Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

We need your feedback on a survey! Each completed response supports our community and gives you a chance to win a $25 Amazon gift card!


So you have no artists/skills/assets?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
38 replies to this topic

#21 GeneralQuery   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1263

Posted 16 October 2012 - 10:41 AM


Other ridiculous examples include the sticks of dynamite, because that's the classic iconic image of a bundle of dynamite sticks! Same for bananas.

Are you suggesting that if I place N artists (where N is arbitrarily large) in empty rooms, and ask them to draw a hand of bananas, they are all going to draw the same hand of bananas?

No, but they'll eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare.

Sponsor:

#22 3Ddreamer   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3167

Posted 16 October 2012 - 10:46 AM

Funny thing: I caught a particular commerical image company selling open source images from another many times! Posted Image

There are many no cost, open license images to use! Some websites specialize in providing only legally reproducible images for any use at no cost.


Clinton

Personal life and your private thoughts always effect your career. Research is the intellectual backbone of game development and the first order. Version Control is crucial for full management of applications and software.  The better the workflow pipeline, then the greater the potential output for a quality game.  Completing projects is the last but finest order.

 

by Clinton, 3Ddreamer


#23 swiftcoder   Senior Moderators   -  Reputation: 10450

Posted 16 October 2012 - 12:40 PM

No, but they'll eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare.

Only if artists are in fact descended from monkeys. As a fatalist I find the concept of evolution distasteful.

Tristam MacDonald - Software Engineer @Amazon - [swiftcoding]


#24 3Ddreamer   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3167

Posted 16 October 2012 - 01:24 PM

On a serious note: I do not see the bananas in the right image as exactly the same as those in the left one, even considering the author's claim of shuffling them. Each banana is unique in several ways from all the other bananas. The author of the article has no business in art if there is no recognition of fine detail. I would not waste my time scanning the gigantic internet looking for copyright violators of every one of my works, so there might need to be therapy and collapse of creativity in the future for said author. Posted Image There are many false accusers in the world and circumstances in place to make both victum and perpetrator stumble, so justice in one form or another is inevitable.

Copyright law violators are ignorant or lazy. Posted Image

As for me, I find plenty of legal ways of using art but typically use my skills when time permits, which is most of the time. No doubt, this whole gaming industry demands that a person research the legal issues.


Clinton

Personal life and your private thoughts always effect your career. Research is the intellectual backbone of game development and the first order. Version Control is crucial for full management of applications and software.  The better the workflow pipeline, then the greater the potential output for a quality game.  Completing projects is the last but finest order.

 

by Clinton, 3Ddreamer


#25 Code Fox   Members   -  Reputation: 1812

Posted 16 October 2012 - 01:29 PM

This topic is reminding me of the law suite that happened over this image
Posted Image

You can read about it HERE

Does Anyone Actually Read This ?
 


#26 3Ddreamer   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3167

Posted 16 October 2012 - 01:49 PM

There are enough differences in the two images that I don't think the Obama image paintiff had a case.


Clinton

Edited by 3Ddreamer, 18 October 2012 - 03:55 PM.

Personal life and your private thoughts always effect your career. Research is the intellectual backbone of game development and the first order. Version Control is crucial for full management of applications and software.  The better the workflow pipeline, then the greater the potential output for a quality game.  Completing projects is the last but finest order.

 

by Clinton, 3Ddreamer


#27 Code Fox   Members   -  Reputation: 1812

Posted 16 October 2012 - 02:08 PM

There are enough differences in the two images that I don't think the Obama image plaintiff had a case.

Read the story and do research. The artist admitted to fraudulently altering documents, and using the source image - was fined $25,000 USD + 2 years probation for it.
Posted Image

Does Anyone Actually Read This ?
 


#28 3Ddreamer   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3167

Posted 16 October 2012 - 02:15 PM

Wouldn't that many differences fall within a caricature?



Clinton

Personal life and your private thoughts always effect your career. Research is the intellectual backbone of game development and the first order. Version Control is crucial for full management of applications and software.  The better the workflow pipeline, then the greater the potential output for a quality game.  Completing projects is the last but finest order.

 

by Clinton, 3Ddreamer


#29 Code Fox   Members   -  Reputation: 1812

Posted 16 October 2012 - 02:31 PM

Wouldn't that many differences fall within a caricature?

That is, unfortunately, up to the lawyers / judges to interpret and decide.

Does Anyone Actually Read This ?
 


#30 Prinz Eugn   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3687

Posted 16 October 2012 - 02:49 PM

That thread is good ragefuel.

"ZOMG artists are so lazy for using references instead of making shit up from scratch!!!!1 'Cuz everyone knows Photoshop filters get you 99.9999% of the way to perfect looking stylized images"

-Mark the Artist

Digital Art and Technical Design
Developer Journal


#31 Moe091   Members   -  Reputation: 581

Posted 16 October 2012 - 04:04 PM

It's hard to tell just by looking at the images whether they are close to pixel perfect (i.e., created by applying some filter, which clearly is copyright violation), or were independently created using a reference (it's not clear to me that say, "side on shot of an elephant" is something covered by copyright, though it's no doubt a big gray area - copyright that is, not the elephant...)


ahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahaa

#32 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 32057

Posted 16 October 2012 - 07:55 PM

Wouldn't that many differences fall within a caricature?

It's directly traced over the top of the original image! Doesn't matter what's changed about it after that point, it's derived from the original through direct copying. It's a "derivative work", so it's legally tainted from that point on. Once that's happened, you've got to fight pretty hard to claw yourself free of the grips of copyright law in order to claim "fair use".

If following the letter of the law, artists have to be very careful with reference art. You should use unlicensed images for inspiration only and never directly copy any portion of them, which includes proportions, forms, outlines, silhouettes, etc...
Yes it's silly and yes it's unlikely you'll be caught (especially if you're a good artist with dozens of references contributing to each part of an image), but by the letter of the law you may be infringing.

When I worked at a super-large corporate developer, artists weren't allowed to even visit google images. All reference art had to be approved by lawyers before you could think about being inspired by it Posted Image

Edited by Hodgman, 16 October 2012 - 08:02 PM.


#33 Rakilonn   Members   -  Reputation: 421

Posted 17 October 2012 - 11:52 AM

That's a shame, really. Copying a well known painter may be fine for some cases, but doing the same thing for bananas and elephants ... What's the h*** ?

Even for the cinnamon ... one of the simplest things to do.

Edited by Rakilonn, 17 October 2012 - 11:54 AM.


#34 Servant of the Lord   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 21221

Posted 18 October 2012 - 09:42 AM

That's a shame, really. Copying a well known painter may be fine for some cases, but doing the same thing for bananas and elephants ... What's the h*** ?

When does copying a well known painter become fine? Unless the painter's art is in the public domain...
It's the exact same thing with the photographs. Photography is a art too. If the (million-year long) copyright expires on the photo, and it's now in the public domain, then you can copy it. Otherwise, if not in the public domain, you can't copy the artist's work OR the photographer's photos.

You think the Mona Lisa is safe for you to copy? The digital representation of the Mona Lisa is actually (seriously) owned by Bill Gates. Posted Image
(Well, it's owned by Corbis.com, which is privately owned and founded by Bill Gates). Everytime a news site (like Yahoo! or New York Times shows certain pieces of art next to a news article (for example, when discussing that piece of art being stolen from a museum or sold at a auction), they have to pay Corbis.com.

Since the Mona Lisa's physical representation is out of copyright, if you took a photo yourself (flying to Paris and all that) of the painting, you could use it. But for the real accurate 1-to-1 high definition digital images, you'd have to get the museum to remove the ropes, take down the case, unlock the case (in a secure humidity-controlled area so as to not damage the painting), and set up a proper camera rig to take an accurate photo with evenly distributed lighting. Corbis.com secured the rights to most major museums for that purpose, and Corbis.com's photographs are still with copyright, and are Corbis.com's property - and well they should be! Since they had to invest money to get the photographs, they should be allowed to profit - I just wish copyright wasn't so absurdly long.

I am not a lawyer - this is my likely-flawed understanding of the situation. =)
It's perfectly fine to abbreviate my username to 'Servant' rather than copy+pasting it all the time.
All glory be to the Man at the right hand... On David's throne the King will reign, and the Government will rest upon His shoulders. All the earth will see the salvation of God.
Of Stranger Flames - [indie turn-based rpg set in a para-historical French colony] | Indie RPG development journal

[Fly with me on Twitter] [Google+] [My broken website]

[Need web hosting? I personally like A Small Orange]


#35 Rakilonn   Members   -  Reputation: 421

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:27 PM

Of course, in any case that's not fine when you infringe copyrights.


I just don't like when an artist copies another artist, especially when there is no attribution of the author.
But if you do an historical cartoonist game for example, it would be fun to have some well known pictures in your own style.
And it's fine because there is no problem of attribution (and if you have all the agreements of course).
It just becomes a sort of easter egg.

#36 MrDaaark   Members   -  Reputation: 3555

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:35 PM

Good luck photographing the Mona Lisa when you get to Paris. Slides are available in the gift shop!

#37 mdwh   Members   -  Reputation: 901

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:48 AM

Since the Mona Lisa's physical representation is out of copyright, if you took a photo yourself (flying to Paris and all that) of the painting, you could use it. But for the real accurate 1-to-1 high definition digital images, you'd have to get the museum to remove the ropes, take down the case, unlock the case (in a secure humidity-controlled area so as to not damage the painting), and set up a proper camera rig to take an accurate photo with evenly distributed lighting. Corbis.com secured the rights to most major museums for that purpose, and Corbis.com's photographs are still with copyright, and are Corbis.com's property

Not according to http://en.wikipedia...._v._Corel_Corp. - in the US, the ruling was that exact photographic copies of public domain art couldn't be copyrighted.

It doesn't matter how hard or expensive it is to make the copy, the issue is whether there's any creative element, AIUI. And it's not creative at all if it's "real accurate 1-to-1".

and well they should be! Since they had to invest money to get the photographs, they should be allowed to profit - I just wish copyright wasn't so absurdly long.

Copyright is not there to protect the investments of big business, it's there to encourage creativity. There is no creativity here.

The problem with this is that it means even old public domain materials still end up being controlled by big companies, because most people never are able to get access to the real thing. And when they weren't the ones to ever create the thing in the first place, that seems rather wrong to me.

ETA: It also gets problematic if we say that even direct copies are copyrightable. I mean, if a company makes a film version of an old play that is in the public domain, then I can still use material that's from the original play, but I can't use (without permission) any creative elements that they added.

But if we say that the copyright applies to even their reproduction of the original elements, then it gets problematic. Suppose I saw the film - they could argue that even if my work only includes elements of the original, since I saw the film, I may have still copied their copy, rather than copying from the original copy.

Or getting back to the case of 1-to-1 exact copies, and the on topic case of artists using copyrighted works for templates. So it's illegal if an artist draws a Mona Lisa if he was looking at a copyrighted exact copy, but not if he saw the original himself? How do you test or enforce that?

Edited by mdwh, 19 October 2012 - 07:53 AM.

http://erebusrpg.sourceforge.net/ - Erebus, Open Source RPG for Windows/Linux/Android
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.harman/conquests.html - Conquests, Open Source Civ-like Game for Windows/Linux

#38 Servant of the Lord   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 21221

Posted 19 October 2012 - 10:51 AM


Since the Mona Lisa's physical representation is out of copyright, if you took a photo yourself (flying to Paris and all that) of the painting, you could use it. But for the real accurate 1-to-1 high definition digital images, you'd have to get the museum to remove the ropes, take down the case, unlock the case (in a secure humidity-controlled area so as to not damage the painting), and set up a proper camera rig to take an accurate photo with evenly distributed lighting. Corbis.com secured the rights to most major museums for that purpose, and Corbis.com's photographs are still with copyright, and are Corbis.com's property

Not according to http://en.wikipedia...._v._Corel_Corp. - in the US, the ruling was that exact photographic copies of public domain art couldn't be copyrighted.

Good point, I recall reading about that case a few months ago.

It doesn't matter how hard or expensive it is to make the copy, the issue is whether there's any creative element, AIUI. And it's not creative at all if it's "real accurate 1-to-1".

I didn't imply that copyright is equated to how difficult (in expense or labor). I was merely stating that it is expensive and difficult for individuals to accurately take their own photographs of famous art.

and well they should be! Since they had to invest money to get the photographs, they should be allowed to profit - I just wish copyright wasn't so absurdly long.

Copyright is not there to protect the investments of big business, it's there to encourage creativity. There is no creativity here.

Copyright was not originally there to protect the investments of big business. But that is how it is currently being abused.
Copyright was originally created to protect the public from government monopolies, IIRC, but was rapidly reversed to allow publishers (originally book publishers) to hold on and defend their monopolies.

Never the less, I feel like if the public doesn't have access to, in our example, accurate digital representations of the Mona Lisa (or the Magna Carta documents, or the Rosetta Stone tablets), and a company invests money to make such accurate digital representations available, they should get to benefit financially from it for a period of time before (their specific version of the) digital representations also enter the public domain. It benefits the public, and if they can benefit from it financially beforehand, it motivates more companies to create such accurate digital representations which preserve deteriorating works of historical or artistic importance. But, while the entire copyright duration drags on for way too long, even if original works have a much more reasonable length of 30 years or so, I think such accurate digital reproductions (which should have their own laws, and would help with things like preserving old games and the like) should only last 10 years or so.

The problem with this is that it means even old public domain materials still end up being controlled by big companies, because most people never are able to get access to the real thing. And when they weren't the ones to ever create the thing in the first place, that seems rather wrong to me.

I fully agree. But the key here is "because most people never are able to get access to the real thing". We. Cannot. Get. Access. If a company can get access, and their doing so eventually gives me access, it benefits me (the public). As thanks for doing so, I'm fine with them benefiting for a reasonable (another key word) time frame.
I cannot access an accurate digital representation of the Mona Lisa myself. Ten years from now, I still won't be able to access it.

If a company like Corbis.com accesses it and digitizes it, cool. I still probably can't pay whatever Corbis.com is asking... but because of Corbis.com's actions, ten years from now I will be able to access it for free in the public domain (If the copyright length for such digital reproductions was ten years or another reasonable length). I'm fine with giving them ten years of profit at the expense of barring me access to something I couldn't access anyway in return for later giving me access to something I would never have gotten access to ever.

ETA: It also gets problematic if we say that even direct copies are copyrightable. I mean, if a company makes a film version of an old play that is in the public domain, then I can still use material that's from the original play, but I can't use (without permission) any creative elements that they added.

But if we say that the copyright applies to even their reproduction of the original elements, then it gets problematic. Suppose I saw the film - they could argue that even if my work only includes elements of the original, since I saw the film, I may have still copied their copy, rather than copying from the original copy.

That's why it needs a different set of rules applied to it. It should be that only obvious and direct copies of the reproduction are derivative. Company A could accurately model Mount Rushmore in 3D, and license that out to anyone interested at a bajillion dollars. Nobody can use Company A's reproduction of Mount Rushmore. Anyone can go make their own reproductions of Mount Rushmore. Company B sees that Company A's reproduction is priced high, and Company B goes and creates it's own reproduction that is almost entirely identical to Company A's, and licenses it at a price that undercuts Company A's. Eventually, Company A's reproduction goes into the public domain, and Company B's still has a year or two left.

This benefits the public greatly (more accurate reproductions enter the public domain and greater quality and quantity, and with greater speed and clearer legal risk and legal safety) and the corporations (more market opportunities, and less legal ambiguity).

Or getting back to the case of 1-to-1 exact copies, and the on topic case of artists using copyrighted works for templates. So it's illegal if an artist draws a Mona Lisa if he was looking at a copyrighted exact copy, but not if he saw the original himself? How do you test or enforce that?

That's the obvious 'con': How can the courts tell whether someone is stealing Company A's work, or Company B's work? Or, how can Company A know (and argue in court) if Company B's fake "reproduction" is actually theft of Company A's actual reproduction?

The answer is: The burden of proving theft should exist on the owner of the copyright. Map making companies have been doing this for years! They'd invest alot of money to map out streets and cities and states, so they could sell maps to the public. Unscrupulous companies would then steal the exact same maps, change the graphics, and sell the maps to the public... and get hit by a huge lawsuit as the original Map Maker doesn't argue that they own the rights to the streets of the United States, but show that the maps they created had fake streets hidden in it to watermark their map, and the unscrupulous company accidentally copied the hidden watermark when they copied the rest of the map. 3D models of Mount Rushmore could adjust a few vertices intentionally wrong in a specific pattern. Replicas of the Mona Lisa could use the pixel information to hide a subtle watermark. Musical reproductions could subtly alter the waves of sound. Documents could replace certain words with other equivalent words that weren't in the original document, or in two or three places rephrase entire sentences to equivalent sentences with the same meaning in a different format.

Note: The fake streets issue still has legal issues surrounding it, but if the legal ambiguity is cleared up, this would provide a great way to prove violations of your identical reproduction of a public domain work, while not preventing competitors from creating their own accurate reproductions and licensing or using them.
In needs to be different enough that someone can't accidentally make a mistake and the accident forms your watermark - so it can't just be a single fake street, or a single vertice out of place, or a single spot of static in your sound file - it has to be beyond reasonable doubt of accidental creation.
It's perfectly fine to abbreviate my username to 'Servant' rather than copy+pasting it all the time.
All glory be to the Man at the right hand... On David's throne the King will reign, and the Government will rest upon His shoulders. All the earth will see the salvation of God.
Of Stranger Flames - [indie turn-based rpg set in a para-historical French colony] | Indie RPG development journal

[Fly with me on Twitter] [Google+] [My broken website]

[Need web hosting? I personally like A Small Orange]


#39 MrDaaark   Members   -  Reputation: 3555

Posted 19 October 2012 - 08:25 PM

The idea of the Mona Lisa being 'public domain' is a bit funny to me. It's a physical piece of property. It belonged to Leonardo Da Vinci. It was sold to various collectors throughout the years. The owners of it have no obligation to let anyone do anything with it. But they have chosen to display it in a museum for us all to enjoy.

Same thing with old films. I love the old Fleisher Studios Popeye cartoons, which have slipped into public domain. The cartoons themselves are public domain, and anyone out there is free to re-distribute them. There are a trillion different collections out there transferred from various sources. However, the original film canisters are the sole property of whoever legally owns them at the moment. Popeye is however still a trademarked business.

Just because an idea or content is public domain, doesn't mean someone suddenly has to hand their physical property over to you.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS