Fantasy art being ripped on a large scale - CA artists included

[Wateru]

Hello all,

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, or if anyone here is even interested, but I found this website and saw mention of CA as a "resource" and thought I'd see if I could give you guys a heads up just in case you wished to take any action. Whilst I often admire all of your artwork, I haven't noticed too much of the culture here involving ripped artwork, so again, I apologize if this is inappropriate, and encourage a moderater to take action and lock/delete this thread if it is.

Having said that, there is a gigantic 2 year old thread at a major Magic: The Gathering community website that has collected a frankly amazing amount of work from artists, all posted as usable resources for creating custom cards. From what I've been able to go through (which is a tiny fraction of the 164 pages currently there) no permission of use has been requested of any artist.

http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=38442 - page one.

When arguments are brought up about the alarming copywrite abuse, and how just asking an artist if their artwork can be used, responses are self-justifying.

http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=38442&page=164 - current last page where people are starting to protest.

I ask any artist who spots their work to take whatever action you feel like, but best would likely be to contact the forum admin and ask for the thread to be removed. I'm sure you have gone through similar situations before! If you see someones artwork there you know, then perhaps you could let them know you've found a rip.

Thank you all so much! :yayca:

[Robert.B]

yeah I recognise allot of those artist works Im not sure if that forum is distributing works for profit or not. It seems as though its just some hardcore fanboy thread where they make custom cards with art they found on the web For there own fanboyism 0_o?

[Wateru]

Yes it does seem they use the arts for "non profit" fanboi creations, however the community is pretty huge, seems to be worldwide, and they do share the cards they have created amongst themselves.

Now whilst I think it's brilliant their being so creative with the game they love, I'm not sure every artist would be thrilled at their work being used & distributed in that way..

God I love this emote :mod:

[Ilaekae]

Thanks for the head's up, W'...

These might be fanboys, but their site is potentially a source now of uncredited art that some body else who isn't so stupid/innocent might find useful for commercial purposes. I really hate bastards who are thieves and try to explain why they "ain't doin' nuthin' wrong, Dude..."

[cmalidore]

More important to them should be "how will the companies that own some of this art feel to have it used in such ways"

Many of those images are owned by more than just the artist. I don't recall Wizards of The Coast/Hasbro having a huge amount of humor toward that sorta behavior. Though I could be wrong.

[DavePalumbo]

I guess some of them try to credit the artists, but it looks like most don't bother and I think that's the real slap in the face. So far as I can tell, they're not making any money or distributing any product or anything, but the least they could do is toss a web link or even just a name for the pieces they post.

Their defense of "it's on the internet, what do you mean I can't do anything I want with it" is pretty audacious too

[arttorney]

I got a big kick out of the douchebag who thinks it's not the same as music downloading.

[Anid Maro]

I got a big kick out of the douchebag who thinks it's not the same as music downloading.

I got a kick out of the fact that said douchebag is an administrator over there. Guess that explains why the thread got to 164 pages before anyone took issue. Reminds me of the saying "It ain't illegal 'till you get caught!"

[arttorney]

'Spose that'll make it a little hard for the site to try the Napster strategy of "It's not us. We got no control of what the users are doing, etc. etc." (not like it worked for Napster anyway)

Sad that sometimes people need to learn their lessons at the pointy end of a lawsuit.

[Naomi Ningishzidda]

hmm. Notice they don't seem to be stealing stuff with nudity...heads up - these kind of geeks are almost always terrified of seeing real women parts, so there's a good reason to add moar full frontal nudity to your work.

[arttorney]

hmm. Notice they don't seem to be stealing stuff with nudity...heads up - these kind of geeks are almost always terrified of seeing real women parts, so there's a good reason to add moar full frontal nudity to your work.

OK. Well I'm starting now to get some ideas for the "strange bedfellows" POW.

[Nibras]

Wow, that is actully pretty crap, what makes it crap is the dude saying Since it's posted on the net that means its public which in his view means public for anyone to use, wtf these people seem like they really don't respect the artist.
Should probably get that whole thread deleted

[Stoat]

Well, for all practical purposes, once something's posted on the Web, it really IS public. That's not legal, it's not right, but it's the practical truth. The 'net is too big and our pockets too small to chase abusers down.

Anyhow, I think RIAA is making a huge mistake, trying to stop music downloads with a heavy-handed approach. They're generating all kinds of ill will, and they won't win. I mean, they'll probably win in the courts, but they won't stop file sharing. It's too easy, and nicking everybody is impossible. They'd be better off putting their energies into making money in new ways on the web, rather than trying to protect their traditional, dying business model.

And so would we. At the res we put artwork up on CA, nobody's going to be making anything saleable out of it. Unless keeping quiet endangers your copyright on some specific issue, I think I'd look at this as, "yay! I'm building a fan base! Wanna buy some crap?"

[kev ferrara]

Stoat, can't it be argued that the website as an entity is a moneymaking/capital-increasing venture in and of itself... and therefore the site is actually using the purloined art for its own commercial gain?

Since the threat of a lawsuit is usually sufficient, a number of litigation-suggesting emails may get the webmasters to pull the thread. I think everybody would have to sign up first in order to contact their administrators.

[Stoat]

Sure, kev. That's probably true. To me, the question is: was the artist harmed?

Intellectual property isn't like real property. When you steal it, the same amount remains. The question is, has the theft reduced the artist's own ability to make money off his work? It may have done (I just had a quick look at the web site and lost interest fast), in which case -- by all means, pursue the thieves. It may, on the other hand, have helped him, by bringing his work to a wider audience and increasing demand.

For example, you could argue that the CA Post some images that inspire you (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=50389) thread is similarly theft. But, geez...nothing but book sales can come of being in it.

[Wateru]

I completely agree with both of you Stoat & Kev, and I don't think that any of the posters have done anything deliberately and with low intentions of defrauding the artists involved. However, every artist feels differently about the use of their work, I know artists who don't care as long as their getting some exposure and maybe gaining fans as a result (Stoat you're a perfect example :)) and others who don't want their art reposted without explicit permission.

And as for posting work on the net and it automatically being public, I have to disagree... I mean, one of the posters on that thread gave a perfect example, I may park my car on the street, where it's public, but that doesn't mean anyone can just take my car if they decide they like it. Just because its easy to take stuff on the internet doesn't make it right, nor should it be acceptable.

It's great hearing your opinions on this subject, you guys are always interesting to listen to :) I only wish I was an artist enough to join the forums more actively! But at least I get to watch and learn.

[Stoat]

Oh, I don't mean it's right. I mean that...imagine a world where every car everywhere always had the keys in the ignition and the engine running. Stealing it would be no more right or legal than it is in our world...but it would probably happen a lot more often. The Web is a keys-in-the-ignition kind of place for intellectual property, is all I'm saying.

Heh. This reminds me of something. The company I work for has spent a bunch of money in the last few years making promotional videos about the stuff we do and trying to get them as much airplay as possible. Well, somebody -- without authorization -- put the videos up on YouTube and Google Video. So, of course, Corporate Communications screamed bloody murder until the videos were taken down.

Um...what?

Sometimes, people value control over more obvious self-interest.

[NightVision]

Stoat, the art is being used to make custom cards, for free, sure, but if these people didn't have access to free (art for) cards, they would have to purchase it from companies (more work for artists) or commision it from artists (more work for artists) if they wanted it, and at least some would.

The art isn't credited either, so it's no advertisment for the artists at all.

I see you were typing while I did too ...
on the second example, that company could have put their video up on these places themselves too, with proper info and all.
If a neighbour saw me working in the garden and decided to finish the work while I'm gone without asking me, I'd still be annoyed even though it saved me from doing the work myself. It's MY garden. Had he offered it however, I'd probably been thrilled.

[kev ferrara]

Since artists make money illustrating game cards all the time... it would seem likely that giving away an artist's art to be used on game cards would diminish the market value of that art for possible sale for use on game cards (Why bother paying for something anyone can get for free? And since anybody can see it for free, what's the cache in buying the work?) Thus the artists are being commercially penalized by the site.

If not even credit is given, there is very little benefit to the artist that I can see.

EDIT: I think Night Vision and I just had a mind meld.

[Stoat]

The art posted to CA is typically not large enough for print, even at card size. This is literal cards? Printed things?

[DavePalumbo]

The art posted to CA is typically not large enough for print, even at card size

you sure about that? A card image is about 2 inches wide, which is only 600 pixels at 300 dpi. Especially for a horizontal format, that's not at all uncommon here and I often see much larger.

[Stoat]

Two inches? Really? That seems awfully small, but I've never seen one of these things. I'm old.

[PearlPhoenix]

Hello

I see these problems a lot. So if you want to resolve anything, use this link www.domainwhitepages.com

It will give you a link to the original webhost and abuse contact.

This is in the case the culprits are stubborn or you don't understand the language of the website

[Blue]

Two inches? Really? That seems awfully small, but I've never seen one of these things. I'm old.

Old? PFFF, either your as old as moses, or you're still young. Magic is mostly played by guys from 20s - 40s. The game came out in the late 80s after all. They are playing cards remember, no larger nor smaller then your standard 52 card decks of royal families with no legs.

(Oh yea, and I'm totally ok with showing off my signed cards from the master class. :D )

[Stoat]

I just barely squeak inside your demographic, then. I used to date a guy whose little brother played D&D, but that's as close as I got to gaming.

Not counting computer games, o' course.

[Blue]

I just barely squeak inside your demographic, then. I used to date a guy whose little brother played D&D, but that's as close as I got to gaming.

Not counting computer games, o' course.

Yea i picked it up about 13 years ago, when i was an early teenager. No one 'played' but i collected. Loved the art on them, same with comics. :)

[Qitsune]

If these kids didn't "pirate" art, they wouldn't commission it, they would use their own stick figures. I know, I used to make custom cards, I drew them myself (barely better than stick figures back then too.) It's a hobby like little girls downloading pics of boys bands and putting little hearts and sparkles on them. If they have bad taste enough to use my stuff, they can keep going, I'm not worried.

And Naomi Ningishzidda, the real thing (Magic cards) have no real nudity on them either, the target audience is like 14y.o. Because people don't draw hentai or post pics of their boobs at every occasion doesn't mean they are afraid of sex.

[otis]

Okay I'm going to piss off some hyper-sensitive egos here about their art. So put you pitchforks down for a sec.

And since anybody can see it for free, what's the cache in buying the work?) Thus the artists are being commercially penalized by the site.

-Well, then we all better just take all our work off-line. God forbid anyone sees it.

The fact of the matter is; as long as nobody is making significant amounts of money off your art, WTF cares?

If you don't want anyone downloading your art THEN DON'T PUT IT ONLINE.

But, if anyone ever pirates your work, and does end up making ALOT of money off of it:

1. You will most likely find out.
2. You will be rich.

Until then everyone just CHILL.

[arttorney]

I asked some guys in a garage band I knew back in the late nineties about whether they were afraid about their music files online getting widely ripped and they basically said they wished that would happen because they needed the exposure.

This is the difference between the infringement situation and the plagiarism situation. A copyright is a right to exclude others from using your image. Why would you want to do that if you are still an unknown? How do you stop being an unknown? By getting credit for your work while it is being used. I guess, then, for any non-famous artists getting downloaded over there, the lack of "credit where credit is due" is probably the most hurtful part about it.

[DavePalumbo]

the lack of "credit where credit is due" is probably the most hurtful part about it.

agreed. Their attitude is pretty shitty, but I put that down to simple ignorance. Not crediting the artists is extra shitty though

[DavePalumbo]

after deleting all protests:

we are only required to take down images and posts when we get notified about them. While we are sorry that your copyrighted artwork gets posted here and will immediately remove it when you email us all the links of where copyrighted artwork got posted (including the source), we also explicitly forbid the posting of copyrighted material without proper attribution.

in other words, you police your own work across the entire internet and the burden of proof is on you if you want them to remove the work. At least, in their understanding of the law. If they forbid the posting of copywrite material without proper attribution, why are there hundreds of images (or more) in that very thread with absolutely no credit given?

I don't even feel like their use is really any harm, but their attitude is shocking.

[otis]

Well said attorney!!
Wow, I thought I was going to get lynched, crucified, and burned at the CA.org stake!!

:yayca:

[Nibras]

Their attitude is pretty shitty
Yea i think thats whats very pissin about them

[cmalidore]

Wait wait, so you have to police your own work and tell them to remove it when you didn't put it there in the first place (cause our work has gps on it, right?) - AND they forbid the uploading of copyrighted materials without "proper attribution" which is easily over 80% of of the materials they have up there .....

This is awesome on all the wrong levels.

I don't really mind the concept of the art being put up there, as long as they aren't taking credit for work..... and since I've not seen anybody use the words "I'll sell you this" I have no reason to start lynching..... but the attitude makes me wanna go light things on fire.

[arttorney]

Ha ha. They left on there the administrator's post about fair use and "I don't see anybody complaining about it" and deleted the people who complained about it, while saying nobody is allowed to complain about it or they will get deleted.

[dark eagle]

I wonder why they havent had a trip to the courts yet?

[Stoat]

Heh. Well. The law comes down on the side of the copyright holder. If anyone is sufficiently exercised, a complaint up the foodchain to their ISP could probably get them shut down, unless they're on some scoff-law spam-haven server.

As I said, I'm not so much exercised about the thefts per se, but it's always fun seeing a jerk get thumped.

[Stoat]

Dark eagle: because it costs money to sue, even if you win. And what could you possibly wring out of this bunch of kids? People like Disney have whole departments of law-talking-guys whose job it is to elbow children posting unauthorized Mickey Mouses and protect their brand, but for an individual illustrator...it just isn't worth it.

It doesn't cost anything to threaten, though :)

[Mike Corriero]

The "OWNER" of the site based on his posting history, shows that he never posted or showed any concern or even acknowledged what was going on in there. Although the "artwork" forum was set up for this very reason.

I had come across 20 or so of my images but didn't feel like searching the entire 160 some odd pages. I had signed up and posted a "nice" comment in reply to that administrators "fair use" comment and shortly after I sent a PM to the owner of the site. I figured maybe if he saw all of the people protesting about the use of their art or posting of their work, or the fact that it wasn't being credited and posted in mass amounts that he might have an open mind. I suggested taking down the thread would be in his best interest unless they could credit the artists.

About an hour later is when he deleted all of the comments made in protest, directly after that administrators comment, which he left up of course. Then as you noticed, he mentions,
This thread is for posting artwork, not discussing legal matters. I will delete any more posts made about this in here. We are only required to take down images and posts when we get notified about them. While we are sorry that your copyrighted artwork gets posted here and will immediately remove it when you email us all the links of where copyrighted artwork got posted (including the source), we also explicitly forbid the posting of copyrighted material without proper attribution. If a user who has posted a lot of images in this thread wants to remove all his posts, please email me and I will take care of it.
So please keep this in mind when posting any further in this thread.

so sad...

[Cuervo]

Last year sometime i found an image of mine on a site i'd never been on. It was a photomanipulation of my version of 'optimism'. But the person who ripped it from my site gave me the credit!! And was just posting it in a fourm she was apart of to show it off, for me!

Didn't 'alf make me think... "there is atleast one genuine person on the internet atleast.."

But, more to the point... the is no real way to stop it, and thats probably the most frustrating thing about it. No matter how many laws and watermarks, its not going to stop a person who feels only the comfort of their computer desk, and no real remorse for the artists in mind. Bastards!

[Naomi Ningishzidda]

Well actually...I like posting pictures of my boobs at all occasions because they look nice, and I'm a vain, egotistical and narcissistic maniac...that has nothing to do with art theft at all.

I don't think this behavior of posting thousands of stolen pictures, reworking them and calling them their own - these are obviously adults - it should not be condoned or encouraged, and it is damaging to the artist, in fact I find it discouraging when people blatantly post pictures ripped off from other artists anywhere without getting permission from the artist or even giving them due credit.

I really don't think conceptart.org would tolerate it and it hasn't in the past. I think art should stab relentlessly at comfort zones, and right now, nudity is the best way to apply that pressure to the wall...all the better if the work is less likely to be ripped off for a horribly chintzy card game....

[Jason Rainville]

The "OWNER" of the site based on his posting history, shows that he never posted or showed any concern or even acknowledged what was going on in there. Although the "artwork" forum was set up for this very reason.

I had come across 20 or so of my images but didn't feel like searching the entire 160 some odd pages. I had signed up and posted a "nice" comment in reply to that administrators "fair use" comment and shortly after I sent a PM to the owner of the site. I figured maybe if he saw all of the people protesting about the use of their art or posting of their work, or the fact that it wasn't being credited and posted in mass amounts that he might have an open mind. I suggested taking down the thread would be in his best interest unless they could credit the artists.

About an hour later is when he deleted all of the comments made in protest, directly after that administrators comment, which he left up of course. Then as you noticed, he mentions,


so sad...

Did... did they at least remove your pics?

[DavePalumbo]

...all the better if the work is less likely to be ripped off for a horribly chintzy card game....

wait now, let's not throw stones at Magic or WotC, they have nothing to do with these guys. These are fans with no actual connection to the game. That they have a "no direct nudity" policy isn't any different from just about every single other company which is hiring concept artists and illustrators. You're harping on an issue which, though certainly is worthy of discussion, has no relevance to the actual problem here.

[Naomi Ningishzidda]

I wasn't referring to WOTC, I was talking about the aftermarket version "project" these dudes are making - nevermind, it really does not matter to me how art is stolen, it was meant to be an insult to the thieves. Maybe, perhaps I would forgive it if they were trying to be original and steal nude artwork for a xxx version as in some Sim 2 mods....but they're not...anyways, can we steer this back on topic?

[Mike Corriero]

Jason,
I didn't message the Owner about removing my images.

[Naomi Ningishzidda]

I've shut down several sites that were using my images without permission, the best way is to contact the ISP, using a whois or whatever, or if they are a free webs sort of page contact the provider- photobucket or etc. You may have to jump through a couple hoops but in the end they will do the right thing. Having a few lawyers in the family is always nice, but you can order them to stop just by dropping them a cease and desist letter as well. The courts are on your side.

It's so easy to ask an artist permission, there is no excuse for this kind of behavior.

[The7Artist7]

Before you read this - no offense meant and I'm not looking for a 'fight' lol

Fact is they're doing something very wrong and should be stopped - however 'innocent' the reasons.

I honestly don't care for the 'it happens too much to stop it so leave it' attitude :er:
way to help your fellow artists! I understand why it's said - it just isn't constructive or helpful:shrug: Also saying it's free advertising is kinda lazy and again unhelpful to the artistic community by encouraging the unlawful use of art.

It's that very attitude that gets nothing changed and lets things get out of hand! If they want to do something that in itself is ok, then do it right (ask and credit artist)! That way we all win :steph:

I'd just like to point out one rather important thing with this whole situation:

Anyone has automatic copyright of any original art they create from the moment they create it until 70 years after they die This is a very important point as they state 'we also explicitly forbid the posting of copyrighted material without proper attribution' So any art posted should by their own statement have at the very least credit to the artist.

Important advice while on the subject: No artist should ever sell or give away copyright unless they specifically want to. (even then the fee should be negotiated as it should be much, much higher with copyright included -artwork is normally leased for a certain amount of years - then a re-use fee is paid to go further or the full usage rights go back to the artist) Many artists don't seem to know they still own the art that was commissioned from them and paid for by a client!

A great resource for Art Law and info can be found here (Explore the different sections - Art quest, Artlaw etc - and check down the left-hand side for articles): http://www.artquest.org.uk/artlaw/copyright/28183.htm

Also some pricing advice and more useful info can be found here:
http://www.theaoi.com/Mambo/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=409&Itemid=33

Back on topic: Even if you are not yet working as an artist please act against any unauthorized use of your art or help others by informing them (many thanks Wateru!). I say this as the general pubic and many clients are unaware or choose to exploit the lack of knowledge and or resistance to illegal / unethical use of art. This really makes the life of working artists (like myself) a lot more difficult.

The more we inform those who don't know and resist wrong situations the better conditions will become for those making a living out of it and more chances will arise for those planning to make a living.

Sorry for the long post

All the best to everyone!:lounge:

[J Wilson]

I'm with most of the other artists on this one. The attitude is annoying, and that more than anything else is what bothers me on that thread. I wouldn't see it as a loss of income, as these are all hobbyists, and if the art wasn't there to use for free, I very much doubt any of them would commision artwork. I also doubt they are doing anything that harms the market for the artist's work, so I wouldn't see any real harm. Credit to the artist should be standard though, so the artists can at least get a little exposure if someone likes what they see and wants to see more.

The part that is hardest to swallow is the claim "we also explicitly forbid the posting of copyrighted material without proper attribution" Really? Did you look at the thread then? There's a lot of work there with no artist mentioned, and I don't see any of it getting removed. Go back even ONE page and you see artwork with no credit given. If you don't enforce it, then you aren't really "explicitly forbiding" it are you?

Also, that guy's understanding of Fair Use is NOT accurrate. Funny how he thinks he can link a wiki article on Fair Use and think he can bully professional artists into thinking they have no say over how their work is used. Fair Use is intended for reviews, academic study, parody, etc. In fact in the Fair Use wiki he links, it states that "Noncommercial use is invariably fair" is actually a misconception. Just because the work doesn't make money, does NOT mean it's fair use.

While I wouldn't encourage anyone to seek shutting them down, I think it would be in artists best interest to pressure them to enforce their supposed policy of making sure artists are credited. If you don't know who the artist is, don't allow the picture. This would hopefully force people to pay more attention when they grab artwork and keep track of who it belonged to.

[CCThrom]

I honestly don't care for the 'it happens too much to stop it so leave it' attitude

I was going to post something similar, but 7 beat me to it.

Stoat made a very good reply earlier to the old "just coz my car is parked on a public street doesn't mean you can take it" analogy. But to further it even more... even if you leave your keys in the ignition, if I take your car without permission it's still stealing. And the legal system will still take a dim view of my action even if I just wanted to "borrow" your car "for fun" and not do any harm.

So even if it feels like shouting at the wind, as professional and aspiring professional artists, we need to continually keep educating ourselves and others about this topic.

[The7Artist7]

So even if it feels like shouting at the wind, as professional and aspiring professional artists, we need to continually keep educating ourselves and others about this topic.

Right on - check this quote from Artlaw which deals with this exact situation:

Copyright owners are given a new exclusive right, from 31 October 2003: to communicate to the public by electronic transmission. This includes broadcasting the copyright work, or making the work available to the public by electronic transmission - so that the public can access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them. This new right makes more transparent and certain that the copyright owner has the exclusive right to control such broadcasts or electronic transmissions, compared with the right to 'issue copies to the public' which was the subject of considerable doubt as to whether or not an electronic transmission was in fact an 'issue'. This means, for example, that there is now no doubt that the transmission of a copyright work via the internet is not permitted without the prior permission of the copyright owner, who has the exclusive right to do so.

you can find it and other useful related info here:
http://www.artquest.org.uk/artlaw/copyright/28922.htm

Peace :)

[Stoat]

I've spent my whole career creating ephemera: graphics that will be used once or a few times and then expire. My income derives from a salary and the company holds the copyright. It tends to make you think differently about your work.

Doing illos for my own web sites and blogs, I explicitly invite people to steal and re-use any of my graphics if they like. On the theory that a) I couldn't stop them anyway, b) the goodwill (and linkbacks) I accrue more than compensates and c) these, too, are ephemera. I don't have any monetized blogs now, but might in future, so I consider getting myself out there the wiser approach.

My point is, we're kind of in uncharted territory here and my money is on the "spread" model over the "control" model.

That said, these boys sound like they need an attitude adjustment.

[kovah]

I've come across sites like this before, and it is one HELL of a battle to get anything done about it. Because their attitude generally sucks about the art they have taken and they don't give a flying crap where it comes from as long as they can make their pretty cards.

Personally I wouldn't mind if they used my arts as long as they posted a link to my site or something but they are so set in their ways its difficult to change them and as you have seen by the response of the admin they aren't going to make it easy. And even if the site were to be closed down a clone of it would be up within days...

[J Wilson]

These uncharted waters aren't really all THAT uncharted anymore. By now it should be understood that at the least it's common "netiquette" to credit the original creator and link to their site when you "borrow" something. Legal issues asside it's just rude, and why be rude when you are clearly enjoying the artwork and would be happy to see the artists creating MORE artwork for them to enjoy?

Over the weekend I'll create an account there and try sending a polite message to the admins. Sounds like they are getting pretty snotty with the artists, but a little more pressure to do the right thing can't hurt.

[Wateru]

Hello

I see these problems a lot. So if you want to resolve anything, use this link www.domainwhitepages.com

It will give you a link to the original webhost and abuse contact.

This is in the case the culprits are stubborn or you don't understand the language of the website

I think this is a very valuable post from Pearl, I just wanted to pull it forward again so that those of you who tried contacting the forum admin see's this otherway of going direct to the source.

Sending a quick Cease & Desist letter is also an easy way to get them to take another look at their policys and actually do the right thing.

[hitnrun]

[QUOTE=Stoat;1831616]Sure, kev. That's probably true. To me, the question is: was the artist harmed?

Intellectual property isn't like real property. When you steal it, the same amount remains. The question is, has the theft reduced the artist's own ability to make money off his work? It may have done (I just had a quick look at the web site and lost interest fast), in which case -- by all means, pursue the thieves. It may, on the other hand, have helped him, by bringing his work to a wider audience and increasing demand.

That is the reason some bands dont like demoes and others do. Some bands believe anything on a demo is free music for someone, while others think "let them have a song, if they like it they might buy a CD". It depends on whether you see the glass as half empy, or half full.

[DavePalumbo]

ooh, some one's laying out the harsh words! incase it gets deleted as I suspect it will:

The part that is hardest to swallow is the claim "we also explicitly forbid the posting of copyrighted material without proper attribution" Really? Did you look at the thread then? There's a lot of work there with no artist mentioned, and I don't see any of it getting removed. Go back even ONE page and you see artwork with no credit given. If you don't enforce it, then you aren't really "explicitly forbiding" it are you?

You have had numerous posts made by the artists who's work has been stolen in this thread, you've had PM's about it from those artists. And instead of caring enough to do the right thing, you're deleting our comments and ignoring our PMs and more shockingly, you have the cheek to try and bully us... us who's artwork you use on your cards!! We cannot believe how rude and disrespectful you're all being about this, you use our artwork, you enjoy it, you claim to appreciate it, and then you have the cheek to act righteous and affronted when we complain.

We're in contact with your ISP, and you will be receiving Cease & Desist letters. Through choosing not to do the right thing and pull this thread and revise your TOS to be sure it's clear that full credit MUST be given to artists who's work is posted (Which is all we're asking) - you're bringing further action on ourselves. IF you had been mature and reasonable about this, you as a community would have gained a lot of respect from the art community, and we're the ones who make your hobby a lot nicer.

Unfortunately, you failed.

-from a user posting as Grey Dancer (someone in this thread?)

[Anid Maro]

Regarding intellectual property and harm done to the artist...

I tend to think of it like inflation. Lets say the U.S. Government decides to increase the circulation of the dollar and prints out a whole bunch increasing the amount of printed money to lets say... 130% of what there was prior.

Your dollars weren't taken away. They're still there in your pocket. But all of a sudden they're worth a whole lot less...

Now unlike money, artists also struggle with becoming known and desired. In that case creating copies of artwork and having them distributed could increase demand simply by increasing awareness. So yes, there can be an upside.

Where does this M:tG fansite fit into all of this? Because whether or not the artwork should be distributed in such a manner ought to be up to the owner, you know the artist whom they didn't even friggin' credit let alone ask in the first place!

Is it so difficult to ask the artist? Okay, people get antsy and maybe the artist hasn't responded to the e-mail within a couple weeks. Could they at least be credited? And what was their response to this? "Bah, whatever we can do what we want 'cause it's the interwebz!!!"

For their attitude alone they deserve the ill will that they are receiving.

[J Wilson]

Apparently their solution to "fix" the problem: make that thread members only so the artists can't see that their work is being stolen, and thus can't complain.

[Duq]

http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=121673

"As you might have noticed the old "Fantasy Art For Card Creation" thread by our beloved PolarBearGod had to be removed due to legal problems.

I have received two emails from artists who asked for their artwork to be removed from the thread. We are legally bound to satisfy such requests, and since it is impossible to exactly determine which pieces of those 164 pages are to be deleted I have decided to remove it. It is also no human task to ask every artist to go through 164 pages and identify his work.

This does of course not mean we can't have another art thread!

Just follow this simple rule and we'll be alright:

Please link to the artist's gallery instead of attaching their artwork here.

Thank you!"

[DavePalumbo]

ah, Dug beat me to it! looks like they've (at least currently) resolved the issue.

[Dave Kendall]

I'd like to say a thank you to Lynn Johnson who kindly alerted me to what was happening today. Someone had taken almost every image from my site. Granted they name checked me, but hey, I didn't even own the copyright on most of them. She gave me this link in case this comes up again. May be useful to other artists here.

http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/09/dmca-notice-of-copyright-infringement.html#dmca

[serhc]

good move by the admins/owners/whatever, but this guy got me pretty angry:

This move gets a thumbs down from me all around, and so do the artists obnoxious enough to destroy Richie's incredible amount of hard work. If you are one of the artists responsible for this deletion, please say so, so I can make sure to NEVER use your "art".

all that hard work lost, damn

[Wateru]

Aside from one person being a bit oversensitive about PolarBearGod's thread being deleted (And I can understand that, it had been mentioned as his "memorial") they all seem to be being gracious about it... finally...

I wonder if they got a nasty cease & desist that caused them to so suddenly change their minds about it ;)

[Naomi Ningishzidda]

he died because you dont fuck with the art karma gods

ahahahahaha - sorry.

[J Wilson]

If they had dealt with the thread in a responsible manner they really wouldn't have needed to close it down. Make it a community project to identify the ones they could, and perhaps delete the rest. While a lot weren't credited, there were still many that were. Links are great, but names and credit were all most people really wanted.

Despite some of the attitudes, I am sorry to see their thread gone. Any time people are coming together and enjoying the work we do, it's a good thing. We just needed a little more attention to details so people could actually get the credit they deserved, and have the ability to refuse to be involved if they desired.

[jhgoforth]

This is a wildly reoccuring problem lately. A digital painter I follow on devart has had his paintings pilfered for books/cds/and even a magazine in
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (which the magazine found out that the in house 'art designer' had claimed it as his own work). The difficult part is, they are being pilfered not through devart but through people taking the image off there and posting on photo sites like Photobucket. Then random designers are just grabbing the image uncredited from the start, not ever knowing whose it was (nor caring apparently). The artists stealing other artists work is more depressing than non-artists to me. :\

[Bad Luck]

If they had dealt with the thread in a responsible manner they really wouldn't have needed to close it down. Make it a community project to identify the ones they could, and perhaps delete the rest. While a lot weren't credited, there were still many that were. Links are great, but names and credit were all most people really wanted.


Just wanted to talk about this here, as Hannes has limited further discussion of the whole debacle on his site.

I wrote a rather long and involved explanation of what I thought was going on but since they deleted it, I'll try to get the jist of this down here, so that you hear "the other side" of the story.

"PolarBearGod" Richie Proffitt died last June on the 9th due to complications from an infection he contracted from a botched surgery several years ago - he had major health problems which kept him from traveling and playing Magic competitively - which he could have easily -at one time he had the highest "Limited" rating in the World and qualified for the Pro Tour (i.e the Magic the Gathering Gravy Train) but he GAVE the invitation to his opponent. In person it's widely acknowledged that he was great player, possibly a Magic Genius - but his passion for the card game also extended to the art.

What Richie did on his time on MTGsalvation would be akin to tutoring - he was one of the better artists, and by far the most popular illustrator. Since he couldn't travel, when one of the previous moderators left he took over the job, which as I'm sure most of you know is no mean feat.

Richie was a great person to interact with as as a moderator and as an Art Enthusiast. He NEVER talked about his competitive history or was an arrogant Magic or Art nerd - he was just passionate about the hobby, about the art, and his enthusiasm was infectious.

Occasionally Richie would be unable to meet a deadline or post that he was dealing with his illness - about this time I put two and two together and made the connection that "PolarBearGod" was actually Richie Proffitt - kind of finding out that "GolfFAN64" is actually Tiger Woods - but like I said most people didn't know and it wasn't something that he advertised - he just went about his work.

Now the "Fantasy Art for Card Creation Thread" started a few years back - up until this point people would just wander into the art threads and make a request for a specific type of art (I'm looking for a dragon holding a goblet! thxplz) - but there were so few active artists actually doing requests, that it became more convenient to point them to sites like DA, CA, Elfwood etc - but I suppose there are other archives and Richie took that idea and started his own.

I want to make a point - Wizards HELLA knows about the thread - Jeremy Jarvis has been all over that freaking board - and people are adapting and modding the card frame, the original art from WoTC, all over the place - it's everywhere - in the avatars, in the sigs etc-- but nothing from Wizards ever came down to stop the art use - so it's in this Environment of "free use" that this got started.

Now on to the legality/fair use/attitude problem.

I forget who posted the first response about "Fair Use" but yeah, that was pretty hardcore - not quite the reaction I expected really from another Mod but you HAVE to understand people are STILL mourning Richie. One day he's doing his moderating - then he's telling us he's feeling a little ill and he's sorry and he'll go to the doctor to have it checked out.. and on Monday he's dead. From fucking Sepsis. Whoever the hell made the joke about karma - not freaking funny. You want to know why he died? Because while he was in a coma from his surgery, some stupid intern put his boots on wrong.

So while I was unconscious, they put these inflatable boots on me. They cover your legs from about the calf to the tip of your toes. The purpose of these boots are to prevent blood clots and provide good circulation. Well I have very big feet. I wear a size fifteen. Now the boots they put on me were a large. When they deflate, they would be tight on my legs. When they would inflate, they would cut the circulation off from my legs and feet. Mostly my feet. My legs were already in enough pain, because I had so much edema and fluid build-up in my legs, that it slowly began to bust out. Yeah, not something that feels too great.

When I had pneumonia and my lungs collapsed, they had me on a bed that was tilted at a forty-five degree angle. This was to assist in making my breathing on the respirator much easier. Unfortunately, the drawback to this was that my feet were pressed against the footboard of my hospital bed the whole time. On top of this, my wonderful nurses elected to never take the inflatable boots off and slowly, but surely the bottom of my feet became gangrenous. So much so, that there were deep, deep pits in the forefoot of each foot. To the point that you could almost see bone. Ouch. I know. I don't know really how to put into words this kind of pain, but I'll tell you it's very unpleasant and hard to deal with. Just recently my feet have began to fully heal up after lots of intensive care and treatment.

But wait, things get better. When I awoke from my unconscious state, I thought I could just get up and walk around. Oh man, was I wrong. Despite my feet feeling like they had been ran through a meat grinder, I also had one of the worst cases of muscle atrophy. I had to go through physical therapy forever to relearn to walk. This combined with sore feet, weak lungs, and a forty-nine staple stomach, made it hard. I remember practicing walking around the nurse's station in the ICU and leaving trails of blood from my feet. P is for pain. The oxygen helped, but the sore feeling in my chest was exhausting and there were so many times I felt like giving up.


So here's your friend - he's been a selfless person all his life - He's got this infection that's never going away - he passes away f'ing randomly - and you'll dealing with your feelings on that - and then someone comes in and starts crying on foul on Richie's work.

Now, I'm convinced that if Richie had been modding, he totally would have taken down the thread immediately - that's just the kind of person that he was - accepting, understanding, patient, a chill sort of person who puts others before himself. The minute that the original argument would have been made he would have been contacting all those artists himself and getting permission. This thread was one of MANY projects that he was working on and while it would have been a hit, it's something he had the time to make really work well.

Richie was Pro-referencing the artist -however he's getting some his art from other archives like 4Chan so that's peer to peer and who knows where that stuff is coming from - He said he was posting it, all the while apologizing that he didn't know the artists' name... he chose to post the art and yeah that his mistake.

The Mod who came in and started quoting "Fair Use" was just wrong and he totally derailed the train there - it set up the whole attitude of "We can do what we want!" as opposed to "What can the MTGS art community do for you so that we both can win out of this?" and then the resulting back and forth about ownership et al.. Suffice to say Copyright is Copyright. Re-using the art without referencing the artist is just bad form. Re-using the art without ASKING the artist can effectively harm the original artist.

The point needs to made though - was re-using the art harming the artists? If the artist feels like it, sure, but in our vacuum, it wasn't. It's freaking making digital cards at 72DPI that exist in an obscure corner of the interwebs. It's a niche market (art lovers) of a niche market (Magic players) of a niche Market (Gamers). No one is making any money. Come the fuck on.

The art's been taken down. It's not going to DENT the ripping, since the card render folks are going to keep doing what they're doing with or without the thread there. It's not like archive went away - it's just squirreled away on various people's hard drives, on 4chan, or in some secure folder on Rapidshare.

But now the average art enthusiast is screwed - as well as those artists who may have no problem with the remixing and re-distribution of their art. We'll never know.

The irony of it is, as mentioned above, is that if Richie had been around there wouldn't even be a problem. He'd probably be typing away at his computer right now, recruiting artists from all the people that he'd already made friends with.

I have an open to plea to any of the artists who are okay with sharing your work - PLEASE go MGTSalvation, register, and provide a link to your work with a Creative Commons Copyright (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) allowing people to remix your art for the cards, attributing you - if you're not comfortable with that, then load specific pieces, or post them here. To be clear, it's not about "It's all MINE!" or "It's all free on the intarwebz" - there is a middle ground that can work for everyone, and we, as artists, can share our art and protect it at the same time.

Don't let this be about hurt feelings, or about fair use, about earning an extra few bucks. This about a Fan, who really loved Art, and Fantasy, so much that he wanted to share it with everyone. Don't let that sentiment die with him.

Sincerely,
Xavier Rodriguez
Magic Player, Artist.

[Elwell]

Xavier, thanks for the post.

[Naomi Ningishzidda]

it was less a joke than an observation...I'm a tantric practitioner...sorry your friend died but just over 150,000 people die every day, it's a reality, You need to just get over it. My immediate concern is the welfare of artists, not fake card games and their fans. I mean, honestly, why not simply join Wizards of the Coast? If you would like to organize an effort to reach out to new artists and help assist them in distributing their artform in this way, I would be compliant, but as it stands you won't recieve any sympathy from me at all.

[J Wilson]

Bad Luck, thanks for coming in and seeking to clarify what was going on. I understand things get complicated when there are deep emotions at play. It sounds like Richie was a great guy who had an unbelievably bad situation, and I am very sorry that his legacy of sorts got taken down. I don't pretend to speak for everyone, but I think that most of the artists here didn't really want to see that thread die, and most didn't even have a particular problem with the work being used as it was (credit to the artist asside). Fans coming together and enjoying the work is one reason why we do what we do.

The other IS money, and it can't be helped. We've dedicated huge portions of our lives to improve our skills, and at every turn our work is devalued. People often expect us to work for very little, sometimes even for free (check our job forums, it's full of people that try to set the value of art below minimum wage). Artists struggle to get known so they can earn even modest incomes, which is why credit is such an important issue to us.

Thanks for coming here and helping to bridge the gap between the two communities.

[cmalidore]

Thank you for your post, it means a lot to me at least - can't speak for others - that you were willing to face what can be a hostile crowd on the subject for that explanation.

I am still very sorry for your loss - it can be heart breaking. I truly wish that he was around so that as you said, he would likely do what he could to rectify the situation. That's what was needed. And as respectful as many of us want to be to that situation - the moment our copyright infringement issues were ignored and blatantly disreguarded by the management of that community it became something very new that had nothing to do with your beloved member. It's not about attacking, it's about preserving something we work very hard on.... and the moment it is used outside of our control - yeah, that isn't gonna go well, even if it's free use.

If everyone took our work for their own use and used it for free - we'd be unemployed. So we see it as a devaluation of the work - even if used by fans in such a way. I'm all for fans, we do this work for their enjoyment! But there is good use and bad use - and even if WoTC doesn't mind..... we do. We don't have their job security.

Thank you for being understanding, and thank you for being realistic.

[Black Spot]

Maybe it might be a good idea to start a new thread in his name, but do it right this time. Making it a rule “What would Richie Proffitt do?” could concentrate a few minds.

[Bad Luck]

Just an FYI

The forum rules have been updated to address the recent issue of unauthorized art usage. Effective immediately the following rule has been put into place:

If you post a render of your designs that shows art created by anyone other than you, you must properly credit the artist. Properly crediting the artist means posting either:

a.) the artist's full name, e.g. "Linda Berkvist"
b.) the artist's screen name and the website where you got the art from, e.g., "squidinc@CGSociety.com"
c.) a link to the website where you got the art and indicate as such, e.g., "Art: http://www.alexiuss.deviantart.com/gallery/"

You may give this credit in your post text or in the copyright line of the render.


Posts that break this rule will be infracted and the renders will be removed.

**Note: Threads created before July 16 will not be subject to this rule unless the moderation staff is notified of a specific piece of art to be removed. In other words, you do not have to take down or replace all the renders in existing threads, but every post made after today must follow this rule.


As to protecting your copyright - Yes. Got it. We're clear. Fair use is not applicable. I just want you to understand the context under which all of this occurred - I'm not saying that it was right, or legal - I'm just informing you all of the environment, and reasoning, under which all this modding occurred.

[Bad Luck]

it was less a joke than an observation...I'm a tantric practitioner...sorry your friend died but just over 150,000 people die every day, it's a reality, You need to just get over it. My immediate concern is the welfare of artists, not fake card games and their fans. I mean, honestly, why not simply join Wizards of the Coast? If you would like to organize an effort to reach out to new artists and help assist them in distributing their artform in this way, I would be compliant, but as it stands you won't recieve any sympathy from me at all.

I'm fine with Richie's passing - but I would hazard a guess that other people (like the Posting Mod with an attitude) are still raw about it. They come from different experiences, and beliefs systems, and at the end of the day - He was their friend. They are not going to "just get over it." That's like expecting that you'll "just get over it" that your art was copied and remixed.

[Wateru]

Bad Luck, thanks for coming in and seeking to clarify what was going on. I understand things get complicated when there are deep emotions at play. It sounds like Richie was a great guy who had an unbelievably bad situation, and I am very sorry that his legacy of sorts got taken down. I don't pretend to speak for everyone, but I think that most of the artists here didn't really want to see that thread die, and most didn't even have a particular problem with the work being used as it was (credit to the artist asside). Fans coming together and enjoying the work is one reason why we do what we do.

The other IS money, and it can't be helped. We've dedicated huge portions of our lives to improve our skills, and at every turn our work is devalued. People often expect us to work for very little, sometimes even for free (check our job forums, it's full of people that try to set the value of art below minimum wage). Artists struggle to get known so they can earn even modest incomes, which is why credit is such an important issue to us.

Thanks for coming here and helping to bridge the gap between the two communities.

Very well said.

Bad Luck : I did not see one person personally attacking PBG in their requests to have their artwork removed, and in fact many people expressed their sympathies at his passing (unfortunatly all of those posts were deleted very fast, so you may not have had a chance to see them). I thought he sounded like a smashing guy and looked him up on Myspace before I found out he'd passed, and it was obvious from his origional posts that he was mindful of copywrite and wanted artists credited... perhaps as he was not a PROFESSIONAL artist (even though he certainly was an artist), he wasn't fully aware of copywrite law and how much that effects us and how many of us need to manage how our work is used for various reasons.

I am certain if he'd been aware, he'd have been the first to have either deleted the thread & restart it, or taken the time to go through it and delete the uncredited work.

You mention that WoTC were fine with you using their art for card modding, and that's great. But perhaps they didn't fully realize that a lot of the posted sources there were not WoTC-owned artwork. And perhaps that's something we as an artists community need to approach WoTC about seperately.

We weren't angry our work was being used with no credit. At first, we politely asked, can something be done? (And actually, this thread has been passed around multiple art communities, not just CA.) We didn't get upset until we were berated by admin at the site who responded very defensively.

99% of us did not want the thread deleted and the community punished for no reason, what was asked for was either for all un-credited work to be removed, or for the thread to be removed and restarted with proper care of credit and permission being enforced. It's great to see that a revision of your art thread rules have been posted and put in place. Thank you very much. We're sorry you lost the original thread, but we were pushed in very sensitive places to protect our rights. To blame us is very unfair considering the response we got when we started asking for some credit.

We love having people appreciate and enjoy our work, it's why we do it, but because we also do it professionally, we have to be credited. It's not for ego reasons, it's for legal reasons.

Again, thank you for posting and explaining your view and that of your communities. Hopefully we can all be part of restarting something worthy of PBG's memory that will also help protect the artists as much as give your community a great resource for your hobby.

Naomi Ningishzidda : That was just rude. As a tantric practioner, I'm sure you will eventually reap the results of the negative energy ripples you caused with such a heartless and cruel comment. Yes they made a mistake, but it certainly didn't warrent that kind of "observation", especially when the creator of the thread DID care about the wellfare of artists.

[DavePalumbo]

Naomi Ningishzidda : That was just rude. As a tantric practioner, I'm sure you will eventually reap the results of the negative energy ripples you caused with such a heartless and cruel comment. Yes they made a mistake, but it certainly didn't warrent that kind of "observation", especially when the creator of the thread DID care about the wellfare of artists.

seconded

[Meli Hitchcock]

Naomi Ningishzidda : That was just rude. As a tantric practioner, I'm sure you will eventually reap the results of the negative energy ripples you caused with such a heartless and cruel comment. Yes they made a mistake, but it certainly didn't warrent that kind of "observation", especially when the creator of the thread DID care about the wellfare of artists.

That was far more eloquently put than what I was going to post earlier. Agree with you totally.

[Bad Luck]

We weren't angry our work was being used with no credit. At first, we politely asked, can something be done? (And actually, this thread has been passed around multiple art communities, not just CA.) We didn't get upset until we were berated by admin at the site who responded very defensively.

99% of us did not want the thread deleted and the community punished for no reason, what was asked for was either for all un-credited work to be removed, or for the thread to be removed and restarted with proper care of credit and permission being enforced. It's great to see that a revision of your art thread rules have been posted and put in place. Thank you very much. We're sorry you lost the original thread, but we were pushed in very sensitive places to protect our rights. To blame us is very unfair considering the response we got when we started asking for some credit.

We love having people appreciate and enjoy our work, it's why we do it, but because we also do it professionally, we have to be credited. It's not for ego reasons, it's for legal reasons.


I think we're both on the same page on this - between you and me it's water under the bridge, and I guess going forward people like myself (who are both artists, professionals, and fans) need to watchdog a bit on the render artists.

To be honest the way that Hannes and co. acted doesn't really change the actual remixing of art for cards, and they offered no explanation to the render artists as to why they've changed the policy - other than what was noted above - which basically points the finger at the original artists, which is just crazy, because, like you said, it's what the render artists were doing that was sketchy.

The second thing I'm doing is trying to get some Creative Commons art up there, at least one other artist I've seen has posted some art, but this is going to be a long haul - I never really went through the art archive so I don't know what we lost or which artists to start canvassing. And I don't really have the time that Richie had to do that sort of thing - I'm supposed have a real job and life too... oy vey.

For more info on Creative Commons Copyright I recommend this comic, (http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Sharing_Creative_Works) which explains the concept pretty well.

[arttorney]

I'm sorry to hear about the passing of your friend, Bad Luck. Gram Negative Sepsis is an intractable and aggressive challenge to the human system that can take somebody faster than the doctor can get his lab report back. We have also lost Jim Henson that way.

I doubt if I would be able to help about the art sharing idea personally, mainly because I don't really do any fantasy art. Others might, though, if they could be sure they could get attribution. There are serious pros here who are making a living and need to get their money. There are others who need attention much more than money. There is a third group who need practice more than attention or money. There is not a group that needs none of the above.

I hope this situation between the two communities will heal over because I seriously doubt if any of the people who have read this thread, or that thread, are super villains out to make the world a worse place. There was a harsh grating sound as two ships made contact, but maybe they can scrape some of the barnacles off one another.:hugsmile:

[Wateru]

Bad Luck : Perhaps you could start a thread specifically asking for art donations so to speak? Maybe that would help keep it clear from this one so it doesn't get lost, I'd suggest doing the same at communities like DA - I'd be happy to help with that if you don't have an account there.

[Jason Rainville]

I'd definitely add my art to the pile, but it pales in comparison to professional art. Bah, what the hell. I'll donate some art. It's not very good but it's something...

[jhgoforth]

Poor Alexiuss...always gets mentioned in these..now I see why the guy's art is getting ganked lol it's an example of proper citing.

As for the problem at hand, well to be blunt, Richie's passing is sad and all but it is irrelevant to the discussion. Why couldn't the mod's keep his work w/o deleting the entire damn thread? I ain't no rocket scientist But i'm fairly sure that's easily doable. And saying that it would be all okay if everyone just use a Creative Commons license so anyone can use any artwork is asinine. Some artists don't want others using their hard work. Period. Many artists are barely allowed under contract to even show work they post from other projects. Imagine the trouble that would happen if said pieces were being posted w/o permission? That artist's reputation would probably be hurt. The value of our commodity in creative endeavours is mostly measured in simple supply vs. demand. The demand is high and supply is low then the artist does well, but if suddenly an oversaturation of their work appears everywhere, well that value starts declining faster than our american money (*cry*). Considering how competitive the art world can be in all it's many facets, art theft is the highest of mortal sins in that world. I believe it's Punishable by being forced to have one's portrait made by Zsa Zsa Gabor....in MS Paint....blindfolded.

[Stoat]

The value of our commodity in creative endeavours is mostly measured in simple supply vs. demand. The demand is high and supply is low then the artist does well, but if suddenly an oversaturation of their work appears everywhere, well that value starts declining faster than our american money (*cry*).

No, no...intellectual property isn't like physical property. The 'supply' isn't necessarily diminished each time a work is reproduced. Plus, reputation and promotion have a lot to do with increasing the value of creative work.

If oversaturation were a real concern, Frazetta's work would be worthless. You'll find dozens of unauthorized FF reproductions right here on this site! He doesn't pursue us because teaching a new generation that Frazetta is teh awesome doesn't do him anything but good.

Now, if we began posting his images scanned at a very high resolution, such that we could undercut his poster and book trade by printing our own, that would be doing him harm. Or potentially, anyway. And I'm guessing we'd get a letter from a happy little lawyer sooner or later.

That's where these cards are a gray area. I didn't realize at first that they're small enough that images as posted on can CA make good-quality product. (Plus, you have a good point about confidentiality agreements).

So, okay...potential problem. Plus, it's your artwork...feel how you want about it. Just pointing out that supply and demand works very differently for artwork than it does for soybeans.

[Naomi Ningishzidda]

Well, you're wrong, I never said I expected them to get over it. Ideally, I meant, they should...the planet is on the way to the trash can currently so I have no real time for vain sympathy for one single fucking person...

Tantra is about weaving - negative and positive are delusions of maya...the supreme absolute contains both, and uses both, equally. I will make you think, even if it costs me...well, nothing, but in your eyes, perhaps a bit of negative reflection too...

have a nice day

[DavePalumbo]

call it whatever you want, but it's common practice to appologize to someone when they get offended by your "joke" about their dead friend, not to stick it to them even more.

The only reason I respond to this at all is because I think that your comments reflect extremely poorly of our community and I don't want Bad Luck or any other users new to this board to think that you are speaking for the rest of us.

[J Wilson]

Plus, reputation and promotion have a lot to do with increasing the value of creative work.

Well promotion is very important, but it only helps when your name is attached to the image when it's on display (thus the reason why so many artists were upset here). I know your comment was more in response to the supply vs demand statement though.

Speaking of supply versus demand, I guess it depends on how you look at it.
No, no...intellectual property isn't like physical property. The 'supply' isn't necessarily diminished each time a work is reproduced.
Well, if the supply is high quality art to be used on a project, and the demand can be filled by finding art online, then there could be a supply versus demand issue. In this case I feel it was mostly harmless, because the demand wasn't a paying demand anyways, and I'd rather have good will amongst the people who enjoy that type of art.

I can only really imagine an over saturation of your work being a problem though, if you have a very unique style, and it becomes popular to the point where other people are copping your style and taking work away from you. I can in theory imagine that if enough of your work gets out there before you are well established professionally, that it's likely that no one will know who the "original" really is, and you lose out to someone who manages to get established with the style faster. In that case, a intellectual property type "supply versus demand" situation COULD be true.

[Qitsune]

I'm with Dave on this one, no religion or philosophy or anything you adhere to justifies acting like an ass. Maybe it does in your head, but don't be surprised if you lose the respect of others around you. This includes alluding that they have a sexual problem because they don't post booby pics.

[Jason Rainville]

If we all had 'vain' sympathy for every 'fucking' person who left this earth our world would be a much better place. If we felt the passing of a stranger as deeply as if it was a good friend or family member think of how easy peace would be attained.

I don't know what the hell tantra is but if your interpretation of it holds any truth then it just seems like a bunch of mystical sounding bullshit that leads to a path of moral ambiguity and "I don't give a fuck" type attitudes like yours. If it's not you're doing the philosophy a real disservice.

Hooray for bashing threads :)

[Mike Corriero]

Bad luck: Thanks for clearing a lot of things up and I think everyone has made their points, the discussion was handled maturely (by most members here) and I think everyone understands things a bit better now.

Naomi: I'm going to ask that you be respectful and mindful in and of your future posts. Discussions are one thing, but direct insults and being rude where it's not warranted is another. The next time you feel like responding in such a manner.....don't. I read your initial "joke" and I thought that was completely wrong, disrespectful and rude.

If you need to respond to me, do so in private if you're going to continue this.

[jhgoforth]

No, no...intellectual property isn't like physical property. The 'supply' isn't necessarily diminished each time a work is reproduced. Plus, reputation and promotion have a lot to do with increasing the value of creative work.

If oversaturation were a real concern, Frazetta's work would be worthless. You'll find dozens of unauthorized FF reproductions right here on this site! He doesn't pursue us because teaching a new generation that Frazetta is teh awesome doesn't do him anything but good.

Now, if we began posting his images scanned at a very high resolution, such that we could undercut his poster and book trade by printing our own, that would be doing him harm. Or potentially, anyway. And I'm guessing we'd get a letter from a happy little lawyer sooner or later.

That's where these cards are a gray area. I didn't realize at first that they're small enough that images as posted on can CA make good-quality product. (Plus, you have a good point about confidentiality agreements).

So, okay...potential problem. Plus, it's your artwork...feel how you want about it. Just pointing out that supply and demand works very differently for artwork than it does for soybeans.

I would agree that lots of Frazetta's out there doesn't diminish the sales of his paintings, but the problem there is that his fame is as high as it can go. The fame aspect is part of the demand structure. It creates the demand in the fine art world (hence why artists after death tend to have paintings sell even higher). So that stuff is irrelevant to the forum theft. My point was that there is a possibility especially with the art not being credited to it's creators, that prospective clients will have seen your work elsewhere and not be impressed since there's 'tons' of it exposed in other venues. Clients tend to want a 'distinct' style for their imagery and products (well minus some areas....), so if they feel that your style is diluted by being exposed widely, odds are they will look for someone a bit more diverse. The inverse is true if said artist has Fame behind his name. I can't imagine anyone in their sane mind that wouldn't want a Warhol design for their company's ad campaign and his style has been emulated so long that it numbs the brain.

Either way though, I'm still curious why they couldn't just delete the posts with the unaccredited art and left the stuff that was supposed to be there....