Happy to see you find it useful @hiroyamagishi, we tried to keep the post as compact and as understandable as possible. Copyright is a grey area and doesn't seem to have fully exploited the depths of context and discussion yet.
Newspapers often steal other peoples work and would love to pay with "exposure", which is the mandatory credit towards the creator of the work. This reason for this, in my belief, because of the rise of talented amateur photographers who did not receive proper education about Copyright law, who were happy to get their name exposed, and occurred during the global financial crisis.
There are often people who think content should be used freely, at any time. These people do not value the time spent by others and cannot see the bigger picture what it takes to create an image that is not just simply appealing to the eye. Luckily the law has given creators protection, that whenever the creator has created a work, it automatically is protected by copyright law. This would let creators decide on their own if this work can be freely used by the public or not.
Google and Tiny-pic has developed their reverse-image search techniques which makes it easy for the creator to trace their work published online. Also good implementation of EXIF-data can help in tracing their work.
Start a blog post about it.
We would be happy to debate this matter in a dedicated blog post about that topic, preferable written by yourself based on your own experiences.
This blog post is purely about educating the current nature of Copyright, not to discuss personal opinions/loopholes/specific country based laws or whatsoever. We think understanding copyright is more important than to deny it and trying to counter it, as we simply cannot change this overnight. If you wish to contribute to this blog post, rephrase your opinion in a question and we are happy to try to give you an answer that fits.
Currently, the contribution you have made so far, seem to be cries where you demand a different approach on Copyright from your point of view. You simply cannot change law, nor influence the current understanding of Copyright with pushing your thoughts about this matter and expect that the law bends to you whenever you would like to. It is as it is. It was as it was. If you want change, file it to the right people, we are certainly not.
At this current state, creators that are not on this platform, seek federal guidance to start the procedure to send Cease and Desist letters regarding their Copyrighted work, which is damaging the name of Steemit and would slow down its potential grow as this issue grows.
And again, all created work is protected by copyright by law upon creation. This does not mean it is protected for financial compensation for these 'damages' by default. You need to be a registered business in some countries, you need to register a license in other countries and sometimes proof of creation is enough to be illegible for financial compensation.
If you want to talk about logical underlying thoughts about copyright, simply start a blog post and invite people that you deem interesting to reply to.
Hi @baah, please Google "Statute of Anne". Now, unless you still would like to think that paying the bills with salt is still possible, please re-consider the era you currently live in and come back to earth, with us, preferable by plane and not on a horse.
The creators of their own work now have the choice to waive their rights, to make it available to the public, for free, to make sure that that work doesn't milk the people for their benefit of sharing the idea/concept.
I would like to point out to you that this blog post is about explaining the current state of Copyright, not about the history of it. So I ask you to stay on topic as you are spreading personal confusion about the current laws on Copyright and how we are supposed to work with- and understand that law.
Looking forward to more history tutoring in a blog post that you have created. I would gladly join you there.
Nobody is trying to monopolize art. The typical wish is at least that the art created by them is not used for commercial use without a permission.
Art isn't being monopolized. Anyone can create art if they want without being attacked by artists.
Oh, so you're talking about monopolizing single pieces of art, and not art in general?
Well that's just dumb in a different way.
And what the hell, use of ideas? Are you just ranting random stuff with no point?
I have no say about ideas and "permitting the uses of ideas". If you are talking about the ideas in art, if you see a painting of an eagle with face of an elephant, that's an idea. It's not monopolized as an idea.
You can use the same idea and create art based on the same idea.
If I would create a piece of art and you'd just use my art in attempt to make money for yourself, I would try to stop you with the tools I have. And you of course could go crying "BOO HOO YOU ARE TRYING TO MONOPOLIZE ART".
Wow, so you are actually just stupid. I wasn't talking about complete power.
So you're just talking BS, claiming I'm talking about stuff I'm not talking about and calling me an idiot.
Congratulations on upvoting your own comments while doing so.
You are very special person and I can see that.
Extremely special.
You must feel proud of yourself.
Yes, yes you are.
I haven't been even talking about claiming exclusive control about ideas. It's been you all along.
Are your parents closely related or why you have so special way to think?
Still no. You're still talking just dumb shit and as I can see you're upvoting your posts, I'm using my power to flag it because this was special level of stupid.