You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Art Plagiarism and CryptoRecycler Case: @daio (#photographersarenotartists)
Can you specify which term of service of Steemit violated this user? I didn't understand. Thanks for the clarification. I also asked yesterday but I didn't get an answer.
Yes
That is the part of the TOS she is violating.
The author of that photograph could easily request a DMCA so the post in question to be taken down by Steemit since the user has no permission by the author of the photograph to monetize derivative works. That would be a big problem from Steemit.
I did not take her photo. I painted a portrait!
right, that is called a derivative work of her photograph, to monetize said work you need, according to the law in any country, the permission from the author.
This is not called plagiarism! This is an art loan!
Read the meaning of the word plagiarism!
plagiarism is taking the work of others and passing it as your own without crediting the authors. In this case the photographer created his work of art/composition, your work is completely based on the work of art of the photographer, a derivative work, and you dont credit the author, hence, its plagiarism.
Additionally, you dont have permission to monetize derivative works of that copyrighted photograph, so you are also infringing copyright law.
From one of the forums:
"One of the biggest scandals in the field of copyright with the participation of Russian contemporary artists happened to the artist Georgy Pusenkov, who has been permanently residing in Cologne for the fifth year. Like all modern artists who use elements of postmodernism, Pusenkoff used a citation in one of his paintings a nude girl, a pose and even highlights and shadows copied the model of one of the works of the famous photographer Helmut Newton, famous for the series of artistic shots of naked models. Puzenkova’s plagiarism is not very clear: the rough and unattractive (unlike the original) silhouette of the girl is depicted as dead lilac and black, and the “all the most interesting” covers the yellow square. Actually, Pusenkoff’s work is very ironic - “Power of Blue”. Unfortunately, it was this picture that was exhibited at the Venice Biennale and caught the eye of the maitre of photography. Newton was outraged, finding that it was the work of a malicious plagiarist before him. Pusenkov, in turn, implied that the open quotation flattered the author of the original, because ku it is - a sure sign of recognition of the artistic credibility of international importance. However, the master of the “world” did not go, unambiguously hinting at Pusenkoff’s lawyers that everything can be quoted, but subject to appropriate deductions to the author. At the first stage of the instant trial, the Land Court in Hamburg upheld Newton’s lawsuit, banning Pusenkova from exposing the painting and distributing its reproductions. Pusenkoff sold the painting for an extremely high price - 16 thousand DM, at the same time filing an appeal with the court. On the day when this issue of Money magazine was signed, we contacted Cologne, where the artist lives, by telephone. Here is what George Pusenkov himself said:
“I beat Newton this process today.” I appealed to the High Court in Hamburg, and this court found me right. All his absurd claims are removed. After the first trial I was forbidden to exhibit this work, otherwise I was threatened with fines and almost a prison. Now all these sanctions have been lifted from me, besides, Newton pays all legal costs, pays lawyers. One could also file a claim for moral damages, but that would be a separate story. The absurdity of the situation, from my point of view, is that a painting, an object made by hands, is a completely different area of perception than photography. Of course, this is a quotation, but when a quote is used in a work of art, it is used as a stone, as a tool used for construction - and the building is completely different. It may be, in addition to this, any other elements.
Well, given the loudness of Newton's worldwide fame, the exceptional interest of the Western press in the just-completed litigation and the unprecedentedness of the final — few expected that the court would take the side of an émigré artist from Russia — the current owners of the ill-fated picture could make a fortune this week.
There are many ways of borrowing, in which there is nothing bad, and resorted to by the most eminent masters.
You can learn more about art plagiarism here: https://steemit.com/abuse/@jaguar.force/what-is-art-plagiarism-by-francis-leverett-golden
what you are doing is not borrowing, since you dont have permission by the author. borrowing is done with consent.
This is not plagiarism! you are a stupid person
plagiarism is when one artist sketched a picture from another artist!
I must inform you that a photographer is an artist
The photographer is not an artist! If you are so stupid about it, then we are not going to speak!
Of course photographers are artist, yes, photographers are artists.
You did not hold a pencil in your dirty hands! the photographer is not an artist!
copying does not make you an artist, but only a draftsman
Assignment of authorship (plagiarism), if this act caused major damage to the author or other copyright holder
plagiarism is the appropriation of copyright works!
I did not assign this photo! I painted a portrait! Portrait is my art!
And I created art myself!
Learn the law!
@ilgiaguaro You want to say that all the artists who paint a portrait to order, just draftsmen?
Omg my love, I'm just telling you that you have to mention the sources...
You are beautiful and you have a good hand, you just need to put the source .. why do you insist on not understanding?
I don't have it with you, but it's right that you put the sources of your work...
And above all check the cc of the images ..
And don't post the same content several times, it's considered spam
I do not understand? I know my rights! I did not steal and did not expose her photo for my own! I draw portraits to order. I draw portraits of people!
Do not confuse plagiarism! You do not have the right to call me that. Plagiarism is the appropriation, pictures, photos, names, and so on. Assignment, it means giving someone work for their own!
I painted a portrait, and this is already my art! I was inspired by this child and I wanted to draw it! What's not clear!?
You do Not have the right to Monetize derivative artworks of a copyrighted photograph Without the Permission of the Author.
We are not confusing the definition of plagiarism https://steemit.com/abuse/@jaguar.force/what-is-art-plagiarism-by-francis-leverett-golden inform yourself about the true scope and shades of art plagiarism.
Plagiarism is not only taking someones drawing/photograph/artwork and passing it as your own, thats called art theft, and its only the most blatant form of art plagiarism, the most common one is called art paraphrasing, which is what you are doing.
If somebody gives you a picture so you make a portrait of them, thats a different thing, since they are the model on the photograph and have the right to use it.
In this case, the photograph is Copyrighted by the photographer, that means that the photographer reserves all the rights of the picture to herself, and that means that to make derivative works of that photograph, as for example Your Drawing, you need permission from the author to do so. Additionally since by posting it in Steemit you are monetizing it you also need permission from the author to do that as well.