I Love Copyright by e-glue


Vinyl adhesive brand e-glue has launched an "I Love Copyright" campaign to raise awareness of intellectual property infringements facilitated by, er, design blogs like this one.

E-glue, which describes itself as a "victim of plagiarisation on eBay", has had many of its designs copied, but is fighting back in a friendly way by encouraging websites to download and display their I Love Copyright buttons, banners and screensavers.

"Internet expansion with blogs, e-business, sharing and auction community websites, increases counterfeiting and hacking," say e-glue. "The respect of Authors’ Rights and Copyright becomes a personal act of conscience to fight in own ways against plagiarism and improper copies. While educating and warning the net users, each one can contribute to protect creation and creators, and thus encourage progress in the arts."

See e-glue's customisable artiKIDS vinyls for children in our earlier story. But don't copy them!

Posted on Wednesday December 5th 2007 at 9:55 pm by . Copyright policy | Comments policy

  • I reckon that divulgation via blogs (as well as via other communication media) doesn’t necessarily mean plagiarising, as long as one clearly states references and links back/mention the intellectual owner of projects/writings/whatever (as this doesn’t apply to design stuff, of course). Only a few days ago I myself found my blog being plagiarised by another blogger who was just copying and pasting into her own entries stuff I’d written not mentioning it wasn’t her work – at first I tried to point that out to her, but since she wasn’t I exposed her plagiarising on my homepage. Only then she apologised (lame excuse provided: “I didn’t do that on purpose”. Yeah, sure.) and deleted everything – I didn’t ask her to do so, I was just asking her to link back that stuff to the pages she “borrowed” it from, but she decided against that, and just deleted everything. Ah, whatevs. Sorry for the digression. :)

  • edit: “this doesn’t apply *only* to design stuff” – sorry. :)

  • First-time Commenter

    Wow – maybe they can make an “I heart regressive economic models supported by right-wing lobbyists” t-shirt, too, or an “I heart being afraid of the future” t-shirt, or an “I heart multinational corporate self-protectionism” t-shirt, because the big scary world is too much for us to handle right now and so we better all bury our heads in the sand of out-dated legislation whilst wearing supposedly ironic t-shirts, pretending we’re progressives even if we promote everything that would freeze the world in an anti-art standstill simply so we can charge royalties on crap designs.

    What a fantastic campaign these people have decided to run.

  • Suzy

    I can only hope they’re joking.

    Hip hip hooray for Creative Commons!

  • Chocolate

    I wonder if the creators of the I <3 NY campaign from the 1970s are consulting their lawyers right now over whether or not they are victims of plagiarism.

    I’m also wondering if this design will be plagiarised for the sake of post-modernism, irony and EPIC LOL.

    Frankly with all the DRM and absurd RIAA lawsuits I can’t see too many people expressing a love of copyright.

  • First-time:
    What’s wrong with copyright as such? I embrace Creative Commons and all the million different open source licences, but I think they all have their place. That’s why they’re all different: One is fine with, let’s say, private use, but not with commercial use. One is fine with using the work in any way, as long as it keeps a reference to the original creator, the other one doesn’t care. Just look at Giorgia’s comment; there’s a licence for that.
    Not everyone is happy with sharing based on the conditions of others. Why not leave them be, and create something better and altogether different yourself? You can then share that, totally free of copy-right or -left or -center, if you wish.

  • J

    I Heart Creative Commons.

  • Fernando Kreigne

    I Heart Copyleft.

  • Sandy Thatcher

    I hate to burst your bubble, folks, but Creative Commons licenses are fundamentally flawed by an unsustainable conceptual distinction between “commercial” and “noncommercial” uses.