Before reading on, please relax and take a deep breath. This is in response to Danny Palmers post, but not a response to it. It was that post that prompted me to type this thing out. These are some “observations” I have regarding this issue. They have not been formed by one particular person in that post, but my own “observations” over the years within this industry. In no way should Mr. Palmer or other contributors feel that this is directed to them personally.
Although I have no control over whom and what can be posted in response, my wish is for a nice exchange on the larger issues itself. The topic is clipart. For the balance of this message, the word clipart is used but could just as easily be replaced by logo, trademark, copyright, or other digital based “works”. Either bought by you, created by you, or authorized for your use. I’m not clear if there will ever be a definitive answer to the legal matters on this board as it pertains to clipart, and that is not the purpose of this post. I’m interested in why clipart is viewed in the fashion that it is? Why clipart? Why not a brush, a paper pattern, a customer list, etc.? Why clipart?
Although I have never publicly posted a request for clipart, I won’t promise that I never will. Although I have emailed various clipart pieces to other previously, I won’t promise that I’ll do it again in the future. In that same breath, I make no promise that I won’t either. So, I have been guilty of perpetuating this monster and am not free of criticism in that regard. But that is not what I want to see debated here. I’m interested in knowing what it is about “clipart” more so than many other tools or procedures? So here we go…
What is it about clipart?
I recently received a phone call from another local sign shop. I, as well as many other area shops, have a friendly relationship with one another. In times of need it is not uncommon for one shop to request the assistance of another. This aid can come in many forms. Perhaps it’s nothing more than to brainstorm on a sign concept. Maybe it’s the use of a particular tool, or to borrow a sheet of MDO or paint until your delivery shows up or your stock gets replenished. There are simply times that we just get in a bind and would like to receive a little help. But, any supplies used are either paid for or replenished, tools borrowed are always returned. I don’t believe one of us would feel comfortable knowing that we didn’t return a borrowed tool or replace a sheet of MDO that was taken. But yet, not an eyelash is batted when clipart is exchanged without consideration. It’s just a “given” that you’ll oblige the request. No thought appears to be given in the monies spent to acquire it; be it a true exchange of money or labor time invested to create it or acquire it. What is it about clipart?
During the afford mention conversation, it’s learned that I’m one of three shops this person has contacted about getting this clipart. Mind you, this shop has taken an order from a customer that is going to pay them to produce signage using the corporate clipart. This person didn’t request or require the clipart directly from the customer. Instead he took his time, and the time of three other sign shops as well, to call “them” requesting this clipart for “his” paying customer. What is it about clipart?
A previous discussion with a shop owner reveled that they didn’t charge or cover the expense for clipart, “It’s part of the job” I was told. So I inquired what was special about clipart? This resulted in a very blank stare and silence that lasted for what seemed like forever. Finally, I broke the silence by asking again, “What’s so special about clipart? Why stop there, don’t charge for the MDO sheet for this job. Don’t charge for the vinyl or paint for this job. Heck, don’t charge for you labor time to put it together. What’s so special about clipart that there is no need to be compensated for it?” So I ask again, what is it about clipart?
I was recently contracted by a shop owner to digitize the logo of Red Wing Shoes. This shop needed it in a vector form to produce some signage. Provided was a half page ad from a magazine for my use. I asked why they didn’t get a file from the local store or direct from corporate. The reply was that this ad is all that could be provided. More questions were asked. The answerers revealed that it was not worth his effort to peruse other avenues when it was easier to contract me to do it. He was correct, it took two phone calls, one discussion, and less than 15 minutes of my time to contact corporate and have them email a vector version of the logo directly to him, with authorization. He could have accomplished the same thing himself, and at a fraction of the cost then what I invoiced him for. Why didn’t he ask me to get the vinyl that was going to be required for this job? Or the paint? What is it about clipart?
Religion and political topics aside, nothing appears to elicit more division in Letterville than clipart request. The vinyl verse paint debate makes itself heard every once in a while, but clipart topics come around often enough that one could almost set their watch by it. What is it about clipart?
A host of a Letterhead event you are attending has four rules. Please wear your name tag, don’t attack other attendees, don’t attempt to sell your wares unless you paid for a vendor’s fee, and don’t smoke in the building. I’m curious how many attendees wouldn’t honor that request and would smoke in the building, despite the request of the host? How about the host of another meet? The four rules for that meet are; Please wear your name tag, don’t attack other attendees, don’t attempt to sell your wares unless you paid for a vendor’s fee, and don’t use the meet as a means to request copyrighted artwork and fonts. I’m curious how many attendees wouldn’t honor that request and still ask for copyrighted artwork and fonts, despite the request of the host? Whether it is legal do so is not important in my view; what is important to me is that the host has requested that it not be done. Period. What is it about clipart?
So please, tell me, what is it about clipart? Posted by Linda Silver Eagle (Member # 274) on :
Well Bob, please peruse the original thread and find me close to the bottom, unless someone decides to flame me for applauding your stance in the matter.
<grin>
[ April 29, 2002, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Linda Silver Eagle ]
Posted by Tasmus (Member # 445) on :
What is it about essayists with too much time on their hands?
(I think)
Barry
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
well..after all that...the only question i can ask...."Do you feel much better now?" hehehehehehehehehthe post was in refereance to "LOGO" CORPORATE TYPE. unless you have never done any work for little leagues, midget football etc. then you have no idea of what these people will bring you and ask you do for a $50 3' x 4' sign on corplast. and as one stated he would charge em $300 for the logo...CRAP...most of these type signs arent big money, but more of service of "we" giving a little to the community we live in...THATS THE BOTTOM LINE!!!!! most people who do these type signs take the remainder of the cost of these signs as "CHARITABLE DONATIONS" at income tax time. and also we hope to get "business from that work". so once in a while you need a corp. logo they cant provide, and you dont have....yes ill help another signguy out....done it many times, does that mean i should charge for computer consulting? or advice on how to paint a board....no!.....everything is realitive.....someone help me i help someone else...or them...so heres my only problem i have with clipart....for the people who cant draw a stick figure, and happen to be in an art based business, why i dont know....and they ask for stuff that i can draw, with my eyes closed.....or they are to cheap to buy a program like PRINT ARTIST for $49.00, and has tons of clipart, or wont buy any of the vector art, corel, or any other programs that would make there new found art ability easier to get...theres my grip!
Posted by Andrew Holmes (Member # 2064) on :
As a Letterville merchant and the owner of the "clipart" company, Vector Art, I would like to respond to the provocative and recent post, "what is it about clipart." I think the issue at hand is not about clipart specifically, but rather about the pervasive, but nonetheless illegal use of electronic intelligence. The sign software companies (more or less history these days thanks to CorelDRAW and other innovations) would have been out of business long, long ago without the dreaded hardware key or "dongle." People generally do nor see anything wrong with knocking off a copy of electronic intelligence for their friends, for another few computers in their business, or even for sale to someone else.
Recently, a lifetime friend and a full professor at an Ivy League College who holds a Ph.D. and travels around the world to lecture in his field of expertise, offered me a copy of the newest version of AutoCAD for free. His college had paid for the software license and he was offering to steal a copy for me. He is, in every other way that I can imagine, an upright, honest and ethical man, and had no idea whatsoever that he was offering to commit a crime. What cultural aberration allows otherwise honest people to steal from others without remorse, or even awareness that it is actually, in fact, a crime.
For reasons beyond my understanding, electronic intelligence is perceived as being common property as soon as it is made public. It is like air and water...it belongs to everyone, and people actually become quite testy when reminded of the actual, legal issues concerning copyright regarding software of all kinds. I have pondered this question for years and would deeply appreciate some insight into the question: why is software considered everyone's property whether or not one has paid for it? Why do otherwise honest people steal software?
Andrew Holmes President Vector Art Inc.
Posted by David Kilgore (Member # 110) on :
You know before the computer invaded the sign industry I don't recall this being a problem.
Maybe because most of the shops in the industry today wouldn't be, if it wasn't for the computer.
At our shop if I take a job, it's my job. It's up to me to complete the job, not to bug some other shop, taking their time, or push it off on some one else to do the work I should be doing.
Today with all the tools at our finger tips it's so easy to do the artwork. Why don't we just do it, depend on yourself not on other people to do your work.
You are getting paid for your work aren't you?
Posted by Mark Fuller (Member # 2128) on :
Bob
I won't get into the legality of "clipart", nor shall I frown on helping a friend or competitor in need of help.
But like old paint sez...What happened to the photocopy machine, the acetate and overhead projector. How many times have I traced artwork on the window, photocopied a hockey jersey and cut it by hand.
Before my Gerber in '95 with a scanner and vector software, I thought lettraset was the coolest thing. What happened to the thin nib black marker for best scanning after making a vector shape by hand, tracing a photograph.
What happened to hand cutting a four foot slab of vinyl, (or mask) by hand instead of "tiled" computer stuff. What is a pounce wheel he asks?
What...Oh never mind, I could go on but, it's been said before.
What is Clipart??? black and white...colour...animated...gif...bmp????
Thanks for indulging me in my rant, and I am sorry to the others.
Mark
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
I just wanna know one thing.......
Why is it that after buying over 3 million pieces of clip-art, I still don't have the one I need?!
Posted by Bill Preston (Member # 1314) on :
Regarding Mr. Holmes post. I don't want to get into the right or wrong of clipart and its legal or illegal use.
He refers to "cultural aberrations" and "otherwise honest people" doing or not doing whatever.
Our society is full of cultural aberrations, and it's getting worse every day. IMHO absolute right could be said to be "white", and absolute wrong could be "black", with a zillion shades of gray in between.
All of us more or less pick which shade of gray we can accept or live with, and very few are perfect on either end of the black/white scale.
Just our .02
Posted by Ken Henry (Member # 598) on :
What is it about clipart, you ask? In a single word....CHEAP. These images have been promoted as an inexpensive way to maintain a "morgue" or library that one can readily access at LOW COST. They are sold as CD's that contain as many as 35,000 images. Small wonder that they've come to be regarded as a "CHEAP" source of artwork.One of Webster's definitions of "CHEAP" is "Of little value". Once that perception of CHEAP gets into people's heads, it's not too far a leap toward "FREE". Indeed there are many sites that offer exactly that....FREE DOWNLOADS. Nothing's cheaper than FREE, so that solidifies the notion that clipart is of little or any value at all.
Let's suppose that you paid $70.00 for that amazing CD with those 35,000 images on it. The price per image is so negligible it also re-inforces the notion that clipart has little if any value at all. So, when someone requests a particular image, logo, or whatever, the idea is imbeded that what they're asking for is something that costs pennies, or less. The question of ownership and copyright are readily dismissed by reasoning: "Who's gonna sue me over sending him something worth only a couple of pennies?"
Perhaps the way clipart has been packaged and promoted has led to the "devaluation" of this particular commodity.
Clipart evolved when an economical way to have artwork available to newspaper and periodical publishers was promoted. It was an alternative to having a full-time artist or illustrator on staff. Publishers or printers could buy clipart images, or subscribe to a "service" that provided regularly updated drawings of a multitude of subjects. These "services" or clipart providers became another "market" for a number of artists to sell their works to. The downside was that they lost control of the royalties that their images generated. Those were owned outright, by the clipart services to whom they had sold their works. Perhaps, in some ways, they were regarded as the first "art whores", and their works came to be regarded as being "of lesser value" than a custom-drawn or commissioned piece of artwork.
With the introduction of electronic reproductive technology, these clipart images became even easier to reproduce, and send as files.
Perhaps the franchised sign shops of the future will have fully-indexed and cross referenced libraries full of clipart images and fonts. Clients can then access these and design their own signs, and download the assembled file to their own in-house printer, providing them with signs on-demand, and tailored to their own liking. This may seem far-fetched, but with the way this industry has been going for the last couple of decades, I wouldn't rule it out.
If and whenever such a thing happens, clipart will become even further devalued.
[ April 30, 2002, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: Ken Henry ]
Posted by Mark Fuller (Member # 2128) on :
Ken
Nice to hear from you.
Clip art is cheap.
There are three contractors in Richmond Hill, Ont., that have the same happy face 3 colour flame guy with arms and legs. The job we face and try to explain to the client is that of uniqueness, bold, and most of all it works.
I still can't remember the names of any of them...but I remember the happy flame guy. Who gets the phone call?
Mark
Posted by Ben Sherr (Member # 2874) on :
I'm a custom auto/bike painter, and a part-time one at that, so maybe I don't have the qualifications to sound off on this subject, but speaking out without a clue as to what I'm talking about is somewhat of a trademark of mine, so here goes; If everyone is using the same clip art, doesn't everyone's work end up looking the same? There are stencils available for custom painting, but I have never bought any. I don't want my work to look just like the guy who created the stencil, or the 500K people he sold the stencil to. Just sounding off.
Posted by timi NC (Member # 576) on :
Clip,...to cut out,...the act of cutting ,...to cut out articles or pictures from a magazine ,newspaper,etc. Art,... you are on your own here as I do not even try to define this as it is an interpretive word.
In the days before computers it wasn't an issue,...Each shop designed it's own signs and or contracted to produce predesigned art,...Each shop produced the best art it was capable of and the bottom line was the shop with the most skills was usually the best shop in town,...They guarded their trade secrets like a hidden cash of treasure and protected it as indeed it actually was just that,a treasure that was protected.That shop was usually the most successful,... Most shops back then wouldn't imagine trying to do a design that was someone elses,they just tried to out do each other. Around the late seventies the technolgy salesmen decided they would adapt computer technology so that "anyone" who could afford their "electronic intelligence" and technology could become the time honored tradesman without the years of effort it took to learn the trade and ethics,... Now that this "electronic intelligence" is so easy to attain, without the years of effort it took to attain it in the past,there is a lack of respect for it,as anyone with the money to purchase it can have it.The public doesn't have to go to a respected proffesional to attain it as it is readily available for a sum much less than the cost of the tradesman's efforts of years past.Yet the people who sell the electronic intelligence,expect the same ethics that took years to earn in the past to be present in a group that didn't have to pay thier dues and refuses to take the time.How many folks would be in this trade today if the first prerequisite was 5 years of practice at burger slinging wages before even the slightest chance of going out on their own to open a new business in the marketplace? Not many! In the first 10 years of computer aided signmaking I personally saw a huge percentage of budding skilled tradesmen give up those skills to become computer operators instead of masters at their art in pursuit of the almighty dollar that was promised by slick cas system salesmen.Many without foresight to the saturation of the marketplace that this very technology that was supposed to be their saving grace would bring about,... Henceforth there have been even a smaller percentage who have taken the time to learn the time honored skills and the ethics that go along with the effort it takes to attain something that money cannot buy. If you reduce this effort to a commodity you cannot expect the public to respect as it has in the past, you must be realistic and take the results of the effort you make.Look at this practically, you cannot expect a copy of a masterpiece to be percieved as valuable in the public's eye as the original.The public is not stupid and knows that if something only takes pennies to make that is all it's percieved to be worth.If the producers of this artwork do not protect it(what was that about dongles?) then who is to say that the general public will percieve it to be of the same value as those who produce it? The producers of this "electronic intellegence" should be aware of this perception at the onset of the production process or they are looking at the world through rose colored glasses. I would go so far as to say in the early days of the big software developers the ones that were the most successful were also the ones that were aware that their software was being copied and distributed illeagally the most. In the long run it was probably one of the factors that made them giants in the marketplace in the first place, as many who ended up with copies eventually bought the software leagally to obtain documentation to accompany it. I'm not saying I think this is right. I don't think it is going away anytime soon either.You can take one side or the other but in the end it is still clip art,....artwork that is "clipped"
[ April 30, 2002, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: timi NC ]
Posted by Henry Barker (Member # 174) on :
I guess this is always going to be a sticky issue.
I think like Ken that "Clipart" by its marketing has been given a cheap ring.
Corel sell better by bundling more, Andrew Holmes I got one of your CD's "free" with 5 yds of SignGold, I called you and bought the second!
For the reasons Ben states I have bought more "upmarket" clipart from Mike Jackson, Dave Butler etc so as not to look like the neighbouring sign co that lifts everything from Corel or Masterclips.
I don't see fonts and logo's as clipart. AS others have said logos are in the main used with the permission of the owner, or one assumes that.
Fonts have been rehashed and renamed by larger responsible companies in order to offer them in bundle packages, making them more commonplace, and cheap too.
I read a post here recently about someone struggling to produce signs from Corel 3,4 or 5, I gave up on Corel at 6 I think, just didn't work for me....that said today there are many "filesharing" sites that you can visit and download the latest Adobe Illustrator 10, Corel 10 etc...no problem...so whatever the ethics, this beast is here to stay, and as Bill said none of us can claim to be living on the black or white side.....it just about the shade of grey you choose to adopt.
I am sure a very large if not all that visit here have some form of shareware or "freeware" on their computers with an invitation to contribute $15, $20, or $39 for continued use, even good old WinZip, howmany do that, or feel its their "right" to continue using it??
Intersting thoughts..
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
Hmmm, where to start? I guess I invaded the sign industry along with the computer aided signmaking systems. I didn't discover my love for the sign trade & what little natural talent I also discovered untill about 1989.
At that point I guess I became a non dues-paying fringe member of this circle since my years of burger-flipping wages had been earned drafting house plans, reforesting mountains, & building therapeutic furniture for crippled children. I did not spend years in the trenches hand lettering with a brush.
Although the CAS systems, & us greedy masses who bought them to sell imitation signs, watered down the trade & flooded the market, I am pleased to see that I can still work frequent 80-100 hour weeks, & never be short of high priced work sitting in my in-box.
I am also fortunate that my customers are very appreciative of my development of their vague ideas into finished creations that both satisfy their vision of establishing a graphic identity & actually increase visibility, recognition, sales & ultimately profit.
Little do they know (or care)that in effort to keep art charges down around $100-$200 I will stoop to the use of clip-art for various design elements. When everything is cropped, clipped, colored, curved, layered, faded, welded, lettered, embossed, scaled, & designed in my own crude uneducated way, it becomes original artwork.
The average modern day client that I encounter is not a purist with a desire for traditional artistic production methods, as much as a budget-minded business person with reasonable taste for esthetics, & a desire to keep costs down.
I own several clip-art collections as well as a scanner, lots of tracing paper, a good hand for drawing & tracing, a digitizing tablet, legally purchased licensed copies of thousands of dollars of software, & hundreds of dollars of software training under my belt. My most important asset is my mind & its ability to conceptualize both design solutions for my clients, & effecient production techniques for me to implement.
I know from several experiences over the last 10 years that a corporate client, & especially a franchise, will not always be quick to locate useable digital files. I have twice requested help here to aquire a common logo, or a less common font when I had exausted the other immediate alternatives.
I can draw blindfolded as well as the next guy, but when I schedule deadlines so tight that I barely take an evening or a weekend off, it comes down to a client getting their sign late, or ugly from a bad scan of a business card.(which would be their choice as the lesser of evils)
Or I can re-invent the wheel re-drawing a corporate logo because I'm too proud to see if my friends have it already. BTW both times I was graciously provided the artwork or font in question by emails from one or more neighbors on this great site, while others on my thread were bashing away at the imagined copyright issues in helping a franchise get a better copy of their own logo produced at a faster turnaround time.
Oh yeah, the client did pay a fair price for the sign. A little more then if they had the logo on disc, & a little less then if I had to re-draw from a scan. Just enough IMHO to cover my energy in seeking out the faster, CHEAPER, alternative to accomodate my clients budget & due date as well as their signage needs.
I like to be opinionated, but I also respect others opinions. To those with whom I differ, no offense intended. I don't consider my opinions to be right, just to be mine. Posted by David Wright (Member # 111) on :
Ken's reply said it best. The industry or certain vendors devalued clipart by their own marketing and distribution (Corel and such).
People have come to devalue many things due to the computer. A customer of mine (Photographer) questioned why my price for the second 4' by 4' alumalite sign was as much as the first, since most of the setup would have been accomplished when they ordered the first one.
Apparently all I have to do is hit the print button for future orders?
Posted by Andrew Holmes (Member # 2064) on :
In response to several of the kind and gentlemanly posts above, I would like, with the board's permission, to push the question of software theft, just a little further:
Perhaps clipart or other software like winzip, is perceived as being almost worthless because it is often sold, or even given away as part of some larger promotion and business plan. However, the logic that things of low cost (and the attending perception of small value) cannot be owned and copyrighted, and those "cheap things" are therefore exempted from the laws of our country, and the ethics of our society, does not make sense. We do not steal our neighbors newspaper from his mailbox because his subscription cost is only $20 for the year. How valuable is one apple stolen from an orchard of thousands of trees? One red, shiny apple is no doubt worth less than a penny, but we do not normally stop our cars and jump the fence to pick one. Why do people feel they have the right to steal software but not apples and newspapers? Is it because it is often so easy to do, and that chances of getting caught are so remote? Is it basic human nature to steal if the threat of punishment is very, very slim?
I am very interested in this topic for personal reasons because it is obvious to me that there is much more Vector Art being used by signshops all over the world, than my company and the artists who created the artwork, were ever paid for. But I am also interested in the larger ethical question of honesty and integrity, and wonder again and again why all forms of electronic intelligence are felt to belong to the public domain and stealing it is not really like other kinds of stealing.
Posted by Stephen Broughton (Member # 2237) on :
Andrew coupla question :- ever made a copy of a music CD that you borrowed from a friend or taped an album (I remember those black round shiny things called records) or made a copy of a TV programme that you missed. Or even photocopied the pages of a book that someone may have lent you. They all say in the small print that you may not reproduce copies wihtout permission. I'm not saying its right but we all do this in some form or another.
Posted by Janette Balogh (Member # 192) on :
hahahaa ... the funniest thing for me regarding all this is that 85% of the clip art out there isn't worth all the hoop-la!
Oh yeah, Ben Shurr's comment sure has merit too.
Even if I did request select clip art here, I wonder how much of it I'd have to recieve before I found what I liked! I know, picky-picky! I suppose I'd just as soon be alone in my persnicky process than to subject anyone else to it! hahahaaa!
Still, I'd offer to pay for a peice of clipart or a corp logo before expecting if for free.
Some may mistake this for snobbery or pride. I view it as respect.
I equate it to a sub-contracted service that gets billed to my customer. And clip art as being tools of the trade.
If you treat things (and time) like they have value, perhaps they will be percieved as such?
Just a thought. Janette
[ April 30, 2002, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: Janette Balogh ]
Posted by Andrew Holmes (Member # 2064) on :
Yes of course Stephen, we all have done these things. And perhaps we did so with the awareness of illegal usage.
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
Andrew, I bought a Roland CD, as well as 5 or 6 loose items from the Roland site. I will not make copies of the Cd to sell for an illegal profit.
I may however consider providing an image or 2 (out of the dozens or hundreds of images I paid for that I will never use)to another graphic artist who may return the favor to me.
Yes, I call it a favor, like lending out a tool. You can call it stealing 6 times in your post with another half dozen references to theft, or taking etc. but I disagree. I have picked up hitchikers costing Ford & Toyota thousands, I've borrowed a suit for a wedding depriving Brooks Brothers a hundred or two.
quote: ...it is obvious to me that there is much more Vector Art being used by signshops all over the world, than my company and the artists who created the artwork, were ever paid for...
There is also much more artwork that your company and the artists were paid for that is not being used for whatever reason.
Many clip art collections advertise how many images they contain, & show off a sample of the best. Then you find that half the images are mirror image duplicates.
Take Vector Art Volume 3 for example. Out of 500 images, 52 images on page 81 & 82 are duplicated again with a 1/2 second keystroke modification of condensing the length. So 1/10th of my money was stolen for those 52 images. Then a drybrush font that even if I didn't find it ugly (sorry Steve Kafka wherever you are...your other stuff is great)I still don't think A-Z in caps & lowercase is fair to call another 52 images. There goes another 1/10th of my money I thought I was spending on cool flames or pinstripes.
I agree that people selling bootleg software should be stopped. They are not making an honest living & are cutting into the honest living that people like Andrew deserve to earn. I just don't think those people are here. I also don't think that many of the people buying from them are here. But I of course don't know that, but I do know that sharing a file here or there is a different story. (to me)
Posted by David Kilgore (Member # 110) on :
Tim,
Liked your post, I think you somed it up very well, you put into words what I was trying to say but alot better.
What ar you doing up at 2am in the mornin' ?
Dave
Posted by Bill Preston (Member # 1314) on :
In further response to Mr. Holmes, I would venture to say that honesty, integrity, and ethics-- whether business or otherwise-- is a whole 'nother subject.
It seems from where I sit that business ethics these days could be defined as "how much can I get away with?"-- or "do unto others as they would do unto you, but do it first." The same could be said for ethics in society. The two are not that far removed from each other.
I think it all depends on where on the "gray-scale" of right vs. wrong that an indivdual wants to live. Where one wants to live will vary with the particular issue.
Lately, we have been treated to too many examples of business ethics going south. The gas price manipulation by the oil companies by holding down supplies, the intentionally bad advice given to investors by some of the big name brokerage houses, Enron execs getting rich off employees retirement funds, and the list goes on and on.
Given all of the above, and more, is it any wonder that theft of clipart is as apparently prevalent as it appears? And is it even considered to be theft by most?
Let's face it, in the business world of today, compared to some of what is going on, this issue is not a real big deal in the minds of many. At worst, a venial sin.
Our additional .02
Posted by Andrew Holmes (Member # 2064) on :
Sorry Doug,
I did not mean to get you up on your hind legs about Vector Art and software theft. It is very true however, that this clipart discussion always ends up with people getting mad.
With all due respect Doug, attempting to discredit my company's products is a flimsy way of attempting to discredit my arguments regarding software theft and copyright issues.
And, also, threatening to "share" with others, even though it is expressly and undeniably illegal, has made my point with greater impact than 100 of my "logical" arguements could ever do.
Best regards to all. I am fully and finally cured of the urge to get into this discussion ever again.
Posted by Bob Gilliland (Member # 28) on :
I really appreciate that “general” feel of this thread to date. Thanks everyone.
I am in agreement with many of the statement above. IMHO, the perceived value is very relevant. Some other contributing factors, again IMHO, the ease of doing "it" and perhaps to a lesser extent, laziness, amongst others.
Within the last month I was talking to a shop owner (it may even have been Dave Kilgore - I don’t remember) and asked if paper patterns were so “freely” exchanged the way clipart is today. The overall all answer was no, and in fact, most shops didn’t even acknowledge each other existed, somewhat similar to the first portion of Timi’s response above.
I can’t speak for them, but if they read this, I hope they could take some time and add their thoughts to this thread. I’m speaking likes of Mark Smith, creator of Estimate pricing software and other commercially available pricing products. Dan Antonelli, creator of commercially available fonts and book author. Mike Jackson, creator of vector based ornaments files available on numerous commercially available CD’s. Christian VanSchepen, creator of the commercial package of Pro Vehicle Outlines. Etc. You get the idea. (Thanks Andrew, for your participation) I bet these folks have a different perceive value for “electronic intelligence”. Why is that? Because they have invested vast resources to create the content that others can enjoy and profit from for only a fraction of that cost.
Andrew, I very much appreciate your particapation in this thread. With your first post, you captured my underlying problem, the theiver that is inharrent with “electronic intelligence”. (I like that verbage!) I am interested in attempting to understand the questions you poised in both of your responses above. In reference to…
quote: Is it because it is often so easy to do, and that chances of getting caught are so remote?
… my response is yes. In fact a very, very strong yes to the first part of the question, and a slightly milder yes to the latter part.
quote:…and wonder again and again why all forms of electronic intelligence are felt to belong to the public domain and stealing it is not really like other kinds of stealing.
I as well would like to see an answer to that one.
I can only speak for myself and say that of the times I knowingly broke terms of licensing agreements, by either being on the acquiring or providing end, it was for the simplicity to which it could be done. In recent years I have become much more vigilant about this issue. I wonder how many people actually read the terms of service or end user license agreements. They are not all the same, and often change within the same product. Some allow for a second installation on a laptop, some allow for employees taking a copy home, some allow for multiple installations but only one instance of usage at any time, while others allow for nothing more than an installation and use on a single CPU. They are all different! (And don’t get me started on those that purchase educational versions for commercial use or upgrades when they aren’t legally titled to them )
I have been requested, and am looking into, providing some “tools” for our trade. At this time I’m not that excited about the project. It’s largley because of what I witness on this board and shops that I visit or talk to. The lack of respect, legal or ethical, to the persons that have created similar tools already. Some want to poo-poo on “dongles” or other security schemes; I’m not one of them. These allow for a very reduced percentage of non-compensated packages to be in use. The best way for me to make sure that a customer doesn’t take a layout/skectch/etc. and pimp it out is to get paid upfront for that service or not to produce it at all. I’m going to apply the same mindset to this project. Until I know that I’m going to be paid by those that will profit from my efforts, I just won’t make the “tool” available.
Quick story:
About a year ago, I was performing some computer maintenance issues for a fellow shop owner. Towards the end of the project, he requested assistance in downloading some Letterhead fonts. I downloaded the fonts, installed them in the OS, and then into his Gerber software. He made the comment that I could take a copy of the fonts for myself. I replied that no, I didn’t purchase them, and therefore have no right to them. He replied that he didn’t mind at all. Well, I went to my standard litany for a few minutes, reminding him that I think Chuck Davis and the creators of the fonts he recently paid for probably minded, and that I minded it very much. Because of my action, does it make me a better person than someone who would have copied them? I don’t necessarily think so and that point could be argued all day long. Something that I do know for sure; one less criminal act was performed that day. Statement of fact, non-arguable!
Thanks all!
Posted by George Perkins (Member # 156) on :
Bob, thanks for an eye opening post, I agree with you on everything. You brought up something in your last post about piracy that really hit home. I had at one time an idea to assemble some specialized fonts and numbers for use in the race car field. I know a bunch of artists around the country and had even talked with a number of them about the project. After witnessing on here , other sites folks asking for and supplying just about everything and hearing in person how the " race car decal guys" swapped this stuff around I quickly trashed the project. I figure twenty would be sold and then freely distributed all over.I've got better ways to waste time and have more than enough frustration without going to all that trouble.
Since I learned the ins and outs, I too refuse to hand out or ask for fonts/clip art/logos etc. Then again I'm one of those folks that obeys "Keep of the Grass" signs.
[ April 30, 2002, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: George Perkins ]
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
Andrew, I don't consider my remarks a "flimsy" attempt at anything. I am stating a fact. My book happens to be right on my desk & I've often laughed at the energy that went into fluffing up extra pages with model numbers etc. that are identical graphics that were simply condensed. I love these graphics & will be modifying some for my new shop truck. If you feel discredited, thats on you. I consider Vector Art products to be a good bargin that I use. Other collections are even more grossly padded with filler. I'm not out there starting (or re-directing) topics about feeling ripped off about it, I'm just laughing about it. I don't see any remarks about sharing as a "threat" of any kind. To me it's not a big deal, & that's what's happening all over every day, & thats what this thread is talking about anyway, so it's not like I dropped some bombshell of deceit in letting loose the god awful sin of even mentioning that a clip art graphic MIGHT get shared. Glad you could use that to get point across. I thought you wanted to know what people think, & I'm not ashamed of my opinion on the matter being made public. If I sold a copy of your CD I'd be feeling guilty right now, but if someone needs one little flame... whatever!
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
i own vector art 1 and 2. somewhere i got the book for #3...and what doug says is one of the reason i never bought it. 75,76,77,78 & 79 are all variations on whats in VA 1&2. 86-90 is not worth owning. most of the stuff thru 86-90 is useless...why even put it in the book. just my OPINION.
Posted by Mike Pipes (Member # 1573) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob Gilliland: A host of a Letterhead event you are attending has four rules. Please wear your name tag, don’t attack other attendees, don’t attempt to sell your wares unless you paid for a vendor’s fee, and don’t smoke in the building. I’m curious how many attendees wouldn’t honor that request and would smoke in the building, despite the request of the host? How about the host of another meet? The four rules for that meet are; Please wear your name tag, don’t attack other attendees, don’t attempt to sell your wares unless you paid for a vendor’s fee, and don’t use the meet as a means to request copyrighted artwork and fonts. I’m curious how many attendees wouldn’t honor that request and still ask for copyrighted artwork and fonts, despite the request of the host? Whether it is legal do so is not important in my view; what is important to me is that the host has requested that it not be done. Period. What is it about clipart?
So please, tell me, what is it about clipart?
Bob, I didnt read any of the other responses here because I'm sure most of them got hung up on the clipart issue.
It's not about clipart, it's about people!
The clipart is merely another tool available for use, but people make use of it and some charge for it, others don't.
It's not clipart's fault, it's PEOPLE'S fault.
You asked about how many people would disregard a Letterhead meet host's requests.. I know of TEN people who smoked INSIDE Fred's shop at the OKC meet, where there were NO SMOKING signs clearly posted. Would you like me to list their names right here? I can assure you they were all folks considered to be highly revered in this industry. Most smokers did go outside during the meet, but there were a number who didn't.
It's not the cigarette's fault, it's PEOPLE'S fault.
Posted by Todd Gill (Member # 2569) on :
I'm with Doug....
...and I do agree about clip art and such being "fluffed" up with variations of the same thing. I bought a 3000 font cd once and guess what??? Every font had about 5 or 6 unprofessionally contorted versions of a scab font probably obtained "free" off the internet.
I'll gladly share whatever I have...and like Doug...won't be making copies for sale....but I figure if the clip art guess fudge the truth on what is contained in their product.... then they can't be that serious about having people gagged and shackled over it.
Besides...the sharing of clipart inevitably leads to the person buying his own copy....in which case...where do we send our bill for our sales commission????
By the way...for the record for the clipart police: ...my comment about gladly sharing clipart means that I will send someone a sample of clipart solely for their review of the particular collection. They are not to use it. I am hoping it will spur them on to purchasing a collection. Posted by Todd Gill (Member # 2569) on :
Alright, now I'm feeling guilty. I have to unload this burden I've been carrying around.
A couple years ago, I went to a Kohl's department store. I tried on a pair of deck shoes and upon pulling the shoestrings to tighten the shoes, one of them broke.
I liked the shoes, so I grabbed a shoestring off a pair from another box and purchased the shoes. I feel terrible because I technically took a shoestring that didn't belong to the pair of shoes I purchased. I've been carrying this guilt for 2 years now, having been too ashamed to tell even my mother.
I feel better for having confessed this lapse of character....as I know it brands me a despicable theif.
Please just don't send the "shoelace police" to my door....as I've suffered enough mental torment.
[ April 30, 2002, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Todd Gill ]
Posted by timi NC (Member # 576) on :
Hopefully I didn't offend anyone with my late night reflections on the situation of this trade and the state of of the situation at hand. I was merely trying to put my personal observations in words. However if the following offends you so be it, flame on, call me names, offer up your intentions to leave this site, but if the shoe fits,...wear it! I think it boils down to the definition of one word and its perception and use,...
Ethic(s) : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation 2 a : a set of moral principles or values b : a theory or system of moral values c plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group d : a guiding philosophy
At art school in the sixties and early seventies we were required to take a course on ethics.In years past when the apprentice took several years if not half a decade to learn this trade they learned trade ethics as part of the apprenticeship.It was not neccessarily made all that obvious,yet the ethics were there. Certain actions and practices to put it simply,...were just not done. It wasn't accepted as ethical trade practice to term it more specifically.When asked by the apprentice why these actions were not taken they were told it was not considered as ethical for whatever reasons.I personally think that is alot of what is lost in the shortened time span of the present learning curve it takes to practice this trade. One cannot learn the wisdom and respect previously practiced over centuries in the few short weeks or months it takes to learn to use the "electronic intelligence".Often as not the apprentice never knew they were learning ethics as they developed these trade skills, just the same in most cases they were passed on.
Each and every proffesion has it's own set of ethics,even ours. My observations last night were not to belittle the newcomers to the trade in that they didn't have to endure the hardships of years past in order to practice this trade. In fact I envy alot of them to a point in that they didn't have to endure the years of practice needed at that time to practice our trade.If it offended someone maybe they ought to consider asking the question of themselves why it did.
[ April 30, 2002, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: timi NC ]
Posted by Joey Madden (Member # 1192) on :
Where does Clipart and fonts actually come from?
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
I believe clipart & fonts form through a crystalization process around the edges of the synapse between the human mind & the mathcoprocessor.
No seriously, I wanted to respond to Timi. I totally respect your views & your ability to communicate them clearly. I was also feeling somewhat envious that I did not start in this trade before the computer came into it & that I still have not yet learned many fundamental sign design & production techniques.
I have an opinion about capitalism in general & America in particular. I think the pride & dedication found in old world craftsmanship has somewhat deteriorated over the years based on the basic premis of making a profit. I have a strong sense of pride in not only my work, but also in the way I do my own chores. But to make a living in our society it is difficult to not see most of us gradually being pulled down twords the common denominator of capitalism. It is a trend I see in not just our industry, but in humanity.
One reason I did not start in this, or any other, trade at an earlier age was because of some vague altruistic pipe dream fantasy I was living in for years dwelling in cabins in Oregon, growing gardens, heating with wood, reading by kerosene lamp & meeting my own needs & those of my wife & child directly whenever possible instead of using money. I guess I thought our capitalist society was going to break down before I would be forced to join it.
I am glad I joined in, & I am very content with my role as a business man in the new millennium, but it was not without sacrifice. We are competing with a world of busy money consciencous shoppers. As much as possible I will push for more craftsmanship & character (& cost) in the signage I offer my customers, but will concern myself with their budget & time constraints as well.
[ April 30, 2002, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Doug Allan ]
Posted by Miles Cullinane (Member # 980) on :
I suppose that this has been constructive but it’s a little hard to talk about so broad a subject. For my part I would like to separate clipart in this way, The vectorised graphics that have been created for others to buy and then the artwork that companies have as their logos.
I don’t share or generally ask for the clipart that can be purchased but I have no problem with asking for a company logo. WHY? Since the company went to the trouble of getting their logo made why should I not try to use the official logo even if it doesn’t come directly from them.
Today I did a job which involved Gloria Jeans ® , Now I asked for the artwork on the site but nothing came So I contacted another sign shop here in the City for it. They emailed me the file. Somebody tell what is wrong with that? I didn’t steal a logo from Gloria Jeans® to use for something else. I am sure that they will be happy that I went to the trouble to get their logo right.
Do you see the difference? The original post that provoked this post was a request for a company logo. Is that stealing, Not in my opinion.
My work, these days, leads me to try and get logos from companies a lot. The grief this leads to is a pain but I charge for the pain. I explain to my customer that if I get the file sent to me then my life is easier and their bill is smaller but if I have to chase Tom to be told That I need to speak to Dick only to find Dick telling that I need the Graphic designer Harry Then the bill goes up. But what if I can ring a friend and get the logo I need and away to work I go, what is wrong with that?
Anytime I can help someone out without hurting someone else then I will.
Posted by Todd Gill (Member # 2569) on :
Clipart came from a guy named Art C. Lip. Art was an Afghanistan letter carrier in the seventeenth century.
He always sealed his letters with a lump of camel dung. He then emblazoned the camel dung seal with his family crest, which was an illustration of the prettiest of his ten wives.
This letter "seal" art became so popular that others in his tribe began copying it...much to his dismay. Art demanded that the plagiarists have their hands cut off, as he took the usage of his wifes' image as both thievery and an insult to his manhood.
He got nowhere with his request for justice, so he came up with several new images of camel dung envelope art and published it in a crude binder.
Mr. Lip wanted these images to be freely dispersed so that interest would be drawn away from his wife's image....so Mr. Art C. Lip transposed his name to ClipArt and inscribed that name on the cover. He then tossed the binder next to the town drinking well late at night so that it would be discovered the following morning, which it was.
The townspeople supposed that it had been dropped by a Turkish traveling salesman, who stopped late for a drink of water as he passed through on his way back to his home city. They debated whether to seek out the person who had dropped the binder or simply share it amongst themselves.
A rather large and swarthy tribesman named Tellit Likitiz jumped to his feet and declared, "Sheet happens! We keep it!" and thus was born another phrase used throughout the centuries.
The townspeople agreed, figuring, "Ah, vat zi hail! He'll niver no!" and they all used the images for their camel dung envelope seals.
Art C. Lip's plan worked and his honor was restored.
At least, this is what I've been told. Posted by Bill Preston (Member # 1314) on :
I'd like to touch on a couple of points made here and on another related thread.
Scooter made a point about separating clipart (and by extension, fonts) from logos whether corporate or local. Not something I had ever thought about. Corporate logos have always been a fuzzy area to me regarding their legal use. The collection(s) I have were put together by a company in the Southwest, and some of the companies have disappeared out of recent years editions-- evidently over legal issues.
Timi made an excellent point or two about ethics in the trade. These could just as easily apply to all businesses, as well as life in general. Besides the definitions he quoted, I think another item could be added. It has to do with "legal" versus "ethical."
We have all heard the term "denying or not admitting any wrongdoing" on the news a lot lately, especially in politics and big business. Turn that phrase around a little bit and one could end up with "it may not be ethical, but what we are doing is legal." Just because something is legal does not make it ethical or morally right.
This is where the sharks---er, sorry, the lawyers get into the act. Too often the reasons for their very existence has nothing to do with what is right or ethical, but what is legal.
Blame this last on the little kid to your left-- he brought it up.
Posted by Glenn Taylor (Member # 162) on :
LOL Todd!! Posted by Todd Gill (Member # 2569) on :
heeheehee Posted by ScooterX (Member # 2023) on :
interesting topic -- very informative perspectives.
i'm probably viewed as a curmudgeon about the topic of "copyright" vs "trademark". to me there is a GREAT difference -- a difference as great (perhaps greater) than between "sash brush" and "quill" or between "bitmap" and "vector". yeah, sure its just a legal thing. its just a paint brush. its just a file type. unless its the wrong one...
if the question is "why would i spend five minutes of my own time tracking down a corporate logo", i'll answer "its like the labor you have to spend to track down the book keeper who can issue the purchase order, or to measure the window before you cut the vinyl"... its a cost of doing business.
rarely do i see clip-art that i would want to use. when i do see it, i buy it. i bought Summa's version of the vehicle outlines ($69?) because it was in my price range. maybe if i did a LOT more vehicles (or if i needed greater precision), i'd pop for the $399 (?) version instead.
the future: a few places now have a pay-as-you-need system for clip-art and photos -- that appeals to me more than having a disk of 1000 (or 30000) images of dubious quality and utility. its even better if i can download a bitmap version to show to the customer before i buy the vector version. i can show my customer, tell them the price, and then mark it up. win-win. i don't feel "burned" with a disk full of junk, the customer pays for what they need, and i make a little profit in the middle.
Posted by Andrew Holmes (Member # 2064) on :
Good morning all,
I wanted to make a few comments regarding what some on this board have perceived as "fluff" and "filler" in clipart collections for signmakers and engravers, including specific references and to Volume 3 of the old product line for Vector Art. After twelve years in this business, I have learned to listen very carefully to what the market wants by way of digitized artwork. I have also learned that artwork that is considered awful by some is perceived by others to be incredibly beautiful, and people have built a whole business around a few topics that others may not like at all. What we like and do not like is a very subjective experience, and if I tryed to run my business based on what artwork I "liked" I would have been bankrupt long ago.
I realized this AM, that the Letterhead group is mostly capable of generating their own designs and artwork...that is to say, most have some art ability, and are therefore highly critical and individualistic...that is the very basis of your business success...your art talent...you sense of taste and design.
But, as you know so well, there are thousands (35,000 or so in North America alone) of "sign shops" and many are run by people that have no art talent what-so-ever, and would not even be in business without products like The Vector Art Mega Collection, $2000 plotters, and computers for $599 at Sam's Club. These people don't bitch about this or that fluff or filler, etc., etc. They are delighted to get as many different clean vector art designs as they can and suck up our products as fast as we can ship them out the door.
We have shipped 3000+ Mega Collections into the world wide market since Jan 7 2002, and expect to ship 12,000 this year, and several new products are on they way for 2003. Also, we pay substantial royalties to some of your peers who are amoung the best in the world, at all kinds of sign and vehicle graphic work
Like it or not, mom and pop can get into this business for about $3000 bucks and operate out of their living room or garage. They can output high quality art work after 2 hours training on the computer. Several of our dealers are offering a plotter, vinyl, software and The Vector Art Mega Collection for around 3k.
I do not know if this is a good or bad thing for the "tradition" of sign making, but it is what it is, and we try as best we can to adjust our collections to a very broad range of users, and fully understand that every one we sell to will never use all of the 6500+ high quality, clean vector art designs.
Best regards to all
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
quote:...people that have no art talent what-so-ever, and would not even be in business without products like The Vector Art Mega Collection... These people don't bitch about this or that fluff or filler, etc., etc. They are delighted to get as many different clean vector art designs...
The key word in there Andrew is DIFFERENT! I call stuffing in an extra 50 designs that are identical except the most basic slight distortion possible to be "filler". That is not bitching, that is a fact. And furthermore one that was only brought up because of your extensive & excessive "bitching" about all the thieving, taking & stealing you fear to be going on with your products.
I pay for, use, & and appreciate your products, but as much as your input on the clipart issue presents a unique point of view we don't always hear, your attitude doesn't impress me. If you listen as well as you say to your customers I might guess that this new Mega-whatever-pack may be without the excess meaningless flipped, inverted, or resized rehashed duplicity that your earlier products contained. The fact that you take issue with this duplicity, without acknowledging it's accuracy, makes it seem a little less likely that you are in a position to take advantage of this opportunity to advertise that this is no longer your M.O.
[ May 01, 2002, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: Doug Allan ]
Posted by Bruce Bowers (Member # 892) on :
Hey all!
di novello tutto par bello; nullum est jam dictum quod non dictum est prius
Now, if that ain't the truth!
Now go have a great one!
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
di novello tutto par bello; nullum est jam dictum quod non dctum est prius una scopa nuova spazza bene
Bruce, Isn't that pretty much the Latin equivilent for "same $h*t, different day!"
[ May 03, 2002, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Doug Allan ]
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(I think)![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I know, picky-picky! I suppose I'd just as soon be alone in my persnicky process than to subject anyone else to it! hahahaaa!![[Mad]](mad.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)