copyrights question...
polycounter lvl 14
Hi
I want to know how far should I edit my inspired source so that I avoid copyright issues....
I think this is not enough.. [mid eye removal, no tie, darker, eye halos, fangs]
or this is enough?
please give me any guidelines or tips... thanks.
I want to know how far should I edit my inspired source so that I avoid copyright issues....
I think this is not enough.. [mid eye removal, no tie, darker, eye halos, fangs]
or this is enough?
please give me any guidelines or tips... thanks.
This discussion has been closed.
Replies
Enough said.
You're going to jail, because you made a thread admitting you stole someones design.:poly124: (Does that constitute I.P. theft?)
Seriously, you must have eaten lead paint at some point in your childhood!
This picture is amazing, please tell me it is from an actual comic
I didn't ready any of the original posts from Belias, but do like me, just put him on ignore. Will save alot of diddle-daddle questions which could be answered through simple logic.
To Belias: The original design wasn't anything complex to begin with, but I'd take Alberto's advice to heart even still.
No, not really.
Does he get points for being a rip-off artist too?
You don't 'give points' to a fly that repeatedly throws itself at a window, thinking something is going to be different next time. Unless you are worryingly sentimental. It just does it because its not very smart.
I don't get why the one or two people who always whiteknight him on these boards do so.
A bit of an extreme viewpoint, don't you think? Everything comes from what came before. What Belias is doing is no different. He's really limiting himself, but calling him a rip-off just because it looks similar is hardly fair. Led Zepplin is probably considered the greatest rock band of all time and a lot of their music is practically wholesale copies of other artists. I'd wager that the creator of the monster in the reference was created borrowing ideas from other works. Don't be a hypocrite.
What you are confusing there is incidental and intentional ripping. It doesn't just happen to 'look similar', Belias has openly admitted to ripping the design, intentionally changing details to avoid trouble, and has asked AN ART COMMUNITY to further help in this!!
I'm sure the original artist intended to make something that wouldn't look too out of place in Monsters, Inc., but it is still a unique design of his. I'm also not sure how my post makes me a hypocrite, though I am; and most of us are, in at least one aspect of our character.
Belias. Depending on what its for. You could say its a parody of the original character, that gets you out of any copywrite infringement, but it does need to be parody, don't just say it is. I would recommend doing your own original art though.
I'm not confusing anything. You're accusing him of asking for advice on intentional plagiarism, when he's just trying to get advice on making what he has more original. The two works differ enough already that one could guess that they took inspiration from similar sources. The silhouette is different, it has fangs, different coloring, different skin speckle pattern, different number of eyes, and so on. He's trying to make it his own and you're lambasting him for it. In his effort to avoid copyright issues, he's clearly created something new and different than the source material. It may look derivative, but would you have known that had he posted the source? They may be similar, but that doesn't mean it's a rip-off and he doesn't deserve the attitude for it.
Anyway, back on topic:
Belias, given the discussion, I'd recommend you add and modify more of the features of the creature to make it look less derivative. Adding horns, spines, or making the eyes asymmetrical might help.
Any artist that is insulted by someone emulating them is a petty person indeed. Nobody owns the idea of a green gum-drop shaped monster.
Of course no one owns the idea on a green gum-drop shaped monster. It would be fine if Belias had used that as a source of inspiration or created his own creature like that from his imagination. It's the way that he asks "Is it okay if I just add teeth, remove the tie and remove one eye from that creature?" that's somewhat offensive.
the latter is a far less appealing prospect than the former
That's not even the case. He took the overall idea of the creature, created a new one from scratch with different features. As I said in my earlier post:
And how is it offensive? Exactly what harm has he done? The works are clearly different despite being similar. It's not a copy. It's an entirely new work using the same ideas expressed by the previous artist, which whom probably got their ideas the same way. You guys just go after him half-cocked and you don't even realize how completely wrong you are. You apparently have no idea how much art and culture is "ripped-off" from stuff that came before it.
No it isn't. This is just a knee-jerk reaction to seeing someone create a derivative work based on the work of another. Had he not posted the source and instead asked for critiques on it, you'd have not gone on the offensive. The only thing that's different is your idea of inspiration only exists in your mind.
Belias has created a new and unique work. It bear similar ideas in its expression compared to the other, but they are not 1:1 copies. He has done nothing wrong, it is not offensive in any way, and it's not a rip-off.
Good grief, let's just attack people who make fire hydrants for making them similar to other hydrant makers out there. I mean, how insulting that they make something similar! Do they have no respect?!?
Edit:
Case in point:
[ame="
He makes it seem like he just took that other persons creature and started adding or subtracting from it until it's different enough to avoid copyright issues. You really think that's an acceptable way for an artist to work?
I agree. My post wasn't sparked by Belias, just people being douchebags for the sake of being douchebags. Seriously, it seems like it's become a thing lately to pop your collars and act like a total fuckwit anytime someone does something as simple as post a duplicate topic due to using the wrong search terms. It's one thing to say "Belias, you shouldn't do that, do something more original - you'll be better for it on multiple fronts" and another to say "LOL I blocked Belias he's such a stupid paint-eating kid".
One is productive and takes the direction of steering someone in the right direction, the other is tripe.
I get it just fine, you don't get it. You're completely lost. You think you know how it all works, but you don't have a clue and now you're just sticking your fingers in your ears. All art is derivative. Everything is built upon what came before. Belias has committed no offense in doing what human kind has been doing since we smeared mud on cave walls. Everything is a copy of everything else. Nobody can create without ideas from other things to draw on. That's what Belias has done. He incorporated ideas from somewhere else and created a new work.
So you're interpreting his intent, judging him on that basis, assuming the worst of him, and ignoring that fact that he created something entirely new based on the same ideas? How small-minded!
I think it's perfectly acceptable. So long as he's not making a 1:1 copy (i.e. downloading the asset) and doing zero work of his own, which is not the case. He took ideas from the other artist and remixed them into his own original work that started from nothing but ideas. You guys are being ass-hats because he brought copyright into it and ignorantly assumed that his intent is malicious.
You're being absurdly over-protective of ideas like they're something exclusive to only the person that conceived them. There are paid professionals in the entertainment industry (like Disney, Universal, etc.) who do the same exact thing and nobody assaults them with accusations of offending the artist that they got their ideas from. He didn't do anything in creating this creature that any of you couldn't be accused of, you just don't know you've "ripped-off" someone's work.
I think some artists around here have an over-inflated sense of self importance that is not congruent with reality. Your work is not a sacred object to be revered and it's not an act of blasphemy to use inherent ideas from it to create something similar. It's a statement of your thoughts that communicate your ideas to others through visual medium. The point of which is to propagate those ideas to others so they can further spread them through expressions of their own interpretations, which Belias did.
You're so caught up in your elitism and ownership culture that you've forgotten that art is communication at its core and thus it's purpose is to spread ideas. So you accuse and attack Belias for doing exactly what art was intended to do because you care more about protecting the artist at the expense of freedom of expression. What you're doing is highly oppressive.
Belias, there isn't a hard definition of what is/isn't copyright infringement. It's ultimately up to the judge presiding over a court case, if this ever went to court. Ultimately it's up to that judge to decide whether your artwork is an original piece or an infringing derivative.
The fact that you are intentionally attempting to alter someone else's work until you feel it is no longer recognizable, rather than building from the ground up, means both A) you've communicated intent to intentionally derive work from them as directly as possible, and
In short, you're doing it wrong.
As far as I'm concerned I see nothing wrong with what Belias is doing down to even imitating it ad-verbatim, AS LONG AS he credits and acknowledges the original creator and copyright holder with all published versions of this work (and it's even recommended to contact the original creator to seek a form of permission to create a derivative and/or parody work.) I see what he's brought up here as just being careful, YES HE SHOULD MAKE SOMETHING ORIGINAL, but in the efforts of improving his skills and understanding workflow he could also create a recognisable copy of another asset, something that many junior artists are tasked to do, even though the assets may be in house. So if he wanted to do that then he just wants to know, how far he should change it to make sure that even though it's clearly derivative, that the creators would not get uppity and shut him down because "your blob looks similar to my blob."
Hell how much does this already happen here? There was a competition to create your own version of an actual fighting game character recently, and there's even a Dirty Harry in the banner. Yes, before everybody flames me, they're all original 'interpretations' but they're still recognisable constructs of the originals, leaving most of the artists here to cover themselves with a disclaimer stating that the original work of inspiration belongs to somebody else.
Of course this is my view of the issue, but for Belias sake, and surely the sake of everyone else here that's been put in huff, I'll impart this bit of wisdom I once read on -- http://www.sloperama.com/advice/faq61.htm --
READ IT BELIAS
[SIZE=+1] If you ever have to ask "will this get me in trouble," and you don't want to pay an attorney to find out, you shouldn't do it. Simple. Remember-- Just because you might have a DEFENSE doesn't mean you can't get SUED. [/SIZE]
What I am saying is that you might get a better grip on the other layers of implication this has (that is to say : the common sense behavior amongst respectful art communities) with a bit more time and experience within that field. And again - it comes with time and experience, and that's okay. Just don't assume you know how it all works. If anything, the advice given to B is not only legal, it's also ethical. The DVD he is doing to teach people realtime art might be frowned upon if people get to know of his attitude of ripping stuff up "just enough", most likely without the author consent. "Oh, thats the DVD from the guy who ripped off that tiny green monster thing!" is what most people could think. Our advice is for him to simply not do that, as it isn't a wise way to go at things.
Meanwhile it might be wise to read further and understand what other artists have to say on the subject. And, mind you, no one has over inflated egos here, quite the opposite actually. Experience brings a great deal of open-mindedness and humility.
I also don't think it's disrespectful to the artist either. Those ideas aren't exclusive nor rivalrous, he didn't come up with them in a creative vacuum. The other artist owes as much credit to the public domain of works for his ideas as Belias.
I know I tend to go text-wall on people when I get frazzled. I have ADHD and it's hard to organize my thoughts at times, so the dam breaks and all of my thoughts end up on the page in a Jackson Pollock fashion.
He clearly asks how close you can go copying something without getting legally in trouble.
Someone here probably works at gameloft and knows the answer?
The other small fun fact, as with always with a thread by belias it involves a piece of art by him he made years ago.
No, he is pretty much doing what I am accusing him of.
I don't see anyone here that fits that description. I don't sugarcoat it, but it is a very valid point. He's bordeline stealing, for gods sake.
I'm not even going to address any of Greevar's latest page filling outbursts, he's a funny dude but boy are his ideals and definitions screwed up!
THIS
and actually its a pertinent point in many industries.. how close can you get without getting your ass sued off
Define "original".
Edit: I say this to no one in particular, but everyone equally.
At what point is something original? How can you be original when everything is built on everything else? Originality is merely an arbitrary concept, nobody has the authority to make the judgement on what's original, yet many do and they take great offense when this ambiguous rule is breached. It's like judging someone by a secret set of rules that only you know and then get upset when someone violates them. Many here speak of respecting the artist and say that Belias dealt this artist a great offense, but what about the sources that artist has drawn from? Is he any more above reproach even though he's also using what others have done to create his art? Is it only when we openly admit that we did something that we're all guilty of that we commit this most heinous of crimes to art?
Give originality a try, as you can see by this thread; it's actually more work to try and copy someone else.
That's a pretty weak metric to measure by and an arbitrary one at that. Copyright does not set the bar on what's original or not, it's an amorphous and enigmatic concept at best. It's impossible to define a bright-line rule on it. Originality is about as concrete as what is beautiful. No two minds can come to the same conclusion on every instance.
What you're saying really means, "Don't compete with me on my own ideas, you might do it better than me and I can't have that." That, I think, is where the "offense" comes from. Somebody using the same ideas you used in another work that bears similarity is a threat to the exclusivity of your ideas. You want control and it pisses you off that someone took that power away from you, which is so easy to do (taking your ideas, not piss you off. Although that might be easy to do as well. I can't say for certain.).
Which you automatically take as him "side-stepping" or "cheating" copyright, when in fact he's trying to take another person's ideas and remix them into something new, but similar. He liked what the artist did and he wanted to create his own interpretation. Is that so wrong?
Even while being original you need to be aware of what is out there. If I decide to create a sci-fi mustached space plumber in a red jumpsuit that uses a flame thrower to clean out the alien invested drains, is that original or unoriginal?
If mario came to your mind at all during that paragraph, then the gray area here is worth talking about and not just dismissed.
To BELIAS for all his hard work and dedication!
Where the FUCK do you get off putting words in my mouth?
Ideas are cheap and easy - copying someone else is just a crutch and trying to change it enough to avoid getting sued is just putting in work and effort that would best be spent more into creating your own thing.
Ideas are cheap, they're also not anybody's property and certainly nobody has the right to say others can't use them. As for the rest, that's merely your opinion, not fact.
You need to calm down. I wasn't putting words in your mouth so much as giving voice to the attitude people take over what is allowed when using ideas. Your strong emotional response indicates that I've clearly struck a nerve which tells me I'm on to something.
I think people have turned copying into a dirty word that elicits some serious control issues and cognitive dissonance. I hate to break it to everyone whom disagrees, but copying is how we do everything. Without copying, there would be not art, no science, no knowledge, and no civilization. It's a fundamental part of learning and creation. You're going to have to accept that it's not only okay to copy, but actually a good thing because humans don't copy things verbatim, we actually transform it in the process of copying. Only machines make perfect unaltered copies because they lack the capacity to create. When someone copies, they transform it, if only marginally, which cascades throughout society. Have you ever played "telephone" as a child. Case in point.
Too many people are invested in their art as a means to an end (or a product) rather than the communication it really is.