Blogs
 


  Oddworld Forums > Blogs > The Daily Tiger


Havoc's Blog
Simply Awesome
Rate this Entry

Artists, Art & Copyright

Posted 09-30-2008 at 09:42 AM by Havoc
Today I came across a certain situation on the internet which kind of got to me. Its the classic “Artist Internet Rights” argument that I’m sure a lot of people are already fermiliar with. Artists claims they have the sole rights to their art and the art fans claim that it’s theirs to use however they want. So, who is right?

Let me say up front that the following ‘rant’ is merely my own opinion in a debate that has been raging for years. Like with any other debate on the internet I’m sure there’s plenty of people who don’t agree with me.

So what’s the deal? Certain artists out there have certain ‘copyright rules’ concerning the art they post online. With artists like this, you’ll often find things like ‘do not alter’ or ‘do not remove copyright’. These are both perfectly understandable rules, afterall if someone comes along and rapes something you worked your ass off to make then I would be pissed off too. Removing the copyright would be plain weird to because the only reason to that is so you can put your own name on it, and that would be stealing.

But when you read further you’ll encounter weird rules like ‘Do not distribute’. So you make a piece of art, put a copyright stamp on it, post it online so you can show your hard work to other people and then make it illegal to show it to more people. What is the point in that? Isn’t the point of posting something online to recieve feedback on it and show it to as much people as possible? What rational thought would make you stop that process?

Another fun rule is ‘Do not use as avatar or signature’. Here is someone who found your awsome art, likes it enough to use as their personal profile picture and you’re complaining about it? For me it would be a huge compliment if someone wants to use my art as an avatar, it shows people appreciate my stuff.

But the most idiotic rule I’ve ever come across is ‘Do not use as reference’. For your information, reference in this instance basicaly means that a beginning artist takes the picture and tries to copy it freehand. It’s safe to say that every artist around has done this at least a few times at the start of their carreer. Why? Because it’s the best way to learn! So now some extremely arrogant artist who has been making art for 10 years or something comes along and tells the new artists that they can’t use his art to study!
Ask yourself this. Do you remember how you started drawing? I’ll dare you that you’ve referenced a picture at least once in your life. You wouldn’t have appreciated it if the artist who made that picture said you couldn’t use it, would you? Maybe you wouldn’t even have understood it, I mean why would someone refuse a starting artist the tools to improve his skills? It makes no sense unless you’re too arrogant to let someone else attempt to copy your art.

I understand what these artists are afraid of with their copyright rule, though. They worked their ass off on this artwork and want to recieve as much comments as they can. However they want to recieve credit for every single copy of their art that is floating on the internet. If one of their pictures is on some site then that artist’s name better be within a 2 pixel radius from the picture! The entire world better know who made that picture so to make sure they have full control over where the pictures are displayed they choose the restrict any and all distribution options. A simple rule like ‘Please give credit if you use this’ would solve all the above problems, but hey I guess some people like to pretend they are more important then they really are by sticking up all kinds of rules.

But no matter how many rules you try sticking up, you can’t enforce them anyway. If I come across some neat picture I want to use as an avatar or as reference then I’ll simply do what I want, give you credit and there’s not a thing you can do. Violation of copyright? Sue me. I doubt you have the money to send some crafty lawyer after me to take that single picture offline and even if you do, are you really prepared to spend a few thousand bux on a lawyer every single time someone uses your work against your will? Are you prepared to register every single work you make with the Copyright Office so you can win a case SHOULD someone steal your stuff? Most internet artists aren’t.

Drawing fancy pictures in Photoshop and posting them online is a neat hobby but by doing so you’ve made yourself part of a community: The Community of Internet Artwork. It’s a tight community, where everyone tries to help each other out and teach each other new skills. If you want to come along and interfere with that process because you deem yourself to perfect to help other people then don’t bother entering our community and keep your artwork to yourself.

Don’t get me wrong, if people use your stuff they should give you proper credit. I myself use several things from other artists like the tiger in my avatar and in the banner of my website. That image was made by Blotch, an awsome artist in the furry fandom and per his request I mention his name with the picture which is how it should be.

If you don’t want your shit used then don’t post it online. Welcome to the internet.

Havoc
Total Comments 12

Comments

T-nex's Avatar
I havent seen you give credit for your sig and avvy-pics yet...



Anyway in reply to this:
"But the most idiotic rule I’ve ever come across is ‘Do not use as reference’. For your information, reference in this instance basicaly means that a beginning artist takes the picture and tries to copy it freehand. It’s safe to say that every artist around has done this at least a few times at the start of their carreer. Why? Because it’s the best way to learn! So now some extremely arrogant artist who has been making art for 10 years or something comes along and tells the new artists that they can’t use his art to study!
Ask yourself this. Do you remember how you started drawing? I’ll dare you that you’ve referenced a picture at least once in your life. You wouldn’t have appreciated it if the artist who made that picture said you couldn’t use it, would you? Maybe you wouldn’t even have understood it, I mean why would someone refuse a starting artist the tools to improve his skills? It makes no sense unless you’re too arrogant to let someone else attempt to copy your"


I think the problem here is not that they used the reference pic, it is that they use it, and call it their own art. I understand this rules very well.. Someone who made a great composition with great details and whatnot, would feel very bad if someone took their art and "altered" it slightly, calling it their own, while it's obviously evident they stole the concept and idea.
Using pics for private use and learning-material wont hurt anyone, and it's not like they are going to know anyway, so I think you missed this point.
Posted 09-30-2008 at 10:07 AM by T-nex

Havoc's Avatar
Not exactly because later on I specifically say that how important it is to give the original artist credit, even for references.

As for my avatar, there are a lot of places, mostly art sites, where I give credit for it in some way. On OWF it doesn't seem that big of a problem since it isn't really artist oriented around here.
Posted 09-30-2008 at 11:04 AM by Havoc

T-nex's Avatar
Still... What YOU seem to think is your right, is NOT your right. Some people just don't feel comfortable with other people imitating their work, and I think that should be respected.

Everyone takes inspiration from everyone, but when it's so evident that it was just an altered image, and it goes beyond someones wishes, they should just not do it.

Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't make it wrong. I see the perspective from both sides. Yes, just giving credits would be ok, but some people just don't feel comfortable with that, and would like to keep their concept.
Concepts are just as much a thing they should be able to keep as a concrete image or whatever.


Anyway, so you're telling me that for EVERY single little avatar and sig-pic you've had you've given credit? please..
And why wouldn't it be important on owf? It's still their art you're using.
Posted 09-30-2008 at 12:10 PM by T-nex

Havoc's Avatar
I'm not saying I have but then again I havn't had a lot of avatars that were someones property (images found on google and stuff like that). It's less important on OWF because on forums like this that aren't art related an avatar is just an avatar while on an art forum it often represents one's own art. So by not stating it's someone else's on a place like that could quickly get you the label of art thief.

As for not wanting your art used; It's my opinion that (and this goes with anything concerning the internet) if you don't want it used/commented/critisized/laughed/ect then don't put it on the internet. You're not going to stop people from doing it by just putting up a warning label and next to that I think it's just morally unacceptable that an established artist denies other the right to use his art to practice on. And it goes to question as to what is original and what is reference. Just because something looks like someone elses picture doesn't mean it is. Just because I used the color yellow in my pic doesn't mean I can forbid everyone else to use it.
Posted 09-30-2008 at 01:13 PM by Havoc

T-nex's Avatar
There's a difference between blatantly comying a concept and just using elements from a pic, in which case the artist can't complain because the artwork will look nothing like the original.

And I'm not talking about what will and what will not happen if someone puts out work on the internet.. Yes.. The art WILL be used, and yes people WONT respect that pissy label.. But that wasn't your point. You straying off here. Your point was that artists put up copyright rules that you think are ridiculous...
Just because people don't respect copyright laws, doesn't mean that artists shouldn't be putting them up. If we look at it that way, there should be implemented easier methods for artists to stop people from stealing their art, because the way it is now.. yes... it's too expensive to put up a lawsuit and just not worth it for one little art piece.

Anyway the way I see it, you're saying that it's the artists fault that his art gets used involuntarily, which I think is bs. It's the individuals who wont respect their wishes. Why do people feel the NEED to use art pieces that aren't theirs? Whats so hard to respect there?

Instead of complaining about artists rights(which aren't, regretfully, taken seriously by anyone), why not complain about those cocky bastards who hire artists and forbid them to use it even as a damn portfolio-reference... Now, those people are cocky and arrogant IMO.
Posted 09-30-2008 at 02:00 PM by T-nex

Havoc's Avatar
True on that last point.

I'm not saying it's anyone's fault, just that you have to be aware of the things that can and will happen when you post things online.
But aside from the practical standpoint, the art community is in general very helpful to each other and I can think of no logical reason to forbid anyone to reference a picture as long as proper credit is given. Stealing is another matter entirely. Tracing a picture and calling it yours is just plain weak.

But lets take a practical example. There are certain painting classes for example that have a certain assignment to paint the Mona Lisa for example. Group of 12 people, been taking painting classes for two years and this is their final project. All works go up in a gallery for people to look at when it's done. That violates copyright just the same, except that the guy who painted the Mona Lisa is long since dead.

Point is; people don't reference pictures because they lack creativity but because they want to have a measure to see how good their skills are/have improved. When you're done with a reference you can put the two side by side and learn from the mistakes you made. All it does is help a beginning artist develop, it's the same way the artist of the original picture developed his skills so if that artist now says 'do not reference' then that guy is a hypocrite, agreed?
Posted 09-30-2008 at 03:17 PM by Havoc

T-nex's Avatar
Not really.. It is in his right... And also, no one can dictate what you do and don't but I think that when they say do not reference, they dont want you to distribute it. For personal use, it's not gonna hurt anyone.
Maybe the guy is a hypocrite, maybe he isn't... But it is in his right, and you can't argue that.
But if someone does take an element from a picture, but makes it his own, and makes it unrecognizable to the original, that should nullify the "Do not reference" rule.
But I've been a witness to someone practically stealing someone elses composition, even after being told not to, and I found it quite insulting to the original artist. Stuff like that should be avoided.

Anyway it seems like you almost lost your original point completely, so I'm calling case closed. Artists deserve their rights... People should respect them. They don't. That's life.
Posted 09-30-2008 at 03:42 PM by T-nex

Havoc's Avatar
Yea of course they have the rights. Works are automatically copyrighted. I guess it's a right over moral thing.
Posted 09-30-2008 at 04:46 PM by Havoc

T-nex's Avatar
What's unmoral about it? Artists have rights, live with it.
Posted 09-30-2008 at 04:47 PM by T-nex

Havoc's Avatar
Just because someone has a right to do something doesn't mean they have to be cocky about it 'just because they can'. I'm talking from the art communities point of view, not from a legal one. There's so many things in the law that no-one gives a rats ass about.

It's not about rights, it's about logic and decency. They post their work online then don't want it distributed. They get their skills by years of referencing then when they get big they don't want to be referenced. They want to become known but people can't publicly use their stuff even though it's already publicly available.

Sure it's their right, but it's also hypocritical in every sense of the word. Compare it this: You have a large tree in your garden and it's gotten so big over the years that it hangs over your neighbors yard. He told you he doesn't mind because it gets him some shade on a hot day but at the same time he tells you to cut it down because it's over HIS land and he has the RIGHT to have you remove it.
Posted 09-30-2008 at 04:58 PM by Havoc

Van Gogh said that the most important thing to learn about art is how to steal, which in my experience is actually pretty truthful. So as far as the whole "no referencing" thing, I think that's stupid. Same with public use. The Internet is a public place, that's how it works.

Distribution, though, makes sense. By distributing your work elsewhere, somebody can take credit for it or use it for something against your will. If it's a political piece, for example, it can be put out of context and used to promote something you don't believe in. And that sucks.

Unfortunately the Internet is so full of loopholes and hackers and selfish scumbags that it's hard to make any of that really matter.
Posted 09-30-2008 at 05:28 PM by Kimon

T-nex's Avatar
They can be cocky all they want... Doesn't mean people will respect them though.. Smart people will quickly see through those who just flaunt their art to hear how awesome they are... but it still doesn't change their rights, and I don't think it's stupid. If they are being an ass about it though, that just means they are an ass, but it has nothing to do with their rights.
Posted 09-30-2008 at 05:31 PM by T-nex

 

Recent Blog Entries by Havoc





 
 
- Oddworld Forums - -