| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Eechironin
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 14 Jun 2010
Posts: 262
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Silvador
Royal Member of BonBon
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 12351
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:39 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Way more than can ever be posted in any single thread.
_________________
  
Fursonas: http://tinyurl.com/yzcsyug |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eechironin
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 14 Jun 2010
Posts: 262
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Silvador wrote: | | Way more than can ever be posted in any single thread. |
DO post!   
_________________
"That which is denied becomes that which is most desired, and that which is hidden becomes that which is most interesting. Consequently, a great deal of time and energy is spent trying to get at what is being kept from you."-John Denver |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Symphony
Royal Member of BonBon
Joined: 13 Apr 2008
Posts: 2620
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Silvador
Royal Member of BonBon
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 12351
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Symphony wrote: | | You want this to be a thread where people can share artwork without permission from the artist(s)? |
This isn't art from paysites, Symph. Posting their artwork on the net and making it freely available is essentially sharing it to begin with. Of course people are going to show it around. It's called "word of mouth". How else is an artist going to become known?
_________________
Fursonas: http://tinyurl.com/yzcsyug |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Symphony
Royal Member of BonBon
Joined: 13 Apr 2008
Posts: 2620
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know enough about copyright laws to say whether it's okay to repost "free" art. I wouldn't count on it being okay just because the artist posted it on FurAffinity or some other site, but then, I'd rather thread very carefully with something like this. Besides, how are we going to know whether an artist wants his/her work posted elsewhere? Having a thread where people can post artwork, is to invite problems with potentially illegally shared artwork, and that might cause serious problems for Ronald and Vanessa.
_________________
Constance Mayflower's bio
Constance Mayflower's diary
The Mayflower Diaries |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Silvador
Royal Member of BonBon
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 12351
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Symphony wrote: | | I don't know enough about copyright laws to say whether it's okay to repost "free" art. I wouldn't count on it being okay just because the artist posted it on FurAffinity or some other site, but then, I'd rather thread very carefully with something like this. Besides, how are we going to know whether an artist wants his/her work posted elsewhere? Having a thread where people can post artwork, is to invite problems with potentially illegally shared artwork, and that might cause serious problems for Ronald and Vanessa. |
It's my understanding that when something is protected by a copyright law, it is protected from someone else claiming ownership of it, or from creating a replica of it without the permission of the original owner; in the case of art like this, drawing and using one's character in any way that the owner does not permit, for example, using, say, Violet, in a webcomic without Vanessa's permission. Of course, fan art no doubt has it's own set of arguments.
I don't believe simply showing art of another artist is a violation of a copyright law, as long as the art is not claimed by someone who does not truly own it.
_________________
Fursonas: http://tinyurl.com/yzcsyug |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Symphony
Royal Member of BonBon
Joined: 13 Apr 2008
Posts: 2620
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
From the PBB terms of service:
| Quote: | Also, re-distribution of members area material on the Internet, Usenet, BBS or other archive collections, will cause your account to be immediately terminated with no refund, and legal action taken if necessary.
|
I'm sure that many other artists feel the same way.
_________________
Constance Mayflower's bio
Constance Mayflower's diary
The Mayflower Diaries |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Silvador
Royal Member of BonBon
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 12351
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Symphony wrote: | From the PBB terms of service:
| Quote: | Also, re-distribution of members area material on the Internet, Usenet, BBS or other archive collections, will cause your account to be immediately terminated with no refund, and legal action taken if necessary.
|
I'm sure that many other artists feel the same way. |
This discussion it not about material on paysites, Symphony. We are talking about material that artists are allowing to be viewed for free. Also, artists who do not wish their art to be reposted, tend to openly say so where they post their artwork. I don't know about the two lower images, but the two upper ones are by an artist called Petite Emi, or just Emi. She is one of my favourite artists, chiefly for her character, funnily enough, named Symphony. I have yet to, at any point while browsing her page on DeviantArt, see her request people to not repost her artwork.
_________________
Fursonas: http://tinyurl.com/yzcsyug |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Symphony
Royal Member of BonBon
Joined: 13 Apr 2008
Posts: 2620
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My point is that many artists take stuff like this very seriously. It's not always possible to see if something is from a paysite or not. Take Sexyfur for example. Some of that is posted by the artists on FurAffinity, but they take some serious actions against anyone sharing their artwork. I don't know if the work they've shared on FA is exempt from this, but I wouldn't risk it.
It's not always possible to tell who the artist behind a picture is or whether it's from a paysite, so that might cause some problems.
_________________
Constance Mayflower's bio
Constance Mayflower's diary
The Mayflower Diaries |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Silvador
Royal Member of BonBon
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 12351
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Symphony wrote: | My point is that many artists take stuff like this very seriously. It's not always possible to see if something is from a paysite or not. Take Sexyfur for example. Some of that is posted by the artists on FurAffinity, but they take some serious actions against anyone sharing their artwork. I don't know if the work they've shared on FA is exempt from this, but I wouldn't risk it.
It's not always possible to tell who the artist behind a picture is or whether it's from a paysite, so that might cause some problems. |
Actually, most unedited images posted on paysites like Sexyfur, Clubstripes and Fur After Dark all come with a "DNP" stamp on it. As for the art posted, done by the same artists, posted on FurAffinity, those images never match any of the ones posted on the paysites. Once again, the artists, especially if they take such things serious, would say so if they do not wish for their art to be reposted.
As for recognition, it actually is possible to distinguish some of the higher calibre artist's work. To one who spends little time admiring such works of art, the subtle differences may not be as obvious. But to someone like myself, who might even be considered a minor connoisseur of such artwork, it is quite easy to determine who has drawn what art just by looking at it. Colouring, linework, even shading. Each artist has their own distinct flare which they have developed, perhaps unconsciously, over the years. And it is this flare that is as much as signature of theirs are writing their name on the image.
Jerremy Bernal, Max Black Rabbit, Tsampikos, Beowulf and many more each have their own unique style that can be spotted quite clearly to one who spends enough time admiring their works.
_________________
Fursonas: http://tinyurl.com/yzcsyug
Last edited by Silvador on Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mayfield
Rank: Super Veteran
Joined: 21 May 2010
Posts: 11790
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Honestly, I'm with Symphony on this one. Someone would probably post up art that does actually belong to a paysite. It could happen unintentionally but the point is it will be there and I'm sure the artist/site will not be happy about that one bit. Now unless the poster can get permission from the artist to post the art, then I think we'd be okay but that would take forever and who knows how long that would take?
_________________
"I have currently run out of fucks to give." - Me
My FA
---Fursonna---
Rhoda Mayfield |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Silvador
Royal Member of BonBon
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 12351
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mayfield wrote: | | Honestly, I'm with Symphony on this one. Someone would probably post up art that does actually belong to a paysite. It could happen unintentionally but the point is it will be there and I'm sure the artist/site will not be happy about that one bit. Now unless the poster can get permission from the artist to post the art, then I think we'd be okay but that would take forever and who knows how long that would take? |
Mayfield makes a good point. As I stated, most unedited images from paysites come with "DNP" or "Do Not Post" stamps, meaning they are not to be reposted elsewhere with permission. The key word in there is "unedited". With the high amount of paysite material being posted on the internet with such stamps often edited out, it can be difficult to tell if an image is from such a site.
_________________
Fursonas: http://tinyurl.com/yzcsyug |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eechironin
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 14 Jun 2010
Posts: 262
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The peculiarities of copyright law...
I believe the fundamental basis for copyright is:
1. Not to claim another persons work as yours, and by extension to slightly modify it and claim its yours (heavily modified can be exempted)
2. Not to gain income from another persons efforts, unless you paid them for it, or they gave permission.
3. Not to deny payment to creator by distributing purchased copies (the issue at hand, one created by the digital age).
Under the Fair Use (USA Statute)
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
| Quote: | Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
|
Because this Forum is free of charge for anyone, their is no income gained by posting it here, and I certainly make no claim to those images nor say someone else did it who did not.
Opening sentence says, I did this to explore, learn, about other beautiful art.
The only thing I do not know if they where paid pieces that should not have been copied.
I post in other forums and they never where critical of images posted, certainly did not mean to infringe anyone's copyright, but it is PBB's forum and if they do not approve I will remove it, replace with links instead.
I apologize if I broke a forum rule here.
PS:
I discovered PBB because I came across some of Vanessa's work (including DNP/DND paid art) from PBB and others drifting around the internet.
A perfect case of "word of mouth", in this case image, advertising.
PPS: sorry for my rambling.
_________________
"That which is denied becomes that which is most desired, and that which is hidden becomes that which is most interesting. Consequently, a great deal of time and energy is spent trying to get at what is being kept from you."-John Denver |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tursi
Royal Member of BonBon
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 648
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The definition of Copyright (in the US) is really simple.
It is the right of the owner of the work to completely and exclusively control any of all distribution of the work or any reproductions of the work.
Further to that, all works created in the United States are automatically covered by Copyright unless the creator explicitly disclaims this. Copyright can not automatically be lost by lack of enforcement either (this is a common confusion with Trademarks).
Copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator, or for works owned by a commercial entity, 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation, whichever expires first. Note that for works created before 2002, these terms vary some, but the shortest term is 70 years.
It gets complicated when you start drilling into the details, but pretty much all artwork we are talking about here falls under these rules. There is no clause for "helping" the artist and helping someone when they don't want your help isn't helping them at all. Clarify first.
These periods are for the United States, but all countries under the Berne convention have reasonably compatible copyright laws. Apparently 164 countries fall under this law, which has minimum periods (50 years).
So, copyright has nothing to do with claiming someone else's work as yours. It has absolutely nothing to do with money changing hands (although profiting can affect the damages if it is taken to court).
Now.. fair use is a really tough one, since it's hard to decide what is fair use. The problem is that posting to the internet has been considered "publishing" in many places, meaning that if things did go to court, it's likely that publishing laws and precedents would be used. Republishing someone's work IN FULL without permission is not usually considered fair use. Excerpts are usually easier to defend.
What tends to happen in these case, though, is people confuse whether they can get away with something, or whether it will even be pursued, with whether it's legal. Ultimately, the LEGAL side says that it's up to the artist whether you can repost it. IMO, the MORAL side says you should ask the artist before you repost it. And the rest is pretty much all internet bickering.
_________________
http://harmlesslion.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Silvador
Royal Member of BonBon
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 12351
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tursi wrote: | The definition of Copyright (in the US) is really simple.
It is the right of the owner of the work to completely and exclusively control any of all distribution of the work or any reproductions of the work.
Further to that, all works created in the United States are automatically covered by Copyright unless the creator explicitly disclaims this. Copyright can not automatically be lost by lack of enforcement either (this is a common confusion with Trademarks).
Copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator, or for works owned by a commercial entity, 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation, whichever expires first. Note that for works created before 2002, these terms vary some, but the shortest term is 70 years.
It gets complicated when you start drilling into the details, but pretty much all artwork we are talking about here falls under these rules. There is no clause for "helping" the artist and helping someone when they don't want your help isn't helping them at all. Clarify first.
These periods are for the United States, but all countries under the Berne convention have reasonably compatible copyright laws. Apparently 164 countries fall under this law, which has minimum periods (50 years).
So, copyright has nothing to do with claiming someone else's work as yours. It has absolutely nothing to do with money changing hands (although profiting can affect the damages if it is taken to court).
Now.. fair use is a really tough one, since it's hard to decide what is fair use. The problem is that posting to the internet has been considered "publishing" in many places, meaning that if things did go to court, it's likely that publishing laws and precedents would be used. Republishing someone's work IN FULL without permission is not usually considered fair use. Excerpts are usually easier to defend.
What tends to happen in these case, though, is people confuse whether they can get away with something, or whether it will even be pursued, with whether it's legal. Ultimately, the LEGAL side says that it's up to the artist whether you can repost it. IMO, the MORAL side says you should ask the artist before you repost it. And the rest is pretty much all internet bickering. |
I stand corrected.
_________________
Fursonas: http://tinyurl.com/yzcsyug |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eechironin
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 14 Jun 2010
Posts: 262
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tursi wrote: | The definition of Copyright (in the US) is really simple.
It is the right of the owner of the work to completely and exclusively control any of all distribution of the work or any reproductions of the work.
<snip>
Ultimately, the LEGAL side says that it's up to the artist whether you can repost it. IMO, the MORAL side says you should ask the artist before you repost it. And the rest is pretty much all internet bickering. |
Since I do not know who created the works, thus cannot gain permission, I changed the images to links.
I assume this does not violate the Laws since the work is not shown or stored on ones computer cache?
_________________
"That which is denied becomes that which is most desired, and that which is hidden becomes that which is most interesting. Consequently, a great deal of time and energy is spent trying to get at what is being kept from you."-John Denver |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tursi
Royal Member of BonBon
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 648
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
For all my reading, I'm not a judge, but it's good that you cared enough to make an effort! Seems better to me though.
_________________
http://harmlesslion.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Profile
Log in
