If a viewer genuinely thinks that the thief owns the artwork even though you have far more proven history as an artist and can produce original sketchwork on the very piece they have stolen then that person can be safely ignored. Yes if a business takes interest in the thief even though it's your work then it would be a problem in which case you'd probably have the right to take them to court in order to deal with the problem but in most cases they simply can be just ignored.
Well, the thief doesn't necessarily have to be a lesser artist. He/she might have had a long history as an artist aswell. Ok, I'm probably a bit paranoid here, but all parameters should be taken into account. Life is contrast.
I think Lethn's not really understanding what we're talking about here and it has been quite some time since a similar topic was going.
We're not really talking about what to do 'if' someone has taken your artwork, but rather what can you do to prevent them from using your artwork, or at least prevent them from doing much with your artwork. or as some have pointed out, what can you do to help distinguish your artwork right off the bat.
it's easy after the fact to say 'hey, that's mine! give it back!' and provide the proof needed to validate your claim that it was in fact yours first. however it's hard if not near impossible to stop them from doing so in the first place. but there are ways of minimizing what someone can do with your artwork if they do steal it.
"Live life like a fantasy. Reality is only in your mind!" - Fabledgoat
You know what I think? It's an idea that just popped into my head lately, but maybe we could actually make some sort of global signature list? If we actually have an entire list for people to look at where the artists can put their work with their water mark signatures on it. Now of course I'm not suggesting tormenting anyone who doesn't abide by this system but the reason it would provide an adequate counter is because people who were ripping artists off can be easily caught by anyone with half a brain since we'd all have the work listed on this global signature list and if said thief is not who they say they are then they can easily be ignored.
I think this might be a decent idea since really the main worry when it comes to piracy is them using the artwork unfairly for money, these watermarks could basically be used as proof for individuals and corporations that you own the pictures and the people who have stolen them should be ignored. But it also wouldn't interfere with the normal galleries or anything that want to host these pictures for free, not only are they not worth bothering because sueing them would result in nothing but also they usually endorse the artists anyway. I've seen tons of times when it comes to game piracy in particular the pirate groups responsible for cracks actually endorsing the game saying that they should support the developers if they like it so that's why I don't have a problem with filesharing and such.
And I do understand what you're saying I just don't think it's as big as an issue people say it is :p
Lethn, I'm not quoting 'cause your post was pretty long and I'm not sure I actually understand what you're saying but here are my thoughts (rather lenghty as well):
1) A global list such as you suggest would be pretty close to "registered copyrights", trademarks, patents and so on. It already is possible to register your copyright. But according to law, all original works of art are copyrighted without such documentation, so the artists really shouldn't have to go through that extra hassle. Plus with millions of artists I can see the list becoming unmanageable quite quickly. Another issue with such a system is you can bet some people will not register their work there and then the theifs might register it first. So while it's a good idea, I doubt it'd float.
2) As a non-professional artist (I'm not even sure I'd call myself artist, but hey, I make pictures and sometimes they're stolen) I have to say that I don't think the monetary issue is the main issue at all. If someone takes my work, removes my name and try to "bask in my glory" so to speak, I'm going to be genuinely pissed off. If it's done to budding professionals there's the added risk of creating doubt whether the artist is who he claims to be because other people published his work elsewhere without his name on it. Perhaps it'd even cost him (or her) a job opportunity.
3) When you refer to "normal galleries who want to to host the pictures for free" I'm not sure you mean sites such as this, where the artist uploads his/her own work or galleries made by fans who display art without the artist's permission. If the latter, I see no call for a solution that "doesn't interfere" with these galleries. They SHOULD ask permission or they're rude, even if they don't have any bad intentions.
and 4) although game piracy might be outside the scope of these forums, I see no value whatsoever in a thief saying "he would endorse if he wanted to". Not sure I understood you right on that, but if the pirates "would endorse", they should - and they should NOT rip other people's work off. I've heard people say they prefer dowloading copied material because the big companies make all the money and not the artist - well, do you think you're making the artist a favour? If the problem is the distibution of money it's something that should be solved between artists and companies, not by stealing the work and pretend one is Robin Hood. Sorry for the rant, but in my opinion, theft is theft. It's illegal, immoral and it does hurt the artists, financially or in other ways. And I happen to have a strong opinion on the subject (so nothing personal, Lethn, and like I said I'm not sure I understood your point...)
Lethn: There already exists an art registry like you describe over at Conceptart.org. There exists others, but they usually cost mony. This one is free.
Voluspa: Registered copyrights might be a problem for some. In US the so called Orphan bill has been stirred up the art communety, and is the sole reason for the previously mentioned regestry on CA. Check out the youtube link in the thread I link to on Concaptart.org.
I'm aware reg copyrights can be troublesome, which is why I think the current rule "when it's done, it's copyrighted and if you don't have permission, don't take it" should work well. So much easier than that Orphan Bill too... (I tried reading it* but all the legal crossreferencing and "figspeak" (Swedish term translated to English) makes it pretty hard to really understand. I do find it interesting that, at the end, they say that after 2 years they will evaluate whether it's at all possible to do things the suggested way... Wouldn't it be better to figure that out before making it a law? Before suggesting it, even... Anyway, I don't understand enough to form an opinion, but it does seem rather vague on a lot of issues...
Regarding regristries I think one big one would be unmanageable like I said, and several smaller ones would just mean that the "infringer" (as they call it so nicely and naturally in the bill - without making it seem that an infringer by necessity must have done something wrong...) wouldn't bother to do a thorough search of all of them.
It does seem a stupid bill, and it also seem to makes things more difficult for all involved parties. I mean, if someone wants to use a picture for a book cover, wouldn't it be faster, easier and probably even cheaper to commission a piece than to do (or hire someone to do) an extensive search of all these registries and the internet and so on? The main issue as far as I can tell is that infringing on a copyright will not result in anything but having to pay a symbolic sum as punishment. So basically you can take what you want and if you get caught you'll get away with just paying well... something small if you stole a "nobody's" work, perhaps more if you ripped of Boris Vallejo... Whoever wrote the bill must have an awful lot of free time and no hobbies...
And another thought... If you actually manage to find a great piece of art of "reproducible" quality and it doesn't have a name on it, or just initials and you can't figure out who made it... and you search the American database for it but you don't find it - how on earth are you supposed to know that it's not copyrighted by someone in Saudi Arabia, Europe or China? THEIR laws don't allow you to use other people's work anyway you want just because you don't know who owns it... Doesn't that mean that anyone trying to use "orphan works" are risking lawsuits en masse under other countries' legislation?
(*yes I tried reading the actual bill and not people's comments on it and no I didn't see the youtube video...)
I see the good thing with a registry like this is that I can say that piece is mine and prove it through the registry. That way I wont loose my cred, it will be the thief that will loose his cred. I havn't read the whole bill, but I got the main thing which opens for art theft. And that a government can open up for something like that is horrific (that is if it eventually passes). Life is contrast.
Well, here in germany there's some sort of trick the last year in our school learned to protect their property. Not just artwork but all creative ideas in general. I'm not sure if it'll work with other countries but it should. The trick is to burn your file you wish to save to disk or print it, then put it in an envelope and send it to yourself via standard mail. If you have a bad case of copyright infringement the date of the post office's stamp will be proof that it's yours, if the letter wasn't opened before, of course. Ifyou saved your work this way before publishing it, it's safe, but it's still nothing that'll keep people from trying to steal your work.
Otherwise I usually include my signature twice, plus a stamp with my website's address if I upload anywhere outside of my website. One signature is always easily visible in the corner, the other is hidden in places where it's really hard to see. I think putting your name on a tombstone is still kinda obvious and people could just say it's coincidence that the name on the stone happened to be your name. I prefer to hide my signature in scales, fur or messy places where some letters and numbers are really hard to see. But you know, if you know where to look they must be clearly visible again. At least people won't be able to say "Na, that's just coincidence that this dragon's scales happen to look like your initials and last year's numbers." ...uhm, sure.
Oh, and one should try to avoid websites with heavy stealing if possible. Of course, it can happen everywhere but I've heard of websites with more thieves than others. Or if you upload there, use the already mentioned small sizes, low quality and maybe a big but barely visible watermark. Like 5% opacity or something, so that it won't disturb the artwork itself too much but would be impossible to edit out.
Oh well, my two cent here.. Luckily I have not had any of my art stolen, or at least I never found out.
Well, here in germany there's some sort of trick the last year in our school learned to protect their property. Not just artwork but all creative ideas in general. I'm not sure if it'll work with other countries but it should. The trick is to burn your file you wish to save to disk or print it, then put it in an envelope and send it to yourself via standard mail.
That is something commonly known as "Poorman's Copyright". It's not something that has ever been tested legally in a copyright case as far as I'm aware, so I would say that it isn't necessarily a guarantee of proof.
That's why I said I don't know about how it's handled in other countries. All I know is that some of our teachers used this method to protect their work, what I don't know is whether they ever had such a bad case they had to rely on this or if it worked. And I only know about this method from my flatmate who is one class above me. Probably we'll have classes on this topic this year too.
The message-in-an-envelope has been widespread but does not hold up as proof of copyright/ownership. If you really want to protect your artwork the safest way is to register the copyright with the appropriate office. In the US it's about $25-30 for each copyright, but you can copyright an entire body of work; you don't have to register each individual painting.
Generally I try to sign my work in such a way that it is hard to notice or crop out the piece.
The best defense is being known, really. True, being popular will mean more people try to steal your work, but it also means more people will recognize your work if they see it stolen and can inform you or the site that it's on. I had a few of my images stolen on deviantart and I was notified right away by someone else. I was then able to report the theft and pressure the thief to take it down. In that case, it definitely helped that the image stolen was by far my most popular, with more views than the rest of my gallery combined.
"The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it."
The message-in-an-envelope has been widespread but does not hold up as proof of copyright/ownership. If you really want to protect your artwork the safest way is to register the copyright with the appropriate office. In the US it's about $25-30 for each copyright, but you can copyright an entire body of work; you don't have to register each individual painting.
Or use the regrestry over at conceptart.org. That's free and, as far as I have understood, legally binding. Although it probably wont stop thiefs from stealing and try to bask a bit in your glow.
Nathradas:
