NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I went to the salon yesterday and got a hair cut from my favorite homosexual hairdresser... and while I was there, in the shampoo chair, as it were, I was looking at the wall where they have paintings and sculpture for sale.

I saw an interesting piece of art, that I liked, but I am unwilling to pay $225 for it, since in my mind I can make something similar for much cheaper (think $30) and then I would have one and the money left over to go back and support my stylist.

Now, is this ethical? is it wrong? what if I modify it? am I still copying then? or was I inspired?

What do you think?

See if you can haggle. I've seen my soon-to-be-half-brother-in-law haggle a book from $600 down to about $150. I think.

So, I went to the salon yesterday and got a hair cut from my favorite homosexual hairdresser... and while I was there, in the shampoo chair, as it were, I was looking at the wall where they have paintings and sculpture for sale.

I saw an interesting piece of art, that I liked, but I am unwilling to pay $225 for it, since in my mind I can make something similar for much cheaper (think $30) and then I would have one and the money left over to go back and support my stylist.

Now, is this ethical? is it wrong? what if I modify it? am I still copying then? or was I inspired?

What do you think?


Try getting away with saying you were 'inspired' at a plagerism trial. I'm sure it will go down well. However if it is for your own private enjoyment copy it. Proper artists shouldn't earn anything until after they are dead anyway.

So, I went to the salon yesterday and got a hair cut from my favorite homosexual hairdresser... and while I was there, in the shampoo chair, as it were, I was looking at the wall where they have paintings and sculpture for sale.

I saw an interesting piece of art, that I liked, but I am unwilling to pay $225 for it, since in my mind I can make something similar for much cheaper (think $30) and then I would have one and the money left over to go back and support my stylist.

Now, is this ethical? is it wrong? what if I modify it? am I still copying then? or was I inspired?

What do you think?

Plagarism? Who cares, you're hardly selling it on are you?

As for purchasing it, or making it, I'd do the latter, simply because I'm a great fan of hairdressers.:p

If I see an item on the menu of a restaurant but don't feel like paying through the nose I see no reason why I can't go home and make the same meal myself for a fraction of the cost.

Try getting away with saying you were 'inspired' at a plagerism trial. I'm sure it will go down well. However if it is for your own private enjoyment copy it. Proper artists shouldn't earn anything until after they are dead anyway.
if I make a slightly modified version, more in line with my taste.....is that still plagiarism?

it would be wrong to copy it and call it your own design. if you're copying it to practice the skill, then use those skills to create something of your own design, then it would be created by you. As long as you don't turn around and start selling them, I think you're ethically okay, as long as you credit the original artist with the design.

In other words, if someone comes to your house and says "hey, that's cool" the ethical response would be "thanks! so and so makes them and sells them at my hairdressers and wanted to try one myself to see how it'd come out. if you like it, he's selling them there."

it would be unethical, i think, to start mass producing them for your friends if they liked them, however.

it depends on what you plan to do.

if you want to take a photograph and make a literal copy of the piece, its wrong. you are stealing the artists intellectual property.

if you are inspired by the piece and go home and make your own version without further reference to the original, you are doing what artists have done for centuries.

there was, for example, a discussion on cbs' sunday morning the other week about how modern US artists were inspired by piscasso. even jackson pollock used picasso inspired forms in his drip paintings! others more slavishly used his cubist style to make their own paintings. no one suggested that these people were plagarizing.

an artist takes inspiration where she finds it and in the end makes a piece of art that is uniquely hers no matter where that inspiration came from.

if I make a slightly modified version, more in line with my taste.....is that still plagiarism?

You worry too much.

Unless you start to produce and sell replicas of the artists work and claim it as your own then you are not plagarising.

It is not forbidden under many moral codes to see a good idea and to immitate it.

if I make a slightly modified version, more in line with my taste.....is that still plagiarism?

I think slightly modifying it would still count as plagerism - same as lifting a text from the internet for an assignment and changing some of the words to match your own syntax.

I see nothing wrong with making your own version of it. Particularly since I can't fathom spending that kind of coin on something useless as art.

Artists have always learned by copying the works of others. Michelangelo began his artistic education copying classical sculptures.

Reproducing a work of art you like for your own pleasure (and not to pass off as a genuine original by the artist in questin) is fine - "imitiation is the sincerest form of flattery"

Smunk, it's not plagerism as long as
1) you don't try to say it's an original creation. you can say that the sculpture inspired you and as long as you don't say that it was tottally your idea.
2) you don't try to sell it off as an original peice of work.

I would suggest you get all the info down, what it's called, who the sculpture is... etc.. and make the notation when you create your sculpture. "inspired by ####### by #####"

it depends on what you plan to do.

if you want to take a photograph and make a literal copy of the piece, its wrong. you are stealing the artists intellectual property.

if you are inspired by the piece and go home and make your own version without further reference to the original, you are doing what artists have done for centuries.

there was, for example, a discussion on cbs' sunday morning the other week about how modern US artists were inspired by piscasso. even jackson pollock used picasso inspired forms in his drip paintings! others more slavishly used his cubist style to make their own paintings. no one suggested that these people were plagarizing.

an artist takes inspiration where she finds it and in the end makes a piece of art that is uniquely hers no matter where that inspiration came from.

it wouldn't be exactly the same, for example it would be on a different sized canvas, and different colors, and different text, and stuff.......but it would still have the same "feel" if that makes sense.

In response to selling it, or mass production, I wouldn't, because I don't have the time or energy, and also, I want this for a specific place in my house and wouldn't want my friends to have anything similar.

i'd say there's no dilemma - to create an exact of near copy for your own use is not hurting anyone. you are unwilling to pay the asking price therefor you wouldn't buy it. someone who is willing to pay the price will come along and buy it, and you will still have satisfied your appreciation of that form, you will also have the satisfaction of creating something yourself.

and, yeh, why did you mention the sexual orientation of your stylist? is s/he the creator of the sculpture, and is it representative in some way of their sexuality?

and, yeh, why did you mention the sexual orientation of your stylist? is s/he the creator of the sculpture, and is it representative in some way of their sexuality?
no, he just felt the need to "come out" to me yesterday during the time I was there.....it was pretty surreal.

"uh... I have to tell you something"
"okay?"
"I am homosexual"
"okay."
"are you uncomfortable around me now?"
"no"
"oh, good, because I like you"
"okay"
"but, not in an inappropriate way"
"I figured you didn't because you are gay"
"did you already know I was gay?"
"I assumed"
"why?"
"you mentioned your boyfriend once"
"oh..."

it wouldn't be exactly the same, for example it would be on a different sized canvas, and different colors, and different text, and stuff.......but it would still have the same "feel" if that makes sense.

In response to selling it, or mass production, I wouldn't, because I don't have the time or energy, and also, I want this for a specific place in my house and wouldn't want my friends to have anything similar.

i dont see a problem with it.

although its good to pay money for art that you love. it keeps artists in business. doing it just to avoid the very reasonable $225 price is wrong. using the inspiration to make something uniquely yours is fine.

no, he just felt the need to "come out" to me yesterday during the time I was there.....it was pretty surreal.

"uh... I have to tell you something"
"okay?"
"I am homosexual"
"okay."
"are you uncomfortable around me now?"
"no"
"oh, good, because I like you"
"okay"
"but, not in an inappropriate way"
"I figured you didn't because you are gay"
"did you already know I was gay?"
"I assumed"
"why?"
"you mentioned your boyfriend once"
"oh..."
LOL, some people are silly coming out. although don't you live in the bible belt? maybe it's hard to believe one would be accepted as a homosexual there? dunno. still it's odd to bring it up outside of the flow of conversation, makes it unnecessarily awkward in that sort of circumstance.

if you are creating something for your own private purposes, inspired by someone elses work, that you wouldn't have purchased even if you did not create the item in question, I fail to see any ethical dilema.

And plagerism trial? Since when is plagerism a criminal or civil act?

i dont see a problem with it.

although its good to pay money for art that you love. it keeps artists in business. doing it just to avoid the very reasonable $225 price is wrong. using the inspiration to make something uniquely yours is fine.

I am tempted to do both.... buy his, and make my own.

:p

something tells me that's not going to go over well with my husband

"now you want $300?!"

LOL, some people are silly coming out. although don't you live in the bible belt? maybe it's hard to believe one would be accepted as a homosexual there? dunno. still it's odd to bring it up outside of the flow of conversation, makes it unnecessarily awkward in that sort of circumstance.

well, he knows that I attend the church down the street and apparently he was afraid that I was in denial or homophobic or something....I don't know.

no, he just felt the need to "come out" to me yesterday during the time I was there.....it was pretty surreal.

"uh... I have to tell you something"
"okay?"
"I am homosexual"
"okay."
"are you uncomfortable around me now?"
"no"
"oh, good, because I like you"
"okay"
"but, not in an inappropriate way"
"I figured you didn't because you are gay"
"did you already know I was gay?"
"I assumed"
"why?"
"you mentioned your boyfriend once"
"oh..."

lol

i tend to assume that all male hairdressers are gay (prejudice i know). it takes a very dedicated man who is very secure in his own heterosexuality to put up with the ration of shit he would take being a straight hairdresser.

well, he knows that I attend the church down the street and apparently he was afraid that I was in denial or homophobic or something....I don't know.

All male hairdressers are required by law to be gay.

lol

i tend to assume that all male hairdressers are gay (prejudice i know). it takes a very dedicated man who is very secure in his own heterosexuality to put up with the ration of shit he would take being a straight hairdresser.

Or one with a hair fetish.

There are plenty of male hair dressers, we call 'em barbers.

All male hairdressers are required by law to be gay.

he is pretty flamboyant.

Or one with a hair fetish.

There are plenty of male hair dressers, we call 'em barbers.

Yeah, I 'spose. You never hear woman being called "barbers". I think this is how the stereotype terminology goes:

Haircutter: Neutral
Hair Dresser: Female or gay man
Barber: Straight man

it wouldn't be exactly the same, for example it would be on a different sized canvas, and different colors, and different text, and stuff.......but it would still have the same "feel" if that makes sense.

In response to selling it, or mass production, I wouldn't, because I don't have the time or energy, and also, I want this for a specific place in my house and wouldn't want my friends to have anything similar.

if it would have different colors and text it would certaintly be no plagiarism. just look at the art from a few ages ago, full with jesuses and curved women. nobody is complaining about their plagiarism. and if you just are going to put it in your house nobody will know you have "copied" it.

oh, and morals are nice when you're debating stuff like laws or wars or abortus etc. but i don't think you should be worried about the moralty of painting.

Or one with a hair fetish.

There are plenty of male hair dressers, we call 'em barbers.

Barbers aren't hairdressers. Barbers were originally war field surgeons (the red and white pole is a representation of blood and bandages). The main difference is barbers offer such things as beard trim, trim, head shave etc. My barber would rather swallow his own scissors than offer tinted highlights and the such. (I have been going to my barber now for about 23 years and he is getting balder every year - isn't this a bit like an oncologist chain smiking with a microwave strapped to their head - he should change jobs or get a wig).

Or one with a hair fetish.

There are plenty of male hair dressers, we call 'em barbers.

thats why i called them hair dressers, barbers are manly men.

my nephews father used to be a hairdresser. he is a rather manly man. quite the womanizer. the only chink in his armor is his blatant homophobia.

the only chink in his armor is his blatant homophobia.

He might've just put that on to discourage stereotyping. I mean, when you're like "Fuck them homo fags!" are you really gonna ask if he's gay? (Of course, he could be a Pastor Ted.)

well, he knows that I attend the church down the street and apparently he was afraid that I was in denial or homophobic or something....I don't know.

... I don't think so. after all, if he did think you were homophobic, he wouldn't have "come out" to you.

I think he really liked you as a friend and he just wanted you to know him. either that or he encountered something that made him want to know that there are others that won't judge him by his preferences of sleeping partners.


in other words... you gave him something he probably really needed. Friendship.

if it would have different colors and text it would certaintly be no plagiarism. just look at the art from a few ages ago, full with jesuses and curved women. nobody is complaining about their plagiarism. and if you just are going to put it in your house nobody will know you have "copied" it.

oh, and morals are nice when you're debating stuff like laws or wars or abortus etc. but i don't think you should be worried about the moralty of painting.

stealing other peoples ideas is a terrible thing. anyone interested in the arts needs to be acutely aware of ethics.

stealing other peoples ideas is a terrible thing. anyone interested in the arts needs to be acutely aware of ethics.

hence the reason for the thread, I am trying to figure out where that line is... because I don't want to cross it.

stealing other peoples ideas is a terrible thing. anyone interested in the arts needs to be acutely aware of ethics.

The distinction between theft and influence is blurred. Would one consider "Paradise Lost" to be a theft from Dante, Virgil and Homer? Perhaps not. However, are Roman copies of Greek sculptures theft? Equally difficult to determine.

Provided Smunkee doesn't intend to sell the work as her own, I see no problem.

I have to go along with most everyone else and say try to make it. You won't be able to make an exact copy anyway and you aren't going to sign it with the other person's name and try to sell it as his. I could easily do a Picasso style painting but wouldn't pass it off as real and I'm sure an expert could tell it wasn't his, but it would be good enough for me. You pay the money because you want to tell friends "I can afford a _________ sculpture" Look how many times you see the Mt. Rushmore sculpture copied and satired. The original is still the original.

If people didn't copy sculpture, we wouldn't have any bowls, pots, pans, storage jars, or anything else that makes up society.

So, I went to the salon yesterday and got a hair cut from my favorite homosexual hairdresser... and while I was there, in the shampoo chair, as it were, I was looking at the wall where they have paintings and sculpture for sale.

I saw an interesting piece of art, that I liked, but I am unwilling to pay $225 for it, since in my mind I can make something similar for much cheaper (think $30) and then I would have one and the money left over to go back and support my stylist.

Now, is this ethical? is it wrong? what if I modify it? am I still copying then? or was I inspired?

What do you think?
Um, it's completely ethical for you to make art for your own pleasure. There is nothing whatsoever unethical about making a piece of art that you like and displaying it for your own enjoyment.

If you were planning to copy another person's work and then pass it off as completely your own, that would be dishonest. If you were planning to copy another person's work and sell it for your own profit (and, therefore, their expense), that would be rotten. But it sounds like you just saw something nice and would like to make something similar to it. Have fun.

If you were planning to copy another person's work and then pass it off as completely your own, that would be dishonest. If you were planning to copy another person's work and sell it for your own profit (and, therefore, their expense), that would be rotten. But it sounds like you just saw something nice and would like to make something similar to it. Have fun.

Rotten nothing, it would be illegal.

As for as him coming out. If he thinks you attend a church that has a reputation of being fundamentalist, he would have cause to worry that it was going to cost him customers. Ironically it will probably cost him some customers and gain him others. Hopefully, it will balance out for him.

its a tough question, one that we cant trust our instincts on because we tend to rationalize our own behavior.

im thinking that the test might be "would you show it to him?"

if it is so much like his that you would be worried that he would be pissed when he saw it or it would embarrass you to show it to him, you have crossed the line.

why is that, necessarily? Is the line of our behavior we should do nothing that might upset someone else?

hence the reason for the thread, I am trying to figure out where that line is... because I don't want to cross it.

its a tough question, one that we cant trust our instincts on because we tend to rationalize our own behavior.

im thinking that the test might be "would you show it to him?"

if it is so much like his that you would be worried that he would be pissed when he saw it or it would embarrass you to show it to him, you have crossed the line.

hence the reason for the thread, I am trying to figure out where that line is... because I don't want to cross it.

i would reckon the line is right where you then decide to represent the art as your own original work and wish to sell it as such. to me the idea of intellectual property is overused and overprotected - my feeling is, once knowledge or art is put out into the public domain it then becomes fair game to be copied and reproduced, but i understand that is a rather unpopular stance. i don't know anyone else who really doesn't care who wrote, painted, sculpted, directed, designed, performed, constructed, etc. something. to me it doesn't matter, once something becomes publicly available and appreciated it becomes the property of the public. but apparently it's something that gets people all hot and bothered so i'll just leave it there.

i would reckon the line is right where you then decide to represent the art as your own original work and wish to sell it as such. to me the idea of intellectual property is overused and overprotected - my feeling is, once knowledge or art is put out into the public domain it then becomes fair game to be copied and reproduced, but i understand that is a rather unpopular stance. i don't know anyone else who really doesn't care who wrote, painted, sculpted, directed, designed, performed, constructed, etc. something. to me it doesn't matter, once something becomes publicly available and appreciated it becomes the property of the public. but apparently it's something that gets people all hot and bothered so i'll just leave it there.

that is an...extremely eronious view of intellectual property and one that would gut an artist's ability to make a living on his or her reputation.

Tht being said, my feeling that this is ok involves ONLY that it be held in private, for private use, not sold or distributed to the public.

stealing other peoples ideas is a terrible thing. anyone interested in the arts needs to be acutely aware of ethics.

and what if she adds something to those ideas? wouldn't it be terrible if she wasn't allowed to make a better painting because she stole some ideas of other people?

why is that, necessarily? Is the line of our behavior we should do nothing that might upset someone else?

because smunkee understands that plagarism is wrong and wants to avoid it while using her hairdresser's painting as an inspiration.

it is, however, quite easy to cross that line from inspiration to plagarism (does plagarism cover paintings?). she has no desire to do that.

so how to tell when you have crossed that line when your mind is quite willing to tell you that everything you do is right?

my contention is that you probably do know when you have crossed that line--a crossing that might only be in your intent and that only you might be able to detect. i think that the easiest way to tell is by taking it public. the first way to do that is to IMAGINE taking it public and what you would think the reaction would be. if you are sure that they artist who inspired you would consider it plagarism because of his or your imagined reaction to showing it to him, you probably know that you shouldnt make the painting.

it wouldnt work for everyone.

its not a matter of not upsetting someone else. its a matter of figuring out where the line is before you cross it. if you have a well developed conscience, you test that conscience before you do something wrong.

the fullest test of theft of intellectual property is to make it, take it public, and have the original artist sue you. then the court will decide if you have crossed the line. i would want to avoid that unpleasantness.

I won't know until I am done if it will upset him or not.... I would rather keep my friendship with him than have the painting.

... you could ask him... for all you know, he might just give it to you a discount if you express your interest in the painting but not the price tag. :p

and what if she adds something to those ideas? wouldn't it be terrible if she wasn't allowed to make a better painting because she stole some ideas of other people?

theres the question eh?

its not wrong to start with someone elses ideas and do your own thing with them.

it IS wrong to copy someone else's work

the trick is to figure out which you are doing.

because smunkee understands that plagarism is wrong and wants to avoid it while using her hairdresser's painting as an inspiration.

it is, however, quite easy to cross that line from inspiration to plagarism (does plagarism cover paintings?). she has no desire to do that.

so how to tell when you have crossed that line when your mind is quite willing to tell you that everything you do is right?

my contention is that you probably do know when you have crossed that line--a crossing that might only be in your intent and that only you might be able to detect. i think that the easiest way to tell is by taking it public. the first way to do that is to IMAGINE taking it public and what you would think the reaction would be. if you are sure that they artist who inspired you would consider it plagarism because of his or your imagined reaction to showing it to him, you probably know that you shouldnt make the painting.

it wouldnt work for everyone.

its not a matter of not upsetting someone else. its a matter of figuring out where the line is before you cross it. if you have a well developed conscience, you test that conscience before you do something wrong.

the fullest test of theft of intellectual property is to make it, take it public, and have the original artist sue you. then the court will decide if you have crossed the line. i would want to avoid that unpleasantness.

I won't know until I am done if it will upset him or not.... I would rather keep my friendship with him than have the painting.

because smunkee understands that plagarism is wrong and wants to avoid it while using her hairdresser's painting as an inspiration.

it is, however, quite easy to cross that line from inspiration to plagarism (does plagarism cover paintings?). she has no desire to do that.

two problems:

first, plagiarism technically coveres only literary works, not paintings, just part of the definition of the word.

Second, plagiarism involves taking credit for someone elses work, to use that work and call it your own. In other words, I can use other people's works fine, I just can't use them and pretend they were mine.

Who, exactly, is she telling that the painting was her idea? To whom is she trying to pass off this work as her own? Who is being told it was a smunkee original?

It seems she's being quite upfront about the fact that it was an inspired work, and giving credit where credit is due. I can't really call this plagiarism.

stealing other peoples ideas is a terrible thing. anyone interested in the arts needs to be acutely aware of ethics.
In many art classes I have been asked to reproduce a famous painting. It's a way of experimenting with styles and seeing how do to them. The problem is when you sell them/pass them off as your own. If it's for yourself and you credit them there is no issue.

hence the reason for the thread, I am trying to figure out where that line is... because I don't want to cross it.

Plagiarism: Literary theft. Plagiarism occurs when a writer duplicates another writer's language or ideas and then calls the work his or her own. Copyright laws protect writers' words as their legal property. To avoid the charge of plagiarism, writers take care to credit those from whom they borrow and quote.

"plagiarism." The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. 16 Feb. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plagiarism>.

So say it is theres then you'll be fine and if it's modified then you were inspired.

I won't know until I am done if it will upset him or not.... I would rather keep my friendship with him than have the painting.

wait wait, did the hairdresser make this painting? or is it the painting of someone you don't know that was hanging in the salon?

... you could ask him... for all you know, he might just give it to you a discount if you express your interest in the painting but not the price tag. :p

ah, but I have it in my mind now that his painting is partially imperfect, and I think I could make a better one....

ah, but I have it in my mind now that his painting is partially imperfect, and I think I could make a better one....

then do one of your own. and if it does come out "better"... just don't let him know.

If he should happen to see it, then be honest and say that his painting inspired you to create yours. :cool:

wait wait, did the hairdresser make this painting? or is it the painting of someone you don't know that was hanging in the salon?

it's his. :( which makes this whole thing even worse. I did ask about the deal with the paintings though, and he would actually get more money from me if I pay him to highlight my hair than he will from the painting, since the salon takes a percentage of the sales of the art.

If you make a copy of it from memory, for your own satisfaction, no problem. I really don't see that as much different from retaining a memory of the work, which was surely the intention of the artist: to affect you and others who saw it.

Now, you've got your copy hanging on the wall in your house. A guest says "hey, that's cool! Where'd you get it?"
"I made it myself" -- wrong.
"I copied it from something I saw in my hairstylist" -- OK. Better if you remember their name or credit it right there on your copy.

Selling it as a copy, without the original artists permission -- wrong.
Selling it as an original work of yours, without credit to the author -- very very wrong.

*gavel*

that is an...extremely eronious view of intellectual property and one that would gut an artist's ability to make a living on his or her reputation.

Tht being said, my feeling that this is ok involves ONLY that it be held in private, for private use, not sold or distributed to the public.

i appreciate it's not a viable position in a world where things must be sold in order to live. it's not something i'd wish to see implemented in the here and now, at least not officially. it is however something that i believe is essential to the free flow and exchange of ideas, but as i said that is neither here nor there in the kind of society we live in at the moment where access to knowledge and ideas is restricted by (and to) whovever possesses or can buy the rights to them.

it's his. :( which makes this whole thing even worse. I did ask about the deal with the paintings though, and he would actually get more money from me if I pay him to highlight my hair than he will from the painting, since the salon takes a percentage of the sales of the art.

my suggestion? Tell him you can't really afford the painting and ask if he'd take offense if you made something of your own using his as an inspiration.

If he says he would, don't do it.

Or, alternatively, if you like his work enough to pay him for it but don't want the salon to take a cut, ask him to paint you something of his which you'll pay him for.

it might not be illegal or sue-able but it would be wrong for smunkee to avoid paying $225 for a painting she loves because she can make a copy of it.

she is worried about crossing the line from inspirtaion to intellectual theft. she wants to figure out whether or not her intent is to do just that.

it probably is not. its unlikely that her work will truly be enough like his to be considered a copy of any sort. i cant be sure of that since i didnt see his painting and i dont know what her intended painting would look like.

if she would expect HIM to think that it is a copy if he were to see it, she may well be intending to subtantially copy his work. its an easy test for someone who is worried about the ethics of art.

I never said it wasn't a violation of intellectual property.

I said it wasn't plagairism because plagairism requires a withholding of credit. It may still be a copyright violation.

In fact, pretty much it would be.

two problems:

first, plagiarism technically coveres only literary works, not paintings, just part of the definition of the word.

Second, plagiarism involves taking credit for someone elses work, to use that work and call it your own. In other words, I can use other people's works fine, I just can't use them and pretend they were mine.

Who, exactly, is she telling that the painting was her idea? To whom is she trying to pass off this work as her own? Who is being told it was a smunkee original?

It seems she's being quite upfront about the fact that it was an inspired work, and giving credit where credit is due. I can't really call this plagiarism.

it might not be illegal or sue-able but it would be wrong for smunkee to avoid paying $225 for a painting she loves because she can make a copy of it.

she is worried about crossing the line from inspirtaion to intellectual theft. she wants to figure out whether or not her intent is to do just that.

it probably is not. its unlikely that her work will truly be enough like his to be considered a copy of any sort. i cant be sure of that since i didnt see his painting and i dont know what her intended painting would look like.

if she would expect HIM to think that it is a copy if he were to see it, she may well be intending to subtantially copy his work. its an easy test for someone who is worried about the ethics of art.

Stylists make good money, and he probably doesn't have a family to support.
Plus he made you look at his art just so you could get your hair styled.
If you bought it off him, he might put something really ugly there instead.
Rip his work off mercilessly. Add a price tag four times his.
Do it better if you can, print it on a t-shirt so he has to look at it all the time he's doing your hair.

:gavels water-jug, spraying court in wet shards of glass:

In many art classes I have been asked to reproduce a famous painting. It's a way of experimenting with styles and seeing how do to them. The problem is when you sell them/pass them off as your own. If it's for yourself and you credit them there is no issue.


there are people who make a living off of doing copies of classic paintings. theres nothing wrong with it.

there is an ethical issue involved in avoiding paying for a painting because you have the ability to copy it. you arent studying technique, you are are taking someone else's idea and putting it on your wall. its not illegal. its not anything the artist can sue you for, but it is unethical and should nag at you for as long as it hangs on your wall.

not that im saying that smunkee is doing that.

I never said it wasn't a violation of intellectual property.

I said it wasn't plagairism because plagairism requires a withholding of credit. It may still be a copyright violation.

In fact, pretty much it would be.

is there legal term for art "plagarism"?

there are people who make a living off of doing copies of classic paintings. theres nothing wrong with it.

there is an ethical issue involved in avoiding paying for a painting because you have the ability to copy it. you arent studying technique, you are are taking someone else's idea and putting it on your wall. its not illegal. its not anything the artist can sue you for, but it is unethical and should nag at you for as long as it hangs on your wall.
see? you understand what I am having a problem with.

not that im saying that smunkee is doing that.
probably not, I am still thinking..... I may just do something completely different using the same medium.

is there legal term for art "plagarism"?

the problem with that, as I aid, plagiarism requires failure to give credit. There's no special intellectual property violation that involves failure to give credit.

Copyright violation doesn't care about whether you give credit or not. An artist has certain rights, and violating those rights can be actionable, regardless of whether you give credit or not.

So in a general sense, copyright is prevention of "legal plagiarism" in that it prevents copying someone's work, but it's not directly on point ot plagiarism becuase for copyright violation it doesn't matter if you give credit or not.

I want to "paint" a blank canvass and sell it for $20 000 to some idiot on ebay. :)

Oh, you never mentioned, is your hairdresser cute? ^^

I don't see the ethical problem. If it were something other than "art" there wouldn't be one; if it were a cake and you went home and made your own, no worries. You'd probably flatter the original cook if you asked for the recipe.
If it were some mechanical contraption you saw that you made a copy of, again, no problem. My dad does this all the time; he's made exact replicas of all sorts of things, because he's unwilling/unable to buy them, or simply wants to make one himself.
So no problem here, so long as you're not dishonest about it ("It was all my idea, darling. I made it to represent my struggle with cheesecake. I'm a genius.").

I hope you know you just made me spit coffee on my keyboard.....

:D

My work here is done :D

"It was all my idea, darling. I made it to represent my struggle with cheesecake. I'm a genius."

I hope you know you just made me spit coffee on my keyboard.....

:D

ok so if i take a page out of someone else's book and put it into my own published work its plagarism if i dont say where i got it and a copyright violation if i do?
I think in both cases it's copyright violation, but it's also plagiarism if you don't say what you did.

It's like how if you steal somebody's bike and then claim it's yours, you are guilty of both theft and lying. If you steal somebody's bike but freely admit it really belongs to them, you're still a thief, you just aren't lying about it.

the problem with that, as I aid, plagiarism requires failure to give credit. There's no special intellectual property violation that involves failure to give credit.

Copyright violation doesn't care about whether you give credit or not. An artist has certain rights, and violating those rights can be actionable, regardless of whether you give credit or not.

So in a general sense, copyright is prevention of "legal plagiarism" in that it prevents copying someone's work, but it's not directly on point ot plagiarism becuase for copyright violation it doesn't matter if you give credit or not.

ok so if i take a page out of someone else's book and put it into my own published work its plagarism if i dont say where i got it and a copyright violation if i do?

ok so if i take a page out of someone else's book and put it into my own published work its plagarism if i dont say where i got it and a copyright violation if i do?

it's plagiarism if you don't say where you got it from (which is not actually illegal, though may violate your educational/employment code of ethics).

It's copyright violation either way.

It's not like it's only copyright violation if you do give credit. Copyright law doesn't CARE if you give credit or not. It's irrelevant to the determination of whether a copyright violation occured.

under copyight you MAY NOT appropriat someone elses work without their consent. It doesn't matter if you give credit or not.

If I write something, and you copy it it and sell it without my permission, that's copyright violation. If I write something, and you copy it and sell it without my permission, and at the bottom "by the way, Arthais101 wrote this" it's STILL copyright violation.

Copyright is about permission from the artist, you can only do what he lets you do. It doesn't matter if you give credit or not, if you do it without permission, it's copyright violation.

I want to "paint" a blank canvass and sell it for $20 000 to some idiot on ebay. :)

i was in.....some museum with modern art in it, maybe the chicago art institute... and they had on the wall the work of a guy who painted the canvas black and stenciled the date in the middle in white. (i didnt study it so it may be that it wasnt a stencil but was artfully painted to look like it was stencilled). i dont know how they decided that THAT date was worth buying but the next day wasnt.

See if you can haggle. I've seen my soon-to-be-half-brother-in-law haggle a book from $600 down to about $150. I think.

I have a friend who is much the same. In China the other day he managed to get a Mao statue, asking price about $24, for about $2.50.

But if you can make something similar and more to your tastes for less cost, I see no reason why not.

i was in.....some museum with modern art in it, maybe the chicago art institute... and they had on the wall the work of a guy who painted the canvas black and stenciled the date in the middle in white. (i didnt study it so it may be that it wasnt a stencil but was artfully painted to look like it was stencilled). i dont know how they decided that THAT date was worth buying but the next day wasnt.
To be honest, I cannot understand the mentality of people who would spend so much money on such flimsy artwork. I mean, sure, it may be the result of the artist's creativity, but simply buying a blank canvas from an art shop will still inspire me anyway - why must I pay some artist for it to have that effect?

So, I went to the salon yesterday and got a hair cut from my favorite homosexual hairdresser... and while I was there, in the shampoo chair, as it were, I was looking at the wall where they have paintings and sculpture for sale.

I saw an interesting piece of art, that I liked, but I am unwilling to pay $225 for it, since in my mind I can make something similar for much cheaper (think $30) and then I would have one and the money left over to go back and support my stylist.

Now, is this ethical? is it wrong? what if I modify it? am I still copying then? or was I inspired?

What do you think?

Seems to me there's two things that could make it unethical. Are you out to make an exact copy and are you out to pass it off as your own? If the answers are yes, then it's unethical. Otherwise, you're on safe ground.

The question of the line between inspiration and ripping someone off is a very fine one in the creative world, and it's in different places depending on who you ask. The old saying "good poets borrow, great poets steal" has a ring of truth to it for a reason--doing something completely original is nearly impossible at this point in history. We're all infected by what has come before, and that's not a bad thing--if we didn't learn from others, we'd simply reinvent what others have done and never expand beyond it.

Try getting away with saying you were 'inspired' at a plagerism trial. only in America.. the land of the Lawsuit.

To be honest, I cannot understand the mentality of people who would spend so much money on such flimsy artwork. I mean, sure, it may be the result of the artist's creativity, but simply buying a blank canvas from an art shop will still inspire me anyway - why must I pay some artist for it to have that effect?

i dont like art that isnt made from inspiration but instead is made from ideas.

putting the date on a black canvas might have some story behind it but there is no way that the guy was inspired by doing the same thing every day for however long he did it. (from what little i remember it seems to have been a long time). i want to be moved by the painting itself not by the justification of it.

i feel the same way about paintings with great framing and matting and paintings with cute titles. if it needs the extra help, maybe its not all that good.