Who We Are
We are a group that would like to promote free artwork. Free artwork does not relate to free as in free of charge, but in freedom. A definition of "free artwork" can be read below. The it is a modified version of the free software definition (
[link] ), by the Free Software Foundation (
[link] )
Joining
Send a note requesting to join.
What Does Copyleft Mean?
[link]
Copyleft means an alternative way to protect your artworks while keeping the freedom for everyone else. I highly suggest you read the above link before replying to things on this page. If you do not take initiative to understand something before criticising it then you shouldn't be commenting on this page in the first place. If there are any questions please feel free to ask! We want to clarify as much as possible, to better the entire community of people world wide.
Abolish Copyrights?
No, we do not wish to abolish copyrights or promote users to break copyright laws. We wish to insure a growing community using alternatives to the restricting copyrights.
How Copyleft?
"To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code or any program derived from it but only if the distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms become legally inseparable.
Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That's why we reverse the name, changing ``copyright'' into ``copyleft.''"
- (GNU Project
[link] )
What Does This Mean?
While protecting theft of works with a copyright, the person who aggrees to copyleft their work can put distribution terms (ie notify the original artist/programmer/etc.
this does not mean ask permission) for other people to freely re-distribute or copy.
Reflection on Original Authors/Artists
"..for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations."
Overall
Copyrighting and declaring it copyleft is our suggestion to a better alternative to copyrights. It allows for more freedom of other people, and not restriction. Our suggestion is not unfair for the original authors and artists, as in all modifications to the original
must have proper creditation to the original creator and should include documentation of what was modified and when it was. It
must be understood that the modification is
not the original to ensure the original author/artist still retains credit for their originality. You may only redistribute under copyleft license if
and only if it is intended to be freeware. Therefore someone cannot freely steal the idea and then use a copyright to claim it is their originality. For artworks, Only the original artist may recieve an income on their work, and if a modification recieves money a portion should be given to the original artist.
This is almost like a copyright with the exception that it removes asking permission (not necessarily removing notification of a modification of your original) to redistribute or modify a program etc.
Permission Is Needed!
Not necessarily, as some artists may be unreachable or not reply for a long time. Permission is nonsense because not everyone is humble to allow others to work off their work, let alone not ask for money- which not very many people except those high up in places can achieve. As long as credit is given and all profits off of modifications are divided amongst the original author and the modifyer, which gives the original artist extra money (and 'fame'), no permission is needed.
Copyrights Are In Place To Stop Others Messing With Art
Although annoying that other people will 'mess' with art, it doesn't do harm to the original artist or their original art piece. It, rather, has a more positive effect for the original artist/author.
Please be patient as I am trying to establish this journal to it's full potential to be helpful. I will continue to edit this until it becomes easy to understand and there are few misunderstandings. I am also rather busy with life at the moment so the process may be slow.
LOL dA gave the club a week long subscription. Heh heh.
~RikuDrak
--------------------------------
ADMINS
Support Count: 5
SUPPORTERS ( by chronological order )
AFFILIATIONS ( by chronological order )
Copyleft Movement
[link]
--
he has left us alone but shafts of light sometimes grace the corner of our rooms
photography [link]
music [link]
That's like saying "Listen. You show yourself every day. You walk around and let people see your [clothed] body walking around. Because you choose to do that, we should have full rights to rape you. It's your choice, remember. You choose to display yourself [even if that includes a turtleneck and jeans].
It's more like walking around all naked and let people see your naked body walking around
No, but that is an analogy of art/program theft, and if you read, clearly not something we support.
So the analogy of yours went too far and too irrelevant.
*RikuDrak
That is an utter crap comparison. If the 'rape' is supposed to be someone ruining the original artwork then what kind of artist are you? You should be proud that someone uses your work to base theirs off of, regardless of if their final result is in your opinion crap because it looks like a 2 year old created it. It's the concept of it, not the selfish arrogant 'my work is too good for any artist lower than my skill' attitude.
If your 'rape' is supposed to mean misuse of the original artwork, then you did not understand the club. We are not trying to allow people to rip art and call it their own, or remove copyrights to allow that. We merely call the famous art 'public domain' so that an artist can use the work in some way freely so long as the original artwork and credit is given. There is no need to sue and be under copyright violation of a piece because of an artists consent so long as credit is given. Especially a very famous artist. Art is about freedome of expression and most often times a hobby, not a greed fest of it being known but never being touched by people who may look up to that artist. You cannot be a true artist if you are too full of yourself to agree to a policy that people do not need your permission so long as they make clear it's based on you. If they do not and try and present it as their own, then penelties should apply.
This is not about freedom of speech. It's about users wanting the freedom and convenience to be able to take what they want, without giving the original creators any of their legally entitled rights. It's about being selfish, not "freedom of speech". I quite frankly find the idea of the concept being forced disgusting. Anyone can use a creation however they like, except the creator? And they're even less entitled to make money on their work than people who abuse it?
Selfishness to the extreme. Artists have as much right to make a living with their hard work as any other person on the planet does. "Art for the sake of art" is a lovely concept, but sadly, the real world demands we need money to survive. If an artist is willing to make their art "free", that's fine by me. But there's nothing at all wrong with earning respect and a living from what is often many hours of hard, skilled work. You wouldn't do any other job for free, and you wouldn't want to do the work for someone else to take the credit and benefits from it. Regardless of your abstract definitions of art, for many people, it is A JOB. That might not fit with your Romantic ideals, but that's life.
People who share their art online wish to do just that - share their work, in the hopes that people might appreciate it. People who post their work online ARE giving people the chance to appreciate their art FOR FREE. But sadly, the aforesaid population of incredibly selfish people believe that they shouldn't have to respect said artist, and they they should be able to do whatever they like with that work, and even be able to make money with it. The practise speaks for itself, and no pretty speech about "freedom" will ever cover up the fact that people who believe artists shouldn't have the rights to their own work are intensely selfish themselves.
Please reconsider rephrasing your explanations, and targeting artists to contribute rather than users to take, who of course are going to agree with a set of rules that work towards their own convenience at the expense of the artists'.
That's the whole idea of the group. While we do believe that copyrights are too restrictive for EVERYONE, we do not encourage people to break these laws.
That's called copyright infringement. And is the very thing your "community" appears to support.
Then perhaps it's time the admins of the group rewrite the journal, because that's not what we support.
Change your target audience, because your community is incredibly misleading.
Our target audience is everyone who acknowledges the fact that copyrights are too restrictive, and who support the concept of copyleft or (cc)..... especially those who never heard of copyleft or (cc) in the first place.
This is not about freedom of speech. It's about users wanting the freedom and convenience to be able to take what they want, without giving the original creators any of their legally entitled rights.
We believe the only rights orriginal creators should have, are :
- the right to get a share of the profit made on derivate works
- the right for identical works not to be allowed under anyone else's name
As said, we do however acknowledge that copyright laws exist, and we do not encourage people to break them.
It's about being selfish
We regard it as selfish to ask huge sums for artworks to be used in derivatives, not allowing them to be used at all or asking exorbitant funds for a piece of software that everybody needs. That's how copyright laws are often abused these days, and that's what we mostly fight against.
I quite frankly find the idea of the concept being forced disgusting.
We find the concept of copyrights being forced on us all equally disgusting. We don't want to enforce anything on anyone, though..... we only support more freedom for all.
Anyone can use a creation however they like, except the creator? And they're even less entitled to make money on their work than people who abuse it?
????
"Art for the sake of art" is a lovely concept, but sadly, the real world demands we need money to survive.
Sure. "art for the sake of money", however, is very disturbing. Unfortunately, that's a reality today.
It has traditionally been only a very small number of artists who could live of their art. I think we all know the stereotype of people like Van Gogh, living in total poverty, while his paintings today are sold for fortunes. Most people have to do something else besides art to live from. What's wrong with that? Isn't art supposed to be something personal? Isn't art supposed to be something from the heart? How personal and how much from the heart can it be, when your income depends on the art you make?
But there's nothing at all wrong with earning respect and a living from what is often many hours of hard, skilled work.
There's something wrong about it when your income depends on the art you make. There is, however, nothing wrong with selling art as an extra source of income. This group does not oppose that idea.
You wouldn't do any other job for free
When you see making art as a job rather than food for your soul, isn't something wrong with your attitude, then?
Art should be a hobby in the first place....
you wouldn't want to do the work for someone else to take the credit and benefits from it.
Of course not. Giving credit for the use in any derivate work, is something we believe to be necessary.
the aforesaid population of incredibly selfish people believe that they shouldn't have to respect said artist, and they they should be able to do whatever they like with that work, and even be able to make money with it.
What greater respect for an artist then using the artwork to make something else with? How is that more selfish than not giving anyone the right to make derivate works from your work? Copyrights actually promote selfishness, while we promote thinking as a community. That's what the free software movement orriginally was about : community building. We believe this same concept applies no less to art communities.
Anyway.... I already pointed out that we definitely do NOT support people making money from derivate works without paying a part of the profit to the author of the orriginal work.
Please reconsider rephrasing your explanations, and targeting artists to contribute rather than users to take
Our new admin *RikuDrak will surely take care of that.
Artist that doesn't belive in (cc) or that their artwork are free, are protected by the copyrigth, and you can't just use their pictures.
A picture has to be marked free for use, in order to be free to be used. And you have to follow the restrictions that the artist have set up for that.
You know that, right?
Previous Page12345...Next Page