Well I'm going to give this a try. Just to see how far I get with this (more bounty might increase my motivation ).

OK, I paid .02 more bitcoins...and I'm still very disturbed by what I see.  The left arm almost looks like a man's.  And it almost look like she (Satoshi?) is being groped by a man behind her, but there is obviously no man behind her.  Anyway, I obviously like your artwork, else I would have not paid for two versions of it already. 

I can't wait for it to be finished.

I'd like to have your views on my post about the selling of information with bitcoins.  See there :  http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1344.0

In order to sell an image, one solution would be to sell a blured image.  You would display the blured image on your website, and you would improve it for each additionnal paiement.

To do so you could use for instance imagemagick :

convert original_image.jpg  -blur ${N}x${N} blured_image.jpg

Where ${N}  would be the size of the blur filter (the smaller it is, the better is the image).

Oh come on, I know that 99.9% that people use cars to pollute stuff.

That is like if I was selling car and you come over asking about America and the Iraq oil war.
Yes oil and cars have things in common.
Yes Bittorrent and copyrights have in common.
Selling cars and wars in Iraq do not.
Funfile invites and copyrights are not.

I suppose so. I guess I actually don't care if the no copy nazis get recognition for their good work. Creators who are better don't get crowded out either. And they even get an advantage from their work being more useful to other creators.

Can we stay on topic and post related to invites not the ideas of copyrights.

How would they know or care or be affected at all? You are supporting yourself when you use what you find.

I think this would make a great film. All sorts of basic things like wheels and fire and refrigeration are patented in some alternate universe and everyone goes about life like this is normal and right.

Or a film where a duplication machine is created and a group fights everyone who duplicates stuff they made.

Yep.

Some people would like children to have a nice long attention span so they'll sit still for a 40 year career in a factory.

Copyright laws exist, and you can't get away from it.  In fact, unlike in the past you don't even have an option any more to avoid copyright unless you explicitly demand that the content must be in the public domain, such as what is being done here with this "Copyfree Movement".  That wasn't always the case.  From a political and philosophical basis, I think the original sense of the U.S. Constitution is really a better way to deal with the issue so far as "granting for a limited time" protection to authors who "promote the useful arts and sciences".  Life + 70 is not the limited time the framers of the U.S. Constitution envisioned, and protecting a gene sequence isn't "promoting the useful arts and sciences".

I really think the concept that a copyright has no force until it is formally registered is a good idea too, but that is irrelevant for this conversation.

Certainly there is no reason to bash copyleft explicitly other than to suggest that there is a philosophically different approach going on here.  Both copyleft and those putting a weak copyright license on stuff are trying to share content, the difference is how.  When I copyleft my content, I am expecting that the content will remain free, which is my motive for doing so.  If you don't care that it remains free, it is your privilege to open up your own content in that manner.  You are also free to ignore what I make as well.

Sorry, I already deleted your image (and I'm not going to pay again to download it again), but I think the left hand was across the woman's stomach. The finger shapes, and the smudge that could have been hair on the back of the hand, made it look masculine to me.

I quite liked the hands in version 34, because one of them looks quite masculine, which just adds to the ambiguity of the whole situation.

hands definitely need more work =)

The point of copyleft is to maintain that freedom, and to ensure that others will also continue to have that freedom in the future.  If you try to ignore copyright legislation as though it doesn't exist, hard cruel reality sets in where essentially you will be pushed to the side and ignored or as I've said you will even be prohibited from using what you made and credit for your work stripped from you.  Most "public domain" licenses seem like naivety on the part of those who put them together.

More importantly, a copyleft environment is a means to the end of bringing down copyright by making it absurd in its application.  I see public domain advocates as simply burying their heads in the sand pretending that copyright doesn't exist at all.

To use another analogy, it is like heading off to a battle field unarmed on the hopes that everybody is going to be nice to you because you aren't shooting at them.  Wonderful in theory but in practice it tends to get you killed.

Public domain content is not a new idea and what I'm trying to say is that I've seen many people get burned from it.  With copyleft content, it hasn't been nearly so bad and as a practical matter the copyleft content tends to survive much longer and gets a foothold in society where public domain content usually doesn't.