9 ms·

I don't see the problem with this, now the image is popular and recognisable, companies are profiting from his creation. Why shouldn't he get a licensing fee fo

I don't see the problem with this, now the image is popular and recognisable, companies are profiting from his creation. Why shouldn't he get a licensing fee for that?

Mahn 12y ago
Because he didn't distribute it as such. Do you think the image would have become half as popular if he had posted it as "here's a face I drew in mspaint, I intend to change royalties for its use if it get catches on, enjoy"? No, the reason it was used everywhere is because it was assumed to be license-free, and usually the people hit by this wouldn't have otherwise used it. I don't have anything against creators earning royalties from their work, but in my eyes this is akin to charging a user for a subscription without his knowledge.
- slazaro 12y ago
  If I'm not mistaken, he's only asking for money from whoever is profiting from it and he's not bothering anybody that just uses the image in a non-commercial way. Still kind of weird because it more or less belongs to "the people" and everybody uses it, but if someone is profiting from it, I don't see a problem with him getting a share.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  > the reason it was used everywhere is because it was assumed to be license-free, and usually the people hit by this wouldn't have otherwise used it. Exactly. An image that is free for non-commercial use requires you to think whether your use is really non-commercial in nature, which is too much of a cognitive burden, so you go and pick another one. Moreover, this image wouldn't actually be famous if not for the number of people who profited on it already - namely, all that image sharing sites that have ads on them.
- mikkom 12y ago
  > No, the reason it was used everywhere is because it was assumed to be license-free What does that even mean? No image or any art is "licence-free" unless author explicitly states so. That's the basis of copyright, your creations are yours (unless you give them away). Publishing your work doesn't change anything.
  - comboy 12y ago
    He posted it to 4chan. "The next day, though, Ramirez was merely pleased to see others sharing his one-off doodle. In the anonymous world of 4chan, having other people recognize your contribution felt good." He clearly didn't have any issue with that, and without any license posted, that was already a violation wasn't it? They shared his work without stating the author and without his permission. Yet he was happy about that, until he smelled some money. It's like if you would put a basket of candies, some people approach you and try to take it, and you're like "sure, take it, I'm glad you like it". And this keeps on for a while. And then some guy in a suite comes in and takes one candy like so many others. At which point you start running after him shouting "THIEF! He stole my candy!"
    - mikkom 12y ago
      As I already said, by publishing your own work you don't give your rights for the work away. Yes, he's suing people who are using his artwork to make money for themselves. Why do you think that is a problem and why do you think they shouldn't pay him a cut for using his artwork?
      - comboy 12y ago
        It goes along with how trademark laws in US work (I think), if you don't defend them, you lose rights. IANAL so this could be a bad example. Law is on his side, so they should pay. My problem is just with him changing his mind at some point. Not defending his rights from the start and even being happy about them being broken could suggest that he meant it to be free. And as others mentioned, there's no chance that it would have any value whatsoever if it wasn't. E.g. company X puts some small open source code online (yes, nowadays nobody would touch it without a license). People modify it, improve it, share it, build on top of it. Company X often tweets "awesome to see how our code spreads and all fantastic usages of it". And then after some time it sues. i.e. as others mentioned, this picture would have no value if it would not (assumed to) be in public domain and without all thousands comics and memes done on top of it.
        12y ago
- jeffbush 12y ago
  My understanding from the article is that he posted a comic strip that contained the image and people cut that image out of it. This was not how he intended for it to be used. Furthermore, the article implies the people he's going after are making money off it. If you have a business (even a small one) that is making money, I think you have no excuse for not making sure you have rights to the material you are using. So, I don't think it's fair to blame Carlos because other people misused his copyrighted material without his consent.
  - userbinator 12y ago
    He posted it to 4chan, where remixing and reposting images others have posted is the norm. In fact that's why it got popular as a meme.
- anon4 12y ago
  He didn't attach a license to it, so it gets the standard "creator owns copyright on this until Disney stops prolonging copyright terms" license. The fact that he didn't sue at first in now way implies that it's public domain.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

I don't see the problem with this, now the image is popular and recognisable, companies are profiting from his creation. Why shouldn't he get a licensing fee for that?

Mahn 12y ago

Because he didn't distribute it as such. Do you think the image would have become half as popular if he had posted it as "here's a face I drew in mspaint, I intend to change royalties for its use if it get catches on, enjoy"? No, the reason it was used everywhere is because it was assumed to be license-free, and usually the people hit by this wouldn't have otherwise used it. I don't have anything against creators earning royalties from their work, but in my eyes this is akin to charging a user for a subscription without his knowledge.

slazaro 12y ago
If I'm not mistaken, he's only asking for money from whoever is profiting from it and he's not bothering anybody that just uses the image in a non-commercial way. Still kind of weird because it more or less belongs to "the people" and everybody uses it, but if someone is profiting from it, I don't see a problem with him getting a share.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
> the reason it was used everywhere is because it was assumed to be license-free, and usually the people hit by this wouldn't have otherwise used it. Exactly. An image that is free for non-commercial use requires you to think whether your use is really non-commercial in nature, which is too much of a cognitive burden, so you go and pick another one. Moreover, this image wouldn't actually be famous if not for the number of people who profited on it already - namely, all that image sharing sites that have ads on them.
mikkom 12y ago
> No, the reason it was used everywhere is because it was assumed to be license-free What does that even mean? No image or any art is "licence-free" unless author explicitly states so. That's the basis of copyright, your creations are yours (unless you give them away). Publishing your work doesn't change anything.
- comboy 12y ago
  He posted it to 4chan. "The next day, though, Ramirez was merely pleased to see others sharing his one-off doodle. In the anonymous world of 4chan, having other people recognize your contribution felt good." He clearly didn't have any issue with that, and without any license posted, that was already a violation wasn't it? They shared his work without stating the author and without his permission. Yet he was happy about that, until he smelled some money. It's like if you would put a basket of candies, some people approach you and try to take it, and you're like "sure, take it, I'm glad you like it". And this keeps on for a while. And then some guy in a suite comes in and takes one candy like so many others. At which point you start running after him shouting "THIEF! He stole my candy!"
  - mikkom 12y ago
    As I already said, by publishing your own work you don't give your rights for the work away. Yes, he's suing people who are using his artwork to make money for themselves. Why do you think that is a problem and why do you think they shouldn't pay him a cut for using his artwork?
    - comboy 12y ago
      It goes along with how trademark laws in US work (I think), if you don't defend them, you lose rights. IANAL so this could be a bad example. Law is on his side, so they should pay. My problem is just with him changing his mind at some point. Not defending his rights from the start and even being happy about them being broken could suggest that he meant it to be free. And as others mentioned, there's no chance that it would have any value whatsoever if it wasn't. E.g. company X puts some small open source code online (yes, nowadays nobody would touch it without a license). People modify it, improve it, share it, build on top of it. Company X often tweets "awesome to see how our code spreads and all fantastic usages of it". And then after some time it sues. i.e. as others mentioned, this picture would have no value if it would not (assumed to) be in public domain and without all thousands comics and memes done on top of it.
      - 12y ago
jeffbush 12y ago
My understanding from the article is that he posted a comic strip that contained the image and people cut that image out of it. This was not how he intended for it to be used. Furthermore, the article implies the people he's going after are making money off it. If you have a business (even a small one) that is making money, I think you have no excuse for not making sure you have rights to the material you are using. So, I don't think it's fair to blame Carlos because other people misused his copyrighted material without his consent.
- userbinator 12y ago
  He posted it to 4chan, where remixing and reposting images others have posted is the norm. In fact that's why it got popular as a meme.
anon4 12y ago
He didn't attach a license to it, so it gets the standard "creator owns copyright on this until Disney stops prolonging copyright terms" license. The fact that he didn't sue at first in now way implies that it's public domain.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]