View Single Post
  #988  
Old 2008-12-28, 4:42pm
moondanse's Avatar
moondanse moondanse is offline
Honey Badger
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 1,604
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoltenMuse View Post


At the risk of repeating myself (ad nauseum), there is a distinction between permitting the replication of a copyright protected design for learning purposes (in this case, via an instructional tutorial) vs. the "after market" fate of the replicated design product (the product derived from the tutorial). These are two distinctly protected areas within copyright law. One has nothing to do with the other and therefore there is no such situation where a copyright is "given" by the tutorial writer and then "revoked" once a bead is created by the tutorial user. It simply can't and doesn't happen because there was never permissions given in the first place with respect to the newly created "replica bead's" fate once it was created from the tutorial. The post tutorial product remains fully protected by the copyright of the original design and charging money for a tutorial and receiving same in no way undermines the full protection of the copyright law that exists.

a) A tutorial author gives permission to the tutorial purchaser to replicate a bead for learning purposes. This is the *only right* the tutorial user has when purchasing instructions on how to make a particular copyrighted design of bead. By purchasing the tutorial, there is no inherent permissions for what happens with the product resulting from following the techniques in the tutorial once created (this is now referred to as the "replicated bead").

b) The creation of the "replicated bead" remains fully covered by the copyright of the original designer. Any after market use of a bead replicated from instructions in a tutorial requires specific permissions from the designer who holds the copyright for the original design. The law is very clear that the only exception to this rule is when a tutorial user incorporates significant changes to the design as to make is substantially different than the design of the original so that it no longer resembles the original.

The proposed argument of "if one can establish copyright to begin with" strikes me as fairly desperate semantics in a discussion which should include professional ethics and respect for the innovations of artists (aspiring and otherwise).
If what you have posted is a fact, and not speculation, or your opinion, then I will agree that users of tuts need explicit permission to copy and sell the beads. UNCLE.
I have to add, however:
1. That just don't make no sense.
2. I think everyone should abide by the law, and I certainly will. (Not like everyone was shaking in their boots that I would copy their beads and get rich-LOL)
__________________
Lauren
Reply With Quote