Plagiarism

Variations are allowed, but not copies. I believe copyrights encourage creativity. Why bother spending the time developing your idea if someone can turn around and sell copies? In some trademark and copyright applications, this development represents significant time and money. That means not only can the plagiarist sell their work quickly but for less.

If you vary an idea enough to make it your own, it's allowed. But there is always the danger if it's too recognizable and you haven't successfully made it your ow that you may be considered an "also" and your work will be dismissed as derivative. Maybe it's more to do with announcing your intentions in advance?

It's not plagiarism to make versions of one's OWN work.

so far the Real AcdemicSpain Diccionary said thats called autoplagiarism repeting coping or parcial you own work and thats apply to any visual media.

the history can be looked up. you can copy your own things without an issue. when the masters were around, there were very few other artists around them (i assume), to copy from. artists with pride and integrity will make their own work without having to copy. when your learning its ok to break the copyright to a degree, but not for resale, and its still best to ask.

copyright is a protection of creativity. in order to get around copyright you have to make something that is different enough so it doesn't really look like the original. i'm not sure how that is covered with words though. like if i released a book blue eggs and sausage, but set my cartoons up like the original green eggs and ham - would that be a breach? don't know.

plagiarizing is usually the totally copying of what someone else said. i know google will ding you for it.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

if it is your own work are we talking about an exact copy of a painting you did prior? Or a similar copy of that work with a new palette or other elements introduced that differentiates the work from a past work. Maybe the same theme. It could also fall in the grounds of being part of a series.

Jane, he did say

didnīt great masters made a version of their own work?

but then followed with

why copyrighs are so picky on this
since when copyrighs was introduce?

'This' could have been addressing the subject above, but why? Since copyright is about ownership and infringement, I assumed it was just a misplaced pronoun.

But copying and selling one's own work as original brings another issue up. Mr. Ortiz, are you asking if there is a problem copying your own work and selling it?

I've done many copies of my own work over the years....clients see something I did years ago and' 'need' it ;)
Such a painting , I call a 'redux'....sometimes it gets a new name.
Bottom line is a copy right means I solely maintain the right to copy it....and I won't be suing myself anytime soon. ;)
Here's two I've done in recent years...both larger than the originals.

48"x48"


48"x60"

Yes, but you divulge what you do to the client, correct?

Vanessa, the client has already seen the painting, knows it is sold and has done everything they can to convince me to repaint one for them! ;)
I don't like repainting my own work...it's like paint by numbers and my work is mostly about process.....a copy is just that.....where the emphasis is on the end product instead.

Yes, no chance to explore, but at least there's a happy customer at the end. That's different then.

I've heard of artists selling something and turning around and painting another without telling anyone that is what happened. Or they paint multiples, factory style, setting out only one at a time. These people probably live where traffic is more tourist and they calculate that the same clients won't cross their path twice.

I'm wondering if Mr. Ortiz is suggesting that or if he is trying to figure out when something is infringement and when it's derivative.

I was in a Santa Fe gallery ( one of a few over a course of 5 years) and the main artist painted the same look over and over again......stick thin horses in black, running across a field of colors. I watched him paint...assembly line style.....first the wash of yellow...on 12 canvases,
then blue, etc.
BTW, they sold like hotcakes.
go figgur.

Until the buyers find out and the market collapses beanie baby style. Oh wait, did the buyers know?

But yeah, that must be frustrating. I'm glad you enjoy the process so much, because the variety you have is beautiful.

YUP, the buyers knew...he had a whole gallery of the same painting....and still going strong, though i see his new look has evolved and is much better now....so I'll assume business is still good!

Thanks for the compliments, Vanessa, much appreciated! Hope you get my reply to your e mail the other day...

No, sadly. Is it my glitchy account?

Marlene, if you took yourself to court would you win or lose?

I cannot respond via faa's inter e mail....just wanted to thank you and assure you it all still rolls off!

That's easy...the attorney always wins.

Better than downhill :) Thanks. Sorry. I didn't know.

Angel, I think that term, auto-plagiarism, might apply when it reflects laziness and a lack of creativity by the artist, for example when an artist spews many different editions of a work just to mass-produce profits, such as Marlene's example, no doubt. But it's a pretty judgmental term, since this may also be thought of as an artist riding a wave of popularity in order to try to make a decent, or even a high standard of living. After all, you can't usually get rich mass producing dreck, except perhaps to sell as fertilizer.

Rich or poor, any artist can bore us by sticking too closely to a theme, style, or motif. It's a judgement call that can be decided by either artist or critic, but there's no law against it, as others have pointed out.

Plagiarism by definition is copying something without attribution, ie a great quote by Churchill.

Plagiarism is an ethics violation, not a legal violation.

Copyright is a legal matter. Patent law was first hard wired into the US Constitution.
As someone else said patent law encourages innovation by paying the inventor with a monopoly for a set period of time.

Copyright law came later and has shifted legally at fist state by state in the US and then
codified by the US Congress I think in the 1970s.

There are many many ins and outs to intellectual property law. I suggest you hire a lawyer
rather than take legal advice online either by using Google or asking here at FAA.

Since you dont know the topic avoid making any accusations.

For instance my derivative works are registered and recognized by the US Copyright Office.
I have legal ownership. I use master works that I give attribution to with each work I do.

Dave

Once upon a time there was no copyright law.
Everything was in the public domain, and everyone could copy anything unless the artist beat you up with a dinosaur bone and broke your hands so you were physically unable to use your hands to copy his cave paintings anymore. There wasn't any law against assault & battery, either, so the artist could break your hands, and no police would come and arrest him and put him in jail.

Fast-forward lots of years: The U.S. Congress decided to pass copyright laws in the U.S. Other countries passed copyright laws, too, but I don't know much about laws in other countries, so I'll restrict my posting to the U.S.... Congress wrote a lot of stuff about why they decided to pass copyright laws... to summarze, they created ownership rights in intellectual property so that inventors/authors would be able to retain the profit in their ideas/work, and thus be able to self-fund & be encouraged to continue coming up with more useful inventions, etc., from which society at large would hopefully eventually benefit.

Wickipedia has an article on copyright, it explains the basic idea behind the creation of copyrights reasonably clearly.
See also www.copyright.gov

Disclaimer: As always, just my opinion, not legal advice.

Property rights encourage people to be productive and make things that are of value, because they protect the property owner's investment.
Intellectual property rights give us the same benefits. Without Patents, Copyrights, and Tradmarks, and other similar forms of protection of intellectual property, the world would be a poorer place. People wouldn't create new medical procedures and cures, airplane safety improvements, nor art if it weren't protected. The owner of the intellectual property thus has the right to decide how best to deploy his creation, for his own benefit, and perhaps incidentally, to the benefit of the rest of the world. Countries without laws to protect intellectual property or physical property do not generally fare well. People take their investments elsewhere.

I would probably still make art if it wasn't protected. I just wouldn't bother trying to sell anything but originals.

Maybe I wouldn't even bother selling originals... if people were allowed to copy my signature.

Thanks. all these came up because we have a small community of street artist going on in my area we have a whole street 3 times a week to exhibit our art until the problems came up some artist starts to copy very similar work of someone else that was selling more so the community came up with Plagio= Plagiarism to settle a little the problem
so far I know a little And have read about copyrights and doing ok until some one said you committing Plagiarism I said is my own work I making versions so I went and investigate as a way of back up the new investigation recent fount, I’m place the post so far I know we have artist layers here.

Angel:

Our art gallery/art guild has an "original art" requirement. The art has to be original... which screens out some work which would probably be ok under copyright law.

We still get in the occasional scrap about this person/that person hanging art that might be a copyright law or original art rule violation. That just goes with the territory of being in an arts group. Or any group. Someone's always gotta push the limits, and they get a new rule made in their honor.

I'm a lawyer - I have a law degree & passed a bar exam. Fine Art America has respectfully asked that I not give legal advice on FAA discussion threads, for a variety of reasons that make sense to me. I can chime in on these discussions... but I need to post a disclaimer saying it's my opinion & not legal advice. For legal advice you have to find a source (usually a lawyer) other than the FAA discussion threads.

If people are copying each other's art, and that's a problem, a good place for general information about copyright law in the United States is www.copyright.gov.

If people wish to enforce their copyrights, as a general rule, it is much easier to enforce copyright if the art in question is registered at the U.S. government Copyright Office. For instructions on how to register art with the copyright office, see www.copyright.gov.

Dislcaimer: As always, this is just my opinion, not legal advice...!

Getting back to Angel....
Whoever told you thaT you are plagiarizing your work is foolish. It is your own work. You may copy it, make versions, make a series or just change a few colors. It is YOUR art.

so we have a strong disadvantage on my group with photographers due to the price of course someone said you can do the same thing makeprints on your own work but in reality in my experience the realims of a photo is no comparison with the photo of a painting
is not autoplagiarism commited here?,
are the copyrighs standars univesal
Im getting e lttle comfuse here

Angel:

I checked your profile and noticed that you are in Mexico. I'm pretty sure Mexico has copyright laws, but I don't know whether they are the same as U.S. copyright laws. Copyright law is not universal.

thanks Cheryl and everyone I just did found the answer about Plagiarism is more ethical and do not exist in copyrights at least not in ours I aso read a little about OMPI international laws

I recently put up a horizontal version and and vertical version of the same abstract just in case the potential buyer has trouble in the imagination department.