I am an artist. Whether I'm any good is completely subjective. I don't dare post anything on this forum as I might regret it after how this conflict has transpired.
Oh ok I guess that makes sense. I just sort of assumed that most people here were either professional artists, people doing art as a hobby, or aspiring artists themselves, and for a moment there I was picturing an accountant getting knee deep in Dominance War discussion and was like, "That's...odd."
I would recommend you post your art anyway. If you initially registered here hoping to post some art and just got caught up in this DW stuff, don't let the discussion here stop you. People here don't have any problems critiquing and advising even artists they've disagreed with countless times. Post history speaks for itself. They're worked up because they're so passionate about art, and they seek integrity in their artistic endeavors. It's not any more "right" or "wrong" than the people keeping quiet, because mostly the same values are floating around in everyone's minds. They're just weighed and expressed a little differently depending on the person. And that's ok.
I'm not sure I can get objective opinions from this community after this discussion. I feel I have made enemies here.
Dude, I disagree with not only the stuff you said, but also how you said it. In about 30secs from now I'm going to look at some random picture with a funny subtitle, and forget who you even are.
My point is, nobody cares about that kind of stuff. People remember people by their art. I don't know what kind of person will give someone a malicious crit based on some random opinion expressed in some thread a while ago.
why would you regret posting artwork on an art forum where the members are renowned for giving good critiq? political debate aside, that's what this place is. and there's nobody on here that i know of who puts their personal beliefs before the good of a fellow artist and their improvement.
you're trying to combine way too many things into your argument, and now it's so diluted that it just doesn't carry any more.
my point, was that so far you've just come off as someone QQing that their best friend made a dick of themselves, and that because people are willing to say he made a dick of himself, you feel the need to have a go back. the problem with this, is that while everyone is entitled to an opinion, you're starting to sound like "my opinion is better than yours, so shut up", couple that with the fact you've not posted any art, it's easy to understand why people may get the impression that your opinion is not entirely enformed.
He's not my friend. I don't even know him. I'll defend anybody who I don't think deserves to be publicly attacked, which is pretty much everyone.
Nah man - we may be the art forum your mother warned you about, but we're all big boys and can separate foolish opinions from helping you with your game art.
Nah man - we may be the art forum your mother warned you about, but we're all big boys and can separate foolish opinions from helping you with your game art.
Well, good then. I'm really sick of this discussion now.
greevar: don't worry champ. just post some art. keep on keepin' on. people will forget you ever said we were crybabies here in GD eventually.
i mean, come on, it's not like you're n88tr copying zackfowler or anything.......................................................................................................
He's not my friend. I don't even know him. I'll defend anybody who I don't think deserves to be publicly attacked, which is pretty much everyone.
Hey Greevar.
Now I've been a member of GA from the very start, I've met Fred a few times, and I've been a member of PC for around the same time. I've even helped give a round of critiques at the GA gallery on Fred's behalf.
I have absolutely no personal bias against him, and in fact I REALLY hope he does well.
Now I haven't voiced a single opinion on this entire matter since the drama began. But pretty much every thought I had on this has been more eloquently posted by others.
If you look at everything objectively, you can NOT defend his actions.
The only thing anyone ever wanted was transparency. THAT IS IT.
And that is something that Fred hasn't really supplied for anyone. He merely tried justifying his actions after the fact, which ended up rubbing MANY people on this community the wrong way.
The fundamental difference is stealing something vs asking for something.
Now I've been a member of GA from the very start, I've met Fred a few times, and I've been a member of PC for around the same time. I've even helped give a round of critiques at the GA gallery on Fred's behalf.
I have absolutely no personal bias against him, and in fact I REALLY hope he does well.
Now I haven't voiced a single opinion on this entire matter since the drama began. But pretty much every thought I had on this has been more eloquently posted by others.
If you look at everything objectively, you can NOT defend his actions.
The only thing anyone ever wanted was transparency. THAT IS IT.
And that is something that Fred hasn't really supplied for anyone. He merely tried justifying his actions after the fact, which ended up rubbing MANY people on this community the wrong way.
The fundamental difference is stealing something vs asking for something.
Is there a difference to you?
Well, I don't see how it's possible to steal something that has no physical presence, but I also think he shouldn't have done it regardless. I'm also not defending his actions. I was defending his right to not be publicly mocked, which some, not all, were doing. It almost looked like people were forming a virtual lynch mob with torches and pitchforks galore. If I'm wrong than I apologize. I just didn't think such behavior was needed.
IN that case, torrent a bunch of video games and movies, then sell them for profit on your own accord.
I mean technically you're stealing just the data.
For the same reason I don't call it stealing, I also don't see the point in selling content I downloaded from torrents. It's about as valid as the publishers who sell infinitely copyable data as if they were a car or food. I'd be contradicting my own point. If I don't think their business model is valid, why would I use it?
I have to put more scarce resources and time into making more than one car. With a game, movie, or music, the first copy is all I need and I can reproduce as many as I desire with almost no additional resources. How can that be valid economically? Supply and demand only work if the supply is limited (i.e. scarce) and these things are not until you put a legally granted monopoly on it. Which I think is bad for artists but good for publishers.
Oh man, please not the file-sharing debate again... I'm drawn to it like moth to the flame. There was a thread a little while ago that covered every angle imaginable.
Oh man, please not the file-sharing debate again... I'm drawn to it like moth to the flame. There was a thread a little while ago that covered every angle imaginable.
I know what you mean. Both sides of the debate a quite polarized. One side thinks the old ways are how it should be despite evidence to the contrary and the other side wants to share everything, but typically haven't done enough research to back it up why they should be able to. Both call each other names like "pirates and thieves" or "monopolists". Then you've got those stuck in the middle who know the importance and value of art, but also try to convince others to try new models before things get worse.
I'm just gonna say, if you believe that, you shouldn't bother doing digital art, it wouldn't be viable to make a living if your model were used.
I disagree. One can definitely do digital art and still make money. Take XKCD or Cyanide and happiness for example. They provide free digital comics on their site for free, yet they have been successful in sell printed copies of their comics as well. The reason being, that people will pay for physical products that allow them to enjoy the art they love. This can be translated to games too. www.interstellarmarines.com is developing without a publisher, actually, the community is the publisher. They fund it through perks and incentives that non-paying fans don't get. They've been around since 2006, so I don't think they're going to fail.
xkcd and cyanide and happiness are both copyrighted works. If you think either one of them would put up with someone else publishing their work for money then you're nuts.
For the same reason I don't call it stealing, I also don't see the point in selling content I downloaded from torrents. It's about as valid as the publishers who sell infinitely copyable data as if they were a car or food. I'd be contradicting my own point. If I don't think their business model is valid, why would I use it?
I have to put more scarce resources and time into making more than one car. With a game, movie, or music, the first copy is all I need and I can reproduce as many as I desire with almost no additional resources. How can that be valid economically? Supply and demand only work if the supply is limited (i.e. scarce) and these things are not until you put a legally granted monopoly on it. Which I think is bad for artists but good for publishers.
It's not the torrent debate. All the art created for the contest is free for all to download by CHOICE of the artist.
But it's not SOLD for the profit without the artists consent.
But is there a difference to you between asking for something, and stealing something?
If there is no difference to you, then this discussion is over.
It's not the torrent debate. All the art created for the contest is free for all to download by CHOICE of the artist.
But it's not SOLD for the profit without the artists consent.
But is there a difference to you between asking for something, and stealing something?
If there is no difference to you, then this discussion is over.
You're the one that brought up torrents in the debate. I was merely rebutting.
Well, you're asking a loaded question, one that doesn't actually apply. I can't steal something that isn't property. Now if you were to ask me if there is a difference between asking and using without proper attribution, I would say there is.
I think the confusion is that you see your art as property and I don't see my art as property. Art is the execution of an idea, the same idea that could have been conceived by another person. So I can't apply the concept of property to the execution of that idea, that would deny every other person the possession of that idea and prevents them from pursuing its execution. On the other hand, things that serve as containers for art (i.e. paint and canvas, sculptures, etc.) are property and can be counted as stealing if they are taken.
Do I think Fred stole people's art? No I don't. Do I think he used it without permission or proper credit? I do. There's a very important difference there. One implies property and the other does not. I also think the people that paid him for your art are a bunch of suckers.
No, I don't even think this has to do with file sharing. Everyone put their art up for free for anyone to download.
What they didn't allow for, was allow their work to be sold for the profit of SOMEONE ELSE without their consent.
Oh yeah, in that case that's absolutely right.
The thing is that when artists submit their work to Domwar, there's the unspoken agreement that the work won't be used for profit. They're submitting it while thinking that it won't be sold.
So when then later it turned out that in fact it would be sold, there's a feeling of betrayal there. You can't lead people to believe one thing, and then behind the scenes do another thing.
You're the one that brought up torrents in the debate. I was merely rebutting.
Well, you're asking a loaded question, one that doesn't actually apply. I can't steal something that isn't property. Now if you were to ask me if there is a difference between asking and using without proper attribution, I would say there is.
I think the confusion is that you see your art as property and I don't see my art as property. Art is the execution of an idea, the same idea that could have been conceived by another person. So I can't apply the concept of property to the execution of that idea, that would deny every other person the possession of that idea and prevents them from pursuing its execution. On the other hand, things that serve as containers for art (i.e. paint and canvas, sculptures, etc.) are property and can be counted as stealing if they are taken.
Do I think Fred stole people's art? No I don't. Do I think he used it without permission or proper credit? I do. There's a very important difference there. One implies property and the other does not. I also think the people that paid him for your art are a bunch of suckers.
"It depends on your definition of 'is' "
Weather or not you "see" your art as property is irrelevant. Art is property, intellectual property, however you want to call it, and there are real and specific laws governing such things. You're a fool if you don't consider your art for what it is, your intellectual property.
It is a flawed and foolish argument to make, that because *some people* wouldn't care that their art/property is stolen/used without permission, that everyone should feel great about it.
did someone say priracy? sniff sniff, I heard it somewhere, sniff sniff.....its wrong, end of.
I just wish fred was more vocal in all of this, a simple sorry is all thats needed. Instead we get told its all polycounts fault. How dare they stand up for artists rights!!!!! I 100% understand people being angry, Ive been burned with people taking advantage of my art in the past and this stuff leaves a very bitter taste.
The whole dominance war thing has slowly become more of a business entity than a fun art comp. The business side needs to be stripped out completely. But saying that freds trying to do his best but unfortunately the damage is done and the wording on dominancewar.com does not help his cause. An emphasis on donations and passing the buck are not going down well
Weather or not you "see" your art as property is irrelevant. Art is property, intellectual property, however you want to call it, and there are real and specific laws governing such things. You're a fool if you don't consider your art for what it is, your intellectual property.
It is a flawed and foolish arguement to make, that because *some people* wouldn't care that their art/property is stolen/used without permission, that everyone should should feel great about it.
What? Just what? It's property? No it's not. Intellectual property (search the copyright act, it isn't in there) is a term made up by the publishers to strengthen their claim on copyright protected works. Americans have strong emotional attachment to their property rights and they used this as a semantic tool to socially engineer people into believing that they had property rights to the works they create when they don't. There is not one word of law that grants any property rights to the intangible art you create. I challenge you to find a law that specifically states that digital art is property. If such a thing were true, it would destroy the culture of art. If I can claim that the depiction of a blue duck on a pink pond as my property, I'm introducing a huge mess of problems on the public. Making that my property denies every single other person the use of the idea of a blue duck on a pink pond. The ownership of ideas would be criminal.
theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale).
Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce.
The canvas and paint used (for tangible pieces) has no value on it's own, it's the artwork on its idea that has value.
Art is property, whether it be tangible or digital. It's intellectual property as EQ said, your idea, and execution of idea.
Thus plagiarism is a crime, and is punishable in both the work place and particularly in Universities.
Freds action would have resulted in theft - by definition:
fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale).
IP held by the artist, legally you cannot change the terms of a competition or anything if it infringes on a persons rights.
If you were around when Congress were trying to get the orphanworks act passed, you would realise that companies would benefit in the end - artists would suffer in your view of theft and digital art. Large companies would love to have Copyright and IP be alot more grey in terms of the law.
Some answers to the questions posted here:
- Why the big delay?
All work to make DW5 happen stopped after December 5th. In DW4, there were many random and unexplained problems that occurred for various artists trying to Join DW4. I had various programmers look at the problem, but it remains a mystery. So, I need to get the system re-written, plus add an animation category, plus add public voting. I have recently started working on DW again and this time, I gave myself a large birth of space to insure I can get the system done on time.
- Why expand with more teams and more categories?
Why not? More fun for everyone. The challenge will run and conclude as always.
- Why remove corporate sponsorships?
A member here already addressed this by symbolizing dragons on top of a hoard. This is very true. It takes a lot of time to establish communications with them. Many insurances must be made, and contracts signed. On top of this, I then have to personally deliver prizes to 40+ shipping addresses. To remove corporate sponsorships is to give me more time to concentrate on doing a great challenge. Corporate sponsors never fully paid for the events I run anyways. I paid for the events personally with my own personal funds.
- Why donations?
Donating is optional. You dont need to donate if you dont want to.
- Where will donations go?
To me of course. Its support for my ideas and making them happen. Again, donating is optional. You dont have to if you dont want to.
- Why step down?
I am dumb. Plus, being publicly humiliated on December 5th gets on the nerves and causes funny results. I am only human. If you must keep voicing your opinions about this matter and how much it bothers you, please keep doing it.
- Why step back up?
No one else qualified to make DW5 happen immediately.
- Why remove prizes?
Too many shipping addresses, too costly to personal funds and too much time required to organize it and make it happen - contact 50+ champions, talk with them all, gather shipping info, box the packages, walk to post office (I dont have a car) etc.
- Why did I not apologize?
I already did. I stated that I made a mistake with the hastily included add on feature to sell art. It was the text in grey under my sizzy-drama-queen type resignation article.
- Will this happen again?
Nope. I dont have prizes to pay for now, so, I pretty much dont have to do anything to raise money. I dont have to do events, galleries, do public speaking (for those who know me personally, you know I hate it), sell stuff, sell art... nothing. Its actually a SUPER big relief. I can just concentrate on making a great art challenge. Once the challenge is over, I can then immediately start another one because there is no prizes to take care of. It took me 2 full months in the past to conclude a challenge. Was quite annoying.
- Will DW become a business?
Perhaps. If it did, it wouldnt be me leading it though.
- Where did previous prizes go?
I ran out of personal money. I gave the wacoms out already. I believe many of you saw slipgate with his cintiq in his office on facebook.
- Will DW continue?
Of course.
- Will DW get bigger?
Of course. Your challenge is making art. My challenge is surpassing my own personal projects.
- Should I stop and let DW die?
No. If I still like doing it and if artists still enjoy participating, then the challenge shall continue.
- Conclusion:
What will change? I will simplify DW a great deal by automating tasks (like public voting) and simplifying designs. Also, like another member here suggested, I should get a job, and yup, I will. With prizes and corporate sponsors out of the picture, I have free time to work and make an honest living.
If you have any other questions, please ask. I understand all the hostility here directed towards me. If I were in your shoes, Id have my lemon coated (for taste) pitch fork in hand too. As many artists here mentioned, there was no transparency.
I look forward to the day where I dont have to do any more personal announcements. I hope we can move forward soon so that I can get back to running things from the background.
BTW, please forgive me in advance as I must occasionally remind people that DW is not a business, it is run by an individual. I dont do it for popularity, I do it because people become extremely demanding if they think it is a business. They want everything for free, and demand the best. If I sign my name at the bottom of stuff, or make a small open games quote or something, its simply to remind people that an individual is running it, and that there will definitely be mistakes made (like extensions, judging shortcuts, start date delays, etc). Regardless, the challenge will always begin and conclude, like all previous 13 art challenges that have been successfully run by me.
What? Just what? It's property? No it's not. Intellectual property (search the copyright act, it isn't in there) is a term made up by the publishers to strengthen their claim on copyright protected works. Americans have strong emotional attachment to their property rights and they used this as a semantic tool to socially engineer people into believing that they had property rights to the works they create when they don't. There is not one word of law that grants any property rights to the intangible art you create. I challenge you to find a law that specifically states that digital art is property. If such a thing were true, it would destroy the culture of art. If I can claim that the depiction of a blue duck on a pink pond as my property, I'm introducing a huge mess of problems on the public. Making that my property denies every single other person the use of the idea of a blue duck on a pink pond. The ownership of ideas would be criminal.
You should stop, like, now. Read this: http://www.cls.yale.edu/page.asp?file=2/168
And srsly, digital is a legit medium; it is not necessary to put the definition in legal documents; they also cover media to be invented in the future. Just stop it.
The ownership of ideas is perfectly legal, there is this place called the US Patent office, i'm not sure if you've ever heard of it? I'm fairly certain the world hasn't imploded in on itself because of it.
I hope greevar will be left alone. Looks like that particular conversation got a tad bit derailed. The subject in this thread is not plagiarism or whatnot, it's about my crappy drama, that, hopefully, can stop soon. I am supposed to be interviewing pre-domwar champions, but I have time for a few questions.
What was the misunderstanding between Polycount & GameArtisans you mentioned on the website?
I am dumb. Plus, being publicly humiliated gets on the nerves and causes funny results. I am only human. If you think I deserve more punishment, please keep doing it.
[...]
I believe many of you saw slipgate with his cintiq in his office on facebook. Personally, I wish I had one too. Looks great. Instead, I have a shitty but affordable touch/pen bamboo tablet, which btw, I dont recommend. The touch feature is worse than my laptops touch pad.
Fred, we've just had entire pages complaining about the martyr attitude, I think you could do without comments like these.
I hope greevar will be left alone. It started off well, but it looks like that particular conversation got a tad bit derailed.
Last edited by FredH; Today at 03:45 PM..
Are you now not available for questions? I was seriously hoping to hear a reply as to what the misunderstanding between Polycount & GameArtisans was so we can avoid it in the future.
You have my email if you'd prefer that way instead.
Adam - It has been changed to highlight the exact event.
Zwebbie - Noted, will fix. Thank you.
Cool, read it.
Will the new changes to DW5 include the option of including your artwork in a package for $1.99 as previously thought or is that no longer happening? I assume that since Dominance War is a non-business entity this won't be the case, but perhaps it could be clarified on your list.
Replies
I'm not sure I can get objective opinions from this community after this discussion. I feel I have made enemies here.
Oh ok I guess that makes sense. I just sort of assumed that most people here were either professional artists, people doing art as a hobby, or aspiring artists themselves, and for a moment there I was picturing an accountant getting knee deep in Dominance War discussion and was like, "That's...odd."
I would recommend you post your art anyway. If you initially registered here hoping to post some art and just got caught up in this DW stuff, don't let the discussion here stop you. People here don't have any problems critiquing and advising even artists they've disagreed with countless times. Post history speaks for itself. They're worked up because they're so passionate about art, and they seek integrity in their artistic endeavors. It's not any more "right" or "wrong" than the people keeping quiet, because mostly the same values are floating around in everyone's minds. They're just weighed and expressed a little differently depending on the person. And that's ok.
Anyway, carry on.
Dude, I disagree with not only the stuff you said, but also how you said it. In about 30secs from now I'm going to look at some random picture with a funny subtitle, and forget who you even are.
My point is, nobody cares about that kind of stuff. People remember people by their art. I don't know what kind of person will give someone a malicious crit based on some random opinion expressed in some thread a while ago.
He's not my friend. I don't even know him. I'll defend anybody who I don't think deserves to be publicly attacked, which is pretty much everyone.
Well, good then. I'm really sick of this discussion now.
[ame]
i mean, come on, it's not like you're n88tr copying zackfowler or anything.......................................................................................................
Hey Greevar.
Now I've been a member of GA from the very start, I've met Fred a few times, and I've been a member of PC for around the same time. I've even helped give a round of critiques at the GA gallery on Fred's behalf.
I have absolutely no personal bias against him, and in fact I REALLY hope he does well.
Now I haven't voiced a single opinion on this entire matter since the drama began. But pretty much every thought I had on this has been more eloquently posted by others.
If you look at everything objectively, you can NOT defend his actions.
The only thing anyone ever wanted was transparency. THAT IS IT.
And that is something that Fred hasn't really supplied for anyone. He merely tried justifying his actions after the fact, which ended up rubbing MANY people on this community the wrong way.
The fundamental difference is stealing something vs asking for something.
Is there a difference to you?
Well, I don't see how it's possible to steal something that has no physical presence, but I also think he shouldn't have done it regardless. I'm also not defending his actions. I was defending his right to not be publicly mocked, which some, not all, were doing. It almost looked like people were forming a virtual lynch mob with torches and pitchforks galore. If I'm wrong than I apologize. I just didn't think such behavior was needed.
I see...
IN that case, torrent a bunch of video games and movies, then sell them for profit.
I mean technically you're stealing just the data which isn't possible to steal according to your philosophies on this.
For the same reason I don't call it stealing, I also don't see the point in selling content I downloaded from torrents. It's about as valid as the publishers who sell infinitely copyable data as if they were a car or food. I'd be contradicting my own point. If I don't think their business model is valid, why would I use it?
I have to put more scarce resources and time into making more than one car. With a game, movie, or music, the first copy is all I need and I can reproduce as many as I desire with almost no additional resources. How can that be valid economically? Supply and demand only work if the supply is limited (i.e. scarce) and these things are not until you put a legally granted monopoly on it. Which I think is bad for artists but good for publishers.
I know what you mean. Both sides of the debate a quite polarized. One side thinks the old ways are how it should be despite evidence to the contrary and the other side wants to share everything, but typically haven't done enough research to back it up why they should be able to. Both call each other names like "pirates and thieves" or "monopolists". Then you've got those stuck in the middle who know the importance and value of art, but also try to convince others to try new models before things get worse.
I disagree. One can definitely do digital art and still make money. Take XKCD or Cyanide and happiness for example. They provide free digital comics on their site for free, yet they have been successful in sell printed copies of their comics as well. The reason being, that people will pay for physical products that allow them to enjoy the art they love. This can be translated to games too. www.interstellarmarines.com is developing without a publisher, actually, the community is the publisher. They fund it through perks and incentives that non-paying fans don't get. They've been around since 2006, so I don't think they're going to fail.
Actually, it's the word my uncle used to taunt his dog into frothy rage. Irony!
It's not the torrent debate. All the art created for the contest is free for all to download by CHOICE of the artist.
But it's not SOLD for the profit without the artists consent.
But is there a difference to you between asking for something, and stealing something?
If there is no difference to you, then this discussion is over.
That point is usually agreed upon. Everyone agrees that there's a huge difference.
The point of contention is the definition of stealing, specifically as it applies to file-sharing.
But yeah, this thread just got massively derailed. All it needs is a penis tank, and it's perfect.
[ame]
No, I don't even think this has to do with file sharing. Everyone put their art up for free for anyone to download.
What they didn't allow for, was allow their work to be sold for the profit of SOMEONE ELSE without their consent.
You're the one that brought up torrents in the debate. I was merely rebutting.
Well, you're asking a loaded question, one that doesn't actually apply. I can't steal something that isn't property. Now if you were to ask me if there is a difference between asking and using without proper attribution, I would say there is.
I think the confusion is that you see your art as property and I don't see my art as property. Art is the execution of an idea, the same idea that could have been conceived by another person. So I can't apply the concept of property to the execution of that idea, that would deny every other person the possession of that idea and prevents them from pursuing its execution. On the other hand, things that serve as containers for art (i.e. paint and canvas, sculptures, etc.) are property and can be counted as stealing if they are taken.
Do I think Fred stole people's art? No I don't. Do I think he used it without permission or proper credit? I do. There's a very important difference there. One implies property and the other does not. I also think the people that paid him for your art are a bunch of suckers.
Oh yeah, in that case that's absolutely right.
The thing is that when artists submit their work to Domwar, there's the unspoken agreement that the work won't be used for profit. They're submitting it while thinking that it won't be sold.
So when then later it turned out that in fact it would be sold, there's a feeling of betrayal there. You can't lead people to believe one thing, and then behind the scenes do another thing.
"It depends on your definition of 'is' "
Weather or not you "see" your art as property is irrelevant. Art is property, intellectual property, however you want to call it, and there are real and specific laws governing such things. You're a fool if you don't consider your art for what it is, your intellectual property.
It is a flawed and foolish argument to make, that because *some people* wouldn't care that their art/property is stolen/used without permission, that everyone should feel great about it.
I just wish fred was more vocal in all of this, a simple sorry is all thats needed. Instead we get told its all polycounts fault. How dare they stand up for artists rights!!!!! I 100% understand people being angry, Ive been burned with people taking advantage of my art in the past and this stuff leaves a very bitter taste.
The whole dominance war thing has slowly become more of a business entity than a fun art comp. The business side needs to be stripped out completely. But saying that freds trying to do his best but unfortunately the damage is done and the wording on dominancewar.com does not help his cause. An emphasis on donations and passing the buck are not going down well
Don't feel bad. It took a lot of reading and a lot of discussion on the copyright before I understood it. I love the pic though, funny.
whoops!
Are there any other 'official' updates happening soon about this whole ordeal or does the entertainment continue?
What? Just what? It's property? No it's not. Intellectual property (search the copyright act, it isn't in there) is a term made up by the publishers to strengthen their claim on copyright protected works. Americans have strong emotional attachment to their property rights and they used this as a semantic tool to socially engineer people into believing that they had property rights to the works they create when they don't. There is not one word of law that grants any property rights to the intangible art you create. I challenge you to find a law that specifically states that digital art is property. If such a thing were true, it would destroy the culture of art. If I can claim that the depiction of a blue duck on a pink pond as my property, I'm introducing a huge mess of problems on the public. Making that my property denies every single other person the use of the idea of a blue duck on a pink pond. The ownership of ideas would be criminal.
Art is property, whether it be tangible or digital. It's intellectual property as EQ said, your idea, and execution of idea.
Thus plagiarism is a crime, and is punishable in both the work place and particularly in Universities.
Freds action would have resulted in theft - by definition: IP held by the artist, legally you cannot change the terms of a competition or anything if it infringes on a persons rights.
If you were around when Congress were trying to get the orphanworks act passed, you would realise that companies would benefit in the end - artists would suffer in your view of theft and digital art. Large companies would love to have Copyright and IP be alot more grey in terms of the law.
And we shall recieve you like a satchel of vaginas! hehe classic boosh
- Why the big delay?
All work to make DW5 happen stopped after December 5th. In DW4, there were many random and unexplained problems that occurred for various artists trying to Join DW4. I had various programmers look at the problem, but it remains a mystery. So, I need to get the system re-written, plus add an animation category, plus add public voting. I have recently started working on DW again and this time, I gave myself a large birth of space to insure I can get the system done on time.
- Why expand with more teams and more categories?
Why not? More fun for everyone. The challenge will run and conclude as always.
- Why remove corporate sponsorships?
A member here already addressed this by symbolizing dragons on top of a hoard. This is very true. It takes a lot of time to establish communications with them. Many insurances must be made, and contracts signed. On top of this, I then have to personally deliver prizes to 40+ shipping addresses. To remove corporate sponsorships is to give me more time to concentrate on doing a great challenge. Corporate sponsors never fully paid for the events I run anyways. I paid for the events personally with my own personal funds.
- Why donations?
Donating is optional. You dont need to donate if you dont want to.
- Where will donations go?
To me of course. Its support for my ideas and making them happen. Again, donating is optional. You dont have to if you dont want to.
- Why step down?
I am dumb. Plus, being publicly humiliated on December 5th gets on the nerves and causes funny results. I am only human. If you must keep voicing your opinions about this matter and how much it bothers you, please keep doing it.
- Why step back up?
No one else qualified to make DW5 happen immediately.
- Why remove prizes?
Too many shipping addresses, too costly to personal funds and too much time required to organize it and make it happen - contact 50+ champions, talk with them all, gather shipping info, box the packages, walk to post office (I dont have a car) etc.
- Why did I not apologize?
I already did. I stated that I made a mistake with the hastily included add on feature to sell art. It was the text in grey under my sizzy-drama-queen type resignation article.
- Will this happen again?
Nope. I dont have prizes to pay for now, so, I pretty much dont have to do anything to raise money. I dont have to do events, galleries, do public speaking (for those who know me personally, you know I hate it), sell stuff, sell art... nothing. Its actually a SUPER big relief. I can just concentrate on making a great art challenge. Once the challenge is over, I can then immediately start another one because there is no prizes to take care of. It took me 2 full months in the past to conclude a challenge. Was quite annoying.
- Will DW become a business?
Perhaps. If it did, it wouldnt be me leading it though.
- Where did previous prizes go?
I ran out of personal money. I gave the wacoms out already. I believe many of you saw slipgate with his cintiq in his office on facebook.
- Will DW continue?
Of course.
- Will DW get bigger?
Of course. Your challenge is making art. My challenge is surpassing my own personal projects.
- Should I stop and let DW die?
No. If I still like doing it and if artists still enjoy participating, then the challenge shall continue.
- Conclusion:
What will change? I will simplify DW a great deal by automating tasks (like public voting) and simplifying designs. Also, like another member here suggested, I should get a job, and yup, I will. With prizes and corporate sponsors out of the picture, I have free time to work and make an honest living.
If you have any other questions, please ask. I understand all the hostility here directed towards me. If I were in your shoes, Id have my lemon coated (for taste) pitch fork in hand too. As many artists here mentioned, there was no transparency.
I look forward to the day where I dont have to do any more personal announcements. I hope we can move forward soon so that I can get back to running things from the background.
BTW, please forgive me in advance as I must occasionally remind people that DW is not a business, it is run by an individual. I dont do it for popularity, I do it because people become extremely demanding if they think it is a business. They want everything for free, and demand the best. If I sign my name at the bottom of stuff, or make a small open games quote or something, its simply to remind people that an individual is running it, and that there will definitely be mistakes made (like extensions, judging shortcuts, start date delays, etc). Regardless, the challenge will always begin and conclude, like all previous 13 art challenges that have been successfully run by me.
You should stop, like, now. Read this: http://www.cls.yale.edu/page.asp?file=2/168
And srsly, digital is a legit medium; it is not necessary to put the definition in legal documents; they also cover media to be invented in the future. Just stop it.
Hi Fred!
The ownership of ideas is perfectly legal, there is this place called the US Patent office, i'm not sure if you've ever heard of it? I'm fairly certain the world hasn't imploded in on itself because of it.
What this thread really need is some TARAKO. Japanese people know what is real good!
[ame]
[ame]
[ame]
[ame]
[ame]
What was the misunderstanding between Polycount & GameArtisans you mentioned on the website?
Fred, we've just had entire pages complaining about the martyr attitude, I think you could do without comments like these.
Are you now not available for questions? I was seriously hoping to hear a reply as to what the misunderstanding between Polycount & GameArtisans was so we can avoid it in the future.
You have my email if you'd prefer that way instead.
Zwebbie - Noted, will fix. Thank you.
Cool, read it.
Will the new changes to DW5 include the option of including your artwork in a package for $1.99 as previously thought or is that no longer happening? I assume that since Dominance War is a non-business entity this won't be the case, but perhaps it could be clarified on your list.
Hazardous and Gav dropping knowledge