I'm going to rant. I'm not going to back it up because I'm to pissed to go looking for all the sources I've looked at today. You want to research it feel free. This is only my take on the matter and if it sounds paranoid oh well.

How much are they going to attempt to limit the sharing of ideas? You want to draw something... take a picture of it yourself. Make sure it has a date, send a copy to yourself in the mail so it has a post mark. Stuff the stock artists into a box and close the lid. Don't look at their stuff, don't use their stuff, don't even think of their stuff when creating your own artwork. Because you know what? They can sue you for copyright infringement if even one part of your art looks like it MIGHT have come from one of their pictures. You can't copyright an idea yet thank god because there aren't any new ones.

Oh and photographers? Stick with nature photos you'll be safer. Don't take pictures of cities, buildings, signs, public art works or anything else and try to sell it. Careful of catching some ones face on film. They own their likeness you know. You're in danger of going to court for copyright infringement. This is not to say that you'll lose but you'll be there a while. Some one's going to get money and it won't be you unless you counter sue in which case the lawyers and courts just get more of your money.

GODS DAMN IT I HATE PRECEDENT SETTING IDIOTS WHO GO TO COURT OVER STUPID SHIT HOPING TO MAKE A BUCK!

The Patry Copyright Blog: Photography and Derivative Works

"The concept of what constitutes a derivative work seems to elude far too many courts, particularly in the photography context. In Ets-Hokin v. Skky Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000), a photograph of a vodka bottle was taken for use in an advertisement. The district court had held that the bottle depicted in the photograph was a “reexisting work,” and thus the photograph was “based on” that work and was therefore a derivative work. Rather than dismiss this shockingly wrong conclusion on the basis of the plain words of the statute, the court of appeals went off on an irrelevant inquiry: Whether the object depicted in the photograph (the vodka bottle) was copyrightable. According to the court of appeals, if it was, the photograph was a derivative work; if not, the photograph was not a derivative work. In order to determine whether the bottle photographed was copyrightable, the court examined it as the design of a useful article, ultimately rejecting protection for the bottle and therefore upholding copyright in the photograph as a nonderivative work." (Exerp [link] )

Now that being said... not everyone is like this. Not every person you meet is going to stab you in the back and steal your wallet but in this case it might be better if you just assume they will. Because people like this guy will ruin it for the rest of us. You know why? Because judges are ruling on matters they have no understanding of. Most of them aren't artists who know what kind of work goes into a single piece of art. They don't know or really care or believe (in alot of cases) that it took you 20 hours to draw that depiction of downtown. All they see is that Mr Sculptor made that monument and you didn't have the right to draw it or photograph it without his permission, or Ms John Q didn't want you to draw her picture so you shouldn't be allowed to use it. Where do we draw the line? Public is public for a reason. You have no understanding of privacy when you leave your house or your car. How many times a day is your image captured by video cameras, surveillance cameras, the background of some one's photo.

I don't know. There are no clear lines here. We can argue about it all day. Both sides and we'd most of us be right. The basic fact of the matter is that there are no new ideas. The same damn movie is made 10 times every year and we don't hear some one screaming you ripped off so and so because it's a movie model. There are feminine poses that have been used for centuries and will continue to be used. There are male poses that are the same. There are stock photographers on here that I trust and will use their photos for references because they feel the same way I do. They keep their art separate from what they share with the rest of us. (See my thanks to our Stock Artists [link] for a few of these.) Not to demean it in anyway but like a yard sale or donating to Good Will. They don't want it or if they did they're done with it now and are passing it on. If you want money or credit or glory for your services go sell the stock on stock sites. At least then the person owns their art without your limitations on it. If you limit people to dA with their art why do you even bother? I can't imagine why anyone would use it with that limitation. But you do and people do and that's your choice. I just don't get it. If you don't want your image used for something you don't like... don't put it up there for the world to see. Because no matter how many restrictions you put on it SOMEONE is going to do what you don't want done with it. This is the internet, seriously. You saying "Bad no don't do that..." is like telling a dog to sit over the phone, you don't know if he did and he doesn't give a rats ass.

Anyway... I'm done. I was just so angry over some of the new laws that I had to vent. Venting done. If I offended anyone I'm sorry this is just my opinion and occasionally I like to vent it some where outside my head. At least here I know SOME ONE will get it.