Lampwork Etc.
 
AKDesign

LE Live Chat

Enter Live Chat

No users in chat


Frantz Art Glass & Supply

Beads of Courage


 

Go Back   Lampwork Etc. > Library > Tips, Techniques, and Questions

Tips, Techniques, and Questions -- Technical questions or tips

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #961  
Old 2008-12-28, 10:18am
Asil4's Avatar
Asil4 Asil4 is offline
Don't dis The Cheese
 
Join Date: Jan 17, 2008
Location: Into the Mystic
Posts: 1,459
Default

I'd say 4b is still at odds too.

B. Techniques covered in the tutorial may be used by the purchaser to create beads of their own design.

They may also create beads of the same design that is covered in the tutorial.

I also don't think there has been consensus on 5b

B. Tutorial purchasers may not replicate any bead pictured in the tutorial for commercial purposes unless copyright to the bead or beads pictured is explicitly relinguished by the author.

In order for the student/purchaser to complete the tutorial, they will; step by step be replicating the bead or beads pictured. The author has given explicit permission for them to do so, thus relinquishing their copyright to that person. They can't say they will relinquish that right for "just long enough" to collect some $$ from the student and then put it back in place. I don't see anywhere that says that once permission is given it can be taken back for the benefit of the copyright holder.

Lisa
__________________
~Lisa

It takes a lot more "faith" to believe that man did all of this all by himself than it does to believe that he had help.

It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for something you are not. ~Andre Gide
Reply With Quote
  #962  
Old 2008-12-28, 10:18am
sarah_hornik sarah_hornik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 24, 2006
Location: Israel
Posts: 1,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artic^wolf View Post
There is an international agreement Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
Oh, cool. Thanks.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #963  
Old 2008-12-28, 10:23am
pam's Avatar
pam pam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 15, 2005
Posts: 2,251
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artic^wolf View Post
There is an international agreement Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_C...Artistic_Works


The Berne Convention requires its signatories to recognise the copyright of works of authors from other signatory countries (known as members of the Berne Union) in the same way it recognises the copyright of its own nationals. For example, French copyright law applies to anything published or performed in France, regardless of where it was originally created.

This page lists all the countries that have signed the agreement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ght_agreements
Lori, looks like you and I were thinking the same thing. You are just faster than I am.
__________________
Pam

"It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it." Johann Wolfgang Von Goeth

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My Blog
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #964  
Old 2008-12-28, 10:28am
artic^wolf's Avatar
artic^wolf artic^wolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 08, 2008
Location: south jersey
Posts: 2,114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pam View Post
Lori, looks like you and I were thinking the same thing. You are just faster than I am.
LOL, trust me, that is a rare occurrence. Especially if anyone could see me type...then go back andd fix all my typos
__________________
Lori

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #965  
Old 2008-12-28, 12:12pm
miahawk's Avatar
miahawk miahawk is offline
disco granola punk
 
Join Date: Oct 14, 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pam View Post
1) Tutorial authors have copyright protection for their tutorial.
A. This protection covers the right of the author to distribute the tutorial.
B. This protection explicitly prohibits the distribution of unauthorized copies of the tutorial by a purchaser or a holder of a copy of the tutorial.
C. Right of First Sale allows the purchaser of a tutorial to distribute the purchased tutorial as he or she sees fit, thus relinguishing all rights to the tutorial.
1C does not apply to digital media. if something was purchased in digital form, it cannot be distributed by the purchaser because of the difficulty in guaranteeing the relinquishment of rights.
__________________
miahawk AKA skyisland design AKA Michelle Courchaine

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


(retired from lampworking due to ill health)
Reply With Quote
  #966  
Old 2008-12-28, 12:30pm
pam's Avatar
pam pam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 15, 2005
Posts: 2,251
Default

Thanks, Miahawk. I will remove 1C. Do you have any way of wording it so that the purchaser has the right to pass on the original purchased tutorial to another person, perhaps limiting it to "printed tutorial"? Or, are you saying that once purchased the purchaser has no way to pass the information to anyone else. For instance, if I purchase a book and later on decide I don't want it, I may sell it or gift it to a friend. Can you not do that with a tutorial?
__________________
Pam

"It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it." Johann Wolfgang Von Goeth

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My Blog
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #967  
Old 2008-12-28, 12:34pm
artic^wolf's Avatar
artic^wolf artic^wolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 08, 2008
Location: south jersey
Posts: 2,114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miahawk View Post
1C does not apply to digital media. if something was purchased in digital form, it cannot be distributed by the purchaser because of the difficulty in guaranteeing the relinquishment of rights.
Actually the same could be said for any format, Books, DVD's and CD's all have the potential to be copied and the original sold, while the copy is held in the sellers possession.

But there is some case law on the books that separates the definition of software from other electronic media.

The 8th Circuit in 2006 rules that embroidery software was not really software, which is interactive, but actually mere "instructons" to a sewing machine saying that Action Tapes' memory cards contain only data, not computer programs, and are not covered by federal software laws. In Bobbs-Merril vs Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (190, the Supreme Court limited the rights of copyright holders to only those allowed by statute.

http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/...yDesigns.shtml

Tutorials also contain only information and would not be considered software, excluding them from the new digital laws.

More on the case:

Under copyright's first sale doctrine nobody can stop you from reselling or renting out copyrighted material, like books and movies, that you've legally acquired. But with the 1990 Computer Software Rental Amendments Act, Congress carved out an exception for computer programs, prohibiting anyone from renting, leasing or lending them without permission of the copyright holder.

So the case turned on whether Action Tapes' electronically-stored embroidery designs are computer programs or not. It's an interesting question. The statute defines a program as "a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer to bring about a certain result."

The Action Tapes cartridges contain code that tells computerized sewing machines how to stitch the embroidery pattern. "In essence," the plaintiff wrote in an appellate brief, "the memory card 'tells the machine what to do.'"
The judge who heard the Action Tapes case applied her own analysis and concluded that real computer programs are interactive. She dismissed Action Tapes' complaint. Today the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision (.pdf), though on different grounds: it seems Action Tapes couldn't prove it properly registered the embroidery code as software with the U.S. Copyright Office.
__________________
Lori

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #968  
Old 2008-12-28, 12:54pm
miahawk's Avatar
miahawk miahawk is offline
disco granola punk
 
Join Date: Oct 14, 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pam View Post
Thanks, Miahawk. I will remove 1C. Do you have any way of wording it so that the purchaser has the right to pass on the original purchased tutorial to another person, perhaps limiting it to "printed tutorial"? Or, are you saying that once purchased the purchaser has no way to pass the information to anyone else. For instance, if I purchase a book and later on decide I don't want it, I may sell it or gift it to a friend. Can you not do that with a tutorial?
there is a case currently in the courts that may change or refine this, but the first sale doctrine has been determined by the copyright office not to apply to digital media at this point.

the case cited by artic^wolf also addresses rentals/loans, not transfer of ownership.

if a book or tutorial originates as a printed copy from the author or authorized distributor, first sale applies. if it originates as a digital copy, first sale does not apply. we're all free to resell our books, CDs and DVDs, but not the contents in/on them. digital files cannot be redistributed by a purchaser. that's what copyright law says. authors are free to relinquish any of their rights they want at any time, but if they do they cannot reclaim them.

I'm not sure how to word something like that, unless it's simply to say that digital files cannot be sold or transferred without the express permission of the copyright owner.
__________________
miahawk AKA skyisland design AKA Michelle Courchaine

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


(retired from lampworking due to ill health)
Reply With Quote
  #969  
Old 2008-12-28, 1:02pm
pam's Avatar
pam pam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 15, 2005
Posts: 2,251
Default

Hi Lisa, I'm really curious as to why you, or anyone, do not believe 5B is correct.

5B - Tutorial purchasers may not replicate any bead pictured in the tutorial for commercial purposes unless copyright to the bead or beads pictured is explicitly relinguished by the author.

Could you suggest a wording that you could agree with?

I think we all agree that copyright attaches to the tutorial and inclusively and separately to the pictures of beads contained in the tutorial, because that is the copyright law. Copyright law pertains to any book written, or any art work, so what is the problem? Do you believe that because it is a tutorial the bead pictured is then exempt from copyright protection? I really am trying to understand the reasoning.
__________________
Pam

"It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it." Johann Wolfgang Von Goeth

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My Blog
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #970  
Old 2008-12-28, 1:04pm
pam's Avatar
pam pam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 15, 2005
Posts: 2,251
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miahawk View Post
there is a case currently in the courts that may change or refine this, but the first sale doctrine has been determined by the copyright office not to apply to digital media at this point.

the case cited by artic^wolf also addresses rentals/loans, not transfer of ownership.

if a book or tutorial originates as a printed copy from the author or authorized distributor, first sale applies. if it originates as a digital copy, first sale does not apply. we're all free to resell our books, CDs and DVDs, but not the contents in/on them. digital files cannot be redistributed by a purchaser. that's what copyright law says. authors are free to relinquish any of their rights they want at any time, but if they do they cannot reclaim them.

I'm not sure how to word something like that, unless it's simply to say that digital files cannot be sold or transferred without the express permission of the copyright owner.
That sounds perfect. Thank you.
__________________
Pam

"It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it." Johann Wolfgang Von Goeth

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My Blog
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #971  
Old 2008-12-28, 1:11pm
artic^wolf's Avatar
artic^wolf artic^wolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 08, 2008
Location: south jersey
Posts: 2,114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miahawk View Post
there is a case currently in the courts that may change or refine this, but the first sale doctrine has been determined by the copyright office not to apply to digital media at this point.

the case cited by artic^wolf also addresses rentals/loans, not transfer of ownership.

if a book or tutorial originates as a printed copy from the author or authorized distributor, first sale applies. if it originates as a digital copy, first sale does not apply. we're all free to resell our books, CDs and DVDs, but not the contents in/on them. digital files cannot be redistributed by a purchaser. that's what copyright law says. authors are free to relinquish any of their rights they want at any time, but if they do they cannot reclaim them.

I'm not sure how to word something like that, unless it's simply to say that digital files cannot be sold or transferred without the express permission of the copyright owner.
Actually the case cited turned on the definition of software. Because there was a law concerning the exception of computer programs prohibiting renting, leasing, lending (none of these terms prohibits sale of)

Under copyright's first sale doctrine nobody can stop you from reselling or renting out copyrighted material, like books and movies, that you've legally acquired. But with the 1990 Computer Software Rental Amendments Act, Congress carved out an exception for computer programs, prohibiting anyone from renting, leasing or lending them without permission of the copyright holder.


The case I cited showed where the court went further to define the terminology of what would be included in the definition, showing a precedence that not all electronic media is software. When a precedence in case law is presented in court it is used in deciding the case...unless the court decides to over turn the previous decision.

I would be very interested in the case law that you found on this.
__________________
Lori

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #972  
Old 2008-12-28, 1:21pm
miahawk's Avatar
miahawk miahawk is offline
disco granola punk
 
Join Date: Oct 14, 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,190
Default

right Lori, the case you cited did differentiate software from other types of digital media, but it was still about renting/loaning, not reselling. tutorials are more than likely not going to end up being classified as software, so regular digital copyrights apply until there's a change.
__________________
miahawk AKA skyisland design AKA Michelle Courchaine

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


(retired from lampworking due to ill health)
Reply With Quote
  #973  
Old 2008-12-28, 1:38pm
artic^wolf's Avatar
artic^wolf artic^wolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 08, 2008
Location: south jersey
Posts: 2,114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miahawk View Post
right Lori, the case you cited did differentiate software from other types of digital media, but it was still about renting/loaning, not reselling. tutorials are more than likely not going to end up being classified as software, so regular digital copyrights apply until there's a change.
The reason i went to that case, is because currently the only exception in First Sale Doctrine is for computer software. If a tutorial is not included in the legal definition of computer programs or software the exclusion from First Sale Doctrine does not apply.

The case that you are referring to that could change that hasn't had a decision yet? Until another exclusion is found tutorials are still subject to First Sale Doctrine.
__________________
Lori

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #974  
Old 2008-12-28, 1:43pm
Torch&Marver Torch&Marver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 19, 2007
Posts: 1,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarah_hornik View Post

For me, it's more about community ethics and respect than what the law says or doesn't say.
Hear, hear! I agree with this wholeheartedly.

The sad truth is that laws exist to cover areas where individuals can't conduct themselves according to ethics alone (I'm speaking in very broad terms here - not about specific people involved or lurking on this thread). Clearly, copyright is a huge and still mostly grey area. It does attempt to provide some degree of protection, however, and there is very clear indications in the act that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for going forward and committing copyright infringement.

FTR, I'm not in the US either. Our laws in Canada provide similar protections though the wording may be slightly different.

Thank you, Pam -- for taking the time to compile the information. It seems very clear and even more so in the form you've presented it in. As for the desire to reinterpret some sections of it to read other than what it says, I suppose that's why defense attorneys exist.
Reply With Quote
  #975  
Old 2008-12-28, 1:54pm
miahawk's Avatar
miahawk miahawk is offline
disco granola punk
 
Join Date: Oct 14, 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artic^wolf View Post
The reason i went to that case, is because currently the only exception in First Sale Doctrine is for computer software. If a tutorial is not included in the legal definition of computer programs or software the exclusion from First Sale Doctrine does not apply.

The case that you are referring to that could change that hasn't had a decision yet? Until another exclusion is found tutorials are still subject to First Sale Doctrine.
actually, until the law is changed, digital files are excluded from the first sale doctrine:
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/stu...executive.html
__________________
miahawk AKA skyisland design AKA Michelle Courchaine

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


(retired from lampworking due to ill health)
Reply With Quote
  #976  
Old 2008-12-28, 2:38pm
Asil4's Avatar
Asil4 Asil4 is offline
Don't dis The Cheese
 
Join Date: Jan 17, 2008
Location: Into the Mystic
Posts: 1,459
Default

Pam- what I am suggesting is that first you have to establish that a copyright exists. If you don't have the rights to the subject matter to begin with, putting together a tutorial on it doesn't provide that for you. If you put together a tutorial on a technique that has already been covered by another tutorial, you'd be hard pressed to be eligible for copyright protection for yours under the law.

Then, if you establish that you do indeed have a solid copy right, you have the responsibility to act in a manner consistent with upholding it. You can't just do whatever you want and expect that your copyright is still intact.

If you want to protect your legitimate copyright to a specific bead, the act of teaching others, step by step how to replicate it, by either giving that knowledge away or selling it, is acting in a manner inconsistent with the protection of your copy rights. At that moment, you have relinquished your copyright to that bead.

You cannot effectively complete a tutorial for a specific bead without replicating that bead and through that process, the copyright owner has given you explicit permission to replicate it. A person could go through a tutorial dozens of times, replicating that bead, step by step, with the copyright owner's explicit permission to do so.

Once you have given permission, you can't take it back and make your copyright whole again. You have, in essence, by teaching someone else, relinquished your copyright to that bead, to that person you sold the tutorial to.

The law wasn't meant to apply for only certain periods of time with regard to relinquishment and it didn't say that you could de-relinquish after taking a break from it to make some money, and your rights made whole again.

I'm wondering if this list is being compiled so that later, when this issue inevitably returns, folks will simply point to it for "answers."
__________________
~Lisa

It takes a lot more "faith" to believe that man did all of this all by himself than it does to believe that he had help.

It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for something you are not. ~Andre Gide

Last edited by Asil4; 2008-12-28 at 2:46pm.
Reply With Quote
  #977  
Old 2008-12-28, 2:38pm
pam's Avatar
pam pam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 15, 2005
Posts: 2,251
Default

All I really wanted to do was put forth all the discussion in a clear, concise way so that we can all look it over and decide if this is our understanding. If this is the understanding, then purchasers and tutorial writers alike know their limits and their protections and the tutorial writers will know what they have to do to give permission to the purchasers to copy the beads, should they so desire, and purchasers will know to look for that permission if their wish is to copy the beads. Hopefully it will make everyone feel easier and more confident when both selling and buying a tutorial, which is what I think Jen's initial goal was. I think!
__________________
Pam

"It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it." Johann Wolfgang Von Goeth

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My Blog
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #978  
Old 2008-12-28, 2:41pm
midniteburner's Avatar
midniteburner midniteburner is offline
She's Back & Burnin'
 
Join Date: Jun 11, 2005
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 3,117
Default

Miakawk,

Let me see if I have this right...

Beadmaker Sally writes a tutorial that sells for $15. Newbie Nancy purchases it. Newbie Nancy has the right to put it in the Garage for sale?

Sara
__________________
Midrange torch and too many tanks of oxygen!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




Reply With Quote
  #979  
Old 2008-12-28, 2:42pm
Moth Moth is offline
Mary Lockwood
 
Join Date: Jun 21, 2005
Location: Boonies
Posts: 5,831
Default

20 pages to this thread now. I read up to 18. If I missed anything in the last two pages that hadn't already been said 14 times before...I apologize.

I'm only butting in to add that I think it was Einstein who said, 'The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources'...or something like that. Even he knew that there are overlaps in creation. We are all getting our inspiration from somewhere, direct copies or not.

Even if I personally felt I own something, obviously nobody else thinks I do and trying to keep a grip on something like that is like trying to hold onto jello by squeezing it harder in the palm of your hand. LOL The tighter you try to hold on, the more you lose.

I can only control Mary. I wrote tutorials and recognize human nature enough to know that some people were going to use them as they saw fit no matter what I requested or permitted. I bought tutorials and personally choose NOT to make the designs from them, but to use the new techniques and integrate them into my own beads. I'm not a hobbyist. I'm not a part-timer. I'm not just trying to keep my fingers busy or pass time. I don't consider myself an artist either, it makes me feel funny to say or write that but it seems to be the standard description glass peeps give themselves so I do use it sometimes. I just make stuff. My stuff. I don't want to make other people's stuff. It is my choice.

Not everyone will make that same choice. I cringed when I saw that bangle bead tutorial for sale, not because I was judging the author, but because I knew that a shit storm was coming and I was right. I knew what SOME other people would think, what they would say. It wasn't going to be pretty. It IS predictable.

THIS is exactly what tutorial writers are trying to warn people about, just geared toward beads instead of tutorials. If the author of that tutorial would have asked me what I thought, I would have had to in good conscience tell her that I thought she was putting her neck in a noose. The copying issue is too inflammatory to want anything to do with it.

Same thing with beads. Here is where I have a contradiction to myself even. I share freely. I give permission for anyone to do whatever they want with my tutorial. They would have anyway, so why not be gracious about it? If you make a bead directly from my tutorial...go ahead sell it, gift it, smash it, string it...it is your bead. But if you sell it and someone NOT aware of my tutorial, not aware of LE threads, not aware of my website notice giving permission, it is very possible you will be called out. Just like that tutorial author is being called out right now. It happens! It does.

So, do I tell you to take what you want from me...but then not warn you what might happen if you do? Even if it doesn't come directly from ME, it could come from someone else. The only time I've ever been accused of copying, it was a friend of the originating artist who confronted me. Not the artist herself...a friend of hers.

I am well aware that there are lots of types of glass workers. Some want to be originators, some are real artists, some are hobbyists, some of dabblers, some are newbies with great potential, some are oldies with no potential at all. LOL We all have different goals, different perspectives.

I wrote a disclaimer on my tutorial sale page allowing people to do whatever they want to do with the beads they make from my tutorials. But I did not take out my encouraging statements within the tutorials urging people to stretch and grow. I'm sorry if this offends people who don't want to stretch and grow, or are just out to have fun. But there are some people who buy my tutorials who aren't like that and I have to write to them as well. Those little snippets of text aren't aimed at people who would disregard it anyway...they are aimed at those who want something different and are working toward it. I can't take them out and still feel like myself.

I don't think tutorial writers are trying to have their cake and eat it too. I know I'm not. I truly, deeply, honestly don't feel territorial about the beads I make. I really don't care if you list a jellyfish bead on etsy right next to mine. Truly don't mind at all. I'm just not wired that way. But that doesn't mean someone else might not think something about it.

I also don't think tutorial writers need to make decisions for other people. But do you think that the tutorial writer now defending her actions wouldn't have appreciated a heads-up? A friendly reminder of how a lynch mob works? A road sign saying...icy bridge ahead?

Or maybe there is a new bead maker out there who thinks they just can't come up with anything original or fresh. Maybe all they need is a nudge, a gentle push. That is who my statements about 'springboard' and 'starting point' are geared toward.

If you don't want to use them as a springboard, that's fine. Copy the tutorial word for word and do whatever you want. To each his own. But I can't take those out. I just can't. I can't control YOU...I can only control ME and I intend to.

I do get kinda sad when I see the negative bickering in threads like this. Quite a bit of it was uncalled for and did nothing to further the discussion. A lot of this boils down to the difference between technique and design and frankly even if that DID get ironed out in this thread, LE is just the tip of the iceburg. What about all the beadmakers out there who don't have an online presence? (aka most of them) What if they don't get the memo? LOL

I know what technique is, I know what design is...to me. For someone else it is different.

If you apply it to something familiar...like the term interior design, here is how it breaks down in my mind:

techniques:
hanging curtains
sewing pillows
painting walls
laying carpet

style:
asian
southwestern
traditional
french provincial

design:
How you execute the techniques and choose the materials to result in a certain style.

For example,
I choose pale yellow floral and sew it into panel curtains. I make blue toile pillow shams. I paint the walls a neutral shade of cream and add some dark wood furniture.

I have just created a french provincial styled room. However, because I have chosen unique patterns, fabrics, and furniture pieces, the room I DESIGNED will look different than a room another designer might have come up with. Same style---french provincial--different design.

Apply this same mentality to beadmaking and you get this:

techniques
raised dots
applying twisties
using a razor to sculpt hot glass
silver leaf on the surface

style:
goddess bead

Design:
Form a base of ivory, add raised dots for the breasts, use twisties for the hair, use the razor to sculpt the legs and other creases, apply silver leaf to the surface and burn off

OK, so say that was what the tutorial taught you, BUT

option #2 using the same exact techniques:

Form a base bead of ivory, sculpt the chest with the razor to form a male chest, add male dangly bits with raised dots and twistie, apply silver leaf to the backside but leave shiny and intact.

Two completely different designs in the same style with the same techniques.

This feels so simple to me, but I guarantee you some people disagree with me and they feel that what they believe is so simple to them and can't understand why nobody else GETS IT.

Nobody else gets it because we don't all agree. We are never going to agree.

Even if we get most people to agree, we are never all going to think it is the same thing.

The best thing we can do is control ourselves and stop trying to control everybody else.

~~Mary
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Reply With Quote
  #980  
Old 2008-12-28, 2:53pm
sarah_hornik sarah_hornik is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 24, 2006
Location: Israel
Posts: 1,330
Default

Well said, Mary.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #981  
Old 2008-12-28, 2:55pm
moondanse's Avatar
moondanse moondanse is offline
Honey Badger
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 1,604
Default

I agree completely, Lisa.

Some of us don't agree that copyright laws protect tutorials because the author is teaching how to make the exact bead. Anyone interested in protecting their work should not sell information about replicating it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Asil4 View Post
Pam- what I am suggesting is that first you have to establish that a copyright exists. If you don't have the rights to the subject matter to begin with, putting together a tutorial on it doesn't provide that for you. If you put together a tutorial on a technique that has already been covered by another tutorial, you'd be hard pressed to be eligible for copyright protection for yours under the law.

Then, if you establish that you do indeed have a solid copy right, you have the responsibility to act in a manner consistent with upholding it. You can't just do whatever you want and expect that your copyright is still intact.

If you want to protect your legitimate copyright to a specific bead, the act of teaching others, step by step how to replicate it, by either giving that knowledge away or selling it, is acting in a manner inconsistent with the protection of your copy rights. At that moment, you have relinquished your copyright to that bead.

You cannot effectively complete a tutorial for a specific bead without replicating that bead and through that process, the copyright owner has given you explicit permission to replicate it. A person could go through a tutorial dozens of times, replicating that bead, step by step, with the copyright owner's explicit permission to do so.

Once you have given permission, you can't take it back and make your copyright whole again. You have, in essence, by teaching someone else, relinquished your copyright to that bead, to that person you sold the tutorial to.

The law wasn't meant to apply for only certain periods of time with regard to relinquishment and it didn't say that you could de-relinquish after taking a break from it to make some money, and your rights made whole again.

I'm wondering if this list is being compiled so that later, when this issue inevitably returns, folks will simply point to it for "answers."
__________________
Lauren
Reply With Quote
  #982  
Old 2008-12-28, 2:56pm
Sherry's Avatar
Sherry Sherry is offline
Born Facing Left
 
Join Date: Jun 13, 2005
Location: 1865 Miles Southeast of Dutch Harbor
Posts: 2,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarah_hornik View Post
Well said, Mary.
Ditto.
__________________
Sherry

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #983  
Old 2008-12-28, 3:06pm
pam's Avatar
pam pam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 15, 2005
Posts: 2,251
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asil4 View Post
Pam- what I am suggesting is that first you have to establish that a copyright exists. If you don't have the rights to the subject matter to begin with, putting together a tutorial on it doesn't provide that for you. If you put together a tutorial on a technique that has already been covered by another tutorial, you'd be hard pressed to be eligible for copyright protection for yours under the law.

Then, if you establish that you do indeed have a solid copy right, you have the responsibility to act in a manner consistent with upholding it. You can't just do whatever you want and expect that your copyright is still intact.

If you want to protect your legitimate copyright to a specific bead, the act of teaching others, step by step how to replicate it, buy either giving that knowledge away or selling it, is acting in a manner inconsistent with the protection of your copy rights. At that moment, you have relinquished your copyright to that bead.

You cannot effectively complete a tutorial for a specific bead without replicating that bead and through that process, the copyright owner has given you explicit permission to replicate it. A person could go through a tutorial dozens of times, replicating that bead, step by step, with the copyright owner's explicit permission to do so.

Once you have given permission, you can't take it back and make your copyright whole again. You have, in essence, by teaching someone else, reliquished your copyright to that bead, to that person you sold the tutorial to.

The law wasn't meant to apply for only certain periods of time with regard to relinquishment and it didn't say that you could de-relinquish after taking a break from it to make some money, and your rights made whole again.

I'm wondering if this list is being compiled so that later, when this issue inevitably returns, folks will simply point to it for "answers."
Actually, I don't agree with a lot of what you have said, and that's good because then we can discuss it.

Let's start at the beginning. Copyright exists automatically on anything you have written yourself, any artwork you have created, despite the subject having been covered in another book. For instance, there may be a thousand books on the subject of Abraham Lincoln, but that fact doesn't prohibit you from writing another book on Abraham Lincoln. Each glass beadmaker has the opportunity to show a different approach to a subject. There may be a thousand beadmakers who could show you the way they make sculpted roses and there may be a thousand different techniques used. Is one better than the other? Does one work for me better than the others? Copyright protection does not adhere only to the one considered better, should there be one, or the technique that works for me best. Every author has copyright protection.

In your third paragraph, you say that you cannot teach someone the techniques used to make your bead without relinguishing your right to copyright protection, and yet the copyright law says that is not true. Purchasers have the right to use the techniques, information, knowledge contained within the tutorial for their own purposes and they may make the copyrighted item for learning purposes. (again, this point is moot at this point in time as every tutorial writer has given permission to reproduce the bead shown in their tutorial for whatever purposes.)

Fourth paragraph, the tutorial writer has given permission, based on the fact that it is a tutorial, for the purchaser to reproduce the bead for learning purposes. That does not mean that the author has relinquished his copyright.

And the conclusion in paragraph five I don't agree with, since it is based on your premise in the previous paragraphs.

I actually have no ulterior motive for compiling this list (never even thought of it) except to stop some of the animosity I see flowering in this thread when it can easily be remedied, I think, by clearly and concisely defining the issues and even possibly coming to some concensus - not that I think we will ever all totally agree, but I think it helps to look clearly at each of the issues involved. Publishing tutorials for sale is a new medium for glass beadmaking artists and I think a lot of good information can be learned from threads like this. You and I may never agree, and that's fine. Authors and buyers alike can make up their own minds how they feel about each issue, but at least we are not slinging mud, guts and gore at each other and accomplishing little except to upset a bunch of really nice people that have participated in this thread.
__________________
Pam

"It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it." Johann Wolfgang Von Goeth

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My Blog
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #984  
Old 2008-12-28, 3:51pm
Torch&Marver Torch&Marver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 19, 2007
Posts: 1,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asil4 View Post
If you want to protect your legitimate copyright to a specific bead, the act of teaching others, step by step how to replicate it, by either giving that knowledge away or selling it, is acting in a manner inconsistent with the protection of your copy rights. At that moment, you have relinquished your copyright to that bead.

You cannot effectively complete a tutorial for a specific bead without replicating that bead and through that process, the copyright owner has given you explicit permission to replicate it. A person could go through a tutorial dozens of times, replicating that bead, step by step, with the copyright owner's explicit permission to do so.


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).
Reply With Quote
  #985  
Old 2008-12-28, 4:31pm
Starrr Starrr is offline
a pox upon an idiot :..
 
Join Date: Jul 01, 2005
Location: in the real world...
Posts: 1,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moondanse View Post
I agree completely, Lisa.

Some of us don't agree that copyright laws protect tutorials because the author is teaching how to make the exact bead. Anyone interested in protecting their work should not sell information about replicating it.
Add me to the list also. If I buy something it's mine, plain and simple. If you don't want me to have it, keep it and don't take my money for it.

Don't sell me exact, step by step instructions to something and expect me not to follow those directions exactly or with restrictions, UNLESS you tell me this upfront, in writing on the tutorial, before I purchase it.

If I choose to sell the beads you really shouldn't worry about the repercussions that I might face because it's really none of your concern anymore. If something bad happens to me or my reputation, it's no ones fault but my own, I made the choice and will have to face the concequences.

It's all about choices....

A person choose to write a tutorial
They choose to accept money for the tutorial
Another person chooses to purchase it
They now get to choose what they do with the information they paid to learn in the tutorial.

I've already stated earlier in this thread that personally I have no desire to copy anyone's beads exactly and sell them and that most of my purchases were to support the authors efforts or to give away as gifts.

I do feel strongly about having restrictions put on something that is mine, again, unless I agree to the restriction before I make a purchase and this in no way only applies to only a bead tutorial. I would never make a purchase, lets use Dell as an example, without first reading there terms of service before hitting the "Confirm Order" button. An I would cetainly not expect Dell to have any right to what I do with my computer once I paid for it, and neither do they.

Am I the only one who doesn't see this as all that complicated?
Reply With Quote
  #986  
Old 2008-12-28, 4:40pm
Ever After's Avatar
Ever After Ever After is offline
caffiene, beads, bedhead,
 
Join Date: Jun 16, 2005
Posts: 3,593
Default

here is a great article I was directed to from Kim Miles site..
read both but the top one "beaders ethics" is the one I think applies to us all, as far as our community is concerned.
this is on bead and buttons site..

http://beadandbutton.com/bnb/default.aspx?c=a&id=2234
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
~~
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
~~
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #987  
Old 2008-12-28, 4:41pm
Torch&Marver Torch&Marver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 19, 2007
Posts: 1,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starrr View Post
Add me to the list also. If I buy something it's mine, plain and simple. If you don't want me to have it, keep it and don't take my money for it.

Don't sell me exact, step by step instructions to something and expect me not to follow those directions exactly or with restrictions, UNLESS you tell me this upfront, in writing on the tutorial, before I purchase it.
No one has said you can't follow those instructions. However, the assumption you can sell the product deriving from the instructions IS NOT YOURS TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH unless you change it significantly and/or get written permission from the design holder.

The whole point is, Starrr, no one has to tell you that restrictions exist. Every single tutorial and bead design comes with such restrictions unless otherwise noted. It's called copyright law. You don't have to agree with it (and you've said clearly that you don't) but that won't change reality. What you need to get from tutorial authors is specific permission to sell the beads they've designed and then taught you how to make.
Reply With Quote
  #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
  #989  
Old 2008-12-28, 4:42pm
jensy's Avatar
jensy jensy is offline
Mom to 20 paws
 
Join Date: Nov 18, 2006
Location: B.C Canada
Posts: 492
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starrr View Post
Add me to the list also. If I buy something it's mine, plain and simple. If you don't want me to have it, keep it and don't take my money for it.

Don't sell me exact, step by step instructions to something and expect me not to follow those directions exactly or with restrictions, UNLESS you tell me this upfront, in writing on the tutorial, before I purchase it.

If I choose to sell the beads you really shouldn't worry about the repercussions that I might face because it's really none of your concern anymore. If something bad happens to me or my reputation, it's no ones fault but my own, I made the choice and will have to face the concequences.

It's all about choices....

A person choose to write a tutorial
They choose to accept money for the tutorial
Another person chooses to purchase it
They now get to choose what they do with the information they paid to learn in the tutorial.

I've already stated earlier in this thread that personally I have no desire to copy anyone's beads exactly and sell them and that most of my purchases were to support the authors efforts or to give away as gifts.

I do feel strongly about having restrictions put on something that is mine, again, unless I agree to the restriction before I make a purchase and this in no way only applies to only a bead tutorial. I would never make a purchase, lets use Dell as an example, without first reading there terms of service before hitting the "Confirm Order" button. An I would cetainly not expect Dell to have any right to what I do with my computer once I paid for it, and neither do they.

Am I the only one who doesn't see this as all that complicated?

Exactly it was a simple request since the beginning.

Jen
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Etsy jewelry-
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


AAA Gemstone Beads Etsy-
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #990  
Old 2008-12-28, 4:49pm
Torch&Marver Torch&Marver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 19, 2007
Posts: 1,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ever After View Post
here is a great article I was directed to from Kim Miles site..
read both but the top one "beaders ethics" is the one I think applies to us all, as far as our community is concerned.
this is on bead and buttons site..

http://beadandbutton.com/bnb/default.aspx?c=a&id=2234
Great articles, Laurie!

The most appropriate one for this current debate is actually the jewellery design copyright article. The article details copyright with respect to design. It's written by a lawyer who also designs jewellery. It should put an end to further arguments about "ownership" of tutorials and products deriving from them. I hope.

Thanks for posting these!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 5:52pm.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Your IP: 3.238.36.32