Humanity has the custom that a person can have a claim on an item or a piece of land, and that's it.
- allochthon 13y ago
  I don't think you can own a concept in the same way that you can own a car, iphone or plot of land. They're in fundamentally different categories. Ownership of things and land is a perfectly legitimate thing. Ownership of concepts is not.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >Ownership of things and land is a perfectly legitimate thing. It might be legitimate (or not), but that's another issue -- it still is "legal fiction", that is, there is no "natural law" that justifies people owning a piece of land or anything else for that matter. It's just something we, as society accept as valid (and not even all societies: there are tribal societies where land belongs to all, for example, or societies where land belongs to the crown). In the same sense, ownership of concepts is something that a society can accept as valid (or not). In any case, our society seems to accept the notion just fine, seeing that copying some kind of concepts without permission can land you a hefty fine.

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...

b1daly 13y ago

All property is a legal fiction, is it not?

coldtea 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 The same is true for a car, an iPhone or a piece of land. Any ownership is not "ontological" or natural, it's just as "legal fiction" as intellectual property. Humanity has the custom that a person can have a claim on an item or a piece of land, and that's it.

allochthon 13y ago
I don't think you can own a concept in the same way that you can own a car, iphone or plot of land. They're in fundamentally different categories. Ownership of things and land is a perfectly legitimate thing. Ownership of concepts is not.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Ownership of things and land is a perfectly legitimate thing. It might be legitimate (or not), but that's another issue -- it still is "legal fiction", that is, there is no "natural law" that justifies people owning a piece of land or anything else for that matter. It's just something we, as society accept as valid (and not even all societies: there are tribal societies where land belongs to all, for example, or societies where land belongs to the crown). In the same sense, ownership of concepts is something that a society can accept as valid (or not). In any case, our society seems to accept the notion just fine, seeing that copying some kind of concepts without permission can land you a hefty fine.