| |
In lugnet.market.auction, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> While this seller *has* every right to do what he is doing, to present
> someone else's design as your own, with no, or only trivial modifications,
> and further, to do so for profit... that's *not* right.
There is the law, and then there is the moral overlay.
What constitutes sufficient proof of having created the "first" instance of
a given, disputed design?
I am going to assume that what is being asserted is a claim of authorship
for the first person to have posted the idea to the internet -- and I do not
respect or agree with such a claim.
I don't have a great digital camera myself and as a consequence I have not
photographed some of my more interesting brick configurations.
Alternatively, I have frequently been "scooped" by others that had similar
or exactly the same idea and posted just the module comprising the
interesting brick configuration -- these were not even fully realized MOCs,
just the modules with the interesting brick configuration! While
frustrating for me to a certain degree, I don't ultimately care about the
issue. I generally give credit in situations where I am pointedly working
from someone else's design; but you can forget it if you think I am going to
start searching for designers that have come up with design solutions
similar to those I myself have originally devised -- ultimately, such
designs are most likely original to multiple designers. How is it that
multiple designers might develop similar solutions? It is my belief that
certain kinds of bricks lend themselves to certain kinds of designs such
that more than one person will come up with the same design as another
person given the same elements and time.
[Sidebar: why am I suddenly reminded of countless Slashdot articles on
copyright and patent issues? Y'know, the ones where Amazon or someone tries
to claim exclusive control of an idea that has countless instances of "prior
art."]
The bottom line is that giving credit to another's work is a respectful nod
and a good thing to do if one is so inclined. Asserting some kind of
authorial ownership of as small a thing as brick configurations seems kind
of small and petty to me; and also quite difficult to prove. It strikes me
that those most interested in arguing on the side of design "ownership" are
those more firmly established amongst their respective online cliques.
The point is to build, not to worry about whether a certain configuration is
"owned" by someone else.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
35 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
