Juggertha
-
Posts
2390 -
Joined
-
Quote:I'm curious about this. I'm guessing you're not talking about the links I posted earlier about Disney - got some new links for this stuff?Originally Posted by Suichiro
But legality is a pretty fragile thing. When you have enough power to re-write the laws, they no longer apply to you. Look at what Disney does and the complete mockery they've made of the entire copyright issue altogether. That's a situation where 'might makes right,' which many people don't agree with. Morally, that's completely irresponsible, though again, you can argue about stance that as well.
While i understand that this is how you like to do it - I often approach it differently. I've found that I've needed great flexibility in my life, and having absolutes did not work well for me.Quote:Originally Posted by Suichiro
This type of "moving of the goalposts" is exactly why you need to have a strong personal stance on how you use art and what your own code of ethics is. Because if you rely on other people to make your judgments for you, not only can they be proven wrong by any number of other debates, but they fluctuate to the point where you may as well not have ANY ethics at all. When nothing can be 100% clear, I will choose a set of personal behaviors and stand by them. Because at least I believe in *something,* even if it's ultimately as useless as everything else.
To each their own.
Here in Korea, they often blur out brand names on certain shows. I have no idea why, but I'm guessing it's related to permissions and such.Quote:Originally Posted by Caemgen
Just to add a quick note about the Porsche thing... I think it is important to remember that a car is a car, not a work of art. End of the day it is an item. Can Porsche stop a movie from having it in a scene? I doubt it's any more likely than Black and Decker could stop one of their hammers being used in a scene. Yes, there is a lot more creativity used in the design of a Porsche but an item is an item...
Somewhere up there someone suggested VW (I think?) wouldn't allow one of their cars to be used for a character in the transformer movie? I SUSPECT it was more along the lines of them not wanting to be involved and thus not cutting deal on cars for use in the movie and such... I'm not sure they would have had grounds to STOP it if the movie makers insisted. If they did have that right I would assume the basis would be that it wasn't being used as scenery but as a chracter... I'm pretty sure the porno movie would be using the Porsche as scenery... At least I hope so!
Mainly, I believe car makers have a lot more power over the use of their logos and names than of the actual cars. Sure, they own the designs in the sense another company cannot make a car shaped exactly the same way and such but for film and art and such use of the car as part of scenery would almost assuredly always fall under fair use...
Anyway, just wanted to contribute something a bit more on topic
I'm guessing that if a car was used in a 'general sense', that'd it'd be fine, but if it was somehow 'the focus of attention', that they might be able to object. Companies are sensitive to how they are presented/projected - they like to keep a tight hold on their image. It wouldn't surprise me to hear of lawsuits regarding a product's/company's image being damaged by ABC movie.
/shrug -
Happy birthday, Vex.
What did ya wish for? -
Mine took about 2 hours to get to me..
booyyyyaaa!
-
hehehe
those are prety cool.
Gates would be proud. -
Sorry, been meaning to reply to this. I agre wit hthe first two paragraphs, so let's just move onto the next...
Quote:But that's the thing, if you did draw Juggs, or I drew Mel... could we also be stepping over some line?Originally Posted by Suichiro
This is also the answer to your problem of the sports car. When you're referencing it, you're trying to show the view that "this is a specific model car." If you said "this is my car that I designed" then things would be very different. This is the same as creating works with specific people within them as well. Adding a celebrity into your work is showing the viewer that you were trying to render a particular person. As long as the viewer recognizes the subject, it's not an issue. If you say it's a specific subject you were trying to render, the viewer won't think it's your original creation even if they aren't knowledgeable about them. If I drew Juggs and you drew Mel, nobody would claim we were stealing each other's characters here, because the context here on the forums is clear. If you did it elsewhere, where that information isn't so clear and also didn't say that it was someone else's creation, then things get muddy again.
A few months back I did up a gift art piece for someone I had previously drawn for. He basically said 'thanks, but no thanks' and that any art not given prior approval was a big no-no to him. I was pretty shocked and disappointed, but I took the piece down right away. I thought his guidelines were out of whack with my own, but I also felt that that character was his, and he had some rights to it.
So, does the creator get to control how his or her concept is being used?
Can I stop you from drawing Juggertha? Or am I within my rights to at least ask you not to? (hypothetically speaking)
This is related to the car a bit as well - could Porsche sue an adult film company for misusing its image (for example)? -
Quote:Ok. I think that's a fine goal for this thread.Originally Posted by FrozenDeath
You know the only thing I really hope that people take away from this thread is that there is a difference between using reference and copying. Honestly I see it a lot where people don't actually realize that they're lifting from someone else. They think what they're doing falls under the use of reference.
I am curious, FD, about some of the references you posted earlier. Previously (in the other thread) you had mentioned that you used 3 reference shots for the stadium, but you only posted up one here. Did I mis-remember that? (very possible)
Also, when looking at your 'Judge' and the judge from the photo reference, I can't help but see a whole lot of similarity.
I use these examples only because you posted them up here as your example... so, when looking at that judge, and seeing the obvious change in his face (skull) and arms (but minus hands), do you feel that that was enough of an edit to classify it as a "reference", or does it still seem to skirt near what you would say is a "copy"?
I asked this question in my first reply, and I wish people would have talked about it more (I think Suichiro touched on it a few times though in response to another piece posted) - how much needs to be changed to make it your own?
10%
30%
50%
What's your ((for all of you)) magic number? -
Quote:That's part of what ethics are.Originally Posted by FrozenDeath
Abyssmal understanding of law and ethics. I think you mistake ethics for opinion or personal belief. And to base your view of right and wrong solely on law is a farce. No wonder a simple question is too complex for you to answer.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics
Ethics are not always known or agreed upon by all. They are often cultural, or individual. Laws are written out, and are evenly enforceable to all.Quote:eth·ics /ˈɛθɪks/ Show Spelled[eth-iks] Show IPA
–plural noun
1.(used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2.the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3.moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
As for my judgement of right and wrong based on law as a 'farce', again, I'd like you to quote me on that. I'd like you to quote me where I said that law determines absolute right and wrong. I don't think it, so I doubt that I said it anywhere.
Here's a personal value I have that I'll share - I don't believe in an absolute right or wrong. There are many things that I view as right and wrong, but I don't feel that my opinions are absolute. -
Quote:I've discussed many things on this thread - some on the topic, some on my views, and some in relation to yours. You seem to like to cherry pick the latter (just look at how you quoted me on page one).Originally Posted by FrozenDeath
To sum up:
1. I don't care
2. You can't make me.
3. Nobody else had to, so why should I?
4. You take issue with my position, therefore it must be personal.
You've got it backwards. I started this discussion, and after stating that you didn't think it was appropriate for this forum you changed your tune and decided to hang around to muddy the waters. I've stated my values. I've critiqued your comments about cultural relativism (which you completely blew off). And you keep coming back like a broken record to remind me that you don't have to take a stand on anything. It's hilarious when you say you don't care--coming back again and again and again in this thread to protest the same thing really supports that.
If you think this reads as hypothetical and not accusatory, that's your call. I see it as the latter.Quote:I didn't quote you. I said "if Juggy comes along and...". You are familiar with the word "if"? It's a hypothetical.
"If Juggy comes along and says that this happens all the time in Asia and there's nothing wrong with it--where does that leave you?"
How about
"If FD come along and says that everyone who swipes is going to hell, then where does that leave you?"
or
"If FD comes along and says that his rules are the ones that people should follow then where does that leave you?"
Referencing other people as 'hypotheticals' can be a tricky game, and can often come across as something far different.
Those are his ethics. I have no idea if his ethics and mine are the same. That's why we don't enforce ethics - we enforce laws/rules.Quote:Also the quote you have about the lawyer is again very revealing about your mindset. He says that "Ethically, any taking is too much in the case of plagiarism." Do you understand? Ethically--in terms of values of right and wrong. ANY taking is too much in a case of plagiarism.
Ethics and values are personal (/cultural), laws are codified and easy for all to observe.
Or that there's not a case.Quote:But law and ethics are not the same thing. Just because you cannot pursue a case of copyright infringement doesn't mean that plagiarism hasn't occured or that no wrong has been done. It just means the case is too difficult to prove in legal terms.
Keep guessing, enjoy yourself. But I really don't think that it's needed in this discussion. You're not guessing every other posters values... but once again, seem very interested in mine.Quote:My "guess" about you was spot on. Your first order of business is to determine what you can get away with (ie what the law will permit). That determines you "values" vis a vis swiping.
-------------------------------------------
Agreed. I really don't think there's a need to obsess over that point. If we tok that part of the discussion out of this thread, it'd be a much neater place.Quote:Originally Posted by Swissy
This thread is an interesting read. It's just a shame you waste so much time discussing values. -
Quote:I believe that I have posted as the majority have posted on this thread. I've given a general opinion (in my first post), I've stated some hypotheticals (in many posts), I've tried to answer some hypotheticals (more recent pages), and I've posted examples from my own work.Originally Posted by Suichiro
There we go. That's what this all boils down to. You refuse to post a stance on your own values. Yet you're trying to tear down someone else's. That's not respecting other people's values, it's just trolling for a confrontation. If you really want a serious discussion instead of a constant ribbing of each other over inane things, step up.
Everyone who's posted their particular stance on the subject here has opened them selves to criticism, but displayed a valid position on the argument. You haven't. Dissent isn't an opinion, it's a reaction.
If you think that somehow makes my contribution to this thread trolling or something of the like, by all means, report it. Because personally, I feel I've added another perspective (and experience) to this thread.
You can guess my values all you want, but that's just it - guessing. I honestly could care less what you guess. But as I've said before, I'm not about to jump through your hoop - I don't need to. Almost no one has posted their 'values' in relation to this issue beyond some general thoughts - and that's what I did on page one. You chose not to quote it, and you chose to take issue with other things that I have written. That's your call, but again it shows your inclination for focusing on me. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that you had issues with me.Quote:Originally Posted by FrozenDeath
Juggy--
Pyro asked me a straightforward question and I gave a straightforward answer. You should try it some time.
Your values are too complex to state here in regard to this issue? You can't be summarized in the way that most major 20th century thinkers can? You, unlike professional artists and educators, can't boil down your thoughts to a simple take on this issue?
If you don't want to define yourself, you leave it to others to form a view based on your various statements. The view I get is that you base your behavior on 1. What you can get away with. 2. What suits your needs at any given time. I don't see anything complicated about it. The only reason I'm even asking about your values is that you call into question the authority of things like copyright law.
Zekiran's post was off the rails but refreshing in it's honesty. She believes that all professional artists swipe from each other as a matter of course--and they are all ok with it. She's ok with it. And someone like me shouldn't be pushing my morality around here. I don't agree with that, but at least its clear where she stands. I'd love to hear more opposing viewpoints. Or people who agree. Or people who just don't relate to it at all. But political correctness isn't a viewpoint.
Did I say that?Quote:Originally Posted by FrozenDeath
I really didn't mean for it to dominate parts of this thread the way it has. But I don't know how you discuss something like theft without discussing the values behind it. You include this Bleach thing as a blatant example of a rip-off. That reflects certain values.
If Juggy comes along and says that this happens all the time in Asia and there's nothing wrong with it--where does that leave you?
Quote:Originally Posted by Juggertha
Copyright law is not universal, and if truth be told, it is somewhat new. The concept of being able to sue someone for taking your intellectual property has not been around for all that long - and many nations don't recognize it. Heck, one could argue that most civilizations were built on it.That's what i actually said. And, after reading through the link you've provided, I found many things that American lawyer said to be familiar.Quote:Originally Posted by Juggertha
Having lived overseas for nearly a decade, I've come to realize that different countries (and people I suppose) view copyright infringement very differently. No, I'm not talking about widespread bootlegging of DVDs in SE Asia, but serious legal matters. I've seen cases of big name companies suing local ones for Copyright infringement, in what appeared to be a pretty obvious case, and losing.
When I asked local lawyers about it, I was shocked to hear how different their thinking was from mine - certain shapes/patterns/whatever cannot be copyrighted, and even if said image came close to being a copy, then you still have to prove damages.
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?p...ticle&id=25053
"Ethically, any taking is too much in the case of plagiarism. In the case of copyright infringement, that's a different standard. I think there has to be more taking than one panel here or there."
And he goes on to talk about many details of why a copyright case is so difficult - basically the same details that surprised me when I talked to lawyers here.
So do me a favor, if you're going to quote me, at least bother to use my own words. -
you know, for some reason I really dig those buildings.
-
Quote:THAT is avery cool site! I enjoy taking my own reference shots, but dam, that guy makes it look awesome (most of my personal reference shots consist of me in my underwear with some type of mock sword. lol)Originally Posted by Lousy_Day
I am not sure if this is a counter example to Boris, but I would like to mention Gil Elvgren, one of my new favorite artists. (Pino is the other one.) Elvgren worked extensively with references, too. Here you can see some comparisons of his references and final paintings:
http://underpaintings.blogspot.com/2...l-elvgren.html
Edit: ok, hunted through my drive for a self-reference that wasn't half-naked.
This looks kind of goofy, but it's an example of how I use myself in my art.
-
Quote:No one else has listed off their values! You are the OP, and you chose to - that was your strategy. But other people can share their thoughts without following your exact pattern.Originally Posted by FrozenDeath
By the way, don't you ever get tired of cherry picking and twisting words around?
Quote:If you think my examples are 'worthless' (nice), so be it.
Quote:
I've explained how worthless your examples are without knowing your basic stance on stealing.
Maybe the whole statement sounds less bigmeanie-ish to you old chum?
So in that context, yeah, it does sound rude. You don't need to know my basic stance on stealing to give your thoughts on my examples - because you don't know anyone's thoughts on stealing - yet you still gave your opinion. Did you know Pyro's values before you gave your opinion on his example? Nope - unless he PM'd it to you.
Once again, it boils down to the fact that you don't like it if people don't conform to your exact thoughts - and the unfortunate thing is, this thread is full of different people's opinions. Do you see how many people are giving examples, asking questions, and just generally discussing the matter?
Isn't that what you wanted?
Or must everyone give their core value set on the subject before they post here (kind of as an Introduction)? -
Quote:I've shared my opinion on this matter a number of times - look at my numerous posts talking about hypotheticals and how I view them.Originally Posted by FrozenDeath
I never said my opinion is the only valid one on the block. But by refusing to share your opinion, you prevent it from being judged at all.
Again, I'll state - my values are my own - and really are far too complex to be given word here. I don't have to share them, and truth be told, couldn't - there are just far too many values at play. That's why a lot of my posts on this thread have been questions.Quote:I'm not asking you about your deepest religious revelations. I'm asking you if you value creativity. If you share the same concept of originality. Very simple questions. You could even respond yes or no to them. All this drama is about you refusing to be pinned down. You want to be free to criticize but not give any insight into you own values. You're just here to argue and discredit. You really think it's not obvious?
I'm not rejecting your values - I told you, I really don't care about them - they are YOURS! What I do question is how you apply a certain set of rules to others - and if there are discrepancies in that.Quote:Almost no one has commented on my values. That's fine. No one has to. The only reason I'm pressing you about it is because you're rejecting them without giving any reason why other than a tired academic argument that everyone is different and we should respect them all being different and not talk about our values. This when you won't even say that your values are different than the ones I listed. For all I know, you could believe exactly the same thing as I wrote but you won't admit it--just because.
I've posted numerous examples.Quote:I didn't ask you for evidence that not everyone judges theft/swiping/copying the same way. I asked you for a concrete example where it was unclear whether something was theft or not. Your whole stance is about greyness...let's see something grey.
Quote:Originally Posted by Juggertha
here's an odd one:
Sure, we all know that if we want to draw an apple, the standard way would be to use our memory/imagination, use a real life reference, or (perhaps) use a photo. In the last option, we may run the risk of invading upon the photographers .... "rights'.
But what if I want to draw a Porsche? I mean, I don't own a Porsche, so would it be ok to use a picture? What if I went to the dealership on my own and took a photo, would that be ok? What about the rights of the designers of that car? I mean, I'm guessing that Porsche spent $$$ to ensure a certain look, am I able to use that 'look' for my own artistic purposes without their permission?
It's hard for me to ascribe 'design ownership' to an apple - but a car/building/whatever - should we consider that too?What's funy is, you never bothered to reply to those. I mean, even in my first post on this thread - there they are! Yet you chose to quote and reply to others.Quote:Originally Posted by Juggertha
I've heard some people say that ANY referencing is wrong, and I've heard others that say that referencing is a valuable tool for all levels. For me, I suppose I waver somewhere in between.
Let's look at the statue, David. I didn't create it - it was another person's work of art. But, if I was to see it in real life, I'd feel very comfortable using it as a reference for a sketch/piece. Is that stealing? Perhaps. I am using another person's piece of art as a reference.
What about if I need to draw a car - a specific car - a Porsche! Now, I don't own one right now , so I'd have to go find one. But, if I used it as a reference, would I also have to ask permission from the designers? I mean, didn't a whole lot of people put a whole lot of effort into designing the appearance of that thing?
And what if there are no Porsche near me? I can always turn to Google and search out some pics - but as mentioned in the OP, I am now (once again?) using someone else's creative works.
But what if I use two (or more) references? Does that now allow me to skirt the issue, or does it simply mean that I am now offending even more creators?
What if I use a screenshot, that was once copied from a photo? Does it free me from responsibility, or am I now offending the tech designer AND the photographer AND the architect AND the original builder? Heck, I may even be offending NVidia. lol
What if I change some things? The color? The shape? The expression? How much of it must be changed before it no longer qualifies as a 'copy'? 10%? 40%? 80%?
So, if you think that I'm just here to argue - that's your call. By all means, report me for trolling. But I've added thoughts and questions to this thread, just like the other posters. If you don't want to quote them, that's your call, but as you can see above - they exist. -
My values are my own, just like your values are yours. I don't judge Christians (or Muslims, or whatever) on their values because there's little chance that people will change their core values. I don't comment on your values, because they are yours! It's not my place to judge them.
What I can easily comment on though is the application of said values - and that's what a lot of my posts have been about.
You seem to be intent on having everyone conform to YOUR ideal - and it's not going to work. I don't have to comment on your values, and if you notice, almost no one else has either.
People have been commenting on (and asking questions about) the issue and how it relates to their own lives. And you know what, that's ok. It's ok that not everyone falls into your specific pattern of thought. It's ok that not everyone addressed your values - because we're all bringing something different to the table.
You asked me to provide evidence that not everyone judges theft/swiping/copying the same way. Take a quick look back at some of the posts here -heck, ignore mine all together and look at everyone else's - and I think you'll find your proof.
If you think my examples are 'worthless' (nice), so be it. But at some point you have to recognize that your opinion is not the only valid one on the block. -
I love his style.
-
Quote:You can label it that way if you want... and like I've said before, call the authorities. If you think someone has wronged you, by all means, call the cops. But I have a feeling that the process might let you down.Originally Posted by FrozenDeath
Yeah, I agree.
Juggy, you've stated how you behave in certain situations. I didn't quote that because, in the absence of any stated values with respect to art, those behaviors are just arbitrary stances. Maybe you'll behave one way in one situation, and then exactly opposite in another. I don't care to question you about every possible permutation to get some big composite view of what you're about. Especially when you're arguments, more than anything else, serve to make theft more permissible by denying anyone the authority to actually label something as "theft."
Hey, I'll use your own words to reply to this...Quote:You have no desire to discuss the values I've listed, despite the fact that it a core part of the discussion (lol). It really boils down, not to the "right or wrong" of what I've stated, but the fact that I've stated them. You simply don't want to see someone trumpet certain values over others, regardless of what those values are. Political correctness is a good label for it.
I'm very familiar with the cultural relativism shtick. "Different people think different things so we shouldn't judge. There are grey areas." This is a very academic mindset. It's failing is that the real world doesn't work that way. Values come into conflict with each other all the time. People change and cultures change by being exposed to different ideas and developing dialogues.
You don't like what I have to say... no one is forcing you to respond to me at every turn.Quote:Originally Posted by FrozenDeath
.Hey dear, it's a discussion board. If you don't like what I have to say don't read it.
You obviously have troubles reading - I've stated how I feel in many situations, but when you selectively quote my responses, somehow you always leave that out (look at my first reply here).Quote:What do I want from this thread? To know how people actually feel about this issue. Maybe somebody will express a viewpoint that will make me change the way I see things. Or vice versa. But frankly, browbeating me with political correctness because you don't want to take a stand is a waste of time.
It's funy that you say you are here to discuss and learn from people, but just a few posts previous to this, you go after a poster for disagreeing with you.
Here's a newsflash for you - not everyone feels the same as you. It's not some schtick - it's real life! This thread has shown exactly that - yet for some reason you still expect people to conform to YOUR ideals - someting's wrong with that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a side note, I'm glad everyone like my link for swiping in comics.
here are a few more from Disney
http://www.hemmy.net/2006/04/26/disney-animation-reuse/
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80603568/ -
Caemgen, it's hilarious because I was just about to post something very similar to yours. I too was hoping to steer this back on topic and see if people had various opinions on different situations.
I'll try to give my opinions on you examples.
1. It was for school and not for profit, and I see absolutely no harm in it. That being said, I could envision a (lawsuit riddled) world where someone could take issue with it. Perhaps the original photographer or something. To avoid that, if I was really thinking ahead, I might post the sources I got the pics from. But chances are, if it was me, I'd probably be standing by my piece apologizing to the guy or not accrediting him.
The whole 'collage' style of art is a tough call.
2. Yeah, this one is a whole lot tougher. many people have asked me specifically for certain details. So specific, they've basically said 'draw this as it is, but change this part'.
I think that if it stays between you and the 'requester', it's not a big issue. But if they are going to mass produce/publish it - with your name on it - perhaps you might want to reconsider.
3. This reminds me of the swipe that almost everyone in comics has apparently done (jk. It's just been done a lot)
http://blakemp.files.wordpress.com/2...e-earths-7.jpg
to some people, certain stances/poses are iconic - and many commission customers want exactly that. And from a previous post on here, I am wondering if certain companies want it as well.
Either way, a quick google search of 'swiped comic covers' or something similar will provide numerous examples.
Personally, I might as the 'client' if they'd be willing to change the angle or something. Heck, maybe the same pose with a different angle could be even more dramatic. If they said no, then I guess it'd be similar to answer #2.
--------------------------------------------------------------
here's an odd one:
Sure, we all know that if we want to draw an apple, the standard way would be to use our memory/imagination, use a real life reference, or (perhaps) use a photo. In the last option, we may run the risk of invading upon the photographers .... "rights'.
But what if I want to draw a Porsche? I mean, I don't own a Porsche, so would it be ok to use a picture? What if I went to the dealership on my own and took a photo, would that be ok? What about the rights of the designers of that car? I mean, I'm guessing that Porsche spent $$$ to ensure a certain look, am I able to use that 'look' for my own artistic purposes without their permission?
It's hard for me to ascribe 'design ownership' to an apple - but a car/building/whatever - should we consider that too? -
Quote:Sorry, but no where in this first paragraph do you say that this is only your opinion. I see that you had 'my values' in the second sentence, but honestly, Suichiro, it very much felt de-emphasized. Just from a writing standpoint, I would have loved to see the first or last sentence clearly state this is your opinion.Originally Posted by Suichiro
LOL Oh Juggy, you always accuse me of taking swipes at you, yet this is a reply to Kai specifically saying he wanted opinions *and* I specifically stated 'my values' in the opening paragraph, as well as talking about my personal respect for an artist.
But hey, like i said, I just thought your post could have benifitted from you adding 'this is my opinion' to it. If you feel that you were clear - that's your call. It really wasn't a big thing to me and I was really hoping that you'd chose to take the time to reply to my main converstation with you about 'taking a stand'.Quote:It's a sliding scale of respect. There's no straight binary answer here, as each infraction of my values decreases my respect for the person or the work involved. It also depends upon other factors, such as equal opportunity to work and ability to learn. A 6 year old doesn't have the opportunity to have a lifetime of experience like a 55 year old would, so they cannot be judged equally. Someone with no arms must develop new additional skills and cannot be judged equally against someone in perfect condition. Every situation is different, so no true all-encompassing truth could be had. But on a general basis, assuming relatively equal ages, ability, etc
/shrug -
Yup, yup - Taclobanon has solid stuff.
-
Quote:I'm glad you came on here to reply to this - and I appreciate the vote...Originally Posted by TrueMetal
Gor Coron is my kid brother. He saw me browsing this thread and wanted to vote too. So I registered his account and logged him in.
No idea who the other guy is.
But yeah, that did look very wonky. I didn't bother to look at the time stamp, but I wonder if perhaps the second one just copied the first (?) -
Quote:While I agree with many of the statements above, especially that regarding 3D work and such, I wish you would have added 'in my opinion' to the above preface.Originally Posted by Suichiro
But on a general basis, assuming relatively equal ages, ability, etc:
-
Quote:Perhaps you didn't read my original post on the subject on page 1. I know it was a bit long, but it did contain many of my opinions. Here's an example:Originally Posted by Suichiro
You haven't posted anything here, nor anywhere else to really show your stance on the whole thing Juggy. You've posted time and time again why you're against other people's stances, but never cemented one yourself. In this fashion, you protect yourself from judgment, but it weakens your position in the argument in general.
There's no reason why you have to post a stance. It's a valid route to not give one at all, but it's never going to help anyone else see your side of things. Until you post some specific examples and rules that you govern yourself by, this passive-aggressive 'conversation' will never move further.
Perhaps that's what you want, I'm not sure. Though I'm pointing it out right now, so if you didn't, now you'll know.
As for your observation about me simply questioning, and never giving an opinion - I can understand why you say that. The majority of my replies to the Op have been focused on that, but I think that may be for two reasons:Quote:Originally Posted by Juggertha
For me, this is how I see it:
Other people's art-
-If you reference, I believe you should cite it. If you don't, you'd better as soon as called on it.
-If you are selling something for profit, or printing on a large scale, you should seek permission for referencing before you use it.
Photos-
-If I know the source, I'll source it - especially if it's Stock somewhere.
-I'll try to diverge from the original enough so that it would be recognizable, yet not exact (unless, of course, I'm trying to be exact. lol).
1. FD, when he chose to reply and quote me, excluded my opinions. I don't know why he did that, but it helped to lead us down this path of 'one-way questioning'.
2. I honestly question the issue at hand. Not just FD's take on it, but the whole concept of intellectual property theft. I'm not saying that I am against it, but rather that certain parts are either unclear to me or simply don't sit right with me.
I really wish that this conversation would have panned out differently. I think if you re-read my original reply to this post, you'll see that I tried to express my thoughts and questions on the subject - because just like other posters here have mentioned, there seems to be a lot of gray areas. -
Quote:I think that these are very valid questions, and I've asked some of them already in this thread.Originally Posted by Kai
Just because I'm interested in opinions of people....
Do you consider costume design original art? Is replicating one theft/copying? If you change the colors or the gender of the characters?
Do you consider assembling and posing commerical render objects original art if you have not designed any of the assets yourself?
Do you consider photomanipulation theft/copying? How much must be altered before its considered an original work?
Do you consider subject substitution original art? (ie, taking an iconic comic/movie/bookcover scene and changing out the characters)
The basic question to me is; where is the line, and who get's to draw it?
(the line being the guideline - not artistic line)
Another question that could be added is - what is 'fair use' of someone else's creative works? Can I draw Batman as a piece of Fanart? Can I sell that piece? Do I need to get permission to draw it? Can I print it? Can I edit it to a certain degree to make it 'my own'?
I thnk that a lot of our questions are similar. -
I always enjoy Windrider's stuff.
-
Quote:Listen, I've said it before and I'll say it again - your values are your own... and I only care so much about them. You've tried to explain some of them in the OP, but I have a feeling that they go even deeper than that. You've gained them over a lifetime, and I'm not here to discuss your values.Originally Posted by FrozenDeath
You really can't answer a simple question can you? I'm not asking you to agree with my values. I am simply asking you to comment on them. Do you agree or not? If you disagree, why? If you can't do that, I'm not clear what you feel your relevance is to this thread.
What I am trying to discuss is the various perspectives relating to using references for art. Isn't that what this thread is all about, or must everyone comment about your values?
Perhaps you missed my posts - why not go back and read them again? Take a look on the first page and my first reply.Quote:At this point it's pretty obvious that you're just here to dispute. You're not adding anything to the mix, just trying to discredit what I've posted. If you reject the values I've posted, you're free to post your own. But that would actually involve presenting a specific stance that people could respond to, so that clearly won't happen.
If you want to say that I add nothing to the discussion, then I'd have to ask- what exactly are you looking for? Are you looking for people to simply agree with you?
I've posted my thoughts on the matter, and have questioned some of others - that's what a discussion is about.
I have - note that I have given examples about how trademark and copyright law varies from one country to the next... and it doesn't take much to know that other morals/ethics/and guidelines are not universal. Different posters have said the same on this thread- heck, look at the post above this one.Quote:Your assumption is that everyone is likely to be against stealing, but on closer examination people are likely to have widely differing views on what stealing is. That's an assumption. Your position rests on your view that people will have such a widely different take on things that there will be this big grey area. This is your speculation, you haven't done anything to back it up. Why don't you provide a concrete example of a grey area since you feel they are so prevalent?
If you want to ask for proof about everything I say, this discussion is going to go from civil to silly. Do you honestly believe that ALL people hold ALL of the same values? What proof must I come with to assure you that there is variation? Would codified country laws do? How about testimony from various people that hold different beliefs?
__________________________________________________ _______
The truth is, I see a number of holes, issues, and difference of opinion in the matter of using references. I think that there are varying degrees of gray, and to prescribe 'right and wrong', you need to have agreed upon codified rules.