CS Debate Thread

[Rushwater]

I was wondering what you all think about copyright and the fact that people seemingly consider anything barely-similar to their idea/design to be art theft/breaking the copyright?

AFAIK, ideas cannot be copyright and designs are ideas, so I don't see what's the big deal about having similar ideas as long as they are not the exact same.

If it's a complex design, I would understand if someone was a little mad. But if it's somethig general, like my character Sorrow, I think people can overreact a bit. Someone came to me freaking out because they thought someone stole Sorrow's design. Sorrow's a white wolf with blue and green stripes all over and an arrow on his forehead, and this person's character wa a white wolf with just 3 green and blue stripes goof down it's body. I just apologized to them that they were accused of cheating, and acruLly made art of their character to make up for it. xD

Well, very specific designs -- such as those of video game characters -- are obviously the producer's property and should remain so. I was talking in the sense that if someone imagines a design, then anything that's somewhat-but-not-really similar to it often gets blamed of theft. Which is downright silly. xD

Shoot, I spelled half the stuff I wrote wrong because of this stupid touchscreen. ;p Anyways, yeah, I completely agree with you.

[Tess]

I think it makes more sense to make a new thread each time you have a topic to debate, otherwise you have about 2 responses before someone jumps in with a new topic of discussion

[magentababy]

Well, very specific designs -- such as those of video game characters -- are obviously the producer's property and should remain so. I was talking in the sense that if someone imagines a design, then anything that's somewhat-but-not-really similar to it often gets blamed of theft. Which is downright silly. xD

Shoot, I spelled half the stuff I wrote wrong because of this stupid touchscreen. ;p Anyways, yeah, I completely agree with you.

I'm kind of a hypocrite (can't spell) since I get annoyed when people uses my idea but I think it's silly when people get mad at others (Not when it comes to art though. But ideas). But when it's just a hint of being similar I think it's kind of stupid too.

[Rushwater]

I think it makes more sense to make a new thread each time you have a topic to debate, otherwise you have about 2 responses before someone jumps in with a new topic of discussion

I considered that Tess, but this seems to be going pretty well so far. If any issues arise anyone could surely make their own thread for their own debate. But if you really disagree with this idea, I understand if you lock it. ;3

[Jackdaw Lord]

The problem is that most people seem to be under the impression that their ideas can be copyrighted, and as such, no one can make anything similar. Art is different yes, but unless it is identical or very heavily based on other art, I don't think it's theft either.

"Here is an example: If I have the "idea" to make a webpage about roses, that idea cannot be copyrighted because an idea itself will always be intangible. What is copyrighted are the tangible works I produce of the idea. These would be the descriptions I write, my photos of roses, and the HTML coding I created to design the page layout - all saved in my computer's hard drive. All of that is my idea fixed in a tangible medium and that is protected by my copyright. However, somebody else could come along, learn of the idea I had to create a web page about roses, and create a web page about roses as well - provided such person wrote his/her OWN words, used his/her OWN photos, and wrote his/her OWN HTML coding to design the page. Further, if such person was "inspired" by my web page layout, and decided to do something similar (similar - not identical), he or she could do that if the HTML were written entirely by this person without any copying or pasting. All of that is "legal"; whether it is imaginative and creative, well, that is something else. Now, if this person came along, saw my web page on roses, liked the way I did it and then copied and pasted my HTML into his or her own web page without my permission, that is copyright infringement, even if he or she deleted certain things and inserted his or her OWN words and his or her OWN photos. Yes, even if he or she did NOT have a web page about roses, but about something entirely different. That is because my page layout was written out in HTML and set in a fixed form, and the fixed form is what was copied without my permission." - http://www.whatiscopyright.org/

[FoldєdPapєrHєarts]

@Damnath:
Yes, I agree with you on that note(wow, that sounded weird? x3). Some people think that if they have a character that is purple and it has swirly white lines on it, then no one else can ever have a character that is purple with swirly white lines on it. People tend to not understand the concept that they can't own a specific color scheme, unless it is very unique and pretty much unable to be recreated. Some even think that if they make a zebra patterned(bad example, I know) character that no one else can have one. Stuff like that-very common-has always been and will continue to be recreated and people need to accept that. ^^"

[Animall]

@Damnath:
Yes, I agree with you on that note(wow, that sounded weird? x3). Some people think that if they have a character that is purple and it has swirly white lines on it, then no one else can ever have a character that is purple with swirly white lines on it. People tend to not understand the concept that they can't own a specific color scheme, unless it is very unique and pretty much unable to be recreated. Some even think that if they make a zebra patterned(bad example, I know) character that no one else can have one. Stuff like that-very common-has always been and will continue to be recreated and people need to accept that. ^^"

But what if it had the exact same design? Like, it was blue with swirls, and then a person comes along and makes the same thing with the swirls, and colors the exact thing? Wouldnt that be considered art theft?

[FoldєdPapєrHєarts]

It depends how much alike it is. If the swirls are placed on the exact same place and are drawn in the exact same way then that would be different-I suppose it all depends on how alike they are. But I mean, there are tons of characters with swirls on them. :3 I even have one or two like that. What I meant was that no one person can claim a the design of swirls as their own. C:

I have a question for you all. :3 What is your opinion on 'fancy' text; as in, small text, colored text, centered text, ect. Lots of people seem to do it on here. Do you think it is rather stupid, or do you think it really does make the text look nice? In my opinion, smaller text(anywhere from 85-90) actually does look nice. And I suppose it depends on the color of the text-if it is insanely bright then it is rather annoying. Centered all by itself(with nothing else edited) looks rather nice as well. What do you all think?

[Rushwater]

As far as text goes, it's much easier for me to just read normal text. I'm using an iPod touch half the time I'm on CS, so having to zoom in and out to see constantly varying text is a little bothersome, but I don't really have anything too bad against them. xD

[Animall]

I find it rather nice if you bold it.<3

Colored, small, bolded text is really pretty too<3 *might type like this for now on because of the color*