 |
|
|
|
|
I'm writing this because recently I've seen friends' sites and art being copied and used as (so called...) 'their own' work by others. There's no other word that could accurately describe this other than 'stealing'. I first saw instances of this with my cousin's site, gliebster.com. He'd often show me sites that copy the design of his site... it's pretty pathetic. Then most recently I've seen Topaz's DreamShadow being copied 100%, including art, site graphics, and even the actual coding. This, of course, makes the designer very mad. Not only is the art taken but the credit for the work is taken as well. There are those who need that credit to pay rent and even to get another job assignment or new employer.
So what's the main issue being brought up? The ownership of art and its protection. I'm very thankful for this art gallery because it's free (which it should be). Any gallery that expects you to pay to see art has some major issues to work out. Art is not only expression, but also a way of communication. You wouldn't expect to pay to hear or feel a certain emotion, would you? Then why pay to see it? What I'm getting at is this: Art is being put out for everyone and anyone to see it and to enjoy it. But what results from that (some of the time) is that others take advantage of it. They 'steal' (I use that word because I believe that's exactly what it is...) the art/graphics and call it their own when it is not. So how can it be stopped? That's where the problems arise... with more laws added; more freedom of art is taken away. Copyright laws are made to hinder thieves, but at the same time they might stunt artist growth... hear me out on this one...
Some think that taking credit from others may be a bad thing, but in the long run, it could be for a better purpose. When something is copied, it makes the artist want to do more or perhaps do something new (like a new approach or method of art). This would then help in the growth of art itself, the growth of self-expression. I, unfortunately, can't fully agree with this approach. I agree 100% that the growth of art is something good, but I don't believe that growth needs to be pushed along harshly. So what's so bad about adding more laws to protect art? Protection can also be disguised as hindrance to viewers. The Mona Lisa (I'm sure) isn't sitting within an arm's length of visitors. It's most likely at a distance for it's protection from nut cases. But someone that wants to see the paintings every brush stroke, every detail can't do that. They have to stand back and see it from behind the ropes. That's the form of bad protection.
Copyright laws aren't always enough to stop digital art thieves from being punks. You need to have more proof than just the letter 'c' inside a circle to show that it's your art. So how do we do that? Two ways can be done, but either can't suffice both the artist and the viewer. The first one sucks for the viewer: get rid of the laws and don't display the art. If they can't see it... they can't steal it. This is, of coarse, absurd. It's just as absurd as the online galleries that you have to pay to get into. The second option sucks for art itself: beef up the laws. This hinders art from spreading and being appreciated. That's not good. Art should be able to expand and change as often as it wants to. Putting laws around freedom is always a bad mix. It's like saying, "You can be free only if you do things our way."
So what can be done to protect a creator's artwork, the artist's freedom of expression, and the viewer's freedom of appreciating it? Honestly... I don't know. Hopefully, this will help to open eyes of art lovers and creators to think of ways to help out. The issue hasn't been around all that long. We're living in it today, and it's growing. Owning art is something that's hard to explain. The artist somewhat owns it because he created it. But as soon as the art becomes a piece of property... it stops being art.
|
|
 |
|
 |
