You select your community before being able to vote. But then how do you stop people lying. Hmmm. Will think about it.
Also. Entrants could get a special "uber" vote privilege of some sort. Extra points to dish out, or a special vote allowing them to vote for their own communities, etc.
Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote for members of your own community. Just a thought.
That is not a good idea and not likely even an area for concern.
My voting suggestion:
Split/combined voting by community and judges with judge's votes more heavily weighted.
Community voters are allowed to give competitors zero, one, or two points.
Judges vote on a zero to four point scale.
Total of each set of voting categories (community and judge) are totaled separately and divided by the number of voters in that category. These two totals are then added together for the final vote.
This may not be a perfect set-up (or my point scales may be screwy), but it's just a thought.
There are some problems with public voting. Public voting is great becaise artists from various forums can vote and offer unbiased votes, so the top best for a team truly deserve to be the top best. However, there are occasions when an entry that should have made the top best, got denied because a forums participant rate was 15 entries or under. (meaning, if a forum has 105 entries, they get 9 entries that move into the finals [3 entries for 15 base, plus 1 per 15 additional thereafter], so if a forum has 'only' 15 entries, but 5 awesome entries deserve to go to the finals, the 2 extra must be chopped unless a personal vouch is made for the extra entries). To compensate, I must personally go in and verify if an entry that is missed deserves an opportunity to proceed into the finals. However, to do this, I must bring each additional entry up with the judges and ask if they think it is worthy to break the system and add it as a team best. It's true that it is not ideal to give me power to break the system, but, for any system to work, a humane perspective must be included.
Hi Fred,
I just wanted to add a suggestion for this issue. The solution might be to have an additional set of entries that make it through as 'wildcard' or 'people's choice' entries. This would be a small amount of entries (let's say 5) that garnered the most votes but lie outside their forum's top 3+x entries).
This way if a small forum had only 15 entries, and 5 of them are awesome, then 3 would go through as team best and the other 2 *should* make it through under the 'people's choice' category.
It might not be perfect, but I think it would automate things and in 99% of cases, I think it would work and cover the entries that while awesome, did not make the cut for team best.
[edit]
I just want to clarify that this would be an additional 5 entries for the entire competition, not per forum. The idea being that these entries would be comprised of the strongest entries from various forums that did not make their team best cut. It could end up looking something like this:
Yeah, Pior, I agree. Just throwing out some voter math.
I don't personally see the need in a 'competition' for any other reason than to motivate people, personally. In life, there is only ever one person you should compete against, and that is your self of yesterday.
While voting and judging will never be perfect (it's impossible for it to be), it serves a purpose because it helps separate the quality of the entries. I know that at least for me, I love seeing Competition Results and browsing through the top 20 entries. But, I don't want to wade through 500 random entries trying to pick out the ones I like.
There are spy threads and things like that but those are also equally unreliable.
Someone mentioned a versus system earlier or in another thread. That could be a solution to narrow the first pool of finalists. Still need some limits I guess but why not.
Just for the record - while I noted before I think arguing the terms is stupid, there are shit tons of laws that grant the right to Intellectual Property. We have government offices that work towards guaranteeing people those rights. We have many laws in which IP is explicitly mentioned. Including our Copyright Law of the United States. (I encountered it actually on the first segment I read, Chapter 1, many, many times.)
...
*cough*
(Go Dominance War!)
The first link is to an information pamphlet that informs people on the terms of copyright. That's no proof of a intellectual property law.
The second link also offers no language that posits the notion that IP is a part of property law, nor does the previous link.
Lastly, the reference in the copyright act of the words Intellectual Property are to titles of other laws that also do not define IP as actual property. Also the only results in the text on the word property only refer to possession of physical copies of phonorecords. So I concede that the words do exist in the text of copyright law, but only to reference the titles of other laws, of which none define IP as a part of property law. So, my original point stands.
You should really read this stuff instead of just doing a search and saying, "Ah-ha!" at the first hit. You might be amazed what kind of ridiculous stuff you'd find. Nonetheless, thanks for helping me make my point. It made me aware of a few details that I missed.
Please let this be the last time I need to speak on this topic here. If you want to debate with me more on this, please start a new thread.
As for rating entries, as it stands, the 1-5 picks work well already. Even though one voter was unable choose his top 7-10 entries because he has a max of 5 votes, another and another voter will vote for the ones he missed. There are manys artists that vote during a dw challenge, so it all balances out in the end. However, what i could do is increase it to 7 picks rather than 5.
Or, go with the like/dislike system and let voters rate as many entries as they would like. However, this method feels a bit loose if there is no 1-5 points. For instance, there will be forums where voters will always press "like" for 3 super strong entries, so the only thing left in the end to distinguish those 3 strong entries apart, is the cheat and biased votes by friends and family who purposly pressed 'like' for one of those awesome entries specifically. Rather than like/dislike, it would be better to go with 5 stars.
About preventing artists from voting in their own communities, there as sooo many voters from other forums placing their votes everywhere, so in the end, everything balances out.
The first link is to an information pamphlet that informs people on the terms of copyright. That's no proof of a intellectual property law.
The second link also offers no language that posits the notion that IP is a part of property law, nor does the previous link.
Lastly, the reference in the copyright act of the words Intellectual Property are to titles of other laws that also do not define IP as actual property. Also the only results in the text on the word property only refer to possession of physical copies of phonorecords. So I concede that the words do exist in the text of copyright law, but only to reference the titles of other laws, of which none define IP as a part of property law. So, my original point stands.
You should really read this stuff instead of just doing a search and saying, "Ah-ha!" at the first hit. You might be amazed what kind of ridiculous stuff you'd find. Nonetheless, thanks for helping me make my point. It made me aware of a few details that I missed.
Please let this be the last time I need to speak on this topic here. If you want to debate with me more on this, please start a new thread.
Is your only point that IP falls under copyright law and not "property" law? It seems that you're just running in circles arguing semantics here.
Lets look at a realistic situation here, no more "blue duck" stawman arguments.
Say I have my work listed on my portfolio, I offer it free to view on the internet to anyone who chooses to. You find my work, and decide to print it and sell it for a profit, without my permission. This is a very simple scenario, similar to what started this entire argument.
As the sole creator of the work, I own the copyright to my IP, in this case, the jpegs of models on my site/my artwork.
So, you're telling me I have no legal grounds in this situation?
I also find this very humorous, that this whole time you're taking the "oh big bad publishers are mean!" stance, yet the situations you describe would be ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE for individual artists if that were how the laws actually worked.
I will be the first to admit I am not a lawyer, and will own up if you can actually prove to me that *I have no rights to the work I create as an artist*.
why the heck are we going back and forth with fredH? seems like a waist of time that could be going into starting our own community challenges here at PC!!! This almost seems childish in a way. Lets just say "no, we are not doing dw5. If you want to continue onto dw5, then do it under another forum. BUT if you want to stick around and be apart of real challenges that you don't have to question any motives of any kind and will be around awesome people that will help you and encourage you through the way... Then stick around!". In the words of a great movie "if you build it... they will come".
Yeah, I think he's looking at it from a purely legal angle. Me personally, I care much more about the morality of it, and not so much whether it's legal or not. There are plenty moral things that are illegal, and plenty immoral things that are legal.
I also find this very humorous, that this whole time you're taking the "oh big bad publishers are mean!" stance, yet the situations you describe would be ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE for individual artists if that were how the laws actually worked.
This is now the second thread in which you're presenting as fact your inaccurate opinion about a topic which you are wholly unqualified and under informed to speak on.
You're neither technically correct, nor correct in speaking out about it in such a manner. I'm going to keep this short because I don't want to waste my time and hard earned education about this subject on someone who thinks he knows everything.
IP is a broad term applied to copyrights, trademarks, patents, and other legal instruments for protection of valuable assets. Digital art is granted copyright on creation, for further protection and eligibility for statutory damages, a creator may register the copyright.
From the US copyright office:
When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
Having stood before a judge and presenting a case before, you'll be shocked by how often they institute "justice", when the more direct course would be application of "law".
You're already making yourself a bad name here by constantly lashing out for no good reason; armed with a multitude of inaccuracies. Keep it up and I assure you that people will tune you out. It is my sincere hope that you will consider a more measured approach to discussions on this board from now on, as we would welcome a meaningful discourse with you.
why the heck are we going back and forth with fredH? seems like a waist of time that could be going into starting our own community challenges here at PC!!! This almost seems childish in a way. Lets just say "no, we are not doing dw5. If you want to continue onto dw5, then do it under another forum. BUT if you want to stick around and be apart of real challenges that you don't have to question any motives of any kind and will be around awesome people that will help you and encourage you through the way... Then stick around!". In the words of a great movie "if you build it... they will come".
Or how about you just say "no, I'M not doing it"
Because I plan to do it. On polycount. So buzz off.
This shit is optional. No one is forcing you into anything. Feel free to ignore it if you don't like it. It'll even be in a subforum you don't have to click on.
edit: this was a bit rude. Sorry. Just bothered by all this
JonathanF, PC isn't a mob or some kind of gang. People can join any competition they want to. Just because certain members have constructive criticism (or otherwise) to offer on problems they see in the way DW is run doesn't mean they represent the whole forum. Forbidding PC members from participating in DW would be exceptionally petty and unprofessional.
And besides, "love it or leave it" has always been and always will be a very petty and short-sighted mindset. Out of all the communities out there you'd think a group of artists would appreciate how valuable constructive criticism can be.
zack - I understand that, it just seems silly how fredH has used and abused DW from what it once was. And for how many people here at PC are against DW now, would seem more fit to just not be apart of it. cause if we did make our own challenges here, then you split the community up. Half doing the PC challenge and the other half doing DW. Personaly I think what will happen though, is we will start our own here, as DW is going on... and people will leave DW to join the PC challenge.
aesir - whats it matter to you? a challenge is a challenge. Its not about prizes, and its sure as heck not about FredH getting "donations". Its about the love of what you do. So why would you care about DW so much? is it the idea of DW that sounds so amazing? if so, then you need to rethink what your doing this all for.
Is your only point that IP falls under copyright law and not "property" law? It seems that you're just running in circles arguing semantics here.
Say I have my work listed on my portfolio, I offer it free to view on the internet to anyone who chooses to. You find my work, and decide to print it and sell it for a profit, without my permission. This is a very simple scenario, similar to what started this entire argument.
As the sole creator of the work, I own the copyright to my IP, in this case, the jpegs of models on my site/my artwork.
So, you're telling me I have no legal grounds in this situation?
I will be the first to admit I am not a lawyer, and will own up if you can actually prove to me that *I have no rights to the work I create as an artist*.
The point is, that copyright grants you the exclusive, temporary, government-granted monopoly on the distribution and exploitation of works you create. You have the right to choose to whom you distribute your works. That is the overall basis of copyright law. There is no ownership of property implied. So to make it clear, you have the right to seek arbitration against anyone who violates your exclusive distribution rights of works you create.
The truth of it is, that works that aren't covered by copyright are the property of the public domain, meaning that they belong to everyone. No one under the law can hold in exclusive property the concepts integrated into creative works, copyright or not.
PeterK
This is now the second thread in which you're presenting as fact your inaccurate opinion about a topic which you are wholly unqualified and under informed to speak on.
You're neither technically correct, nor correct in speaking out about it in such a manner. I'm going to keep this short because I don't want to waste my time and hard earned education about this subject on someone who thinks he knows everything.
IP is a broad term applied to copyrights, trademarks, patents, and other legal instruments for protection of valuable assets. Digital art is granted copyright on creation, for further protection and eligibility for statutory damages, a creator may register the copyright.
Peter, saying that I don't know what I'm talking about does not make it true, nor that it is merely my opinion. I have made it abundantly clear that I do know what I'm talking about. I have taken time to read the copyright act and I've also read many essays and history on the origins of copyright. I can tell what people here know about copyright has been fed to them through propaganda crafted by those that want to maintain the laws as they are.
Besides that, none of you who disagree have shown any specific language that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone can hold property rights over the ideas that are presented in creative works. You haven't been able to present any facts that counter any of my overall points, except that the term IP does appear in the copyright act text, but with no statement that defines a law attributed to them.
This article outlines and explains how and why copyright came to be: http://questioncopyright.org/promise
It cites published texts that you can fact check if you don't believe it.
The US governments definitions on copyright: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
According to their definitions, the copyright is your "property", but it says nothing of the work itself. You own the rights to the work, but not the content embedded in it.
These are but a handful of the texts with which I have educated myself on copyright.
I'm kind of with Jonathan on this - I'd like to see PC do their own thing, pull out of DW (meaning not spending resources on maintaining the site that will be over burdened by DW traffic) and distance ourselves from the whole thing. You need to sign up through GA anyway and practically everyone is bi-forum. Plus, it still bugs the shit out of me that, even with the support and effort from PC, the community is shit on from the founder because we value truth over "being nice."
I'll also admit though, that I'm obviously bias...so...
How does this sound JonathanF. If you don't want to do the contest, then don't do it. No one has a gun to your head. Adam has already stated that they are working on a Polycount contest which I assume will not run head to head against the DomWar. Imagine, if you so desired you may even be able to do both. Dare I dream? And if you don't want to do one or the other, my god, you just don't have to.
What FredH did was the tipping point of trust issues between him and this community. But you know for something that was boiling for so long I don't seem to remember anyone so publicly holding him accountable for his actions until now, just a bunch of low grumbles. This is something that has so many people upset and angry and frankly I can see why. And you know, everyone makes mistakes. It just happens that the ones Fred makes are on a much larger scale to us because like it or not he runs some of the most well known (although not always the most organized) contests our community has seen in recent years. I don't want to inflate his ego more but a terrible analogy is a celebrity getting a DUI and every news station covers it.
FredH, I appreciate what you have done over the years with DomWar and I don't want to see you fail. However, I won't deny that you've given yourself one hell of a black eye over this and I hope you really sit down and realize the reasons why people are upset and make strides to bring yourself back up in this community.
I'm kind of with Jonathan on this - I'd like to see PC do their own thing, pull out of DW (meaning not spending resources on maintaining the site that will be over burdened by DW traffic) and distance ourselves from the whole thing. You need to sign up through GA anyway and practically everyone is bi-forum. Plus, it still bugs the shit out of me that, even with the support and effort from PC, the community is shit on from the founder because we value truth over "being nice."
I'll also admit though, that I'm obviously bias...so...
Thanks there Capn' Factcheck, I guess I don't know anything.
While we could pull out of Dom War let me ask this, to what purpose? While so many are pulling out how many still are excited to some degree for it. If I'm going to compete in Dom War I don't want to do it under the GA banner or some other site. I want it to be black and fucking green. As many of you may not be in this I know there are those that agree with this. And how bad ass would it be to shit all over GA by making awesome art and retaking the top spots despite all the drama just by doing what we all do best and making good art.
These are but a handful of the texts with which I have educated myself on copyright.
You need to re-read through some of your links, then.
You keep going on and on about ideas not being covered by copyright. An idea I have IN MY HEAD about how robots should be designed can't be copyrighted. As soon as that idea is written out and published, draw up in plan, or modeled as data it is protected by copyright.
Also, your whole point is moot, anyway, because noone but you is arguing about copyrighting ideas.
Perhaps you are confused on the term "idea".
A 3d model is not an idea.
A poem is not an idea.
An idea is a thought in your head.
greevar....I kind of lost your point halfway through this thread, but simplisticly put of course no-one can own an idea, but as soon as that idea is expressed in any form other than just saying it, then the creator of that work has the exclusive right to distribute, and modify it as he or she see's fit. To use your example, saying that you have an idea for a blue duck does not give you rights over all blue ducks, but expressing your vision of a blue duck in a song, or a painting or a book or even a piece of code, gives you as the author of that work certain rights over it, not just the canvas, or the paint, or the pixels, but the depiction of that idea.
is that what you were trying to say in the first place?
*EDIT* hehehe I was typing when 8ft spider said the same thing....oops....I will leav it up anyway......all this talk of war has got lots of people in a fighting mood huh?
You need to re-read through some of your links, then.
You keep going on and on about ideas not being covered by copyright. An idea I have IN MY HEAD about how robots should be designed can't be copyrighted. As soon as that idea is written out and published, draw up in plan, or modeled as data is is protected by copyright.
Also, your whole point is moot, anyway, because noone but you is arguing about copyrighting ideas.
Perhaps you are confused on the term "idea".
A 3d model is not an idea.
A poem is not an idea.
An idea is a thought in your head.
I never said that executed ideas, such as figure drawings, are not copyrightable. The things you listed are all copyright protected items and I never said they weren't. What I said is that they are not property. You need to re-read my statements, because you understood them incorrectly.
greevar....I kind of lost your point halfway through this thread, but simplisticly put of course no-one can own an idea, but as soon as that idea is expressed in any form other than just saying it, then the creator of that work has the exclusive right to distribute, and modify it as he or she see's fit. To use your example, saying that you have an idea for a blue duck does not give you rights over all blue ducks, but expressing your vision of a blue duck in a song, or a painting or a book or even a piece of code, gives you as the author of that work certain rights over it, not just the canvas, or the paint, or the pixels, but the depiction of that idea.
is that what you were trying to say in the first place?
*EDIT* hehehe I was typing when 8ft spider said the same thing....oops....I will leav it up anyway......all this talk of war has got lots of people in a fighting mood huh?
Yes! That's what I'm saying, but others are claiming that such expressions are their property. That is not the case.
ok... for FredH to try to get his way by trying to state what copy write laws are and mean... dont you find that a little fishy and untrustworthy of what hes willing to do with your work? He knows that if Poly Count didn't join in, DW wouldn't have the spunk that it normally would. So of course hes fighting to keep PC in or just building up strife among PC members as a get back?... who knows, but I find it all very odd.
I never said that executed ideas, such as figure drawings, are not copyrightable. The things you listed are all copyright protected items and I never said they weren't. What I said is that they are not property. You need to re-read my statements, because you understood them incorrectly.
For a month we'll have this thread, full of good fights, and people deviating from the original point. This thread, and all this DW issues are so funny as the flame wars that always occur before a new version of Zbrush will come out.
I'm one more guy that thinks that PC could do its own challenge, and leave DW aside. Unfortunatelly, DW lost the shiny and energy it had on the first editions.
Yes! That's what I'm saying, but others are claiming that such expressions are their property. That is not the case.
But this is an absolutely needless point to make, as everyone understands this, its simply common sense. It has no relevance to the discussion at hand, as nobody ever claim Fred wanted to sell "ideas" without permission.
As explained many times, my artwork is my intellectual property, and as such is protected from the moment of creation. This is very clear in law and in any practical application. I'm not sure where you see people claiming that "ideas that are in their head" are somehow protected property and people are trying to steal them?
This would be akin to Fred seeing the winning domwar entry, taking that idea and creating his own likeness of that and then trying to sell it. The original artist would have much fewer rights in such a case, but this is just such a left-field concept, that it doesn't warrant discussion.
But this is an absolutely needless point to make, as everyone understands this, its simply common sense. It has no relevance to the discussion at hand, as nobody ever claim Fred wanted to sell "ideas" without permission.
As explained many times, my artwork is my intellectual property, and as such is protected from the moment of creation. This is very clear in law and in any practical application. I'm not sure where you see people claiming that "ideas that are in their head" are somehow protected property and people are trying to steal them?
Close, but not quite. I'm saying you own the right to control who can copy and distribute your works for the opportunity to make a profit from it. Some seem to be saying that a digital image of a 3D character, for example, is their personal private property. That's not the case. It has attached to it the right for you to chose whom may receive a copy of it, but it's not your property. However, you do own the copyright to it. Which in copyright law is your property. So what you do own is a monopoly on the expression of your idea.
So, when someone takes a copy or gives out a copy of your copyrighted work without your express permission, they aren't "stealing" it. What they are doing, is violating your copyrights. This is where the whole argument started. I was saying it's not stealing because copyright doesn't grant property rights to the work itself, but the right to copy it. So even though there is no theft in the legal sense that the courts care about, there is, nevertheless, a violation of your rights that you can seek reparations for. There, does that make sense now?
"intellectual property" is not the same thing as property, it's a modern term using older words.
Should we abolish the term "corporate theft" too?, since in the most cases nothing is being stolen, the secret information is still with the corporation.
Yes! That's what I'm saying, but others are claiming that such expressions are their property. That is not the case.
It's their Intellectual Property. Which is property, that's sort of intellectual. I know that's hard to believe. And it's a perfectly valid term, both as common public usage as well as within the legal system. It is not equivalent to physical property - we all know this. But why would that mean it doesn't exist, are you seriously that blind? Intellectual Property has even been in the title of several bills sent through congress, some that've passed and some that haven't. That copyright you keep talking about? Yeah, that's a type of IP law. You keep saying it's not physical property. Yeah, we know. It's Intellectual Property. Which is the simple truth of the matter.
I mean seriously, you keep trying to argue semantics. And even doing that, you're usually wrong. And when you're not explicitly wrong, you usually are being silly. Need I provide you with more links? From our own Department of Justice? Search that page for the word "theft". Copyright law specifically uses the term "infringed" rather than "stolen" (and they even outline this in their sentencing guidelines) - so if that one form of IP is what you're talking about, then there you have it. However, they openly acknowledge it to pretty much be equivalent to stealing in the article. To the point that some of our attorney generals use the word "theft" in reference to IP rights violations. Which means not only are you arguing something ridiculous that we don't give a shit about, but apparently, not even our attorneys general give enough of a shit to not use the word "theft".
Oh - look, U.S.C. 1832. The word "theft" right in the title of an Intellectual Property law. It's not a copyright law, but it is an Intellectual Property law - which you'd previously said didn't exist.
Point being...
Edit: And just so that I can stop paying attention to this and not further clutter up the thread - the image above can now be viewed as my response to your response below. :thumbup:
It's their Intellectual Property. Which is property, that's sort of intellectual. I know that's hard to believe. And it's a perfectly valid term, both as common public usage as well as within the legal system. Intellectual Property has even been in the title of several bills sent through congress, some that've passed and some that haven't. That copyright you keep talking about? Yeah, that's a type of IP law. You keep saying it's not physical property. Yeah, we know. It's Intellectual Property. Which is the simple truth of the matter.
I mean seriously, you keep trying to argue semantics. And even doing that, you're usually wrong. And when you're not explicitly wrong, you usually are being silly. Need I provide you with more links? From our own Department of Justice? Search that page for the word "theft". Copyright law specifically uses the term "infringed" rather than "stolen" (and they even outline this in their sentencing guidelines) - so if that one form of IP is what you're talking about, then there you have it. However, they openly acknowledge it to pretty much be equivalent to stealing in the article. To the point that some of our attorney generals use the word "theft" in reference to IP rights violations. Which means not only are you arguing something ridiculous that we don't give a shit about, but apparently, not even our attorneys general give enough of a shit to not use the word "theft".
Oh - look, U.S.C. 1832. The word "theft" right in the title of an Intellectual Property law. It's not a copyright law, but it is an Intellectual Property law - which you'd previously said didn't exist.
Point being...
*facepalm removed for bandwidth*
BZZZZZZZZZ! Wrong! I did respond to your links and none of them proved you right. http://www.polycount.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1271246&postcount=270 I gave responses for each and explained why they were wrong or invalid. The law link you provided pertains to trade secrets and makes no claim that such items are property. Furthermore, trade secrets are not protected under copyright law. That is trademark law.
Stats and reports? Seriously? You're going prove me wrong with statistical reports and operational policies that talk about IP but make state no law that governs them claiming that it proves that IP is actual property? Those are not laws and they don't legally define IP as property. Nice try, but you missed the target. Then you offer sentencing guidelines as evidence? That's not a valid source of proof either.
Nowhere in any of those examples does it state anywhere that IP is any sort of valid property. You're really making a stretch to prove me wrong and you're not making much headway. Why don't you just let it go? You're not going to prove me wrong. Legal text that merely contains the term "intellectual property" does not, and never will, make IP a form of real property.
The plain and simple reason that the so-called "intellectual property" is not defined as real exclusive property by the law explicitly is because all published creative works technically belong to the public domain. Copyright merely delays possession of the public domain's property by granting special rights to artists as an incentive to create more works that will add to the public domain. They figured if they gave artists special control over art they create, the profit they can earn from it will motivate them to create more works. It says as such in the Constitution of the United States of America:
Article I, Section 8:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Did you see that? Limited times? It's T-E-M-P-O-R-A-R-Y. If your claim to those works are temporary, how could it possibly be your property? Once the copyright expires, it finally gains its true status as a member of the public domain. I'm not making this shit up. It's factual. As per the fact that I've repeatedly cited actual text clearly supporting my point.
from the website: "Intellectual property are the ideas behind inventions, the artistry that goes into books and music, and the logos of companies whose brands we have come to trust. My job is to help protect the ideas and creativity of the American public. One of the reasons that I care about this is because I believe it is enormously important that the United States remain a global leader in these forms of innovation and part of how we do that is by appropriately protecting our intellectual property. "
Victoria A. Espinel
U.S. "Intellectual Property" Enforcement Coordinator
"The laws protecting intellectual property in the United States exist at both the state and federal levels. State laws cover a broad spectrum of intellectual property fields, from trade secrets to the right of publicity. The laws differ somewhat from state to state. At the federal level, the Constitution and legislation authorized under the Constitution deal exclusively with patents and copyrights, and partially with trademarks and related areas of unfair competition."
they must be all kinds of crazy..I know..these facts prove nothing...Someone should probly write her and tell her her job doesn't exist.
Yeah, that proves me sooo wrong. Your attempt to reference extremely casual relationships between real property and IP are weak at best and completely wrong at worst. Why don't you try finding some real legal text that clearly defines it as such, instead of trying to pretend that anything containing the words "intellectual property" in it's title carries any weight? Oh, that's right! It doesn't exist!
When I said legal text, I was referring to United States legal code, not some BS somebody said on a random page of no legal significance.
Right, as if a lawyer doesn't use bullshit terms and semantics or lie? The Attorney General also doesn't have the power to make laws. He can say it all he wants, but it doesn't make it true. You're batting zero so far.
Low odor, you're dreaming if you think that government organization with "intellectual property" in their title and uses the term as if it is a fact actually proves that IP is real property. I could call it "Imaginary Property" and it would still hold as little water as the other term.
I'm kind of with Jonathan on this - I'd like to see PC do their own thing, pull out of DW (meaning not spending resources on maintaining the site that will be over burdened by DW traffic) and distance ourselves from the whole thing. You need to sign up through GA anyway and practically everyone is bi-forum. Plus, it still bugs the shit out of me that, even with the support and effort from PC, the community is shit on from the founder because we value truth over "being nice."
I'll also admit though, that I'm obviously bias...so...
I will simply stick with facts and shed light on how forums in DW, and DW itself function.
As a forum, to be part of the preDW challenge, the only thing required was to provide a forum logo (which I already have, smily face image and polycount logo text image), announce it on their website and provide mod support for Q&A. Forums participating in DW are not required to fund or create any designs or anything else to make dw happen.
For the main challenge on February 28th, the only additional thing needed from each forum is a banner image, Like this.
That is it. If a forum fails to create an image, then I create one for them. Example:
It is my responsibility to do everything else and to make sure each forum and their artists are represented equally and unbiased. This is how DW has worked in the past and how it will work into the future. It's a terrible business design, but it's held for the sole purpose of entertainment and an opportunity for artists to vent their talents and ideas.
Artists are free to join or not. Forums are free to join or not. It's always their choice and I respect that.
Replies
Also. Entrants could get a special "uber" vote privilege of some sort. Extra points to dish out, or a special vote allowing them to vote for their own communities, etc.
That is not a good idea and not likely even an area for concern.
My voting suggestion:
Split/combined voting by community and judges with judge's votes more heavily weighted.
Community voters are allowed to give competitors zero, one, or two points.
Judges vote on a zero to four point scale.
Total of each set of voting categories (community and judge) are totaled separately and divided by the number of voters in that category. These two totals are then added together for the final vote.
This may not be a perfect set-up (or my point scales may be screwy), but it's just a thought.
Hi Fred,
I just wanted to add a suggestion for this issue. The solution might be to have an additional set of entries that make it through as 'wildcard' or 'people's choice' entries. This would be a small amount of entries (let's say 5) that garnered the most votes but lie outside their forum's top 3+x entries).
This way if a small forum had only 15 entries, and 5 of them are awesome, then 3 would go through as team best and the other 2 *should* make it through under the 'people's choice' category.
It might not be perfect, but I think it would automate things and in 99% of cases, I think it would work and cover the entries that while awesome, did not make the cut for team best.
[edit]
I just want to clarify that this would be an additional 5 entries for the entire competition, not per forum. The idea being that these entries would be comprised of the strongest entries from various forums that did not make their team best cut. It could end up looking something like this:
2 Game Artisans Entries
1 Polycount Entry
1 3dTotal Entry
1 CGHub Entry
Provided that those are the 5 entries that had the most votes out of all entries that did not qualify for team best.
I don't personally see the need in a 'competition' for any other reason than to motivate people, personally. In life, there is only ever one person you should compete against, and that is your self of yesterday.
There are spy threads and things like that but those are also equally unreliable.
Madness!
The first link is to an information pamphlet that informs people on the terms of copyright. That's no proof of a intellectual property law.
The second link also offers no language that posits the notion that IP is a part of property law, nor does the previous link.
Lastly, the reference in the copyright act of the words Intellectual Property are to titles of other laws that also do not define IP as actual property. Also the only results in the text on the word property only refer to possession of physical copies of phonorecords. So I concede that the words do exist in the text of copyright law, but only to reference the titles of other laws, of which none define IP as a part of property law. So, my original point stands.
You should really read this stuff instead of just doing a search and saying, "Ah-ha!" at the first hit. You might be amazed what kind of ridiculous stuff you'd find. Nonetheless, thanks for helping me make my point. It made me aware of a few details that I missed.
Please let this be the last time I need to speak on this topic here. If you want to debate with me more on this, please start a new thread.
As for rating entries, as it stands, the 1-5 picks work well already. Even though one voter was unable choose his top 7-10 entries because he has a max of 5 votes, another and another voter will vote for the ones he missed. There are manys artists that vote during a dw challenge, so it all balances out in the end. However, what i could do is increase it to 7 picks rather than 5.
Or, go with the like/dislike system and let voters rate as many entries as they would like. However, this method feels a bit loose if there is no 1-5 points. For instance, there will be forums where voters will always press "like" for 3 super strong entries, so the only thing left in the end to distinguish those 3 strong entries apart, is the cheat and biased votes by friends and family who purposly pressed 'like' for one of those awesome entries specifically. Rather than like/dislike, it would be better to go with 5 stars.
About preventing artists from voting in their own communities, there as sooo many voters from other forums placing their votes everywhere, so in the end, everything balances out.
Is your only point that IP falls under copyright law and not "property" law? It seems that you're just running in circles arguing semantics here.
Lets look at a realistic situation here, no more "blue duck" stawman arguments.
Say I have my work listed on my portfolio, I offer it free to view on the internet to anyone who chooses to. You find my work, and decide to print it and sell it for a profit, without my permission. This is a very simple scenario, similar to what started this entire argument.
As the sole creator of the work, I own the copyright to my IP, in this case, the jpegs of models on my site/my artwork.
So, you're telling me I have no legal grounds in this situation?
I also find this very humorous, that this whole time you're taking the "oh big bad publishers are mean!" stance, yet the situations you describe would be ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE for individual artists if that were how the laws actually worked.
I will be the first to admit I am not a lawyer, and will own up if you can actually prove to me that *I have no rights to the work I create as an artist*.
That said, I'm curious about why you think this:
How so?
This is now the second thread in which you're presenting as fact your inaccurate opinion about a topic which you are wholly unqualified and under informed to speak on.
You're neither technically correct, nor correct in speaking out about it in such a manner. I'm going to keep this short because I don't want to waste my time and hard earned education about this subject on someone who thinks he knows everything.
IP is a broad term applied to copyrights, trademarks, patents, and other legal instruments for protection of valuable assets. Digital art is granted copyright on creation, for further protection and eligibility for statutory damages, a creator may register the copyright.
From the US copyright office:
When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
Having stood before a judge and presenting a case before, you'll be shocked by how often they institute "justice", when the more direct course would be application of "law".
You're already making yourself a bad name here by constantly lashing out for no good reason; armed with a multitude of inaccuracies. Keep it up and I assure you that people will tune you out. It is my sincere hope that you will consider a more measured approach to discussions on this board from now on, as we would welcome a meaningful discourse with you.
Or how about you just say "no, I'M not doing it"
Because I plan to do it. On polycount. So buzz off.
This shit is optional. No one is forcing you into anything. Feel free to ignore it if you don't like it. It'll even be in a subforum you don't have to click on.
edit: this was a bit rude. Sorry. Just bothered by all this
And besides, "love it or leave it" has always been and always will be a very petty and short-sighted mindset. Out of all the communities out there you'd think a group of artists would appreciate how valuable constructive criticism can be.
aesir - whats it matter to you? a challenge is a challenge. Its not about prizes, and its sure as heck not about FredH getting "donations". Its about the love of what you do. So why would you care about DW so much? is it the idea of DW that sounds so amazing? if so, then you need to rethink what your doing this all for.
What's it matter to you how I like to spend my time?
How many people have posted in this thread? 20 tops. How many are there on polycount? 20k
The truth of it is, that works that aren't covered by copyright are the property of the public domain, meaning that they belong to everyone. No one under the law can hold in exclusive property the concepts integrated into creative works, copyright or not.
PeterK Peter, saying that I don't know what I'm talking about does not make it true, nor that it is merely my opinion. I have made it abundantly clear that I do know what I'm talking about. I have taken time to read the copyright act and I've also read many essays and history on the origins of copyright. I can tell what people here know about copyright has been fed to them through propaganda crafted by those that want to maintain the laws as they are.
Besides that, none of you who disagree have shown any specific language that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone can hold property rights over the ideas that are presented in creative works. You haven't been able to present any facts that counter any of my overall points, except that the term IP does appear in the copyright act text, but with no statement that defines a law attributed to them.
This article outlines and explains how and why copyright came to be:
http://questioncopyright.org/promise
It cites published texts that you can fact check if you don't believe it.
The title self descriptive:
http://questioncopyright.org/what_we_lose_when_we_embrace_copyright
The parallels between copyright and slavery:
http://questioncopyright.org/redefining_property
An author's stance on piracy:
http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2010/05/piracy-again.html
The US governments definitions on copyright:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
According to their definitions, the copyright is your "property", but it says nothing of the work itself. You own the rights to the work, but not the content embedded in it.
These are but a handful of the texts with which I have educated myself on copyright.
I'll also admit though, that I'm obviously bias...so...
What FredH did was the tipping point of trust issues between him and this community. But you know for something that was boiling for so long I don't seem to remember anyone so publicly holding him accountable for his actions until now, just a bunch of low grumbles. This is something that has so many people upset and angry and frankly I can see why. And you know, everyone makes mistakes. It just happens that the ones Fred makes are on a much larger scale to us because like it or not he runs some of the most well known (although not always the most organized) contests our community has seen in recent years. I don't want to inflate his ego more but a terrible analogy is a celebrity getting a DUI and every news station covers it.
FredH, I appreciate what you have done over the years with DomWar and I don't want to see you fail. However, I won't deny that you've given yourself one hell of a black eye over this and I hope you really sit down and realize the reasons why people are upset and make strides to bring yourself back up in this community.
PC would own with their own comp
Thanks there Capn' Factcheck, I guess I don't know anything.
While we could pull out of Dom War let me ask this, to what purpose? While so many are pulling out how many still are excited to some degree for it. If I'm going to compete in Dom War I don't want to do it under the GA banner or some other site. I want it to be black and fucking green. As many of you may not be in this I know there are those that agree with this. And how bad ass would it be to shit all over GA by making awesome art and retaking the top spots despite all the drama just by doing what we all do best and making good art.
You need to re-read through some of your links, then.
You keep going on and on about ideas not being covered by copyright. An idea I have IN MY HEAD about how robots should be designed can't be copyrighted. As soon as that idea is written out and published, draw up in plan, or modeled as data it is protected by copyright.
Also, your whole point is moot, anyway, because noone but you is arguing about copyrighting ideas.
Perhaps you are confused on the term "idea".
A 3d model is not an idea.
A poem is not an idea.
An idea is a thought in your head.
is that what you were trying to say in the first place?
*EDIT* hehehe I was typing when 8ft spider said the same thing....oops....I will leav it up anyway......all this talk of war has got lots of people in a fighting mood huh?
I never said that executed ideas, such as figure drawings, are not copyrightable. The things you listed are all copyright protected items and I never said they weren't. What I said is that they are not property. You need to re-read my statements, because you understood them incorrectly.
Yes! That's what I'm saying, but others are claiming that such expressions are their property. That is not the case.
The cake is a lie!
im asking becasue , from that date, I have a month till I ship out for basic.
I'm one more guy that thinks that PC could do its own challenge, and leave DW aside. Unfortunatelly, DW lost the shiny and energy it had on the first editions.
But this is an absolutely needless point to make, as everyone understands this, its simply common sense. It has no relevance to the discussion at hand, as nobody ever claim Fred wanted to sell "ideas" without permission.
As explained many times, my artwork is my intellectual property, and as such is protected from the moment of creation. This is very clear in law and in any practical application. I'm not sure where you see people claiming that "ideas that are in their head" are somehow protected property and people are trying to steal them?
This would be akin to Fred seeing the winning domwar entry, taking that idea and creating his own likeness of that and then trying to sell it. The original artist would have much fewer rights in such a case, but this is just such a left-field concept, that it doesn't warrant discussion.
Close, but not quite. I'm saying you own the right to control who can copy and distribute your works for the opportunity to make a profit from it. Some seem to be saying that a digital image of a 3D character, for example, is their personal private property. That's not the case. It has attached to it the right for you to chose whom may receive a copy of it, but it's not your property. However, you do own the copyright to it. Which in copyright law is your property. So what you do own is a monopoly on the expression of your idea.
So, when someone takes a copy or gives out a copy of your copyrighted work without your express permission, they aren't "stealing" it. What they are doing, is violating your copyrights. This is where the whole argument started. I was saying it's not stealing because copyright doesn't grant property rights to the work itself, but the right to copy it. So even though there is no theft in the legal sense that the courts care about, there is, nevertheless, a violation of your rights that you can seek reparations for. There, does that make sense now?
edit: woo! post #300! THIS! IS! POLYCOUNT!!!
Should we abolish the term "corporate theft" too?, since in the most cases nothing is being stolen, the secret information is still with the corporation.
Corporate unlawful violation of copyrights, heh.
and just to clarify..I'm not talking to eld
It's their Intellectual Property. Which is property, that's sort of intellectual. I know that's hard to believe. And it's a perfectly valid term, both as common public usage as well as within the legal system. It is not equivalent to physical property - we all know this. But why would that mean it doesn't exist, are you seriously that blind? Intellectual Property has even been in the title of several bills sent through congress, some that've passed and some that haven't. That copyright you keep talking about? Yeah, that's a type of IP law. You keep saying it's not physical property. Yeah, we know. It's Intellectual Property. Which is the simple truth of the matter.
I mean seriously, you keep trying to argue semantics. And even doing that, you're usually wrong. And when you're not explicitly wrong, you usually are being silly. Need I provide you with more links? From our own Department of Justice? Search that page for the word "theft". Copyright law specifically uses the term "infringed" rather than "stolen" (and they even outline this in their sentencing guidelines) - so if that one form of IP is what you're talking about, then there you have it. However, they openly acknowledge it to pretty much be equivalent to stealing in the article. To the point that some of our attorney generals use the word "theft" in reference to IP rights violations. Which means not only are you arguing something ridiculous that we don't give a shit about, but apparently, not even our attorneys general give enough of a shit to not use the word "theft".
Oh - look, U.S.C. 1832. The word "theft" right in the title of an Intellectual Property law. It's not a copyright law, but it is an Intellectual Property law - which you'd previously said didn't exist.
Point being...
Edit: And just so that I can stop paying attention to this and not further clutter up the thread - the image above can now be viewed as my response to your response below. :thumbup:
BZZZZZZZZZ! Wrong! I did respond to your links and none of them proved you right. http://www.polycount.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1271246&postcount=270 I gave responses for each and explained why they were wrong or invalid. The law link you provided pertains to trade secrets and makes no claim that such items are property. Furthermore, trade secrets are not protected under copyright law. That is trademark law.
Stats and reports? Seriously? You're going prove me wrong with statistical reports and operational policies that talk about IP but make state no law that governs them claiming that it proves that IP is actual property? Those are not laws and they don't legally define IP as property. Nice try, but you missed the target. Then you offer sentencing guidelines as evidence? That's not a valid source of proof either.
Nowhere in any of those examples does it state anywhere that IP is any sort of valid property. You're really making a stretch to prove me wrong and you're not making much headway. Why don't you just let it go? You're not going to prove me wrong. Legal text that merely contains the term "intellectual property" does not, and never will, make IP a form of real property.
The plain and simple reason that the so-called "intellectual property" is not defined as real exclusive property by the law explicitly is because all published creative works technically belong to the public domain. Copyright merely delays possession of the public domain's property by granting special rights to artists as an incentive to create more works that will add to the public domain. They figured if they gave artists special control over art they create, the profit they can earn from it will motivate them to create more works. It says as such in the Constitution of the United States of America:
Article I, Section 8:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Did you see that? Limited times? It's T-E-M-P-O-R-A-R-Y. If your claim to those works are temporary, how could it possibly be your property? Once the copyright expires, it finally gains its true status as a member of the public domain. I'm not making this shit up. It's factual. As per the fact that I've repeatedly cited actual text clearly supporting my point.
Hey more posts on the DW5 thread... oh wait...
U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator
Email: intellectualproperty@omb.eop.gov
The Attorney General seems to be using the phrase "Intellectual Property" I wonder if he's a lawyer?
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/February/10-ag-137.html
oh wait here's the website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/intellectualproperty/ipec/
from the website: "Intellectual property are the ideas behind inventions, the artistry that goes into books and music, and the logos of companies whose brands we have come to trust. My job is to help protect the ideas and creativity of the American public. One of the reasons that I care about this is because I believe it is enormously important that the United States remain a global leader in these forms of innovation and part of how we do that is by appropriately protecting our intellectual property. "
Victoria A. Espinel
U.S. "Intellectual Property" Enforcement Coordinator
some more :
http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/intellectual-property/
"The laws protecting intellectual property in the United States exist at both the state and federal levels. State laws cover a broad spectrum of intellectual property fields, from trade secrets to the right of publicity. The laws differ somewhat from state to state. At the federal level, the Constitution and legislation authorized under the Constitution deal exclusively with patents and copyrights, and partially with trademarks and related areas of unfair competition."
they must be all kinds of crazy..I know..these facts prove nothing...Someone should probly write her and tell her her job doesn't exist.
P0wn3d!
So that DW 5 competition, what's that all about huh?
Yeah, that proves me sooo wrong. Your attempt to reference extremely casual relationships between real property and IP are weak at best and completely wrong at worst. Why don't you try finding some real legal text that clearly defines it as such, instead of trying to pretend that anything containing the words "intellectual property" in it's title carries any weight? Oh, that's right! It doesn't exist!
When I said legal text, I was referring to United States legal code, not some BS somebody said on a random page of no legal significance.
Right, as if a lawyer doesn't use bullshit terms and semantics or lie? The Attorney General also doesn't have the power to make laws. He can say it all he wants, but it doesn't make it true. You're batting zero so far.
I will simply stick with facts and shed light on how forums in DW, and DW itself function.
As a forum, to be part of the preDW challenge, the only thing required was to provide a forum logo (which I already have, smily face image and polycount logo text image), announce it on their website and provide mod support for Q&A. Forums participating in DW are not required to fund or create any designs or anything else to make dw happen.
For the main challenge on February 28th, the only additional thing needed from each forum is a banner image, Like this.
That is it. If a forum fails to create an image, then I create one for them. Example:
It is my responsibility to do everything else and to make sure each forum and their artists are represented equally and unbiased. This is how DW has worked in the past and how it will work into the future. It's a terrible business design, but it's held for the sole purpose of entertainment and an opportunity for artists to vent their talents and ideas.
Artists are free to join or not. Forums are free to join or not. It's always their choice and I respect that.
In the DW Thread... really man?
Well, I guess it's our fault... shouldn't have fed the troll.