Ms. Valentino - Lil' She-Devil with a Sword
By
Absinth_Incubus,
Posted on: 2008-03-23 22:28 in Multi-Media Fan Creations
Bit late now, but maybe we can all learn something from this.
Because now we know!
And knowing is half the battle.
...What? I'm not saying the last line. Heck with you folks!
(Slides Anwyeth a cupcake.)
Cupcake! MINE! RAWR! *pounce*
FYI on Deviantart's Copyright Policy (which upholds US Copyright Law)
Copyright Infringement (aka "Art Theft" or "Ripping")
Current deviantART policy defines 'Art Theft' to be any situation where a user takes the original art, photography, or writing of another person (a 'third party') and then either misrepresents the original, unaltered work as one of their own creations or includes the work (either altered or unaltered) in a new image.
Citing sources actually would have saved Anyweth (or any artist for that matter) a lot of trouble on Deviantart when it comes to this sort of thing. Let's say for instance, on the Adam Hughes piece, that she had linked the original and called it a study of an Adam Hughes piece. That, would have been acceptable by DA's policies and by the art community at large.
------------------------
Snow-Globe,
I know why you despise copyright law, just like all the other web and graphic designers out there I've met, it means you need to actually get permission/pay to use cool photos, fonts, and designs on your webpages. I encountered the same mentality with the entire web design/graphics department at the school I used to attend. However, let's say you make a rocking web design. Let's say that design makes you a good sum of money. Now let's say someone else takes that design, alters one or two things, and makes it to the web. No sign of saying "hey, this is actually Snow-Globe's page!" and then they get paid for it as well. Copyright law does have it flaws, that much I will admit, however, it is there to protect yourself as a designer just like its there to protect other artists.
On Juggy's links... I hate to tell you this Globe, but there's no theft there. You cannot copyright a page layout style. You as a web designer should know this, and if you don't, then now you do, and I'm going to link you and others up to a really good site about learning about this kind of thing so there isn't confusion in the future. The first was created by animation and comic professional and friend Aimee Major, the second I found on a lark and thought it well done. Especially if you're acting as an Editor for the Scoop:
The Copyright Files by Aimee Major
Copyright 101: An online course
-----------------------------
Anyweth has taken down the offending images and therefore I don't have a problem with her or her work. A lot of people do not understand copyright laws, nor do they think about them much when they are developing artists. So thanks for being, sadly, the first person to rationally respond to the complaints brought forward to you. Earlier this week I dealt with someone who was forging official Topps sketch cards that myself and my friends had worked on and his attitude stunk. So I apologize for the brusqueness, my bad.
Onward with the art!
i don't see what the hub bub is all about. afterall rob liefield made a career out of stealing others artwork like frank miller's
Lord Raptor lvl 50 Thugs/traps MM Le Guerrier lvl 50 Broadsword/invuln scrapper
Lola the Chain lvl 50 electric/energy brute Kage Ryu lvl 50 ninja/dark MM
Billy. Bones lvl 50 zombie/trick arrow MM Jet Stream lvl 50 Super Strength/invuln tank
[ QUOTE ]
Snow-Globe,
I know why you despise copyright law, just like all the other web and graphic designers out there I've met, it means you need to actually get permission/pay to use cool photos, fonts, and designs on your webpages.
[/ QUOTE ]
Heh, not if I take those photos myself, or use my own designs, or use public domain sources. Which I do. As far as typefaces, I seldom use special typography because most people wouldn't be able to render it in web pages anyways.
I love how the the advertising industry (I've seen Bank of America ads that are a direct play on works less than 100 years old), Pop Artists (like I mentioned, Warhol and Lichenstein), and some of the big corporations like Disney feel free to ignore copyright when it suits them. Pop Art, along with Dada and several other art movements, liberally took others work into their own work. Like it or not, it doesn't change the irony that those artists ( or their foundations ) are now demanding of others what they did not follow themselves.
All artists are influenced by the world around them, and will copy. It is a simple fact of art. I have seen several variations on the dragon tatoo becoming live on a woman's back, for instance. Many with similar poses. I don't think that the picture you pointed out was the first.
[ QUOTE ]
Copyright law does have it flaws, that much I will admit, however, it is there to protect yourself as a designer just like its there to protect other artists.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am also glad that Canada has somewhat saner Copyright Laws than the States. Thanks in large part to Sonny Bono and Disney, copyright in the U.S. is next thing to perpetual. It was never intended to be such.
[ QUOTE ]
The Copyright Files by Aimee Major
[/ QUOTE ]
While I like her work, she is by her own admission, not a lawyer. I've seen that page before, the rest of those links on the page are broken, and in the past when I first found that page I have found web pages that directly contradict what she has said there by actual lawyers. I wish I had kept those pages' bookmarks.
As far as layouts are concerned, depending on the designer, I know some would argue about that. Also some would try to use patent law if the copyright attempt failed. I really hate lawyers.
[ QUOTE ]
Copyright 101: An online course
[/ QUOTE ]
As far as the Scoop is concerned, I guess you have missed my recent posts regarding permission to submit images to the scoop.
In closing, you really didn't need to make yourself look like a jerk. You could have chosen to send a private message to Anyweth, but instead you posted this publically. For this reason alone you have lost any respect that I would have had for your opinions.
Triumph: White Succubus: 50 Ill/Emp/PF Snow Globe: 50 Ice/FF/Ice Strobe: 50 PB Shi Otomi: 50 Ninja/Ninjistu/GW Stalker My other characters
[ QUOTE ]
All artists are influenced by the world around them, and will copy. It is a simple fact of art. I have seen several variations on the dragon tatoo becoming live on a woman's back, for instance. Many with similar poses. I don't think that the picture you pointed out was the first.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, ok. So I have a Hellboy graphic novel sitting on my desk. Mignola wasn't the first one to create a devil superhero character, so it's ok for me to copy the cover of the book and pass it off as my creation because a lot of other people have similar stuff out there. Awesome.
[ QUOTE ]
In closing, you really didn't need to make yourself look like a jerk. You could have chosen to send a private message to Anyweth, but instead you posted this publically. For this reason alone you have lost any respect that I would have had for your opinions.
[/ QUOTE ]
Art theft is a common occurance. The best way to deal with it is publically for a few reasons.
1. It discourages people from doing it.
2. If the person has done it because they are unaware of the proper etiquette, it educates them about the seriousness of the issue as well as anyone else following the discussion.
3. In the case of an actual thief, dealing with them in private may not be the solution.
For example, a few months ago my sister came across the website of an artist selling prints. She recognized several of them as belonging to an artist named Robert Chang. She contacted Chang, who then emailed the owner of the site directly. The guy apologized profusely, explained that it was all a mistake, and took the stuff down right away. Handled politely and maturely, right? Not quite.
Chang posted about this site on an artist's forum and other people went there and discovered their stuff up for sale as well. In the end, not a single thing on the site was this guy's art. Chang keeping it private wouldn't have helped any of the other artists being ripped off.
www.battlewraith.deviantart.com
[ QUOTE ]
i don't see what the hub bub is all about. afterall rob liefield made a career out of stealing others artwork like frank miller's
[/ QUOTE ]
You know, for some odd reason, comic swiping is a lot more lax than other forms of swiping, however, David Mack got caught stealing photos from magazines, and now the comic is being delayed for a few weeks while he A. Redoes the cover and B. Redoes interior pages where he stole from Maleev and Adam Hughes.
Just because Lichenstein, Liefield, and Mack made their careers out of being theives doesn't make it alright.
Onto Snow Globe...
[ QUOTE ]
All artists are influenced by the world around them, and will copy. I have seen several variations on the dragon tatoo becoming live on a woman's back, for instance. Many with similar poses. I don't think that the picture you pointed out was the first.
[/ QUOTE ]
Funny, when I sit down to draw, I may have photos in front of me (though usually it's a mirror or my beau), but I don't copy the photos. There is a HUGE difference between referencing and copying. Please do not paint everyone with the same brush, thanks. Yes, artists are definitely inspired by the world around them, however, copying isn't what most artists do.
I, too, have seen variations on the idea of the tattoo. However, if I were to make an overlay of Anyweth's piece and the older piece, the dragon itself is traced. Variations on a theme are fine. Look at the game, we have werewolves, robots, and superheroes. You cannot copyright a theme, an idea, or a style.
I am also very well aware of the Sonny Bono vs. Disney case. I do not think that works should be perpetually copyrighted. However, they should as the law states, exist until some time after the original artist has passed on. Do remember, however, that with Disney, they trademark their characters, which is vastly different than a copyright. Trademarks protect the likeness, copyrights protect singular pieces or works of pieces.
[ QUOTE ]
As far as layouts are concerned, depending on the designer, I know some would argue about that. Also some would try to use patent law if the copyright attempt failed. I really hate lawyers.
[/ QUOTE ]
There are grey areas. There always will be. However, the same Marvel "layouts" that Juggy has been using are used for Encyclopedias, Visual Dictionaries, etc. It's riffing on a theme. Two, three columns worth of text and an image cannot be copyrighted. Using a specific graphic background, with specific imagery however... could be questionable. But then, the artist could also call it homage/tribute, which is just another huge battleground.
[ QUOTE ]
As far as the Scoop is concerned, I guess you have missed my recent posts regarding permission to submit images to the scoop.
In closing, you really didn't need to make yourself look like a jerk. You could have chosen to send a private message to Anyweth, but instead you posted this publically. For this reason alone you have lost any respect that I would have had for your opinions.
[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I don't pay attention to the Scoop, I just don't have that kind of time. I was flattered when my work was in it, and I always cheered on my friends if they were featured but that's about it. The only reason that I found Anyweth's art was by absolute accident. I was trying to read up on a few of the new art threads, and because she was new around here, I thought I'd check her out.
And if you think I'm a jerk for trying to protect artists I admire, then let it be so.
I already admitted that perhaps I was wrong in the way I handled the subject matter, however, the many years have taught me that contacting "artists" privately about infringement issues has often lead to silence, insults, or threats. So again, thank you Anyweth, for your timely, well-written responses and good luck in the future.
[ QUOTE ]
Tell you what, Sayterra.
Find undeniable proof that her most recent work is copied from someone else.
Or her last few commission pieces, for that matter.
You can rant and rave all you want over what someone has done in the past, but find me examples that it's still happening, and I might be inclined to take your words with more weight then that of hot air.
Savvy?
[/ QUOTE ]
You ask...I shall deliver:
The art in question is actually the background, the image was uploaded January 11, 2008: http://ladyentropy.deviantart.com/ar...kette-74369608
The original artist is Jen Delyth, who states very clearly on her website that her celtic tree of life IS NOT CLIPART: http://www.kelticdesigns.com/Pages/C...JenDelyth.html
There you go.
Actually, I will have to state otherwise.
I did use clipart. (or, now that I think of it, what passed for clipart) And that design has been used many many times in many many sources. I can name a few, such as a D&D coverbook (as an amulet a character is holding). And the Aria Studios logo) -- which lend credibility to the whole "hello, this is clipart" thing.
Now, it wouldn't surprise me if the original artist was ripped off to begin with -- and illegally distributed as clipart, seeing I used a directly "black and white" clipart version of it (and never altered an artist's rendition of it).
Now, please, I know this will sound as if I'm trying to dodge being brought into the spotlight again, but if you do find my ripping off of something can you just email me and berate me privately and drop the argument here altogether? I really would prefer this thread not to become (any more than it already has) a battleground of freedom vs. copyright.
See this is where things don't make sense... "Hello this is clip art"...
But it's used in a licensed D&D product.
It's used in a logo for a company and I would assume that logo would be copyrighted... rightfuly or wrongfuly I don't know...
So both cases there, I would assume, to me a mere mortal that works in the realm of the written word, would scream "Hey these companies are using this symbol, maybe I shouldn't use without asking because it might belong to them?"
I wouldn't take a direct quote out of 'War and Peace' and use it in a story without citing the original source.
By that mentality heck, I could take the whole City Scoop, rename it the City Dish, change the font, and say "look what I made."
If you read the lower link Sayterra posted you'd see that this design in question is an original copyrighted design from 1990. Heck, type in Tree of Life in google and the first image you get and click on takes you to the same exact site where it mentions that others have been using said image (some expressly without permission) and that if you want to use it, to contact Mrs Delyth.
It's not a battleground, Yuri issued a statement and Sayterra found another instance where another's artists work was being used without due mention. It's simple as that.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tell you what, Sayterra.
Find undeniable proof that her most recent work is copied from someone else.
Or her last few commission pieces, for that matter.
You can rant and rave all you want over what someone has done in the past, but find me examples that it's still happening, and I might be inclined to take your words with more weight then that of hot air.
Savvy?
[/ QUOTE ]
You ask...I shall deliver:
The art in question is actually the background, the image was uploaded January 11, 2008: http://ladyentropy.deviantart.com/ar...kette-74369608
The original artist is Jen Delyth, who states very clearly on her website that her celtic tree of life IS NOT CLIPART: http://www.kelticdesigns.com/Pages/C...JenDelyth.html
There you go.
[/ QUOTE ]
lol Jesus.
Sayterra layeth down the epic pwnage. 
Also its kind of ironic to me that Yuri's sig has a "Only you can prevent Forum Fires" reference and if he/she hadn't egged Sayterra on by challenging them to find fault in the OP's art, this all might have died out nice and quiet like. 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tell you what, Sayterra.
Find undeniable proof that her most recent work is copied from someone else.
Or her last few commission pieces, for that matter.
You can rant and rave all you want over what someone has done in the past, but find me examples that it's still happening, and I might be inclined to take your words with more weight then that of hot air.
Savvy?
[/ QUOTE ]
You ask...I shall deliver:
The art in question is actually the background, the image was uploaded January 11, 2008: http://ladyentropy.deviantart.com/ar...kette-74369608
The original artist is Jen Delyth, who states very clearly on her website that her celtic tree of life IS NOT CLIPART: http://www.kelticdesigns.com/Pages/C...JenDelyth.html
There you go.
[/ QUOTE ]
lol Jesus.
Sayterra layeth down the epic pwnage.
Also its kind of ironic to me that Yuri's sig has a "Only you can prevent Forum Fires" reference and if he/she hadn't egged Sayterra on by challenging them to find fault in the OP's art, this all might have died out nice and quiet like.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how a background image in a full piece (where the art itself, even if the background image isn't) it's the artists original work counts as 'pwnage' in this specific instance.
Also, I don't recall egging anyone on. I specifically requested undeniable proof that the accusations had some actual basis. So far, I haven't found anything that quite specifically says that the accused is stealing the works of others and claiming originality for commissioned pieces - using an image as a background part of a piece without citing the original source for it? Somewhat poor form, however that doesn't quite fit the original accusation given.
I'm sure that's going to be argued to no end, but I don't really see the point in derailing this any further. Sayterra, if you want to continue this, feel free to PM me about the issue.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how a background image in a full piece (where the art itself, even if the background image isn't) it's the artists original work counts as 'pwnage' in this specific instance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah that's what motivated me to post in the first place, some people don't seem to get it. A "full piece" is everything in the composition. The "background image" in this case is someone else's artwork. I wouldn't draw a figure and then slap it on to someone else's matte painting and think it was ok because it was my "art" and somebody else's background. You have to create very artificial distinctions just to try to explain it away.
It would be fine if it was a royalty free stock image, but then you'd still be obligated to give credit to the creator.
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I don't recall egging anyone on.
[/ QUOTE ]
Really? I do. Do any of these ring a bell?
"Parting thought: Those that can do, do. Those that can't... critique. "
"You can rant and rave all you want over what someone has done in the past, but find me examples that it's still happening, and I might be inclined to take your words with more weight then that of hot air.
Savvy? "
"Or continue to be rude yourself. C'est la vie, nes pas? "
"This? Comes off to me more as an infantile gesture to bork someone's reputation for reasons I don't really understand, nor do I care to."
www.battlewraith.deviantart.com
I'm fairly certain I stated that original credit for the background bit should have been given. It's not exactly something I'm going to argue, as I'm in agreement with that part of it. I think some of my terminology is a bit off, as well. Happens often enough with me, and it's one of the main reasons I tell people I'm terrible at explaining things. So, let's hop on the Wayback Machine and see if I can't better illustrate my point (Hope so!)...
Given the overall percentage of the image in question (original to borrowed - I hesitate to say copied here, necessarily, though that's certainly a term that could be used. I'm just not sure it fits given the context (or supposed context)), and the relative obscurity of the majority of the borrowed image, I would question it's relevance to the original accusation given.
Further, I feel that since the piece in question was decidedly non-profit (being a piece for herself), that it's not quite the level of what I would consider breaking copyright, or being definatively and beyond a doubt labelled theft with one caveat: Credit should be given where credit is due, and the original source of the background image (whether it's clipart or not) should be included in the description of the piece.
Also, I rather question the necessity of the excessive amount of quotation at the end. As stated, I didn't specifically recall anything I would have considered egging on, but upon review I can see where that conclusion could be drawn. Fair enough. Though, it would have been just as easy to mention one specific instance, in my estimation. The phrasing also tends to smack of snarkiness itself.
I'd be willing to apologize for my behavior, but only to the person they're directed at. Whom, from what I recall (going to review the thread to refresh) wasn't exactly the picture of tactful and mature behavior themself. Irregardless, my current statement stands.
Edit: Third quoted bit - I'd hesitate to say that was necessarily egging anyone on. Though, perhaps it is a little passive aggressive. Of course, that's entirely subject to opinion.
After checking DA's submission policy, and not to risk it (and also to avoid more controversy), I have brought those pieces down and sent the artists requests for permission of the use of their artwork as inspiration -- if I get said permission I'll post them back up.
These pieces were indeed old (and I didn't know better at the time), and if I had been contacted privately about the matter, I would have also try to correct the matter. However, that was not the case, but now it's too late to worry about it.