Author Topic: copy right laws (Read 814 times)

spouse of Jesus · « **on:** June 20, 2009, 03:45:25 AM »

Is it sinful to save some catholic arts from the internet, when you know that they may be subject to copy right? What if you save them only for personal use?
I have saved many images in my computer, and I am not sure if I had the right to do so or not. Should I delete them?
And given the fact that every country is sovereign in it's own affairs, am I subect to my country's copy right laws -when I use the internt-or that of the region to which an internet webpage belong?

Look at the answers I got in another forum:

http://www.incorruptiblesforum.org/showthread.php?t=932

Dulcamara · « **Reply #1 on:** June 20, 2009, 08:14:39 PM »

The way I see it is, I go the path of "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's..." That is, if it's against the law, and it's not a sin for me to obey the law, then I have to obey the law, even if the law is ... well... sometimes really stupid.

However, I'm sure God will appreciate all of our sacrifices, and frustrations great and small, that we make or suffer for the sake of keeping the law. (His and Caesar's.)

Other people have different views, I know, but... I have yet to hear a good defense of breaking this particular law. Not to mention, whether it's unfortunate or not, most of the time the artist is alive and well... in which case we are, in fact, depriving them of the payment due for their work. Which is theft.
(Even if they still have it to sell, you still don't pay for YOUR copy.)

Very few people, however, seem to want to call it like it is.

spouse of Jesus · « **Reply #2 on:** June 20, 2009, 08:29:54 PM »

What if the artist is dead?

Dulcamara · « **Reply #3 on:** June 20, 2009, 09:08:34 PM »

Quote from: spouse of Jesus

What if the artist is dead?

I'd thought of this too, but occasionally the legal rights to a work are still owned by a present-day party, or... in the case of artworks, the work itself may be "public domain" but the photo of the work is copyrighted... so the photo or scan of the original bears the legal rights.

It's complicated and makes one want to smack their heads against a wall... but that's how most images stand.

It's really sad that this is the case, because I know a website that has an incredible collection of just awesome artworks of long dead artists, and because of the picture copyrights, (not the work, but the photo or scan of the work), I can't have them. Very frustrating.

Ah well... another sacrifice, I guess.

DeMaistre · « **Reply #4 on:** June 20, 2009, 10:31:12 PM »

I think that the arts should be free for everyone. I download sheet music legally and for free here all the time:

http://imslp.org/wiki/Main_Page

Dulcamara · « **Reply #5 on:** June 20, 2009, 11:32:57 PM »

Well, you can't really say that the arts should be free, because those whose vocation lies in the arts have to eat and have a roof over their heads. A person should be able to make a living at what they do. However, I think in cases where the artist is long since dead (many generations ago), it should not be against the law to have or copy it, even though it should always be against the law to change the substance of the work. (Eg, change the meaning of the words of Chesterton, as opposed to adding a period or correcting a word's spelling. Or digitally retouching a picture to restore it, versus altering it.)

But of course, everyone wishes it were easy to get good, Catholic art.

spouse of Jesus · « **Reply #6 on:** June 21, 2009, 03:27:21 AM »

I must add that since every country is sovereign, I am under copyright laws of my own country which are far less strict than those of US.

DeMaistre · « **Reply #7 on:** June 21, 2009, 09:20:34 AM »

Quote from: Dulcamara

Well, you can't really say that the arts should be free, because those whose vocation lies in the arts have to eat and have a roof over their heads. A person should be able to make a living at what they do. However, I think in cases where the artist is long since dead (many generations ago), it should not be against the law to have or copy it, even though it should always be against the law to change the substance of the work. (Eg, change the meaning of the words of Chesterton, as opposed to adding a period or correcting a word's spelling. Or digitally retouching a picture to restore it, versus altering it.)

But of course, everyone wishes it were easy to get good, Catholic art.

I posted that with caution, since I know that the arts were almost always commissioned by the nobility. I think that downloading images of paintings on the Internet isn't wrong though. Stealing the real painting would be bad, but not downloading a picture or scan of it.

Dulcamara · « **Reply #8 on:** June 21, 2009, 10:40:18 AM »

Let me put it this way...

I am a writer. If I publish a book, and someone scans or types it up on the internet, so that people can "just download it on the internet" rather than paying me... I'm loosing money. It is the same to my pocketbook, as if I had been paid that money, and someone stole it from me. Either way, I had the right to that money, and yet... I do not have it.

By getting "free stuff" on the internet that belongs to living artists, you may not be physically stealing the work itself, and you may not be breaking into their home and stealing their wallet, but the fact of the matter is, if you want to get that work by totally honest means, you would, in fact, have to pay for it. Which you are NOT doing, if you just "get it on the internet".

Evil is defined as a lack of good, and in this case, you have a lack of good that is due to the artist, being rendered by people who SHOULD be paying for that work.

Even if someone does not break into my home and steal my computer with my stories on it, if I publish a book and someone puts my story online for the world to have for free, I will be just as cheated as if they had robbed me of money that was in my hands already. People would be enjoying my work, and I would NOT be enjoying the pay rightfully due to me for it. I would feel sorry for anyone, of course, who could not afford to buy it. But the fact of the matter is, unless people DO buy it, I won't be eating or paying my bills in the future.

So perhaps as an artist whose work would be just gotten for free by everyone who just doesn't feel like paying me for it, maybe I tend to see the other side of the coin more than those who are only facing the "do I get free stuff or not" point of view. But it is, nevertheless, very unjust to take for free what a person should rightfully and justly have to pay someone for.

There is very little in this world that is free. Yes, that's a harsh part of reality, but it is also a matter of justice. Nobody should be deprived of the benefit or gain due to them because of the work of their hands. And no Catholic should think that it is all right to deprive someone of just payment for their work, simply because some unscrupulous person has made it very easy to do so, or because they would simply rather not have to pay.

If we believe in justice, then there is something due or owed to a person for the work that they do. To deprive them of that in exchange for their work, for any reason (it's easy, everybody's doing it, I'm poor, etc.), is simply wrong. Injustice is still injustice, whatever the reasons or excuses.

In the case of scans... we're back to matters of law. Now if the law says, I may not take, distribute or copy a photo or scan that belongs to someone else (no matter what it's of), and it is not a sin for me to obey that law, then I am bound by Catholic morality to obey it. Even if it stinks, or even if the picture or scan is of someone's work who has been dead for hundreds of years. If the law says, "thou shalt not" then I am bound to obey it, so long as it doesn't contradict God's law.

Yes, people make some very stupid laws sometimes. But there is no danger to my soul if I go without a picture I like or wish I could have had. It IS a danger to my soul to break the law, even if I don't like that law. It is no sin to do without. It IS a sin to break the law.

To me, the matter of justice, and the requirement of Catholics to obey the law unless it contradicts God's laws, make the matter pretty clear. Obviously, the law varies from country to country, but... I think our Catholic conscience ought to tell us that if it's at all possible, we should pay for the work that we are trying to enjoy. And now that you can buy just about anything from just about anywhere, there is really no longer any excuse not to pay for it.

One example people used to cite was things like foreign video games, which other country's systems couldn't play. But by now, people can just order the system of the proper country on the internet. So basically, even these very uncommon objections no longer hold weight, since there is now a legal and moral way to be able to enjoy just about any work we want. Today, I can't think of virtually any instance in which it is actually impossible to pay the artist, if one really, really wanted to.