LadyCrimson Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Last thread Last few posts from last thread: Anita Sarkeesian used unlicensed artwork in her kickstarter pitch Author tried communicating to no avail, so she took it more public. Did Tammy create Princess Daphne? Does she own the rights to her? Does anyone know how artist's rights work in regards to fanart? Can artists re-draw another persons IP and then sell it/license it? I ask, not because I think it's cool that Anita used the art without permission... I'm just wondering if the artist has a leg to stand on. -------------------------------------------- Yes and yes. Thank you for being honest. I hope now you can see my point. My countries laws are basically the same as yours. We allow free speech but not if it is considered offensive or hurtful or insulting to a person. I'm not sure how you want to define examples in the UK where people have been prosecuted with using certain words on Twitter but the reality is the UK is a Democracy that believes in free speech. This is the point I have been trying to make for ages, there is no contradiction when saying " I live in a society where we believe in free speech but certain words and descriptions of people aren't acceptable for public use" I assume that when you say "offensive or hurtful or insulting" you mean "on the level of hate crime relating to creed, color, sexual orientation, or personal disability" because otherwise that's just deeply ****ed up. Anyway, that proves my point, right? Free speech has nothing whatsoever to do with the wretched faux social justice journalism of RPS. -------------------------------------------- Anita Sarkeesian used unlicensed artwork in her kickstarter pitch Author tried communicating to no avail, so she took it more public. Did Tammy create Princess Daphne? Does she own the rights to her? Does anyone know how artist's rights work in regards to fanart? Can artists re-draw another persons IP and then sell it/license it? I ask, not because I think it's cool that Anita used the art without permission... I'm just wondering if the artist has a leg to stand on. I have no idea how the legal implications work out, but it is very bad form to just yank an image off google images and use it for your own marketing material. Sarkeesian should at least recognize the artist. It would seem to contradict feminist ideals to take advantage of this female artist in the name of open source art. “Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts
babaganoosh13 Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) Anita Sarkeesian used unlicensed artwork in her kickstarter pitch Author tried communicating to no avail, so she took it more public. Did Tammy create Princess Daphne? Does she own the rights to her? Does anyone know how artist's rights work in regards to fanart? Can artists re-draw another persons IP and then sell it/license it? I ask, not because I think it's cool that Anita used the art without permission... I'm just wondering if the artist has a leg to stand on. I have no idea how the legal implications work out, but it is very bad form to just yank an image off google images and use it for your own marketing material. Sarkeesian should at least recognize the artist. It would seem to contradict feminist ideals to take advantage of this female artist in the name of open source art. I don't see a copyright notification anywhere where the picture she made was. It's probably safe to assume that she hasn't registered it. If she is looking for compensation, she will probably be very limited to how much she can collect, if anything. To what degree presumably a claim of fair use could be used would be best determined by lawyers. The potentially most damning thing that Tammy could use against Anita if she so chooses, is that the symbol in the top right hand corner would had to have been taken out which might go to show that this was original artwork, and not something by the copyright holders of Dragons Lair - and thus fair use couldn't be applied. Somewhat related, I designed a logo that was used for the Climb For Hope motivational speaking tour almost 19 years ago featuring a yellow sun behind a mountain, with a little mountain climber at the foot of it. A few years ago, a store opened up that used a slightly modified version of it (the sun was changed to red, the mountain climber was cropped out) on its storefront sign (without asking me.) I didn't register it (I was a teenager at the time) but I should still have some physical media left that has it on there, crediting me as the creator. Anyways, rather than go all out and either demand money or try to make them change their sign; they just don't use it in any promotional material (you can't see 1 foot above their door in any remotely promotional storefront pictures.) I guess the kid who designed the sign for her thought it was a stock image. That's the problem with a larger-sized small local business. Lots of turnover over the years. At least now it won't happen again. Or they can pay me. I'd be more than happy to accept money. EDIT: Oh and this - Anita Sarkeesian used unlicensed artwork in her kickstarter pitch Author tried communicating to no avail, so she took it more public. Did Tammy create Princess Daphne? Does she own the rights to her? Does anyone know how artist's rights work in regards to fanart? Can artists re-draw another persons IP and then sell it/license it? I ask, not because I think it's cool that Anita used the art without permission... I'm just wondering if the artist has a leg to stand on. Where you might run into problems, is if you say, draw an image/picture that in itself is copyrighted. See George Zimmerman's problems with the AP regarding the painting he made of Angela Corey http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-says-george-zimmermans-painting-copies-photo-2014-1 Edited March 8, 2014 by babaganoosh13 You see, ever since the whole Doritos Locos Tacos thing, Taco Bell thinks they can do whatever they want.
Noviere Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) EDIT: Oh and this - Where you might run into problems, is if you say, draw an image/picture that in itself is copyrighted. See George Zimmerman's problems with the AP regarding the painting he made of Angela Corey http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-says-george-zimmermans-painting-copies-photo-2014-1 Here's what the Andy Warhol Foundation apparently has to say about the soup cans: Andy Warhol did not originally seek permission from Campbell Soup Company to paint their soup cans. He apparently did not run into problems with the company who saw his usage as amusing and the freedom of expression. It was only after Warhol's death, when the Andy Warhol Foundation began making licensing agreements with various manufacturers to use Warhol's imagery on products, that there was an official legal agreement between the Andy Warhol Foundation and Campbell Soup Company. Presently, both parties own a stake in the copyright and neither party can make licensing agreements without the other party's permission. Happily, we have a good relationship with them and are involved in various licensing deals with them covering a wide range of products. So, to answer your question, while he was alive, Warhol did retain the copyright to his own artworks but never addressed the issue himself as far as Campbell Soup Company was concerned. I've read a bit more on Tammy's website, and apparently she is claiming fair use of Princess Daphne because her drawing is a non-commercial tribute to the Dragon's Lair character... If she were to license it in exchange for money it would no longer be non-commercial use, right? Furthermore, Anita is claiming fair use because her videos are educational/not-for-profit, and that her use of the image in a collage is transformative. This is why the whole thing gets hazy in my non-copyright-lawyer-mind. The only thing that keeps going through my mind is this: Tammy can't copyright that image, in the same way that I cannot draw an original picture of Mickey Mouse and copyright it. I cannot have my drawing of Mickey printed on merchandise and sold in stores because I don't own/haven't licensed Mickey Mouse. All of this of course doesn't mean that using it without permission or acknowledgement is somehow not a jerk move. Edit: Hopefully this is somewhat legible. It's 6:30am on a Saturday and I'm battling a headcold so my thoughts aren't exactly organized Edited March 8, 2014 by Noviere 1
babaganoosh13 Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 That's fair enough. I wasn't sure of Campbell's end of things. I knew that Warhol didn't seek permission from them, so my assumption was that you couldn't use Campbell's design on a can, but a painting of a can of Campbell's soup was fair game. Personally, anything I've ever done that was based on someone elses work (like a fanpic, or slight parody piece), I couldn't care less what happens to them because I don't really consider them to be my own. (Also, 32 bit graphics exceeds my artistic ability, so it's usually not a problem for me.) You see, ever since the whole Doritos Locos Tacos thing, Taco Bell thinks they can do whatever they want.
alanschu Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 My assumption is that there's a bit of jadedness that the art was used as evidence of objectification against women/justification of the video, when the intent was as a tribute towards Daphne. Just a gut feeling, however.
Orogun01 Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 My assumption is that there's a bit of jadedness that the art was used as evidence of objectification against women/justification of the video, when the intent was as a tribute towards Daphne. Just a gut feeling, however. I wish your optimism was contagious; I actually think that if she didn't bother to contact the artists and ask her permission she mustn't had much respect for her. Or it could be that she just did a google search and grabbed something convenient (seems like that's her MO) I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you.
ManifestedISO Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Well, obviously, the artist is female, and by using her art, she will understand and relate to our cause, without regard to copyright, said Anita to herself. 2 All Stop. On Screen.
alanschu Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 My assumption is that there's a bit of jadedness that the art was used as evidence of objectification against women/justification of the video, when the intent was as a tribute towards Daphne. Just a gut feeling, however. I wish your optimism was contagious; I actually think that if she didn't bother to contact the artists and ask her permission she mustn't had much respect for her. Or it could be that she just did a google search and grabbed something convenient (seems like that's her MO) I was speaking from Tammy's perspective (and why she decided to go after this with a tribute piece of a character she didn't create), not Anita's. I suspect in Anita's case, it was a google image search that popped up with that image with a degree of underhandedness to remove the watermark from the image. It's a "shake my head" moment for Anita (someone that I know I've been much more willing to defend on this board than a lot of others)
Oner Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) Thinking about it a bit, it's a little funny Sarkeesian used a fanservice drawing of a woman to fight against objectification...using a picture drawn by a woman. I mean, a woman drew a picture of another scantily clad woman. Of her own free will. Edited March 9, 2014 by Oner 6 Giveaway list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DgyQFpOJvyNASt8A12ipyV_iwpLXg_yltGG5mffvSwo/edit?usp=sharing What is glass but tortured sand?Never forget! '12.01.13.
Noviere Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 I wish your optimism was contagious; I actually think that if she didn't bother to contact the artists and ask her permission she mustn't had much respect for her. Or it could be that she just did a google search and grabbed something convenient (seems like that's her MO) Honestly, I think that's what it boils down to.
Lexx Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Well, most people would do that. So it's not like you can blame it on her character or something. 1 "only when you no-life you can exist forever, because what does not live cannot die."
mute688 Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Don't know if this has been posted anywhere already, I may be late to the party as usual. I just came across a WB game called Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor. The gameplay seems like Batman in Mordor, but with some interesting tactical and strategic elements added. If they can actually achieve the things they claim, it may be an entertaining game. http://youtu.be/7fB64APq_jk 2
Sarex Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Don't know if this has been posted anywhere already, I may be late to the party as usual. I just came across a WB game called Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor. The gameplay seems like Batman in Mordor, but with some interesting tactical and strategic elements added. If they can actually achieve the things they claim, it may be an entertaining game. This has potential to be such a good game. Looking forward to it. "because they filled mommy with enough mythic power to become a demi-god" - KP
Monte Carlo Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Thinking about it a bit, it's a little funny Sarkeesian used a fanservice drawing of a woman to fight against objectification...using a picture drawn by a woman. I mean, a woman drew a picture of another scantily clad woman. Of her own free will. Trying to tease logic from a cultural studies student is, indeed, futile. Enjoying the contradictions inherent in their ramblings, OTOH, is priceless.
sorophx Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 hey! I used to be a cultural studies student 1 Walsingham said: I was struggling to understand ths until I noticed you are from Finland. And having been educated solely by mkreku in this respect I am convinced that Finland essentially IS the wh40k universe.
TSBasilisk Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Few items of interest: Gearbox announces rerelease of Homeworld series with "Remastered" versions Not unexpected, but still Huzzah! Metal Gear Solid V might make its way to PC After Revengeance made it to PC, this is also not unexpected. Not quite huzzah-worthy since it's still questionable. Serious Sam 4 planned to release sometime in 2014 Still haven't gotten around to playing the third.
Volourn Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 "I mean, a woman drew a picture of another scantily clad woman. Of her own free will." Nah. Just another brainwashed victim of the patriarchy. 2 DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Monte Carlo Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) hey! I used to be a cultural studies student I married one. They make no sense whatsoever. The entire subject is bunk. We occasionally have minor spats over this reality, but they are of little consequence as I know I'm right. I am, naturally, a History graduate, the Discipline of Kings. Edit - I shall add context, as I love pop culture and am given to being a pretentious wanker about movies and books. As a historian I am like a baker. I know about the stuff from which everything is made. How the flour is made. The means whereby it's leavened and baked. The way different cultures make their bread, how they season and eat it (I warned you about the pretentious wankiness). On the other hand, the CS student has done a couple of classes in cupcake frosting. Bad cupcake frosting. They think this arms them with the knowledge they require to be wankily pretentious about pop culture. Bah. Edited March 10, 2014 by Monte Carlo 3
ManifestedISO Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Genuine wood covers, available in cherry, walnut, bamboo, zebra. Can be custom-engraved. €150 1 All Stop. On Screen.
BruceVC Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 My concern around this Sarkeesian development is I don't want it to undermine all the other important work she is doing in raising awareness around the objectification of women in games. I am worried that people won't take her as seriously as they should because of how her image may get tarnished ? 1 "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Monte Carlo Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 My concern around this Sarkeesian development is I don't want it to undermine all the other important work she is doing in raising awareness around the objectification of women in games. I am worried that people won't take her as seriously as they should because of how her image may get tarnished ? LOL. Proper LOL. 1
HoonDing Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Aside from hardcore tumblrinas nobody takes people who rag about Princess Toadstool seriously. Right? 1 The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
Monte Carlo Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Meanwhile Amazon thinks the Kindle business model will work for games... using their purchase of Double Helix they are limbering up for a blistering assault on the gaming market. ****'s about to get interesting... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/amazon/10686685/Amazon-to-develop-its-own-computer-games.html
Monte Carlo Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Aside from hardcore tumblrinas nobody takes people who rag about Princess Toadstool seriously. Right? Not just that, but Bruce is the king of ogling and drooling over game babez and romance content. He's part of the supposed 'problem' Sarkeesian is attempting to highlight.
Oerwinde Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Meanwhile Amazon thinks the Kindle business model will work for games... using their purchase of Double Helix they are limbering up for a blistering assault on the gaming market. ****'s about to get interesting... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/amazon/10686685/Amazon-to-develop-its-own-computer-games.html Something that came up in the article... are people really abandoning consoles for crap like candy crush and flappy bird? The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.
Recommended Posts