Receiving credit for your work
One of the arguments I often see in favor of intellectual property law, copyright, patents, etc. is that people think that the original author should be credited for their work, and/or that people shouldn't be able to claim credit for something that someone else made.
This makes no sense to me.
It's not possible to 'steal' credit for something because, as far as we know, it's not possible to change history. You could claim you wrote this post and then try to sell it, but I wouldn't care because you'd be an idiot and anyone who buys from you would also be an idiot. History tells the true story.
I understand that some things, like books, music, movies, etc. need copy protection. Copyright should protect creations. However, it definitely should not allow the arbitrary creator to harm others with massive fines and legal battles. That kind of behavior should be illegal, but copyright actively encourages it. But I digress.
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about stealing credit. People tell me it's a thing. I don't believe them. You can't steal credit any more than I can steal your favorite color. It's not possible.
Physical things can be stolen. Copyrighted works can be illegally duplicated. But credit? It falls into neither category: it is not physical, and you can't duplicate it. Show me a court case where someone was successfully sued for stealing someone's favorite color, and after I'm done laughing I'll think again.
So why do people always insist that credit is a vital part of intellectual property, copyright, patents, etc? I don't understand.
I had a much longer rant on this but decided to cut it short. Can we keep to the 'stealing credit' thing please? I'm writing an essay on copyright and don't want to spill my guts out here instead of there.
This makes no sense to me.
It's not possible to 'steal' credit for something because, as far as we know, it's not possible to change history. You could claim you wrote this post and then try to sell it, but I wouldn't care because you'd be an idiot and anyone who buys from you would also be an idiot. History tells the true story.
I understand that some things, like books, music, movies, etc. need copy protection. Copyright should protect creations. However, it definitely should not allow the arbitrary creator to harm others with massive fines and legal battles. That kind of behavior should be illegal, but copyright actively encourages it. But I digress.
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about stealing credit. People tell me it's a thing. I don't believe them. You can't steal credit any more than I can steal your favorite color. It's not possible.
Physical things can be stolen. Copyrighted works can be illegally duplicated. But credit? It falls into neither category: it is not physical, and you can't duplicate it. Show me a court case where someone was successfully sued for stealing someone's favorite color, and after I'm done laughing I'll think again.
So why do people always insist that credit is a vital part of intellectual property, copyright, patents, etc? I don't understand.
I had a much longer rant on this but decided to cut it short. Can we keep to the 'stealing credit' thing please? I'm writing an essay on copyright and don't want to spill my guts out here instead of there.
Last edited on
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
The truth of history is impossible to verify when mankind is involved. History reflects the winners' version of the truth -- or at least what the majority of the people believe.
Suppose that some nobody like me creates a perfect compression algorithm and then a big-shot (Stallman?) immediately finds out about the discovery and puts their name and license on it. Who do you think the internet would believe created it? Who would get the page-views and ad revenue? Perhaps in that mock example "stealing" isn't the right word, but rather "intercepting"? Something has to be owned before it can be stolen.
*Also, I fail to see the connection between a favourite color and credit.
Suppose that some nobody like me creates a perfect compression algorithm and then a big-shot (Stallman?) immediately finds out about the discovery and puts their name and license on it. Who do you think the internet would believe created it? Who would get the page-views and ad revenue? Perhaps in that mock example "stealing" isn't the right word, but rather "intercepting"? Something has to be owned before it can be stolen.
*Also, I fail to see the connection between a favourite color and credit.
Last edited on
Let's say I invented that algorithm. I know I invented it, so there's no problem. For all I know Stallman invented it too just a few hours before me. I'm not sure why I am supposed to care.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| So why do people always insist that credit is a vital part of intellectual property, copyright, patents, etc? I don't understand. |
Yes, during research I frequently find comments on posts with people saying the same thing about receiving credit being an important factor.
> I'm writing an essay on copyright
work on your writing skills, you ramble a lot.
> as far as we know, it's not possible to change history.
¿what meaning of history are you using?
you later say ``History tells the true story.'', quite an impossible feat.
> Copyright should protect creations.
¿why? ¿protect how? ¿from what?
> I know I invented it, so there's no problem.
¿are you using a definition of credit where the creator is the only actor involved?
> You can't steal credit any more than I can steal your favorite color
quite a leap you are doing there.
> because you'd be an idiot and anyone who buys from you would also be an idiot
this is more a matter of style.
you are trying to present a position that's in conflict with the current view of how things work, insulting your readers may cause rejection.
> You could claim you wrote this post
no, thanks.
work on your writing skills, you ramble a lot.
> as far as we know, it's not possible to change history.
¿what meaning of history are you using?
you later say ``History tells the true story.'', quite an impossible feat.
> Copyright should protect creations.
¿why? ¿protect how? ¿from what?
> I know I invented it, so there's no problem.
¿are you using a definition of credit where the creator is the only actor involved?
> You can't steal credit any more than I can steal your favorite color
quite a leap you are doing there.
> because you'd be an idiot and anyone who buys from you would also be an idiot
this is more a matter of style.
you are trying to present a position that's in conflict with the current view of how things work, insulting your readers may cause rejection.
> You could claim you wrote this post
no, thanks.
Last edited on
| ne555 wrote: |
|---|
| work on your writing skills, you ramble a lot. |
| ne555 wrote: |
|---|
| ¿what meaning of history are you using? |
| ne555 wrote: |
|---|
| you later say ``History tells the true story.'', quite an impossible feat. |
| ne555 wrote: |
|---|
| ¿why? ¿protect how? ¿from what? |
| ne555 wrote: |
|---|
| ¿are you using a definition of credit where the creator is the only actor involved? |
| ne555 wrote: |
|---|
| quite a leap you are doing there. |
| ne555 wrote: |
|---|
| this is more a matter of style. you are trying to present a position that's in conflict with the current view of how things work, insulting your readers may cause rejection. |
| no, thanks. |
We're kind of dodging the question, though. How would you describe a situation where someone 'steals' credit?
Last edited on
| Let's say I invented that algorithm. I know I invented it, so there's no problem. For all I know Stallman invented it too just a few hours before me. I'm not sure why I am supposed to care. |
If there's been some unrecorded interaction between you two (not out of the question given how much Stallman screams about tracking) in which you and Stallman discussed details of the algorithm and in which he expresses ignorance, and shortly thereafter he starts touting the algorithm as his own and releases the first implementation under the GPL v3, you can not only be fairly certain that he stole credit, but it's robbing you of potential. You could have made money off of its implementation, and you could have gotten academic recognition. To steal credit is to rob the originator of potential recognition.
| the whole series of past events connected with someone or something. |
And time is not some grand revealer of truth. History is a conglomerate of records of events that is generally maintained in a highly biased manner by highly recognizable entities who are currently in a position of control. Any student of history knows this.
| How would you describe a situation where someone 'steals' credit? |
Wherein an entity makes false but accepted claims that they are responsible for some object, knowledge, or event, thus... changing history.
Indeed, credit is non-physical and it cannot be (trivially) duplicated. But that doesn't make it any less real or any less possible to steal. Mostly because it's very easy to change history.
-Albatross
Last edited on
While not exactly IP, the patent system seems to parallel the discussion here. The point of copyright protection in the sense of "preventing theft of the 'credit' for a given work" is for the purpose of ensuring that the profits of said work go to the rightful creator. Why should the creator care? If they spend copious amounts of time on something, then someone steals their work, markets it as their own and makes millions off of it, shouldn't the creator feel robbed? They're the ones who put in all the time and effort, why should someone else get the reward?
| We're kind of dodging the question, though. How would you describe a situation where someone 'steals' credit? |
Here is another example, let's say I am making a game, in this game I use some art assets from another game. I then proceed to sell this game without any mention that my development team or myself didn't create those art assets we grabbed from another game to use in our game.
While we are not explicitly claiming that the art is of our making, it is implied by lack of giving Copyright Credit (Attribution) to the original creator.
This is possible grounds for copyright infringement and is also an example of stealing credit for someone else's work. The credit was stolen because we implicitly touted the art as our own. Now when I think of the meaning of "Stolen" to me it means that something was lost/taken from someone.
So what did the original creator lose by us using their art assets without giving credit to them?
1) Recognition, the person or entity that created the assets no longer gets recognition for their work. This leads into #2 and #3.
2) Financial opportunities, without being recognized as the creator they could have lost future opportunities to create more assets for money.
3) Social opportunities, without being recognized as the creator they lose out on others knowing that they created those assets. This could result in lose of potential awards they could have won, social standing among their peers, academic standing, and other social aspects involved.
There is most possible loses that could be sustained but I won't go on. Though the main point is that people do claim credit for works that aren't theirs, and that by doing so it does indeed create possible loses to the creator. This doesn't only apply to the above example it can apply to any form of explicitly or implicitly stealing credit from others.
Last edited on
| TheRabbitologist wrote: |
|---|
| If there's been some unrecorded interaction between you two (not out of the question given how much Stallman screams about tracking) in which you and Stallman discussed details of the algorithm and in which he expresses ignorance, and shortly thereafter he starts touting the algorithm as his own and releases the first implementation under the GPL v3, you can not only be fairly certain that he stole credit, but it's robbing you of potential. You could have made money off of its implementation, and you could have gotten academic recognition. To steal credit is to rob the originator of potential recognition. |
| ModShop wrote: |
|---|
| While not exactly IP, the patent system seems to parallel the discussion here. The point of copyright protection in the sense of "preventing theft of the 'credit' for a given work" is for the purpose of ensuring that the profits of said work go to the rightful creator. Why should the creator care? If they spend copious amounts of time on something, then someone steals their work, markets it as their own and makes millions off of it, shouldn't the creator feel robbed? They're the ones who put in all the time and effort, why should someone else get the reward? |
| Zereo wrote: |
|---|
| I am making a game, in this game I use some art assets from another game. I then proceed to sell this game without any mention that my development team or myself didn't create those art assets we grabbed from another game to use in our game. While we are not explicitly claiming that the art is of our making, it is implied by lack of giving Copyright Credit (Attribution) to the original creator. |
Credit isn't stolen because it can be proved who really has it.
Last edited on
>> ¿are you using a definition of credit where the creator is the only actor involved?
> I don't know what this means.
You said «I know I invented it, so there's no problem», but what you know is irrelevant. If the other people don't know or accept you as the creator, then you have no credit for it.
>> quite a leap you are doing there.
> How? Both are intangible things that we associate with individuals.
But your favorite colour is self-imposed
> I'm familiar with the story. I mentioned it in my deleted rant.
and you decided to ignore it because...
Plagiarism is another way of stealing credit.
By the way, there is a whole industry based on selling credit. It's called ghostwriting.
> I don't know what this means.
You said «I know I invented it, so there's no problem», but what you know is irrelevant. If the other people don't know or accept you as the creator, then you have no credit for it.
>> quite a leap you are doing there.
> How? Both are intangible things that we associate with individuals.
But your favorite colour is self-imposed
> I'm familiar with the story. I mentioned it in my deleted rant.
and you decided to ignore it because...
Plagiarism is another way of stealing credit.
By the way, there is a whole industry based on selling credit. It's called ghostwriting.
Last edited on
| Credit isn't stolen because it can be proved who really has it. |
It seams you have redefined credit to mean accomplishment or something like that. For your arguments to make any sense, you need to start with a definition.
| He's an idiot because the dates on my blog posts prove him wrong. |
-Albatross
| If they want the money, all they need is a court case... |
Oh you mean the types of court cases that you are claiming to be immoral/wrong in your paper?
| ...However, it definitely should not allow the arbitrary creator to harm others with massive fines and legal battles... |
My opinion on this would be
People want credit for the stuff they made because they are proud of it and don't want it any one else taking the credit.
If you put a lot of effort into something you wouldn't want some randomly claiming its there's.
Just like in a maths test and I'm sitting next to someone I wouldn't give them my answers as I used my own brain and worked it out and with a lot of effort if it was a hard question.
If I'm wrong correct me :)
People want credit for the stuff they made because they are proud of it and don't want it any one else taking the credit.
If you put a lot of effort into something you wouldn't want some randomly claiming its there's.
Just like in a maths test and I'm sitting next to someone I wouldn't give them my answers as I used my own brain and worked it out and with a lot of effort if it was a hard question.
If I'm wrong correct me :)
About your test example, you'll still have credit. Both of you would separately receive the reward for it.
The only thing that bothers you is that they didn't make any effort.
(yes, I'm completely ignoring the purpose of the exam, don't mention it)
The only thing that bothers you is that they didn't make any effort.
(yes, I'm completely ignoring the purpose of the exam, don't mention it)
| Both of you would separately receive the reward for it. |
While this is the case for the test example, it is not when the "credit" is a finite entity, whether it be public recognition or monetary profit. In the case of a product or work (such as a song), "stealing" said product would result in, at best, a split of the rewards between the original creator and the "thief", and the worse case scenario is the thief makes off with most, if not all, of the rewards for the work of another.