RE: winter flowers: phisalis

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

winter flowers: phisalis

in hive-109690 •  2 years ago 

Oh, it is all over the world. I think the term to look for is Intellectual property.

Here is an example about copyright.
Here is what it sais:

"Only the creator/owner of the work is allowed to decide what his/her work is used for. That means you can’t use it without permission.
If you do use an image or work you found online without written permission of the creator, you are breaking the law. The creator is allowed to ask for a settlement for the damage done. And that can cost you a lot of money."

Meaning, if someone uses your photos, without your permission, you can sue them.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

A very understandable piece, this is what I know too; does not raise doubts and does not give rise to discussions. But there is a need to verify the terms. What is your work and someone else's work, what is modification of someone else's work, and so on.

If you print my work (photo) in a booklet - this is one thing, if you made a collage with my photo and published it in your booklet - this is another thing, but if you saw my photo of Stonehenge and painted Stonehenge based on what you see in it, then your original work - well, bring the thought to the end yourself, huh? ...

Who owns the intellectual property in this case?

... of course, the creators of Stonehenge! sure thing, after all, you copied my photo, and I copied their work with the help of my camera ... right? NO. Your interpretation is completely foggy, obscure... a mistake. You described your position, where do you stand - thank you! but I didn't see a justifiable reference to international copyright law, only its (incorrect) interpretation... something like this :_ lets stop here?

Очень понятный кусок, это то что я знаю, не вызывает сомнений и не дает повода для дискуссий. Но есть необходимость верифицировать термины. Что есть ваша работа и чужая работа, модификация чужой работы, и так далее. Если вы печатаете в буклете мою работу(фото) - это одно, если вы сделали коллаж с участием моего фото, и опубликовали в моем буклете - это другое, а если вы увидели на моем фото Стоунхендж и нарисовали Стоунхендж, основываясь на том что вы видите, то ваша оригинальная работа - ну, доведите мысль до конца сами, ага?... кому принадлежит интеллектуальная собственность в данном случае?.. разумеется, творцам Стоунхенджа! ведь вы скопировали мое фото, а я при помощи камеры скопировал их произведение... да? НЕТ. Ваша интерпретация совершенно туманна, обскуре ... ошибка.

I just copied one sentence from one article to show. I read a lot in the past.
What I could understand from it, is that I do not fully understand it.
Therefore, I try not to take any chance, especially if lawyers and other people can start to interpret things in their own way.
Bottom line, I try to be careful.

What I could understand from it, is that I do not fully understand it.

;)

Therefore, I try not to take any chance, especially if lawyers and other people can start to interpret things

Totally understand that! Wise position. WIsh you well :D