roy-sac's avatar

YouTube, DM and Infringing C

3 4 408 (1 Today)
By roy-sac   |   
© 2008 - 2020 roy-sac
I created the collage for the use at my blog for my long post (rant) about YouTube, Depeche Mode and Infringement of Crap. See [link]

God, I am pissed :(
Image size
800x800px 137.17 KB
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
roy-sac's avatar
roy-sacHobbyist Digital Artist
Thanks for the information and comments.

The stuff that is released in the computer-scene is not automatically public domain, but it is also not MEANT to be copyright protected as the stuff that comes out of the commercial music studios. It is okay to spread the stuff and enjoy with others. That is what is all about. Having fun and acknowledge good quality stuff and talented artists. The best copyright description for the scene stuff that I can think of is "Creative Commons" with Attribution "Share-A-Like", see [link]

The attribution specified by the author mentioned there refers IMO to things like "give me credits", "mention my name", "add a link to my site" etc.
Somebody can use your work, but not copyright protect it. He also has to release it under Creative Commons Share-A-Like or has to get permission from you, which you can give, if you like. In the example of commercial use, the permission is most likely connected to a revenue/profit share or one time payment by the entity who would like to use your work commercially.

Art is for society as a whole. Art does by nature require an audience. Every artist likes to see people watching or listening to their creations and love it, if people like it and praise the artist. Copyright was established to prevent commercial exploits of art by another entity without giving credits and a share of the profits or anything for that matter to the creator. Artists rely on their art to make a living. They are not workers or craftsman's who produce something that is needed for bringing food on the table or provide shelter. If an artist performs, it was and is always expected that the spectators who watched and listened are giving the artist something in return for the entertainment. This is all good and just, but Copyright laws today are doing much more than protecting the artist from "getting robbed".

Copyright today restricts distributions and availability. Artists can create an artificial shortage of their works by prohibiting any display or replay of their works, take the painting and lock it away, ignoring that people are begging him to make his art public again. That is not a big problem, if one artist is doing that for whatever crazy reasons ("Mr. I cut off my ear" guy comes to mind hehe), but it is a social problem, if this behavior is the norm. This is not natural and bad for the society as a whole. I am also pretty sure that the first copyright laws were not established with this in mind. This distortion happened over time.

Well, this response was written quick and dirty, but it is along the lines what I want to write about in more detail, enriched with examples and facts = references, to proof that I didn't make this stuff up hehe.
roy-sac's avatar
roy-sacHobbyist Digital Artist
thanks for the comment. Yeah, I am not done with all that yet. It is only getting worse. I plan to write something about it in much more detail (and less of a rant) for a while already. The subject is a bit more complicated though and what I want to write would not be published at my personal blog :)

What I currently do is collection information and examples. I remember the Timbaland case, but are not sure what exactly happened. He ripped of the sound from an oldschool amiga tracker mod. Okay, but did the musician who created it was trying to contact Timbaland? Did he ever do something that would indicate that his music is public domain? For example, I released my stuff into public domain to make it clear that anybody can take it and do what he wants with it.

If you have any details about this case and some links for reference, I would appreciate it. Thanks.