Leaving DeviantArt

Okay now that I got your attention, no I am not leaving DeviantArt. But I do have some important matters to discuss.

I'm sure you all saw that "article" the site posted about art theft. I think there are some legitimate concerns, but the reaction, in a way, has been overblown.

The term "art theft" is commonly used around here as a loanword from the concepts of physical art. The entire notion of piracy (copyright infringement) equating to "theft" has been peddled by the entertainment industry (and politicians who are blatantly biased towards the entertainment industry) for years. This article is recommended reading on this specific matter. Case in point, yes the term "theft" is used a lot to refer to the appropriation of digital goods. But yes, its inaccurate because nothing was "stolen", as it is a digital good that, can theoretically be duplicated infinitely. But its where these copies end up that is the problem.

There are a few major nuances of copyright law that also should be acknowledged. Firstly, it is automatic. You do not need any special notices or anything. A work is copyrighted the moment it is published. Secondly, ideas cannot be copyrighted; only expressions can. Yes, you can reference and be influenced by other people's work, but directly copying from or outright plagiarizing another work without permission infringes on the other person's rights. But what about patents? They serve to protect ideas that are in the form of designs or methods.

Thirdly, there's OCILLA; some people refer to this as the "DMCA", although that's inaccurate (it's only part of the DMCA, which also deals with other stupid things like the mere crime of bypassing technological protection measures!). It is a U.S. law where websites can be granted immunity from the copyright infringing activity of their users if they "expeditiously" respond to formal notices sent to a designated agent demanding that a work be taken down as an infringement. Unfortunately, there is no strict definition of what is "expeditious" in this contest. But, DA's inconsistent enforcement is a concern; I am not a lawyer, but a blatant disregard for takedown notices may actually get DA in trouble if it gets bad enough ("in trouble" as in losing their "safe harbor" protections and becoming liable for the actions of their users in regards to copyright). Sites like YouTube tend to use automated systems to block or automatically monetize copyrighted content, but these tend to go haywire at times. What would you rather have? Slow and steady, or Fast and unwieldy strict?

Lastly, the perceived "value" of our art. The value of the art is what you make it? Why do paintings sell for such high prices? It's because, firstly, they're made by people who are probably more famous for their work than 95% of DA's userbase combined. Secondly, such works tend to have very few (if not only one) copies. Fame x rarity = that one Picasso that sold for nearly $107 million dollars. And, again, we come back to the "nothing was stolen"/"duplicated infinitely" part. Yes, reproductions of art are much cheaper than the original. But the originals, especially of notable pieces, are the things that are so extremely rare that they sell for such huge windfalls. But all art is art. There should not be any difference between "real" art and "fake" art; what they're really talking about is the format.

tl;dr They are not insulting everyone's art at once. They should have used a better word. They're talking the difference between a digital good and a physical good. Copyright can exist in both, but what is essentially "piracy" of art occurs more for digital art.