Same goes for video games. All games require an SDK. Software development kit. So each game made is simply built using the pre existing material the programmers already have. Therefore it is a derivative works.
"This video is age restricted based on our community guidelines"
Disgraceful. The statues in this work are marvelous pieces of art that are meant to be beheld, and have strong meaning. It shouldn't be restricted because a penis and breasts are slightly depicted. Does this also mean that we have to be 18+ to look at the statue of David, who symbolizes individual freedom and the defeat of tyrants, solely because he is depicted nude?
The same principle applies to movies, tv shows, video games, all media and creative arts. There needs to be a Steam-like business model for all of this creative media, so we can support our artists more directly. How can the studios under Hollywood withhold such an immense wealth of culture subject to extortionate prices?
Powerful, remarkable in its simplicity. Starting from the simplest representations of the human form, this shows how art has evolved as a series of divergent, but derivative works, over time.
And then it stops. It cannot be suggested that gargoyles or winged heroes inspired anthropomorphic cartoons, or Greek athletes inspired superheroes. Instead of continuing to the present, the creator hits the wall of copyright law and must return to the beginning.
think all this proves is that there are only so many ways the human body is articulated, only so many positions the human body can sit stand and place the arms legs hands etc . . . . . . .
@kleverkloggs This video is not an argument attempting to prove the phrase with which it concludes, it's just an artistical depiction of the idea made to raise concern around that issue. If you look for the theory behind it, you'll see that it goes much beyond similarities of statues along history.
This video is awesome... it must have taken an awful lot of time to put all those different images in such sequence. Why was this age restricted? I can't believe somebody sees porno or sex before art in it.
This video doesn't explain anything. Of course statues of people are going to look similar to each other, without necessarily being derived from each other. They're derived from the human form, and one person doesn't look that different from another.
Try again with better examples, and preferably some explanatory text.
@IntarwebUser This video is not an argument attempting to prove the phrase with which it concludes, it's just an artistical depiction of the idea made to raise concern around that issue. If you look for the theory behind it, you'll see that it goes much beyond similarities of statues along history.
I agree. SupermegaLoser and AH to top it off. What kind of Idiot can rip apart such a work of talented creation and true entertainment. Frack yourself
The images & the idea of this video are OK, but I don't like the music, it's too repetitive and personally I'd rather music played with more traditional instruments, similar to those from ancient India and Greece. That way the music could evoke the civilizations in which these figurines were created. I think I'll replace the audio track with this kind of music, but wait, it's illegal! It's theft! it's murder! it's terrorism! it's intellectual genocide! the video is protected by copyright!
@elakirisilva and @kasupsihala : I think the charge made is vague. I'd like to hear some specific examples of how this has genuinely insulted your own religious sensitivities.
This seems a video about the history of religious art. I could go into any major museum & critique the positioning of various religious antiquities:
"This statue should not be shown with that one.";
"This vase should be in a 'no shoes allowed' room.";
I think it is a good creation... BUT, Isn't it insulting some religions.... I think it is better to understand religious backgrounds and ways of worshiping before doing such a creative thing.... I'm a Buddhist, i felt some disquietude with some frames.... I felt other people in religions may feel same... Some how I like your creativity....
Once you think about it, every creation we make is a ripoff. Because we're inspired by things we see, we take examples from existing things and turn those into our own image. Like the nazi's took things from the roman empire and the buddhits..
Great work! I'm not really interested in discussions about the infinite roots of the "new" you all are talking about.
But I work with children in theaters and museums and this video is really great to show them the aesthetic line that ties all cultures toghether through times and spaces (and nationalisms...)
@b41984 it's basically trying to say that no piece of art is completely original and independent from any other piece and that all art is based on that which already exists so no one can really claim to own a piece of art and thus should not be able to copy write it or sell it because they don't own the idea that there own art is based on
yes im sure grecoroman statues really ripped off those indian ones.
them bastards.
now that we've secured that fact, lets make a video that's tries to prove the derivative nature of art in human poses, since humans can pose in infinite ways.
@SuperMegaLoser the point is that all creative works have many similarities and are inspired from older works. even "original" works. e.g - world of warcraft takes stuff from lord of the rings, which in turn takes stuff from folklore and older stories, and star wars lifts ideas from flash gordon.
@SuperMegaLoser We're you dropped on your head as a kid? The video is about how nothing comes without inspiration and how just because something is based of something else doesn't make it a ripoff. You completely missed the point of the video and then assumed the exact opposite of what it was saying. Yes, humans can pose in infinite ways, making an infinte amount of potential to inspire another piece of art. And because everyone's different, none of those works will be the same.
I love everything about this! I dig dig Nina's work, but I must say one element that's really memorable for me about this vid is that "Wall of Sound", super-squashed techno-world-groove soundtrack by Todd Michaelsen... Really nice production there...
no, there is a thing called "fair use" in the US ("fair dealing" in the UK) which covers that. but lets not talk about the law, the law has little to do with what is right or wrong
so much truth in this. I have always been good at free hand drawing, sketches just creative stuff with a paper and pencil. when i though how my sketches where some what unoriginal i always reminded my self that with out inspiration i probaabaly would not even have something to draw. the best things come out of influence. after all people were the inspiration for statues right?
@davedaape according to copyright law it is infringement for children to make collages out of magazines without permission or license from the copyright holder of each image. I seriously question that, and I support Creative Commons
Yeah. All creative work is derivative. Not only these "dancing" statues prove it but similarity between music in this video and "Donya" by Arash proves it too...
So, with this video your making the argument that artists have been influenced by other artists? No argument her. However, this does not correlate to copyright theft. Honestly, from this video I can only draw one conclusion: that artists like to emulate the human form... Copyright is a valid process by which artists become tied with their ideas, and are allowed to profit from them.
@apacolypticus I agree that the artist should at least be allowed to profit from their works. I do not, however, agree with the length of copyright (do I really need 75 years to make a profit on my works, when just 7 would suffice?), and- i'm just going to say this right now- I'm disgusted as to how copyright came into existence in the first place (the companies - you know, the ones who only see art as a product, not as an entity- pressured Thomas Jefferson into making it).
For anyone who wants empirical evidence for this: Take a baby and its mother into a white room at birth and let them live in it nude, just receiving food and water, until the child is grown up. If you then ask the child to draw something, it will only be able to draw a nude woman, male genitalia from above, and possibly different sorts of food, cutlery and crockery.
Fantastic work, honestly it is. But the argument's against copyright aren't all encompassing, nor is abolishing copyright laws a good thing. What if, as a garage scientist, I create something the world has never seen before. I bust my ass for years developing this thing. The moment I publicize anything, without licensing rights, copyright law, or any sort of protecting laws, what's to stop Walmart, GE, or any other major corp. from stealing my work?
@YaoiVixenBoi I agree that there should be some kind of reward for creating something, but it should be a one time reward and in order to get more rewards you have to create more. It doesn't make sense to give someone a monopoly over creating something. What if someone else can create that thing for cheaper or do something better with it. You need competition. Otherwise the creator will just sit back, relax and make money without doing any more work.
@onelineproof I don't believe that a one time reward should be the case for someone's creation. What happens when you make something and it's perfect, or at least as good as it's going to be for such a long time that it's only improved after your death? Say you create a food synthesis machine. It works and it's so efficient that only with the advent of a dozen other technologies can it be improved.
Now the whole world has it but your still broke because you only got paid once.
@onelineproof But I'm not trying to start an argument about that, I'm just saying that while copyright/patent laws are ridiculous, there needs to be protective clauses on them and not abolition. My case in point is the battery that was initially installed on the first run of the Rav4 (I think that's the vehicle) was so efficient that it out performs anything produced since then. When the patent ran out General Motors picked it up and refuses to allow them to be produced.
@onelineproof There needs to be laws that prevent companies from withholding patents like that when those patents will benefit the world as a whole but are withheld because the company doesn't want to lose potential profit by forcing people to purchase inferior batteries or stick to fuel burning vehicles because their electric/hybrids don't have the power of a traditional vehicle.
@YaoiVixenBoi In practice, copyrights really only protect major corporations since they have orders of magnitude more money to spend in court. Microsoft spent roughly a decade in court in the E.U. over interoperability issues, and when they finally did lose and had to provide the formatting information for .doc and .xls, they came out with .docx and .xlsx. Point being, what's to stop a major corporation from stealing your work now?
@granulorhoek That's just plain not true. Ever heard of Dualshock? How about the Nintendo Wii?
Both Sony and Nintendo were sued in civil courts for patented theft/copyright infringement. Both of their cases were settled out of court for undisclosed sums to the plaintiffs and they BOTH still pay royalties in the form of annual payments to the owners of the patents. I've forgotten the specifics but Microsoft was taken to court a couple years ago and lost on grounds of copyright infringement.
@granulorhoek I hate to say it but your statements sound more like the impassioned statements of a philosophical debater and less like the logical pronouncements of a statistical debater. Don't get me wrong, I understand your inhibitions in the belief of a working patent/copyright system but with recent history showing that it truly does work, they just hold no ground with me.
@granulorhoek Besides, Docx and xlsx (you forgot pptx) only have the additional x on their executable file type tag because Microsoft added additional operation commands and formatting code. They didn't change MUCH from the old doc, xls and ppt and only created the "new format" because the older formats weren't compatible with the new properties of word/powerpoint/excel. That and the formatting info is open to the public, how do you think Open Office and other programs are already compatible?
Very impressive animation, but it doesn't demonstrate the point very well because it's all based on the human figure. Two completely isolated artists could create apparently 'derivative' works simultaneously if their basis is... you know, their body.
I'm sure plenty of them are derivative, considering they are renderings of cultural figures and CULTURE is derivative. I wouldn't go so far to say that all creative work is depicting cultural symbols.
And when it comes to the poses - there really are only so many poses you can get without either looking ridiculous or not conveying a desired symbolism. That's not derivative; that's just working with a common medium.
Copyright is there to prevent people deliberately (or accidentally) DIRECTLY copying a thing and distributing it. It is NOT saying that creative works cannot build on what came before.
@molewizard Every human action is deliberate and creative. Most actions involve some degree of copying, but this is not a justification to prohibit it.
@molewizard Value of a product has nothing to do with the amount of work needed to produce it, but with the subjetive appreciation that people have of it. Let consumers decide if I'm adding value to a product or not.
By the way, if I like your car and I buy one like yours. Do you really think that I'm exploiting you?
@molewizard I'm sorry for the delay. I meant that nobody can determine objetively whether I'm adding value to something or not and that exploitation has nothing to do with lack of innovation (as in my example of the car).
@josemanuelgonzalezg Well, yes, but we can try. The same is true of a jury in a court. Did they copy, or did they innovate? did they commit the crim, or did they not? We have to estimate as best we can.
@molewizard I see your car, I copy your decision and I buy a car exactly like yours. No doubt that I am copying, there is not a single bit of innovation in my action. Am I really commiting a crime?
Civilization involves innovation, but also involves copying actions and things that work well for others.
@josemanuelgonzalezg No, you are not commiting a crime because you're giving money to the people who created my car in the first place. When I buy the car, I don't buy all the copyrights with it. Neither do I with any product.
@molewizard I'm copying an idea that you have created (of buying a particular car), and I'm doing this for a profit (I have avoided the time and effort of deciding for myself which car to buy). Why am I a criminal?
Note that every human action is creative (including the decision to copy) and every human action is done in search of a subjetive profit.
According to your own definition of "innovation" and "crime", is it answering a message in youtube an innovation or a criminal action?
@josemanuelgonzalezg I think you're missing the issue. the issue is not just about taking ideas.
Let me put it this way: What do you take from me by stealing my so-called original idea of buying a product (I'm not going to go into why this is not original)?
@molewizard If you had a monopoly over your own ideas, you would have a control over my own mind, and over my own property. You would be able to order me which things I cannot think in, and what things I cannot write down with my own ballpen on my own sheet of paper. Your supposed right is a priviledge that attacks on my property rights, and I have the right to defend myself from your attack.
I'm mainly using (or copying, hehe) Stephan Kinsella's ideas in AGAINST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
@josemanuelgonzalezg And writing down ideas is perfectly legal, it's producing a copy of a product that is not. Unless of course the idea you're writing down is a poem, in which case it's almost certainly NOT your idea.
If you happen to write down the same poem as me without seeing it, that would be classed as an obvious enhancement, and therefore not copyrighted.
I might be stabbing in the dark here, but I assume that's what you're getting at.
@brantdhill I just didn't see the relevance of copyright to pre-modern art and the digital age we are in where copyright is MOST adhered to. I used to make mini sculptures of David in my art class, but no one came banging on my door or the schools for copyright infringement because those types of pieces don't apply to modern copyright law. It is just hell of expensive to own the original thats all.
@brantdhill I wasn't suggesting that you print up copies of pictures from the internet, and thanks for being a snobbish douche, but thats ok I forgive. I was merely stating that back when sculptures and paintings were a well crafted item, you couldn't make copies, and everything was original. You had to actually go to the artist and pay for his work. Unlike today where most art is printed on sheets of vinyl, and people walk into poster shops and buy them.
Even this concept itself isn't new. Solomon said it first.
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN. Is there anything of which one can say, 'Look! This is something new'? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time." (Ecclesiastes 1:9,10)
im sorry, but this has no reference to what is going on today... Copyright doesn't just involve art, and it doesn't involve works of the past.... Copyright comes into issue with the internet, everything being to access. Back then you had to be trained to carve sculpture, and people would come to you and pay you for your work.... its different when everything can be accessed through the internet, why pay for it? Why give that person trained any credit for his craft?
@Swift4U - It has plenty of reference for today. I still pay for art - and have probably PAID for more real art than you ever have or will. I have commissioned art - everything from a Navajo rug to psyanky eggs. I have purchased a bronze scuplture by tracking down the artist in Bulgaria and I've bought original carved pieces from craftsmen in India. If you want to have and hold a piece of art, you will still pay. Believe me! But if you just want an internet picture of it, what's the big deal?!
Ourben is a retarded zealot that resorts to name calling when someone doesn't agree with his opinion, which is about as relevant as ...well...nothing. There are original ideas, he has just never had one.
@zev007 resorts to yelling unoriginal insults when anybody illustrates quite succinctly what artists and creatives have been saying to one another for millennia.
How dare they make a statue that looks like a person. Don't they know that's already been done. This was a futile attempt to appear intellectual. FAIL!
@ourben The burden of proof isn't on me you troll. There are plenty of original ideas. Let's take something like violins for example. The first violin may have been based off another instrument, but it was unique in its way. Let's say that it is 'derivative' of another stringed instrument. If you go back far enough, you get the original one. There's no string instruments in nature, so it's obviously an original idea. Now, stfu, gtfo and never spread your nonsense again.
@zev007 Exactly you self important prick. The violin was a derivative work. There are naturally occurring strings and there are naturally occurring cavities. The "original" string instrument was a discovery. The burden of proof is on you. You have to prove that nobody discovered vibration makes sound, but instead told nature how to do it.
You are a moron and an arsehole. One or the other I can happily ignore, but for you to be both demands that I advise you to kill yourself.
I had thought in the beginning it was going to be early fertility statues and prehistoric symbols evolving into similar artistic representations slowly evolving throughout history to the same symbols as they exist in modern cultural icons. That might have clever, and at least illustrated the point implied in the title. All the same, nicely done
your looking at radio disney for art might be part of the problem. Entertainment sure but art to provoke the mind and push limits I wouldnt look to a kids pop "artists"
as in a kaleidoscope,the shapes and colors within are unchanging,but the way in which they fall are different when we turn the lens being derivative can not in itself determine the impact of art
Some creative work is derivative sure, its called influence. Most of these figures that fit together, do so because they came from similar cultures at similar times. Indian statues are edited w/ other Indian statues, same w/ the African, Greek and Christian images. But a great deal of these statues are from cultures who were never exposed to each other. Therefore there can be no influence. Not a good reason to screw artist out of the money they deserve.
To me this addresses a totally different topic than the titled one - it's the beauty of our art making ability - the human-defining feature we have to depict ourselves - with wings, with masks, with headdresses, leaping, prowling, spinning - the beauty of human life!
To me this addresses a totally different topic than the titled one - it's the beauty of art and humanity - this human-defining feature we have to depict ourselves - with wings, with masks, with headdresses, leaping, prowling, spinning - the beauty of human life!
Free energy can change the world!But there are very powerfull forces that want to supress the technology,Check this free energy magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be a part of the energy revolution!
@soaresdanniel Just because some people make a living from something, that does not make it moral. Thieves make a living from their work. Rights? Rights to what? You own the physical medium of the work, but you cannot own something that only exists in people's minds. Battlestar Galactica was sued for copying Star Wars, perhaps there is a similarity between, but the distinction between any two ideas is not inter-subjectively ascertainable, because it only exists in individual actors minds.
I understand your theory, however in the examples shown, those particular artworks didn't build on what came before as many of the cultures had never seen each other's work...I contend that similarities are coincidence and cultures come up with ideas sometimes completely independant of each other.
@Valkonnen The ideas in this instance being replicas of the work natural selection did over millions of years and billions of generations. Yeah well played.
Yep. I concur with the comments. A very very COOL video (i"m going to post it after commenting. History (at least my training) lends weight to humans developing somewhat equilaterally all over the world. Yes, there is an "evolutionary" approach to how we develop our creative manifestations, but the word "derivative" can mean many things. We are the products of our evolutionary context, but the video doesn't document that. It rocks. ;-)
Is this a response to walking down street pulling off clothes videos or repeated art ideas or legal rights? Usually look at copied art (not freeloaded music) and sneer, "Virgo," and "Yours is a little better... that's the advantage of going second," sarcasm but this is lively, not stale. Music is perfect. We can't help but be influenced by what came before and what is around us. It is how we fit into any society, but this is your own application in a new media. Not the same as copying.
Most of the mankind's creative work, like these statues, is in "public domain", for quite a long time.
So what's the point of insisting that living creators lose their rights if already there is such a vast source to create derivatives from?
Anyone is free to give up their rights as an author, if one does not care. Promoting that these rights should be abolished or ignored is vile and oppressive against those who are able to make a living and support their families, thanks to these rights.
Lovely...
zarathustra2k1 3 days ago
Same goes for video games. All games require an SDK. Software development kit. So each game made is simply built using the pre existing material the programmers already have. Therefore it is a derivative works.
DracoAzule 3 days ago
47 people , dont have creative mind!
LimpeComAlface 1 week ago 3
"This video is age restricted based on our community guidelines"
Disgraceful. The statues in this work are marvelous pieces of art that are meant to be beheld, and have strong meaning. It shouldn't be restricted because a penis and breasts are slightly depicted. Does this also mean that we have to be 18+ to look at the statue of David, who symbolizes individual freedom and the defeat of tyrants, solely because he is depicted nude?
kirbykrew 1 week ago 3
The same principle applies to movies, tv shows, video games, all media and creative arts. There needs to be a Steam-like business model for all of this creative media, so we can support our artists more directly. How can the studios under Hollywood withhold such an immense wealth of culture subject to extortionate prices?
LieutenantStandby 2 weeks ago
Powerful, remarkable in its simplicity. Starting from the simplest representations of the human form, this shows how art has evolved as a series of divergent, but derivative works, over time.
And then it stops. It cannot be suggested that gargoyles or winged heroes inspired anthropomorphic cartoons, or Greek athletes inspired superheroes. Instead of continuing to the present, the creator hits the wall of copyright law and must return to the beginning.
rks581 3 weeks ago 3
Todo o conhecimento é "serial", it was always based in what came before, o mito começa na individualidade.
We are all connected.
vegnagunL 1 month ago
as mina pira nessa dancinha de estatuas
warcrock123 1 month ago
This video was age restricted because of some naked statues? Give me a break.
BigDogJang0 1 month ago 9
Gesture.
TisLiberte 1 month ago
Restrizioni? E perchè? Questo lavoro dovrebbe essere mostrato a tutti!
ilconte55 1 month ago
Muito bom
alcarne 1 month ago
think all this proves is that there are only so many ways the human body is articulated, only so many positions the human body can sit stand and place the arms legs hands etc . . . . . . .
kleverkloggs 1 month ago
@kleverkloggs This video is not an argument attempting to prove the phrase with which it concludes, it's just an artistical depiction of the idea made to raise concern around that issue. If you look for the theory behind it, you'll see that it goes much beyond similarities of statues along history.
edilsoncr1 1 month ago
All those thousands years of civilisation for...copyright slavery. When did it start to go in the wrong direction and why we didn't see it?
cieslachaosu 1 month ago
Saving this for when I can show someone who's high.
tehUBERn00blet 1 month ago
This video is awesome... it must have taken an awful lot of time to put all those different images in such sequence. Why was this age restricted? I can't believe somebody sees porno or sex before art in it.
alejandroestrella69 1 month ago
Best. Porno. EVER! :D
neferiusnexus 1 month ago
Why is nobody commenting on what an amazing awesome job this video is by Nina Paley?
mphello 1 month ago
Evolution is the biggest violator of copyright in history, yet it worked pretty damned well.
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello Especially convergent evolution.
ladyattis 4 weeks ago
This video doesn't explain anything. Of course statues of people are going to look similar to each other, without necessarily being derived from each other. They're derived from the human form, and one person doesn't look that different from another.
Try again with better examples, and preferably some explanatory text.
IntarwebUser 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IntarwebUser This video is not an argument attempting to prove the phrase with which it concludes, it's just an artistical depiction of the idea made to raise concern around that issue. If you look for the theory behind it, you'll see that it goes much beyond similarities of statues along history.
edilsoncr1 1 month ago
WTF?! age-restricted
i'm just saw here art
kr4ter182 1 month ago 2
@kr4ter182 breasts
andreirocks1992 1 month ago
Except for integrals. Integrals are anti-derivative. HA!
mphello 1 month ago 6
I agree. SupermegaLoser and AH to top it off. What kind of Idiot can rip apart such a work of talented creation and true entertainment. Frack yourself
iREPEACE 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The images & the idea of this video are OK, but I don't like the music, it's too repetitive and personally I'd rather music played with more traditional instruments, similar to those from ancient India and Greece. That way the music could evoke the civilizations in which these figurines were created. I think I'll replace the audio track with this kind of music, but wait, it's illegal! It's theft! it's murder! it's terrorism! it's intellectual genocide! the video is protected by copyright!
© 2012
heathmoor 2 months ago in playlist More videos from questioncopyright
BTW, don't try to copy my post. It's also stuff with copyright! Didn't you see the © symbol?
heathmoor 2 months ago in playlist More videos from questioncopyright
Comment removed
heathmoor 2 months ago in playlist More videos from questioncopyright
who was the idiot that made this age-restricted?
ffs.... why do the entire world have to dumb down their preferences to accomodate a bunch of puritan lunatics?
vruz 2 months ago 9
Wow. Age-restricted. At least it wasn't pulled for copyright.
metamaterial 2 months ago 2
@elakirisilva and @kasupsihala : I think the charge made is vague. I'd like to hear some specific examples of how this has genuinely insulted your own religious sensitivities.
This seems a video about the history of religious art. I could go into any major museum & critique the positioning of various religious antiquities:
"This statue should not be shown with that one.";
"This vase should be in a 'no shoes allowed' room.";
"This should face east.";
"Women can't view this.";
etc.
xbeemc 2 months ago
I think it is a good creation... BUT, Isn't it insulting some religions.... I think it is better to understand religious backgrounds and ways of worshiping before doing such a creative thing.... I'm a Buddhist, i felt some disquietude with some frames.... I felt other people in religions may feel same... Some how I like your creativity....
elakirisilva 2 months ago
@elakirisilva totaly agreed bro..
kasupsihala 2 months ago
mathematics is not derivative. sometimes it seems like it really comes out of nowhere.
tallswede80 2 months ago
An excellent piece of work
rawssremix 3 months ago
Everyone copies God's work. No art can match his work. Michelangelo or someone like him said so.
AthosAmo 3 months ago
Major props for the Copyleft at the end.
BlueKewne 3 months ago
Once you think about it, every creation we make is a ripoff. Because we're inspired by things we see, we take examples from existing things and turn those into our own image. Like the nazi's took things from the roman empire and the buddhits..
Ruttie2 3 months ago
Great work! I'm not really interested in discussions about the infinite roots of the "new" you all are talking about.
But I work with children in theaters and museums and this video is really great to show them the aesthetic line that ties all cultures toghether through times and spaces (and nationalisms...)
Tx to the Authors!!!
olivierogrimaldi 3 months ago
The video is great, music also.
But all the imagery doesn't in anyway back the title.
If anything all art is derivative from us being humans. Art responds to humans living and experiencing stuff.
InnaGri4 3 months ago
how come they didn't introduce the artifacts in chronological order?
ANDjjela 3 months ago
@ANDjjela although I like the visual flow with the music!
ANDjjela 3 months ago
:)
DalvaniceSousa 3 months ago
i dont get it
b41984 4 months ago
@b41984 it's basically trying to say that no piece of art is completely original and independent from any other piece and that all art is based on that which already exists so no one can really claim to own a piece of art and thus should not be able to copy write it or sell it because they don't own the idea that there own art is based on
indianajones2929 4 months ago
@indianajones2929 it elly well done infact! i like it ar lot did i creature this ?
b41984 4 months ago
@b41984 sorry meant to say did u creative this ?
b41984 4 months ago
@b41984 no i did not
indianajones2929 4 months ago
did anyone consider SuperMegaLoser is a troll?
themiddleman009 4 months ago
this is banal
xjohnson42 5 months ago
as soon as i saw this video i was like Balls!
SidderzA 5 months ago
Epilepsie!
juse4pro 6 months ago
awesome o-o
XxLogicGuyxX 7 months ago
Be creative
gracleeom 7 months ago
yes im sure grecoroman statues really ripped off those indian ones.
them bastards.
now that we've secured that fact, lets make a video that's tries to prove the derivative nature of art in human poses, since humans can pose in infinite ways.
SuperMegaLoser 7 months ago
@SuperMegaLoser the point is that all creative works have many similarities and are inspired from older works. even "original" works. e.g - world of warcraft takes stuff from lord of the rings, which in turn takes stuff from folklore and older stories, and star wars lifts ideas from flash gordon.
robokill387 6 months ago 3
@SuperMegaLoser We're you dropped on your head as a kid? The video is about how nothing comes without inspiration and how just because something is based of something else doesn't make it a ripoff. You completely missed the point of the video and then assumed the exact opposite of what it was saying. Yes, humans can pose in infinite ways, making an infinte amount of potential to inspire another piece of art. And because everyone's different, none of those works will be the same.
clawcage42 6 months ago 46
@clawcage42
yes, i was droped on my head frequently from a good height. thank you.
that had a side effect and now i can never question copyrights. hence my post.
but your selfless attempt to describe the point of the video has been recorded.
SuperMegaLoser 6 months ago
@SuperMegaLoser
Your name is accurate, Mr. Super Mega Loser.
gamehugs 6 months ago 22
Comment removed
SuperMegaLoser 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gamehugs
your reply is derivative.
SuperMegaLoser 6 months ago
I love everything about this! I dig dig Nina's work, but I must say one element that's really memorable for me about this vid is that "Wall of Sound", super-squashed techno-world-groove soundtrack by Todd Michaelsen... Really nice production there...
billhuston 7 months ago 2
That
was
beautiful
It was like a choreographed dance! I have watched it three times so far...
StarryNightArt 7 months ago 3
no, there is a thing called "fair use" in the US ("fair dealing" in the UK) which covers that. but lets not talk about the law, the law has little to do with what is right or wrong
havenbastion 7 months ago
Love this....beautiful and delightful and creative!
queenkristina60 8 months ago
so much truth in this. I have always been good at free hand drawing, sketches just creative stuff with a paper and pencil. when i though how my sketches where some what unoriginal i always reminded my self that with out inspiration i probaabaly would not even have something to draw. the best things come out of influence. after all people were the inspiration for statues right?
mcwendys11 8 months ago
It is true, all creative work is derivative. How does that make someone "questioncopyright".
davedaape 8 months ago
@davedaape Because if you fight hard enough "inspiration" can be misinterpreted (intentionally) as plagiarism
Destatianon 7 months ago
@davedaape according to copyright law it is infringement for children to make collages out of magazines without permission or license from the copyright holder of each image. I seriously question that, and I support Creative Commons
DellaDykeborn 7 months ago
Yeah. All creative work is derivative. Not only these "dancing" statues prove it but similarity between music in this video and "Donya" by Arash proves it too...
simony17y 9 months ago
FAR OUT!!!
tebanano 9 months ago
So, with this video your making the argument that artists have been influenced by other artists? No argument her. However, this does not correlate to copyright theft. Honestly, from this video I can only draw one conclusion: that artists like to emulate the human form... Copyright is a valid process by which artists become tied with their ideas, and are allowed to profit from them.
apacolypticus 9 months ago
@apacolypticus I agree that the artist should at least be allowed to profit from their works. I do not, however, agree with the length of copyright (do I really need 75 years to make a profit on my works, when just 7 would suffice?), and- i'm just going to say this right now- I'm disgusted as to how copyright came into existence in the first place (the companies - you know, the ones who only see art as a product, not as an entity- pressured Thomas Jefferson into making it).
DarkChirano 3 months ago
i am writing a paper onc reatice commons but the problem is I am buzzed right now. Not sure if that makes this video better or just more confusing
itsaguinness 10 months ago
Extremely compelling
Meymeygwis 10 months ago
For anyone who wants empirical evidence for this: Take a baby and its mother into a white room at birth and let them live in it nude, just receiving food and water, until the child is grown up. If you then ask the child to draw something, it will only be able to draw a nude woman, male genitalia from above, and possibly different sorts of food, cutlery and crockery.
FredericBayer 10 months ago
Fantastic work, honestly it is. But the argument's against copyright aren't all encompassing, nor is abolishing copyright laws a good thing. What if, as a garage scientist, I create something the world has never seen before. I bust my ass for years developing this thing. The moment I publicize anything, without licensing rights, copyright law, or any sort of protecting laws, what's to stop Walmart, GE, or any other major corp. from stealing my work?
YaoiVixenBoi 10 months ago
@YaoiVixenBoi I agree that there should be some kind of reward for creating something, but it should be a one time reward and in order to get more rewards you have to create more. It doesn't make sense to give someone a monopoly over creating something. What if someone else can create that thing for cheaper or do something better with it. You need competition. Otherwise the creator will just sit back, relax and make money without doing any more work.
onelineproof 10 months ago
@onelineproof I don't believe that a one time reward should be the case for someone's creation. What happens when you make something and it's perfect, or at least as good as it's going to be for such a long time that it's only improved after your death? Say you create a food synthesis machine. It works and it's so efficient that only with the advent of a dozen other technologies can it be improved.
Now the whole world has it but your still broke because you only got paid once.
YaoiVixenBoi 10 months ago
@onelineproof But I'm not trying to start an argument about that, I'm just saying that while copyright/patent laws are ridiculous, there needs to be protective clauses on them and not abolition. My case in point is the battery that was initially installed on the first run of the Rav4 (I think that's the vehicle) was so efficient that it out performs anything produced since then. When the patent ran out General Motors picked it up and refuses to allow them to be produced.
YaoiVixenBoi 10 months ago
@onelineproof There needs to be laws that prevent companies from withholding patents like that when those patents will benefit the world as a whole but are withheld because the company doesn't want to lose potential profit by forcing people to purchase inferior batteries or stick to fuel burning vehicles because their electric/hybrids don't have the power of a traditional vehicle.
YaoiVixenBoi 10 months ago
@YaoiVixenBoi In practice, copyrights really only protect major corporations since they have orders of magnitude more money to spend in court. Microsoft spent roughly a decade in court in the E.U. over interoperability issues, and when they finally did lose and had to provide the formatting information for .doc and .xls, they came out with .docx and .xlsx. Point being, what's to stop a major corporation from stealing your work now?
granulorhoek 9 months ago
@granulorhoek That's just plain not true. Ever heard of Dualshock? How about the Nintendo Wii?
Both Sony and Nintendo were sued in civil courts for patented theft/copyright infringement. Both of their cases were settled out of court for undisclosed sums to the plaintiffs and they BOTH still pay royalties in the form of annual payments to the owners of the patents. I've forgotten the specifics but Microsoft was taken to court a couple years ago and lost on grounds of copyright infringement.
YaoiVixenBoi 9 months ago
@granulorhoek I hate to say it but your statements sound more like the impassioned statements of a philosophical debater and less like the logical pronouncements of a statistical debater. Don't get me wrong, I understand your inhibitions in the belief of a working patent/copyright system but with recent history showing that it truly does work, they just hold no ground with me.
YaoiVixenBoi 9 months ago
@granulorhoek Besides, Docx and xlsx (you forgot pptx) only have the additional x on their executable file type tag because Microsoft added additional operation commands and formatting code. They didn't change MUCH from the old doc, xls and ppt and only created the "new format" because the older formats weren't compatible with the new properties of word/powerpoint/excel. That and the formatting info is open to the public, how do you think Open Office and other programs are already compatible?
YaoiVixenBoi 9 months ago
You could very easily just remove the word "creative" from the title.
MindOST 10 months ago
Very impressive animation, but it doesn't demonstrate the point very well because it's all based on the human figure. Two completely isolated artists could create apparently 'derivative' works simultaneously if their basis is... you know, their body.
taicleis 11 months ago
@taicleis You pay no attention to the poses and the actual people being depicted.
dvinb12345 10 months ago
@dvinb12345
I'm sure plenty of them are derivative, considering they are renderings of cultural figures and CULTURE is derivative. I wouldn't go so far to say that all creative work is depicting cultural symbols.
And when it comes to the poses - there really are only so many poses you can get without either looking ridiculous or not conveying a desired symbolism. That's not derivative; that's just working with a common medium.
taicleis 10 months ago
Oh wow that was amazingly beautiful
Miorakira 11 months ago
I wish my statues could do that!
lilwill3104 1 year ago
People fail to see the point.
Copyright is there to prevent people deliberately (or accidentally) DIRECTLY copying a thing and distributing it. It is NOT saying that creative works cannot build on what came before.
Copyrights are NOT patents.
molewizard 1 year ago
@molewizard Even copying and distributing a thing is also a creative work built on what came before.
josemanuelgonzalezg 11 months ago
@josemanuelgonzalezg Yes, but it's deliberate, and direct. There's a line between innovation and copying, even though both are ultimately derivative.
molewizard 11 months ago
@molewizard Every human action is deliberate and creative. Most actions involve some degree of copying, but this is not a justification to prohibit it.
josemanuelgonzalezg 11 months ago
@josemanuelgonzalezg I'll rephrase.
There's a line between innovation and exploitation. It's about how much value YOU add to a product.
molewizard 11 months ago
@molewizard Value of a product has nothing to do with the amount of work needed to produce it, but with the subjetive appreciation that people have of it. Let consumers decide if I'm adding value to a product or not.
By the way, if I like your car and I buy one like yours. Do you really think that I'm exploiting you?
josemanuelgonzalezg 10 months ago
@josemanuelgonzalezg I never mentioned work. I mentioned added value.
And buying a car like mine from the company that made it is obviously not exploiting me.
I'm not sure what point you're making with either of these...
molewizard 10 months ago
@molewizard I'm sorry for the delay. I meant that nobody can determine objetively whether I'm adding value to something or not and that exploitation has nothing to do with lack of innovation (as in my example of the car).
josemanuelgonzalezg 10 months ago
@josemanuelgonzalezg Well, yes, but we can try. The same is true of a jury in a court. Did they copy, or did they innovate? did they commit the crim, or did they not? We have to estimate as best we can.
molewizard 10 months ago
@molewizard I see your car, I copy your decision and I buy a car exactly like yours. No doubt that I am copying, there is not a single bit of innovation in my action. Am I really commiting a crime?
Civilization involves innovation, but also involves copying actions and things that work well for others.
josemanuelgonzalezg 9 months ago
@josemanuelgonzalezg No, you are not commiting a crime because you're giving money to the people who created my car in the first place. When I buy the car, I don't buy all the copyrights with it. Neither do I with any product.
This is very basic copyright philosophy here. ¬_¬
molewizard 9 months ago
@molewizard But I'm copying your idea without your permission. Why is it a crime, but not this time?
josemanuelgonzalezg 9 months ago
@josemanuelgonzalezg You aren't copying my idea, unless you mean my idea of buying this particular car.
That is not a crime because there is no profit to be gained from it, and it's not an original or innovative idea either.
molewizard 9 months ago
@molewizard I'm copying an idea that you have created (of buying a particular car), and I'm doing this for a profit (I have avoided the time and effort of deciding for myself which car to buy). Why am I a criminal?
Note that every human action is creative (including the decision to copy) and every human action is done in search of a subjetive profit.
According to your own definition of "innovation" and "crime", is it answering a message in youtube an innovation or a criminal action?
josemanuelgonzalezg 9 months ago
@josemanuelgonzalezg I think you're missing the issue. the issue is not just about taking ideas.
Let me put it this way: What do you take from me by stealing my so-called original idea of buying a product (I'm not going to go into why this is not original)?
molewizard 9 months ago
@molewizard Nothing. When you copy you never take anything from anyone. And this is why copying is not a crime in itself.
josemanuelgonzalezg 9 months ago
@josemanuelgonzalezg Exactly.
Whereas, if you copy a car and give it to someone, the car company DOES lose revenue. THAT is the difference.
molewizard 9 months ago
@molewizard Of course. But if I copy a car, now I am a car company too. You are advocating a monopoly of ideas.
josemanuelgonzalezg 9 months ago
@josemanuelgonzalezg No, I'm advocating one person having a monopoly over their OWN ideas.
molewizard 9 months ago
@molewizard If you had a monopoly over your own ideas, you would have a control over my own mind, and over my own property. You would be able to order me which things I cannot think in, and what things I cannot write down with my own ballpen on my own sheet of paper. Your supposed right is a priviledge that attacks on my property rights, and I have the right to defend myself from your attack.
I'm mainly using (or copying, hehe) Stephan Kinsella's ideas in AGAINST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
josemanuelgonzalezg 9 months ago
@josemanuelgonzalezg I wouldn't have any control over your mind.
I only have control over what you produce and sell.
I think you're making a false assumption here.
molewizard 9 months ago
@josemanuelgonzalezg And writing down ideas is perfectly legal, it's producing a copy of a product that is not. Unless of course the idea you're writing down is a poem, in which case it's almost certainly NOT your idea.
If you happen to write down the same poem as me without seeing it, that would be classed as an obvious enhancement, and therefore not copyrighted.
I might be stabbing in the dark here, but I assume that's what you're getting at.
molewizard 9 months ago
This video needs more views, It's just so amazing...
sincityfire 1 year ago
this vid should be rated mature..... xD
iC4R3B34R 1 year ago
This is really funny.
fuzzrider 1 year ago
@brantdhill I just didn't see the relevance of copyright to pre-modern art and the digital age we are in where copyright is MOST adhered to. I used to make mini sculptures of David in my art class, but no one came banging on my door or the schools for copyright infringement because those types of pieces don't apply to modern copyright law. It is just hell of expensive to own the original thats all.
Swift4U 1 year ago
@brantdhill I wasn't suggesting that you print up copies of pictures from the internet, and thanks for being a snobbish douche, but thats ok I forgive. I was merely stating that back when sculptures and paintings were a well crafted item, you couldn't make copies, and everything was original. You had to actually go to the artist and pay for his work. Unlike today where most art is printed on sheets of vinyl, and people walk into poster shops and buy them.
Swift4U 1 year ago
Even this concept itself isn't new. Solomon said it first.
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN. Is there anything of which one can say, 'Look! This is something new'? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time." (Ecclesiastes 1:9,10)
Excellent work, Nina Paley and Todd Michaelsen!
brantdhill 1 year ago
29 people don't like dancing statues of naked people
betterthanurbutt 1 year ago
im sorry, but this has no reference to what is going on today... Copyright doesn't just involve art, and it doesn't involve works of the past.... Copyright comes into issue with the internet, everything being to access. Back then you had to be trained to carve sculpture, and people would come to you and pay you for your work.... its different when everything can be accessed through the internet, why pay for it? Why give that person trained any credit for his craft?
Swift4U 1 year ago
@Swift4U - It has plenty of reference for today. I still pay for art - and have probably PAID for more real art than you ever have or will. I have commissioned art - everything from a Navajo rug to psyanky eggs. I have purchased a bronze scuplture by tracking down the artist in Bulgaria and I've bought original carved pieces from craftsmen in India. If you want to have and hold a piece of art, you will still pay. Believe me! But if you just want an internet picture of it, what's the big deal?!
brantdhill 1 year ago
Por este tipo de trabajos es que amo tanto la fotografia <3
clamflog 1 year ago
graydient!
kidarcane 1 year ago
Ourben is a retarded zealot that resorts to name calling when someone doesn't agree with his opinion, which is about as relevant as ...well...nothing. There are original ideas, he has just never had one.
zev007 1 year ago
@zev007 resorts to yelling unoriginal insults when anybody illustrates quite succinctly what artists and creatives have been saying to one another for millennia.
ourben 1 year ago
this is sooo faking creative and awesome!!!! well done!
bistnenutte 1 year ago
tarihin dansı.. tek kelimeyle harika
membertt84 1 year ago
How dare they make a statue that looks like a person. Don't they know that's already been done. This was a futile attempt to appear intellectual. FAIL!
SeisrushOb 1 year ago
creative work is not necessarily derivative. i'm calling bullshit and shenanigans.
zev007 1 year ago
@zev007 Yes it is. Prove otherwise.
ourben 1 year ago
@ourben The burden of proof isn't on me you troll. There are plenty of original ideas. Let's take something like violins for example. The first violin may have been based off another instrument, but it was unique in its way. Let's say that it is 'derivative' of another stringed instrument. If you go back far enough, you get the original one. There's no string instruments in nature, so it's obviously an original idea. Now, stfu, gtfo and never spread your nonsense again.
zev007 1 year ago
@zev007 Exactly you self important prick. The violin was a derivative work. There are naturally occurring strings and there are naturally occurring cavities. The "original" string instrument was a discovery. The burden of proof is on you. You have to prove that nobody discovered vibration makes sound, but instead told nature how to do it.
You are a moron and an arsehole. One or the other I can happily ignore, but for you to be both demands that I advise you to kill yourself.
Kill your self.
ourben 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zev007
"The burden of proof isn't on me you troll."
Sure it is. You're the one who is attempting to refute the claim. That's how this logic thing works.
"There's no string instruments in nature,"
Tell that to crickets.
Lodatzor 11 months ago
This video was unoriginal and uninspired
layzergun 1 year ago
I had thought in the beginning it was going to be early fertility statues and prehistoric symbols evolving into similar artistic representations slowly evolving throughout history to the same symbols as they exist in modern cultural icons. That might have clever, and at least illustrated the point implied in the title. All the same, nicely done
ApocalypseTheory 1 year ago
your looking at radio disney for art might be part of the problem. Entertainment sure but art to provoke the mind and push limits I wouldnt look to a kids pop "artists"
nicxjustice 1 year ago
as in a kaleidoscope,the shapes and colors within are unchanging,but the way in which they fall are different when we turn the lens being derivative can not in itself determine the impact of art
DangerBird 1 year ago
creative work is derivative, but this is a bad example. Do these cultures had internet? XD
GuaLCoRtv 1 year ago
great, this is going to give me nightmares. good point, though.
BeastOfSoda 1 year ago
Cool video.
sherifffruitfly 1 year ago
Some creative work is derivative sure, its called influence. Most of these figures that fit together, do so because they came from similar cultures at similar times. Indian statues are edited w/ other Indian statues, same w/ the African, Greek and Christian images. But a great deal of these statues are from cultures who were never exposed to each other. Therefore there can be no influence. Not a good reason to screw artist out of the money they deserve.
brreed82 1 year ago
@brreed82 Oh really? So the PEOPLE that made these statues didn't LOOK LIKE PEOPLE then?
ourben 1 year ago
@ourben lol
brreed82 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brreed82
"But a great deal of these statues are from cultures who were never exposed to each other"
..you're sure you want to make this claim?
Lodatzor 11 months ago
All I can say is Exactly.
comradepoison 1 year ago
i like the song! and the video offcurse. has the song a name?
MKHunited 1 year ago
freaking awesome
UnGatoExtraviado 1 year ago
I'm gonna be the class clown here and say you should watch this while listening to Single Ladies.
QueenMaryOfVietnam 1 year ago 2
wow, its awesome
ktmyoung 1 year ago
To me this addresses a totally different topic than the titled one - it's the beauty of our art making ability - the human-defining feature we have to depict ourselves - with wings, with masks, with headdresses, leaping, prowling, spinning - the beauty of human life!
songsforyou00 1 year ago
To me this addresses a totally different topic than the titled one - it's the beauty of art and humanity - this human-defining feature we have to depict ourselves - with wings, with masks, with headdresses, leaping, prowling, spinning - the beauty of human life!
songsforyou00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy can change the world!But there are very powerfull forces that want to supress the technology,Check this free energy magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be a part of the energy revolution!
breeannaqktjbl 1 year ago
WOW ¡amazing!
Guille544 1 year ago
@soaresdanniel Just because some people make a living from something, that does not make it moral. Thieves make a living from their work. Rights? Rights to what? You own the physical medium of the work, but you cannot own something that only exists in people's minds. Battlestar Galactica was sued for copying Star Wars, perhaps there is a similarity between, but the distinction between any two ideas is not inter-subjectively ascertainable, because it only exists in individual actors minds.
johnbranflake 1 year ago
I understand your theory, however in the examples shown, those particular artworks didn't build on what came before as many of the cultures had never seen each other's work...I contend that similarities are coincidence and cultures come up with ideas sometimes completely independant of each other.
Valkonnen 1 year ago
@Valkonnen The ideas in this instance being replicas of the work natural selection did over millions of years and billions of generations. Yeah well played.
ourben 1 year ago
Cool video and interesting idea. Well done.
anbats 1 year ago
Yep. I concur with the comments. A very very COOL video (i"m going to post it after commenting. History (at least my training) lends weight to humans developing somewhat equilaterally all over the world. Yes, there is an "evolutionary" approach to how we develop our creative manifestations, but the word "derivative" can mean many things. We are the products of our evolutionary context, but the video doesn't document that. It rocks. ;-)
loriescalera 1 year ago 2
they are dancing
DennisEatsFood 1 year ago
maybe, because all the animation is made of preexistent statues? O.o
maraxus83 1 year ago
well in this case where did this work come from? lol
thedruglord 1 year ago
Is this a response to walking down street pulling off clothes videos or repeated art ideas or legal rights? Usually look at copied art (not freeloaded music) and sneer, "Virgo," and "Yours is a little better... that's the advantage of going second," sarcasm but this is lively, not stale. Music is perfect. We can't help but be influenced by what came before and what is around us. It is how we fit into any society, but this is your own application in a new media. Not the same as copying.
mythmoth 1 year ago
Comment removed
mythmoth 1 year ago
Gorgeus video
lukac39 1 year ago
Most of the mankind's creative work, like these statues, is in "public domain", for quite a long time.
So what's the point of insisting that living creators lose their rights if already there is such a vast source to create derivatives from?
Anyone is free to give up their rights as an author, if one does not care. Promoting that these rights should be abolished or ignored is vile and oppressive against those who are able to make a living and support their families, thanks to these rights.
soaresdanniel 1 year ago