Showing 1 of 37 conversations about:
ArchDill
147
Sep 1, 2017
bookmark_border
Blows my mind that plagiary, like this, is allowed to be sold on MD.
Sep 1, 2017
pwade3
329
Sep 1, 2017
bookmark_border
Yeah, splitting hairs over definitions like that isn't how you win an argument.
You know what people mean by "plagiarism".
Sep 1, 2017
Cyphre
2659
Sep 1, 2017
bookmark_border
Not really no, as people are assuming this is some sort of legal issue when the original is not protected by patent or trademark law. Unless someone had literally made a new mold from an existing artisan in an attempt to sell it, there is nothing to infringe or copy here without something that protects designs; being patents or trademarks. Doesn't matter how similar something is.
Right now the only 'splitting hairs' being done here are the proclamations that someone owns a design of something as generic as a cat's paw.
Sep 1, 2017
pwade3
329
Sep 1, 2017
bookmark_border
Just because something's legal, doesn't make it moral.
Sep 1, 2017
Cyphre
2659
Sep 1, 2017
bookmark_border
If these were being made by child laborers in some third world country, morality would definitely be a concern. What I'm seeing here can only be referred to as 'entitlement' since there is nothing inherently wrong with creating something similar to an existing object.
Sep 1, 2017
pwade3
329
Sep 1, 2017
bookmark_border
Not wanting to have a well-respected member of the community's work bastardized is now "entitlement".
Ok.
Sep 1, 2017
Cyphre
2659
Sep 1, 2017
bookmark_border
Believing someone owns a design without actually owning it is entitlement.
Sep 1, 2017
BlueCrowned
5305
Sep 1, 2017
bookmark_border
Not only that, but a design that is found in nature. Like are you gonna sue a cat for having paws now because the cat ripped it off from its wild ancestor??
Sep 1, 2017
View Full Discussion