Have you ever downloaded and image and frame it?

[ratchet]

Originally Posted by Underdog07

A Massachusetts court just upheld the $675,000 verdict against a man for downloading 30 songs.

But those artists were SELLING those songs - and the man STOLE them from the artists.

Bulls asked about an artist who was not interested in selling a piece of artwork. Just showing it off.

Your example is a bad one.

[ratchet]

Not to mention - like many have said - this artist is most likely using characters that don't belong to them in the first place.

[Underdog07]

Originally Posted by ratchet

But those artists were SELLING those songs - and the man STOLE them from the artists.

Bulls asked about an artist who was not interested in selling a piece of artwork. Just showing it off.

Your example is a bad one.

It was just to show that what people consider to be lawful is in fact not and the decision just came down today. There are examples of people taking for own use and having to pay about 1k per song.

[Underdog07]

Originally Posted by ratchet

Not to mention - like many have said - this artist is most likely using characters that don't belong to them in the first place.

2 wrongs do not make a right. And, while I disagree, the artist may still have copyright rights in the piece that uses the character he does not own.

[ratchet]

Originally Posted by Underdog07

It was just to show that what people consider to be lawful is in fact not and the decision just came down today. There are examples of people taking for own use and having to pay about 1k per song.

But that was never considered lawful - stealing is stealing. This "artist" that Bulls is talking about is not asking for money for his piece. To me - that makes a huge difference.

[Underdog07]

NOw, at the end of the day, does anyone care? Not likely other than perhaps the artist. Would Bulls get in trouble probably not in the US, more possible I. The UK and even more possible in France.

[ratchet]

Originally Posted by Underdog07

2 wrongs do not make a right. And, while I disagree, the artist may still have copyright rights in the piece that uses the character he does not own.

Even if he uses them without consent of the actual copyright owner? I'm not so sure...

[Underdog07]

Originally Posted by ratchet

But that was never considered lawful - stealing is stealing. This "artist" that Bulls is talking about is not asking for money for his piece. To me - that makes a huge difference.

I don't follow this logic. That would mean every work of art that was not offered for sale would not be covered by a copyright and the law just does not read that way (nor is it applied that way).

[ratchet]

This may not apply - but - when Syco tried to release the Fergino "Hulk" statue Marvel stopped them - because they own the copyright to the character - even though they had nothing to do with the sculpt that was created.

[Underdog07]

Originally Posted by ratchet

Even if he uses them without consent of the actual copyright owner? I'm not so sure...

I have been told that by attornies who actively practice CR law. As I said, I don't agree but that seems to be the case. I looked into this about 6 years ago for people on this forum