Fanart | Custom Portraits

[Sensuki]

It may not come as a surprise, but I'm friends with Bester and I appreciate his honest approach to things, I also prefer Creative Commons.

[Luckmann]

I have removed the non-watermarked, altered versions of the original portraits. The creator of those portraits didn't want them posted in the fora like that, so I don't consider it proper to do so "just because you can." Let's not do that again.

 

It's fine to discuss watermarking art vs. not, but it can and should be discussed without violating Wespenfresser's potential copyright and personal wishes.

 

Out of that, the only thing worth recognizing is personal wishes, which.. honestly is enough. But that's really beside the point.

 

P.S. - btw, being someone who likes to do amateur photography at times, I completely understand where she's coming from. It's a tough thing, the public internet vs. how much we want to share, at times.

There's a difference, though. There's likely no immediate application of your photographs in the venue you share them nor would you share them in a state in which they could be used in such an immediate application, with the intent of immediately using them in such an application, and then stamp them with a watermark specifically so that no-one else can actually use them for that application except you, because hah, you enjoy people looking at your stuff but damn them if they would actually use them, whether commercially or not, privately or not, aha!

 

It may not come as a surprise, but I'm friends with Bester and I appreciate his honest approach to things, I also prefer Creative Commons.

 

ᶦᶰᶠᵒʳᵐᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰ ʷᵃᶰᵗˢ ᵗᵒ ᵇᵉ ᶠʳᵉᵉ

 

Edited March 23, 2015 by Luckmann

[Katarack21]

I to prefer creative commons. But whether to use creative commons or full copyright is a personal decision; there is and should be no nebulous expectation that artists should give away their work. This retarded idea that you have to "give up on your art" and that anybody who posts their artwork without giving it away is some kind of arrogant jerk is just the worst kind of self-entitled bull****. And the worst thing is, nobody acts like that to anybody *except* artists--nobody says this **** to the guy building cars, nobody says this **** to the cabinet maker. It's always the painter, or the writer, or the musician that get's this crap. Like being creative means you're somehow lesser, and the thing you made somehow not worthy of the same rules of possession.

Art is hard work. It's labor and time and skill and talent. It's also, for many, a very personal work that cuts very deep into the core of who they are. When an artist shows you their work, instead of nagging them to give it away or accusing them of being a ****, just appreciate some awesome drawings (or story, or music, or whatever), give some constructive criticism, and go on with your damn life.

[LadyCrimson]

My impression is what she posted are bigger than the game portraits would be? So maybe she wanted to showcase them larger for detail...with the idea that people would crop/use them as they saw fit, to use in their gameplaying, if they wished. That is not the same thing as wanting her original's re-posted on the internet/forum itself.

 

She also (in the original post) clearly said they might not be finished/she maybe was still tweaking them and that they were not "cropped to proper size yet." eg, maybe she was originally going to eventually post her finished ones, in a proper size for game use, for people to use. I don't know if that was actually her plan, mind, I'm just saying could be.

 

So here you all are, jumping the gun and getting on her case, so now it's doubtful she will. I probably wouldn't if I was her.

[curryinahurry]

 

an artist publishes her own artwork,

artwork she owns,

herself.

Watermarking,

protecting it

maintaining ownership

 

This is derivative work, fanart (built using copyrightable parts of an IP) is owned by Obsidian Entertainment.

 

 

Except that the OP's work might be rightfully called Fair Use (at least under US statute) as it is an augmentation.  It also isn't based on a specific character.  If it is established as Fair Use then, as long as the representations are new material, they can be watermarked, or even copywritten (not sure about this, and I'm not an attorney).

 

 Either way, your vehemence strikes me more as Envy then a desire to see an open field for creative discourse.

[Katarack21]

I probably wouldn't come back here again if I was her. So thanks, for that, people.

[Luckmann]

Oh, also, just so it doesn't actually get forgotten in the criticism, Wespenfresser, you artwork actually is awesome. I do prefer art for the game that is "just perfect" in line with the game art, but there's inconsistencies there too (sadly). As far as artwork goes, it's actually great.

I can get a bit myopic at times and run things over with a steaming truck, so I felt I had to make that clear.

[Sensuki]

I to prefer creative commons. But whether to use creative commons or full copyright is a personal decision; there is and should be no nebulous expectation that artists should give away their work. This retarded idea that you have to "give up on your art" and that anybody who posts their artwork without giving it away is some kind of arrogant jerk is just the worst kind of self-entitled bull****. And the worst thing is, nobody acts like that to anybody *except* artists--nobody says this **** to the guy building cars, nobody says this **** to the cabinet maker. It's always the painter, or the writer, or the musician that get's this crap. Like being creative means you're somehow lesser, and the thing you made somehow not worthy of the same rules of possession.

 

Art is hard work. It's labor and time and skill and talent. It's also, for many, a very personal work that cuts very deep into the core of who they are. When an artist shows you their work, instead of nagging them to give it away or accusing them of being a ****, just appreciate some awesome drawings (or story, or music, or whatever), give some constructive criticism, and go on with your damn life.

Actually that's not true (regarding people being frustrated about restrictive use) - people get upset about restrictive use of lots of different stuff that different content creators make, not just with artists.

 

Personally I think Bester has quite a valid point, regardless of the manner in which he chose to deliver it. We would not be arguing about this if a version without watermarks was posted for people to use. No one is saying that she should not watermark her work, that's fine, but in game people will want to use a non-watermarked version, which she did not want to provide. Sure, that's her right, but I think it's fair for people to be upset about that, as she posted them here to show off her work, rather than to share it.

 

Bester is also a 'content creator' and has worked on the IE mod. He has provided it fully functional as he would use it, for people to use and modify as they would like. Personally I can understand his opposition in this instance.

 

Programming is also hard work. The IE mod has been in development for many months now. A lot longer than it would have taken to draw these portraits (FTR I think they are great portraits).

Edited March 23, 2015 by Sensuki

[Silent Winter]

Well technically since she drew races that Obsidian created, they would be classed as derivative works, no?

that doesn't negate her copyright - just makes it subject to another's rights.  Obsidian could object, but nobody else holds any rights over it.

Someone who creates a derivative work, owns copyright in the derivations.

E.g., I could take a public domain image, add a moustache and bowler hat to the mona lisa for example, and own the copyright in that (specific) work (just not in the original work from which it was derived).  Same applies to anything else.  Someone else can make a new pic of mona lisa in a bowler hat and moustache, they just couldn't use my pic without permission (legally speaking).

 

She's already said we can use them ourselves in our games - she just doesn't want them reposting - I don't see the big deal myself.

[Luckmann]

My impression is what she posted are bigger than the game portraits would be? So maybe she wanted to showcase them larger for detail...with the idea that people would crop/use them as they saw fit, to use in their gameplaying, if they wished. That is not the same thing as wanting her original's re-posted on the internet/forum itself.

 

She also (in the original post) clearly said they might not be finished/she maybe was still tweaking them and that they were not "cropped to proper size yet." eg, maybe she was originally going to eventually post her finished ones, in a proper size for game use, for people to use. I don't know if that was actually her plan, mind, I'm just saying could be.

 

So here you all are, jumping the gun and getting on her case, so now it's doubtful she will. I probably wouldn't if I was her.

Yeah, well, if this was my girlfriend, also an artist, she'd probably be crying right about now, which makes me feel kinda bad, but the fact that I may feel bad does nothing to diminish the actual points!

 

She's already said we can use them ourselves in our games - she just doesn't want them reposting - I don't see the big deal myself.

Except.. you know, nobody would actually do that with the watermarks.

[Katarack21]

No one is saying that she should not watermark her work,

Bester is. That is exactly what Bester is saying. "I see a guy selling postcards with giant watermarks on them and I tell the guy to maybe not use watermarks." He also edited his long post about how you need to give up on your artwork and let it be free. It's bull****, and yeah--I'm angry. This makes me really angry. I hate watching people get attacked, when they are doing nothing wrong and in fact attempting to be nice, because of one guys self-entitled bull**** ideology.

[aeonsim]

Hey guys!

No idea where to post this, because it doesn't really fit anywhere..

 

Anyways, I wanted to paint some portraits for some time now, and I finally “found” some time.

I have also seen some people making* some things that might have been custom portraits too, so...if any of you have some stuff to show, bring it on!

(* making as in painting, possibly manips , not “google&crop”..I'm not fond of that, since people rarely give credit and often crop signatures.)

 

So, here we go! 

Little disclaimer: They are not the same style as the default ones, and might be a little dark/contrast-y.  Also not cropped to proper size yet.

I sometimes didn't know which cues in the default portraits where intentional, and I might have ignored some on purpose. ( I'm dependent on what people are posting, I don't have the BB.)

Just fluffy messing around and twisting some things to my taste. Might still fix some wonkieness.

...

 

Nice work with all of those!

[Sensuki]

Bester is. That is exactly what Bester is saying. "I see a guy selling postcards with giant watermarks on them and I tell the guy to maybe not use watermarks." He also edited his long post about how you need to give up on your artwork and let it be free. It's bull****, and yeah--I'm angry. This makes me really angry. I hate watching people get attacked, when they are doing nothing wrong and in fact attempting to be nice, because of one guys self-entitled bull**** ideology.

That was not the impression I got. I believe he was unimpressed by the fact that she posted her portraits, but did not provide a version without a watermark to use in game. My own thoughts were "hey maybe I might use one of those ... if they weren't watermarked".

Edited March 23, 2015 by Sensuki

[ryukenden]

First, i like the art and respect the artist rights to the property.

 

However, making your own portrait FOR a game is a work of passion. This is fan content. Fan content is to improve the image of the game.

 

Claiming "this is my work to the game" but say no, you cannot use this artwork kinda defeats the purpose.

 

If you don't want anyone to use the artwork, that fine. But you got to realize that this is no longer fan content because you aren't doing it as a fan. Unless i'm mistaken.

Edited March 23, 2015 by ryukenden

[Katarack21]

Nobody ever tells the guy making cabinets "Hey, you should just give those away--you know, it'll get your name out and really, you need to learn to let go of your products."

[Silent Winter]

 

She's already said we can use them ourselves in our games - she just doesn't want them reposting - I don't see the big deal myself.

Except.. you know, nobody would actually do that with the watermarks.

Except.. you know, you pretty much have to crop out the watermark to use it in-game for the dimensions (and she's said that's ok - just not reposting)

[Tanred]

 

 

.

 

an artist publishes her own artwork,
artwork she owns,
herself.
Watermarking,
protecting it
maintaining ownership

 
This is derivative work, fanart (built using copyrightable parts of an IP) is owned by Obsidian Entertainment.

 

 

This might be not entirely true - while the original author has the right to control the integrity of their original IP and their commercial interests, they do not automatically acquire "ownership" rights to the derivative work.  The author of the derivative work has usually the full protection of copyright.  

Edited March 23, 2015 by Tanred

[Tort]

Btw, how do use a custom portrait? iirc there was no in-game option to load one, so probably we need to it to a particular folder for the game to recognize it and add it to the list, if so which ?

[Sensuki]

Nobody ever tells the guy making cabinets "Hey, you should just give those away--you know, it'll get your name out and really, you need to learn to let go of your products."

Cabinets aren't digital.

[Katarack21]

 

Nobody ever tells the guy making cabinets "Hey, you should just give those away--you know, it'll get your name out and really, you need to learn to let go of your products."

Cabinets aren't digital.

 

Neither was the Mona Lisa--when it was made. If they'd had scanners and photoshop back then, you bet your ass that ****er would've been copyrighted. Copyright laws are going to change again with the advent of 3d printing technology. I promise you that.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Katarack21

[Bester]

He also edited his long post about how you need to give up on your artwork and let it be free.

 

Lol, wut?? The only edits I made in this thread were for grammar or to add a phrase or two.

 

You don't need to lie. You do need to relax, though.

[Katarack21]

Actually, I conflated you with another persons post...and I owe you an apology for that. Now I have to sort out of my rage might actually be targted at a gestalt person who doesn't exist....

[Sensuki]

Copyright laws are going to change again with the advent of 3d printing technology. I promise you that.

Can't say I'm looking forward to it either.

[Luckmann]

 

No one is saying that she should not watermark her work,

Bester is. That is exactly what Bester is saying. "I see a guy selling postcards with giant watermarks on them and I tell the guy to maybe not use watermarks." He also edited his long post about how you need to give up on your artwork and let it be free. It's bull****, and yeah--I'm angry. This makes me really angry. I hate watching people get attacked, when they are doing nothing wrong and in fact attempting to be nice, because of one guys self-entitled bull**** ideology.

 

Let's take a look at exactly what Bester said. You even quote it yourself.

 

"I see a guy selling postcards with giant watermarks on them and I tell the guy to maybe not use watermarks."

 

How did you manage to misconstrue that? He's literally saying "Hey, you should really consider not using watermarks." implying (as I interpret it) "These are ****ing useless to us with the watermarks, no matter how good they are, please stop, oh god, please stop, why would you do that except for e-peen, what the hell, please. Goddamn."

 

 

Cabinets aren't digital.

Neither was the Mona Lisa--when it was made. If they'd had scanners and photoshop back then, you bet your ass that ****er would've been copyrighted. Copyright laws are going to change again with the advent of 3d printing technology. I promise you that.

 

When cabinets become digital, we will revisit this argument. Until then, we will continue laughing at this.

 

As for 3D Printing... if anything, it (3D printing) halmarks the death of copyright as we know it, and I find it highly doubtful that it's going to be in favour of the cabinet-maker (in so far a 3D-modeler can be considered a "cabinet-maker").

 

Can't say I'm looking forward to it either.

"You wouldn't download a car"?

 

**** you, you're not the boss of me!

 

*proceeds to pirate a kitchen cupboard*

Edited March 23, 2015 by Luckmann

[cloudline]

It's Boo! Please implement this in PoE II ! Now that's what I call a miniature giant space hamster! Well done Wespenfresser!