Intellectual Property

It was not until I read Ayn Rand, that I began to notice that some people voice a concept that artists do not own their own creations and that such art "belongs to the people".

In ancient times, when an emperor or king took an artist or creator into his 'court', paid all his/her expenses, I could understand the notion that what they created belonged to their patron benefactor (even though the fact of their creation did not change).

In modern times, however, until an artist or creator sells the product of their creativity (or commissions it), the notion that it might not 'belong' to the artist is a badly disguised rationale for theft.

In 1984, when  Neil Young was sued by Geffen Records for not sounding enough like himself, a dangerous precedent was set.  What the heck?  Not only was Geffen attempting to define a creative identity using its own corporate criteria, but it was also attempting to regulate the artist's future creativity by saying that if a work did not fit its definitions, it should not exist.   Geffen's position was likely that Young's contract tacitly gave them that right, but I disagree.

Another court case,  involving the artwork of Richard Prince, a known appropriation artist, who took some Patrick Cariou's photographs and then used them in various paintings is another example.  Whereas 'appropriations' art has been found legal in the past, a judge ruled that these paintings were not covered under 'fair use' guidelines of copyright law.   That case is under appeal.  In looking at the originals and then at Prince's versions, there is no mistaking their origin and, frankly, no mistaking that they could not exist independently from the original work.  The court originally declared that the 'art' was to be destroyed, but the case is under appeal.

To me, this was a clear case of plagiarism.  Some lesser details were changed, but not so much that the result was a 'stand-alone' piece.  I could also see that, if I had been Cariou, I would have been insulted beyond belief that my work had been so utterly mangled.  It is one thing to take a painting of the Mona Lisa and distort it or 'edit' it or reimagine it so that it is new - because that painting, and da Vinci himself, have been in the public domain for a very long time.  Cariou's work has not.  Prince was clearly profting off the labor, the creation, the intellectual property, the artistry of another person to play his 'changes' of an original piece against the original. I personally consider that THEFT, not art.

For myself, the dividing line between stealing the work of another and paraphrasing or creating something new based on it is how much similarity the 'new' product has with the old one.  In Prince's case, his additions to Cariou's work were not substantive (in my opinion) and could never stand alone on their own merits but instead REQUIRED Cariou to 'participate' in his work without his consent.   While its true that Prince never tried to 'hide' that his work was derivative,  I do not believe that is a defense.  It is also true that had he purchased Cariou's photographs, then defaced them with his 'art', such might have been considered 'ok' were they in his private collection - but to market and display them as original works of art just does not cut it.

Intellectual property (IP) 

 -- a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which a set of exclusive rights are recognized—and the corresponding fields of law. Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property rights include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions. -- Wikipedia

Why am I even talking about this?  Well, it seems to me that many folks believe, that the thoughts and creations of others are "fair game", that somehow because they like an idea that they can present it as their own. I have seen this done rampantly in the new age movement where gurus adopt the flavor of the month theory or the latest trend and begin to use it or talk about it in their workshops and conferences as if they originated it, without any references to those whose work it truly was.  I have heard many of these individuals state that 'everything is free', no one really owns anything, and/or since we are 'all one', there is no difference between you saying it and me saying it.  I don't think so.

Basically, intellectual property includes, but is not limited to, a person's thoughts, ideas, concepts, designs, and plans that they have used, or plan to use, to create something real and tangible in the world for their own purposes.  The intellectual property may be tangible or intangible.    This makes the 'ownership' and use of thoughts and ideas even more difficult to decipher. 

For me, the distinction with ideas and thoughts, as opposed to products or technology or art, is a bit like the difference between paraphrasing and outright plagiarism.  If I were to copy a person's dissertation and publish it as my own with little or no changes, then that is obviously plagiarism and a theft of intellectual property, identity, prosperity and possible future earnings of that other person.  If, however, I extract a few ideas, edit, rephrase and add my own understandings in a paper then it might or might not be definable as a theft.  Maybe some additional data would help?

Such creations of the mind and thoughts of a person may or may not be offered for sale, may or may not be distributed, and may or may not be described or explained in sufficient detail that another person can duplicate it.  

In general, the creator of products marketed for sale to the public retains sufficient information about such creations to prevent competitors from duplicating them.

In medieval times,  inventions and artistic creations were financed by benefactors.  A patron paid an artist to live in residence and create art or music in exchange for living expenses and the raw supplies  to create.  An artist was paid to create a play or an opera or portrait, which then belonged to the patron who had commissioned it. The artist's name was attached to the work, but the owner was clearly understood to be the one who had paid for its creation.  The notion of intellectual property did not arise because there was clarity in who created the 'product', who paid for it, and who owned it and retained possession of it after the sale.

Intellectual property began to be important when the sale of a product was redefined to allow an owner/creator to sell the USE of a product for a specified amount of time, under specific conditions, while retaining ownership and final distribution of the product itself. This arrangement is most often seen in the software industry.

A customer does not actually buy Microsoft Office, for example, but rather buys the use of that software package under the license terms included in the package.   Microsoft retains ownership of the actual code used in the software package and does not allow for that code to be made available to other software programmers for their use in creating competing products.

The music industry has been prosecuting those who give away personally owned music on peer networks.  It is their contention that a music label retains ownership of a music CD or song after the sale in much the same way as software manufacturers do.

Where once the question of ownership was resolved at the point of sale, the question now seems to revolve around physical possession of it and whether or not that sale was for the product itself or for its usage.

The word, "proprietary", is often used to indicate that portion of intellectual property that is not shared when the product is sold, if it is sold, regardless of whether the sale is for total ownership or for usage alone.

 Public Domain materials and products are those items that can be used freely for profit or personal use.

Copyright and trademark designations have been applied to products sold in total or for usage according to a license. These designations 'mark' the product as the work of an individual or a company and not something that is widely available in the public domain.

Fair use - Laws have been passed to allow for the fair use of copyrighted work.  Please note that fair use does not include the right to make a profit off the work of others (selling it as if it was one's own work), nor does it include the the right to diminish the potential market value of the work.  In general, if one intends to use enough of the copyrighted material to produce a competing product, then this disqualifies that use as 'fair'.

17 U.S.C. § 107.  Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and  the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
4. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.^[1]

-- from Wikipedia

Please note:  If you are thinking of using copyrighted materials that do not belong to you, consult with an attorney for the specific conditions of "fair use". 

Identity THEIVES


Of all thefts, Identity theft is the most personal. To steal the name, the work, the prosperity, and/or the life of another is a heinous act.  I do not think the laws are nearly strong enough.

Laws about Identity Theft

According to the National Conference of State Legislation, identity theft occurs when someone uses another person's personally identifying information, like a person's name, Social Security number, or credit card number or other financial information, without permission, to commit fraud or other crimes.

Colorado 

• Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-5-901 et seq. - Identity theft - Class 4 felony - Minimum of the presumptive range and may sentence the defendant to a maximum of twice the presumptive range if: (a) The defendant is convicted of identity theft or of attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit identity theft; and (b) The defendant has a prior conviction for a violation of this part 9 or a prior conviction for an offense committed in any other state, the United States, or any other territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that would constitute a violation of this part 9 if committed in this state, or for attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit a violation of this part 9 or for attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit an offense in another jurisdiction that would constitute a violation of this part 9 if committed in this state.
• Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-5-904 -  Gathering identity information by deception - Class 5 felony.

 Georgia

• Ga. Code §16-9-120 et seq. - Attempting or conspiring to commit offense - Any person convicted of a violation of this Code section shall be punished by imprisonment or community service, by a fine, or by both such punishments not to exceed the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy. 
• Penalties: (a) A violation of this article, other than a violation of Code §16-9-122, shall be punishable by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 10 years or a fine not to exceed $100,000, or both. Any person who commits such a violation for the second or any subsequent offense shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three nor more than 15 years, a fine not to exceed $250,000, or both. (b) A violation of this article which does not involve the intent to commit theft or appropriation of any property, resource, or other thing of value that is committed by a person who is less than 21 years of age shall be punishable by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than three years or a fine not to exceed $5,000, or both.
• Restitution: Any person found guilty of a violation of this article may be ordered by the court to make restitution to any consumer victim or any business victim of such fraud.

 Texas

• Tex. Penal Code Ann. §32.51 - Fraudulent Use or Possession of Identifying Information - An offense under this section is:
  -  a state jail felony if the number of items obtained, possessed, transferred, or used is less than five.
  -  a felony of the third degree if the number of items obtained, possessed, transferred, or used is five or more, but less than 10.
  -  a felony of the second degree if the number of items obtained, possessed, transferred, or used is 10 or more, but less than 50.
  -  a felony of the first degree if the number of items obtained, possessed, transferred, or used is 50 or more.
• Penalties-- An offense described for purposes of punishment by Subsections (c)(1)-(3) is increased to the next higher category of offense if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the offense was committed against an elderly individual as defined by §22.04. 
• Restitution-- If a court orders a defendant convicted of an offense under this section to make restitution to the victim of the offense, the court may order the defendant to reimburse the victim for lost income or other expenses, other than attorney's fees, incurred as a result of the offense.

THIEVES - Thou Shalt Not Steal

Everywhere in our society we see thieves at work:

• stealing the ideas and thoughts of those more creative and productive than themselves (IP theft)
• stealing the fruits of another's labor (property theft)
• stealing the reputation and identity of another (identity theft)
• stealing the future of our children (politicians and business conglomerates)

From petty theft to grand larceny, these thefts are based on the desire to get something for nothing, an inherent laziness to 'do' the work required to achieve something great, a lack of intelligence or creativity that would allow them to create anything, and malfunctioning or missing conscience.

Although there are some who recognize that theft is WRONG, they are able to justify their actions based on need or circumstance -- but the truly abhorrent theif is the one who does not identity theft as theft. 

I have seen these types in particular abundance in the new age movement among scientists and pseudo scientists who share thoughts and beliefs, co-opt them regularly from others usually without giving credit.  I'm sure you have seen the con artists and fake gurus who come up with a new 'flavor' every few years that, if you trace back, you will find was actually voiced by someone else whose name and work has been muted or erased from their discussions of it.

At the base of these thieving actions is a belief that no one OWNS anything, not property, not thought, not invention.  They blend bits and pieces of religious doctrine stretching across the ages arising out of a thought that humans share a 'space' and sometimes a common journey, that humans carry within them some spark of divinity.    That has been bastardized to form two essential LIES:  "we are one" and "we are god".

Yes.  What you do will effect me in direct proportion to your actions within my local space and/or upon those who are in my local space.  It is the physical proximity that allows a reflective effect/consequence in my life and vice versa.  That does not mean you have the right to choose my life, my path, my religion, my thoughts, and/or my prosperity FOR me.  That does not give you the right to control or manipulate me.

We all have free will, but/and your free will ends where mine begins - and vice versa.  


I am NOT you. You are NOT me.  Neither of us is GOD.

When I meet someone who uses these concepts, I keep my hands on my wallet, because sooner or later that person, that organization, that religion or political party  is going to try to steal what is mine - my money, my property, my thoughts, my dreams, my life.  What they really mean by we-are-all-one is what-is-yours-is-mine and what-is-mine-is-mine.

We are NOT one.  We are distinct individual beings, with unique personas, phenotypes, destinys, dreams, and life missions.    There may be a million short, dumpy blue-eyed blondes, but there will never be two who are exactly alike.   Whether you believe in reincarnation or not, that which you ARE without form, in combination with the body in which you live, that began when you were born and will end when you die in this life, has never been before and will never be again.  This 'you' will be transformed even if it merely in the breakdown of the component parts, but this particular combination will not live again.

LIARS - Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness

A number of online sources make reference to four types of liars, all of which may be lies of omission or commission, and all of which relate to one's internal view of self and the boundary between self and other:

1. WHITE: Be Nice liars are protective of the self esteem of others.  The little white lies that protect someones feelings.  They will fudge the truth to spare emotional upset in the moment.  
2. SELF-ESTEEM: Want to Look Good liars are protective of their own self image and esteem.  They may exaggerate their 'glory days', or their achievements so as to look better than what they fear they are. 
3. AVOIDANCE: Want to Avoid Conflict and/or Confrontation liars.  These lies are often about not saying what one is upset about, not confronting aggression if there is no reasonable expectation of change, not 'rocking the boat' when such would generate negative consequences, get one fired, etc. 
4. PATHOLOGICAL: Wanting to Get Desired Response Now liars. These lies do not appear to have any rationale other than the liars motivation to get what they want when they want it, without concern for 'truth' or for the consequences their lies will have on others. 

While the commandments may not make such a distinction or set out a definition of what specifically qualifies as 'bearing false witness', very few people tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, all the time.

To me, the commandment refers to the words that harm another person, present a false reality as truth, or steal the truth, life, and prosperity of another.  This type of Liar is a predator, who preys on others for self-gain.  They may be bullies or thieves or politicians.  They may be con artists or sociopaths. They may be amoral or immoral.

Many are able to lie with a impunity.  They have no conscience, no shame, and no sense of responsibility.  They will compliment you in one breath, while they are trying to get something from you, and threaten to kill you or your dog in the next breath because you refused them.

The liars I am referring to are those who claim credit for work that is not theirs, those who claim to represent others or their products when they do not represent anyone but themselves, and/or those who claim to BE someone else.