Reaper Rips-off Rackham

[Nomis]

I don\'t want to get into a protracted argument with you on this Barkel but the example you gave is flawed.

Originally posted by barkel
Alexander Graham Bell did not just happen upon a telephone. He did not open his closet door and say, \"What\'s this? Oh a device by which I can speak to anyone in the world, how clever.\" And why didn\'t he? Because it was not there. He had to invent it. He had to take what he knew, combine it with his desires for what might be possible and invent the means to make it possible.

At the same time that Bell filed his patent another inventor - Elisha Gray - was doing the same.
The two had to fight it out in court - Bell won. Without Bell we would now credit Gray with the telephone>

It is my belief that inventors rarely sit down to invent something to fill a purpose - I doubt that Bell had much idea what the phone industry would become when he filed his patent. What he saw was a new way to use existing knowledge and technology and probably saw some of the potential that could come from it.
A use you and I are making of this technology ie the internet was created (note use of word) to fill a very limited need using already existing equipment - capacity and use increased as people saw and exploited its potential.

The crux of this is that I dont think that any invention comes out of thin air, there is always a precursor. One of the greatest scientist - Newton - stated that he could see further because he stood on the shoulders of giants (probably I misquote) - meaning he owed his breakthroughs to work others had done before.

Just my five pence worth - now I\'ll go back to making snipey comments from the sidelines!

 

[mouse]

interesting...

To Barkel: I just find this interesting, no personal ill feelings or whatsoever, okie? Peace.
To Others: Sorry, just an exchange of views...not a catfight.

most if not all the examples you gave revolved around the actual building...be it the telephone, cure for AIDS or the house. I don\'t dispute the ownership there, rite?

but its the \"original thought\" (if i may borrow this phrase)....it is so prideful to claim credit that only i am capable and no one else is the influence or even remotely close to it...alexander bell did invent the telephone....but the idea isn\'t \"original\"...moose-code was already there...using of drums was done in ancient times...using of smoke....using of pigeons....barkel, the key is \"originality\"...bell just found another way of achieving the same end...did you also know that his discovery was accidental? that his assistant had something to do with it?

you stand is on the work...time and again, you proved it on your egs...no qualms about that.

not on the idea/notion of \"there is still something to be done\"...

tell you what...give me an idea/thought of something that hasn\'t been done...that\'ll help and we can move on to how many angels can fit on a pinhead.

PS: Does this phrase \"its all been done\" deter you from being creative and discovering things and inventing things and doing things differently?

PPS: my guess is one angel can dance on a pinhead...the rest can fit into the eye of the needle.

 

[mouse]

reading...

okie, an abstract from someone (pls don\'t sue me...ironic? anyways, your explanation is clear-cut...)

\"...The reason that you can\'t have an completely original thought, as you describe it ... is actually quite simple. All of our thoughts are based on one thing: concretes. What are concretes? They are the physical real things that make up the world around us. We sense them, perceive them by grouping specfic things into one category, and then intergrate them with abstract ideas. If you have an abstract idea without a concrete, you have what is called a floating abstraction, which is a logical fallacy. Some of the thigs Aristotle came up with were actually that. God is too. So, when you think, you can\'t have completely original thought, it\'s true, because, all thought is based on perceptions of concretes, and conretes do not change, just the abstractions. In the abstraction sense, you could have original thought, but, once integrated, it becomes unoriginal...\"

\"...what you are referring to is an abstract. Abstracts can be original. What cannot be completely original is the concrete behind the concept created in the idea. Let\'s take your example, transport. Transport did exist. It was a concrete thing. The abstract part of it is the word, transport. When you integrate the two, you get a definition that can be applied to many different situations and cirucmstances. That, is a concept. Let me reemphasize this: the abstract can be original. The conrete is not. It is a part of reality, not a creation of your mind. Integrate the two, and you have a concept. The concept then, as it is made up of both of these things, will not be an entirely original thing. It will always contain one part that is aleady there, the concrete....\"

a link with both sides...
http://www.great-mind.com/debate/debate2.asp

anyways, ur view is as good as mine.

 

[barkel]

Ok, alright, now we are getting somewhere.

To Mouse: I find debate fun, and would never have ill feelings towards another, so long as the debate remained in good spirit.

I guess we might be closer in our thinking than I had originally thought, but I\'m still not ready to commit to saying we agree completely.

Intellectual Property is a tricky thing. No one can think something that cannot be thought of, right? But that is not to say that everyone can think of anything. Few people can even comprehend Einstein\'s theory of relativity in all of its facets. To say that anyone could have thought of it is to take a leap. And still it was there for the discovery by anyone who could.

Thought is simply the invention of the mind. Like a telephone is an invention of the hands, if you will.

There is a point at which a thought must be translated into the physical world, either by voice or by pen. Gravity has been around for billions of years. But Newton was the first to put his observations and thoughts to pen. He did not create gravity or any of the laws of motion, but no one would refute his claim to their discovery.

But he did more than record the obvious. Any one of his contemporaries would have known that things up in the air will eventually make their way to the ground. But they might not have been able to take it a step further to: every action has an equal and exact opposite reaction.

This is why they are called Newton\'s Laws of Motion, and not Barkel\'s Laws... Why, because he did the brain work. There is a saying that genius is 1% inspiration 99% persperation. And thinking is work. But more importantly, translating your thought to physical form is work.

I agree that thoughts build and flow from one to another. However, what minds can make first steps into new territory is important. I believe that every normally functioning human is creative, but I do not agree that they are all creative to the same degree. Some people simply cannot comprehend what others can. And some people simply aren\'t very creative.

True, much of intellectual thought should not be ownable, but to say that all thought is so generic as to be universal the minute it is thought is wrong. If all thinkable thought is so universal then why bother thinking? My answer is because you will come up with something new that someone else might not hit upon.

Let us assume for a moment that E=mc2 would have been discovered by someone else, had Einstein not discovered it. In my opinion this is in the realm of unknowable conjecture. How long might it have taken? 50 years? 100 years? Doesn\'t a person deserve some kudos for being 50 years ahead of his time? To be so creative as leap ahead of his contemporaries by longer than their or his own lifespan? I read an article about dark matter and gravity the other day. It said that new discoveries with the Hubble telescope have proven a theory of Einstein\'s to be accurate. Until the Hubble was in space it was not provable. He was so far ahead of his time as to be beyond himself. He could not prove what he knew to be true. That is worthy of some respect, in my opinion. Even if the knowledge is there for the taking.

So where do we draw the line? How can we say Einstein\'s creative ideas are good, but the idea of calling a halfling a Hobbit is not worthy of a copyright?

Mouse said:
\"tell you what...give me an idea/thought of something that hasn\'t been done...\"

I can think of a good many things that have not been done. I cannot even begin to think of things that have not been thought. I cannot know what other people are thinking. All I can do is try to be original in my thinking. Then, if I think I have come up with something original that has intrensic value I\'ll try and copyright it. If someone contests it then we\'ll hash it out to see who was first to think it.

Mouse said:
\"my guess is one angel can dance on a pinhead...the rest can fit into the eye of the needle.\"

Actually, 1000 angels could dance on the head of a pin. However, that fat ass cupid get\'s up there and starts doing the Macharena and there\'s no room for anybody!

barkel

 

[barkel]

maybe

I think I get what your saying with the whole concrete v. abstract arguement. I\'ll have to mull it over, as I don\'t know if I have grasped it fully.

I also do see that there are some holes in my most recent post. Einstein did not, and could not have copyrighted E=mc2. However, he could have been the first to write about it and therefor been given credit for the discovery.

Einstein had the luxury of being decades ahead of his time. Most of us do not. I am lucky when I am days ahead. For example, I have had an idea in my mind for converting archived Night Goblin Fanatics to look like they are being slung around by a dragon. I have sat on the idea for some 3 or 4 months now. I finally spent about $70 to realize my idea and what do I find? Someone has beaten me to the punch. I just saw a post of a guy who used NG fanatics to look like they were being slung around by a troll. It is a very nice diorama. Does that mean my idea is not original. No, of course it was. But it will never be seen as original now because I was not the first to present it.

Don\'t think that getting credit is all I am about. I enjoy the finer things in life too. I love painting. I love writing stories and music. But the notion that my thoughts are not creative by virtue of the fact that someone else could think them rubs me wrong.

Still, I think that this idea of abstract v concrete is interesting.

barkel

 

[barkel]

Let me see if I have it now.

A person cannot think of anything original in the concrete world, because nature has taken care of it for us. Einstein\'s E=mc2 was not original because it was there for the taking. I can see that. It does not lessen his ingenuity for having discovered it.

Secondly a person can think of an abstracity, which could be original.

A person can therefor meld that abstracity with a concrete to be, or to make, a physical thing that will, at best, be partially original.???

Ok, someone needs to shoot me.

My original problem was with the statement that there is nothing in the world that is original. If a person can create something that has never been seen or accomplished before, and that something (for example: the telephone) can revolutionize the world as we know it, and if people can think of abstract ideas that are completely unique, and if all of that can fit in a world where there is nothing original; then I guess I agree with what you are saying.

But really man, that is a poor way of communicating. When I tell people there is nothing original in the world the last thing I expect them to think is that there really is plenty of original stuff in the world.

barkel

ps. In other words, I don\'t get it. It seems to me on one hand you are saying there is nothing original at all. On the other hand invention can be original, but thought cannot. On the third hand (don\'t we all have 3 hands?) thought can be original but only if it is abstract and not concrete. I admit. I\'m lost in my own arguement. I don\'t even know where to argue anymore. I guess I\'ll give up.

 

[Duende]

Egads, I\'ve created a monster!

Oh no, I used the word \"created\"! Should I have said \"I discovered a monster!\"? Should I have even used the word \"monster\"? Will other monsters be offended? What defines a monster anyway? Can I copyright this entire thread since I was it\'s originator even though others\' postings have made it what it is? OK, since my brain is starting to sizzle, I\'ll stop here.

My initial thought behind my making a \"Reaper Rips-Off Rackham\" post was merely the simple fact that I irrationally hate that particular Fianna\'s pose. I really hate it, so much so that I searched CMON\'s pics for \"fianna\" and all spelling variations I could think of, just so I could vote on them and never have to see them come at random.
Then I go to see Reaper\'s new stuff and here they used that pose that I hate on one of their figs. And the pose IS the same, one arm twisted behind the head and the other straight down with the hand on the flat of the blade of a sword that\'s much to big too be handily wielded by that skinny chick. The only difference is the physique of the girls and their outfits. (the Shanys and Warl figs aren\'t nearly as similar, and besides, I like Shanys).

So this irrational hate of a stupid pose caused me to start this thread which has gone on to discuss vampires, werewolves, movies, soft drinks (real and imaginary), castrated singing Italian boys, the nature of original thought, and I just waiting to see it head right into the origins of life, the creation of the universe, and whether or not there is a God (which will be a subject I won\'t touch!.... Or have I just touched it??)

So, now, I sit here, taking an hour to sit here reading all my responses and listening to my brain fry, wondering if I was the first to think of the Reaper/Rackham thing. Wondering if the words I even use to think in my head with are original since the English language is only evolved from older languages, which, in turn, evolved from the gunts and growls of cavemen. (So, if scientists re-animated a caveman, could he sue the world because he was part of the group from which eveything we have today evloved?)

Which leaves me to say my initial thought:

\"Egads, I\'ve created a monster!\"

 

[TwelveMilesOut]

A few thoughts...

1) The glass is too big.

2) Angels can\'t dance.

3) Even artists discover. Like Newton\'s Laws, the patterns expressed by artists existed in potential before the artwork is created physically.

If there are a thousand possible brush strokes and a thousand possible colors, then there are a million possible images that can be painted. Obviously, there are far more than a thousand possible brush strokes, even on the head of a pin. Obviously, there are more than a thousand colors, even if only two colors are mixed to produce them. No matter how high you scale the numbers, however, the pattern remains the same.

If one were to continue painting a figure for a sufficiently long time, that figure would become engulfed in a sphere of paint. When the artist stopped painting, it could be inadvertantly re-created by another artist happening on the same series of brush strokes. Any smaller number of strokes would be more likely to be copied in a smaller amount of time.

The question of \"ripping off\" another artist is really a question of timing, and as has been said, we don\'t know when the respective greens were produced for these miniatures.

I worked for Briton\'s in the production house when they created their recent WWII line, and although there exists a HUGE body of prior WWII figures I never saw any of the artists or managers checking through catalogs to ensure their work was not overly similar to something in, say, Foundry\'s line. I would be shocked if there were not someone in the company who was responsable for checking the competition\'s catalogs (quite likely copyright lawyers), but the artists were not involved.

If Bell wasn\'t creating, since he was merely expanding on telegraph technology, which expanded on electrical transmission, which expanded on electrical generation, which...etc, then how was Michelangelo creating, since he too was using and expanding upon techniques and tools refined over the years by his predecessors?

Anybody know when \"Steamboat Willie\" goes into public domain? I could use some new clip art.

 

[mouse]

/*Handshakes with Barkel and Everyone Too */

\"I enjoy a good discussion too...nothing better than this to start and end the day...thanx.\"

School of Thought One:
Man is a created being....hence there is a God. God set the boundaries of the physical, mental and spiritual realms. Exceeding this limit is not possible (now) cos the current form of man is made from these boundaries (hence the age old eg of shadows on the cave wall). maybe one day, let\'s say after judgment day, when we ascend to \"heaven\", we\'ll transcend that boundary. then we\'ll see more of what is and what isn\'t. as of now, we can\'t. just like a frog in the well. that frog\'s view is only as such...his entire world is the well and that piece of sky above him. maybe one day he\'ll transcend beyong the well....one day.

School of Thought Two:
abstract and concrete (see previous email)

School of Thought Three:
the uniqueness of man spawns originality. the ever expanding universe (stephen hawkings) extends the boundaries and that fabric is made up of meta, time and thoughts.

i guess there are still many many more.

the phrase \"its all been done\" is a matter of perspective. not necessarily if its been done deem it not doable. the essence of what is done and extending on it, permutating it doesn\'t restrict creativity in any manner. taken from another angle, its a matter of ownership.

creativity <> ownership

i believe that creative people \"creates\" with a desire to fulfill that \"void\" within. they felt a need to express, to shape and to seek.

barkel, and every artists (in a general form), our need to create isn\'t a sin (for people who believe in God; we\'re build in the likeness of Him. can be godly but don\'t try to be a one ) and the boundaries aren\'t set to cage us in. that infinite possibilities and boundaries aren\'t something that we can fully explore in ten thousands generations...an excerpt from an article of a philospher, \"...we barely scratch the surface of our universe...much less our minds...\"

PS: duh! u mean angels can\'t dance?!? must be their wings and that fat cupid tripping them up...lol

PPS: nothing scholarly/preachy about wat i wrote and i ain\'t proving anything...just things that i read and build my life around...

PPPS: \"its all been done\" hasn\'t hampered my creativity (not much to begin with )...its there to spur me to test the limits...and also serve as a reminder to remain humble...Peace.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by mouse
it\'s a matter of perspective. remember the glass of water...
\"a glass of water that\'s half full\"...optimist.
\"a glass of water that\'s half empty\"...pessimist.
\"there\'s still a glass of water\"...realist.

\"there\'s already a glass of water\"...defeatist???

You forgot \"Hey there\'s the bottle\"...oportunist