Fanart | Custom Portraits

[Luckmann]

So you are opposed to people cropping off your signature and posting it on this forum for people to use in their game. You posted these only for self-promotion and to get congratulated, not for people to actually use them. Gotcha.

 

Also to say "look what I've got... but you can't use it, cause I put a giant watermark all over it and I disallow anyone from cropping it and posting here". Uhh ok? Have fun with it, I suppose?

People that share things only to brag or to have people fawn over them are the worst kind of people.

 

To the OP; Really nice work on the portraits.  One note about the Godlike portrait; the artwork is great, but the expression is a bit tough to decipher.  I can't tell if the character is in pain or laughing or sining an old Aumauan folk ballad or choking on a bone,  Without eyes as visual cues, expressions get a bit tricky.

 

With regards to the whole Watermark issue; I wouldn't get dragged into some of the idiotic observations and provocations that are inevitably going to follow in a thread like this.  No professional creative person in their right mind would fault you for protecting your work.

But it's not protected. More importantly, there's no reason to protect it. That's the thing.

 

It's really just like showing up and saying "I did a thing". There's blogs for that.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Luckmann

[Rhaeg]

@ OP: I guess you should just ignore the watermark whiners. There are many adults who still act like spoilt little children: they receive a gift and then stamp their feet because they want better. That's just what you're seeing here. Keep adding to YOUR drawings whatever you like.

[Namutree]

I can't tell if the character is in pain or laughing or sining an old Aumauan folk ballad or choking on a bone,  Without eyes as visual cues, expressions get a bit tricky.

 

All the better to RP with.

[Namutree]

How much $$$ do you need to make and post more of these?

 

 

EDIT: I can't stop my instinct to double post!

Edited March 23, 2015 by Namutree

[curryinahurry]

 

But it's not protected. More importantly, there's no reason to protect it. That's the thing.

 

It's really just like showing up and saying "I did a thing". There's blogs for that.

 

 

If the watermark has copyright information or the name of the issuing company, it is absolutely protected.  Trust me, I've used Watermarks and taken legal action against people who have removed them to get them to stop.  It works.  

[Sedrefilos]

Fantastic art! Keep it up.

 

Hmm... many custom portait threads hanging around in this forum. Maybe we need a pinned "official custom portraits" thread?

[Luckmann]

 

But it's not protected. More importantly, there's no reason to protect it. That's the thing.

 

It's really just like showing up and saying "I did a thing". There's blogs for that.

 

If the watermark has copyright information or the name of the issuing company, it is absolutely protected.  Trust me, I've used Watermarks and taken legal action against people who have removed them to get them to stop.  It works.

 

Depends on how they're used and where. Furthermore, this was not about legality, but about protection.

 

[ edit: altered images of original author's pics removed, since it seems apparent she didn't want them posted in the actual forum ]

 

It took longer to figure out how to get Firefox to open the images properly so I could download them, than it took to remove the watermarks in Photoshop.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

 

Am I the only one that thinks that "FU" is a hilarious symbol used for Fair Use?

 

Fantastic art! Keep it up.

 

Hmm... many custom portait threads hanging around in this forum. Maybe we need a pinned "official custom portraits" thread?

This is an excellent idea, I think. With the stipulation that posted portraits should be usable in-game, because otherwise it's really just.. I dunno what. Useless, I guess.

Edited March 23, 2015 by LadyCrimson

[Tanred]

@OP: Those are really well done, keep up the good job!"

 

And don't let the comments on the watermarks stop you from creating more art and posting it here.

[Bryy]

A+.

[Wespenfresser]

 

Depends on how they're used and where. Furthermore, this was not about legality, but about protection. Point in case:

 

 

I am quite aware that those are easily removed. That is why I don't do anything more obstructive, because if someone -really- has ill intentions, it does not matter. (unless I want to ruin my paintings fully)

 

I usually trust, that most people just want to share stuff. That is another reason -why- I put  my name on there, because they likely wont remove it, and are simply to lazy or clueless to post proper links.

 

Now would you -please- take them down again.

[curryinahurry]

@ Luckmann

 

First, Wikipedia should never be used as a resource in any discussion of legalities...it's just not reliable.

 

Second, Watermarking is Protection of intellectual property through identification, removal of which is in violation of DMCA.  In other words, if protection is removed, then there is a pathway towards Legal Remedy (in these cases, usually Civil).  You're in the removal of the watermarks and reposting, for example, is an act that the issuer can view as either fair use, or theft, but either way, you're in the wrong and they can take action (as I see she just did).

 

With regards to Fair Use, that is something for courts to decide on a case by case basis.  Especially when it comes to re-posting others work on the internet.

Edited March 23, 2015 by curryinahurry

[Rhaeg]

Regardless of the copyright aspects, you have to be a real **** to post edited versions of the original here while you know the original artist does not want them here like that. Pathetic.

[Bester]

You disgust me.

 and I had just been asked nicely, I probably would have even offered assistance.

 

I don't even need your portraits, lady.

 

I see a guy selling postcards with giant watermarks on them and I tell the guy to maybe not use watermarks. In return I get an unwarranted "you disgust me" reaction. Well, if you want to get rude, whatever, have a nice day.

 

This could've been a situation where everyone thanks you for your pics, lots of people download them, everyone knows who drew them, etc. Instead you're drawing a weird pleasure from showing pictures to people and then not allowing them to use them, while having 2-3 white knights being on your side. This could've been so much more for you, but I guess some people don't know what's good for them.

 

Try to find a watermark on this, and then imagine seeing a giant watermark on her face:

 

[Greensleeve]

I don't understand how this is a debate. Wespenfresser created a piece of artwork that she owns under copyright law, that she protected under copyright law. These protections are not there to stop people from removing them, this will happen regardless. These steps exists so that she continues to hold the right to the artworks. Did she not take these steps, did she not watermark the picture, she would have lost the right to do what she wished with her own ****ing artwork. None of you have any right to demand that she gives up her ownership of anything she makes. 

 

Wespenfresser, continue to watermark your stuff. Try and ignore the **** you get thrown your way. It's hard, but it's worthless noise. Ignore it. But keep fighting for your rights as an artist. 

 

@Luckmann, yeah it's fair use to remove the watermark. It is not fair use to then publish the portraits without the watermark in a public place. That is totally breaking copyright law under basically any jurisdiction (certainly Swedish law prohibits it). So you were in the clear all the way until you uploaded these pictures without the watermark. That's where you crossed the line. 

[Katarack21]

This kind of possessive, entitled bull**** is why artists don't like posting their ****. It's not yours, you don't have any right to it, there is no requirement or expectation that people give away their work for free, end of story.

[Greensleeve]

 

You disgust me.

 and I had just been asked nicely, I probably would have even offered assistance.

 

I don't even need your portraits, lady.

 

I see a guy selling postcards with giant watermarks on them and I tell the guy to maybe not use watermarks. In return I get an unwarranted "you disgust me" reaction. Well, if you want to get rude, whatever, have a nice day.

 

This could've been a situation where everyone thanks you for your pics, lots of people download them, everyone knows who drew them, etc. Instead you're drawing a weird pleasure from showing pictures to people and then not allowing them to use them, while having 2-3 white knights being on your side. This could've been so much more for you, but I guess some people don't know what's good for them.

 

Try to find a watermark on this, and then imagine seeing a giant watermark on her face:

 

-Mona Lisa-

 

 

That is literally the worst example you could've given. The Mona Lisa is public domain, no one has the right to watermark it. No one owns the right to the artwork of the Mona Lisa (though the Louvre I believe owns the physical painting). This is a case where an artist publishes her own artwork, artwork she owns, herself. Watermarking, and thus protecting it under copyright and maintaining ownership over it, is thus something she damn well should do. 

[Fredward]

This could've been a situation where everyone thanks you for your pics, lots of people download them, everyone knows who drew them, etc. Instead you're drawing a weird pleasure from showing pictures to people and then not allowing them to use them, while having 2-3 white knights being on your side. This could've been so much more for you, but I guess some people don't know what's good for them.

 

 

Why are you being so hostile?

[Bester]

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.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Bester

[Luckmann]

I am quite aware that those are easily removed. That is why I don't do anything more obstructive, because if someone -really- has ill intentions, it does not matter. (unless I want to ruin my paintings fully)

 

See, that's the entire point, right there. If someone really has ill intentions, it doesn't matter. So it's only punishing those that actually want to legitimately use them. You're saying it out loud, but you're not listening even to your own logic. That is called cognitive dissonance.

 

I usually trust, that most people just want to share stuff. That is another reason -why- I put  my name on there, because they likely wont remove it, and are simply to lazy or clueless to post proper links.

 

Which really just reinforces the point, that you're just doing this for selfish promotion, ego-boost and added e-peen. It's useless.

 

No-one is going to share it to others, because they don't actually expect those others to use it anyway, because it's watermarked. You want attribution? Start a DeviantArt account and ask people to link to that or this thread (or wherever else you've posted it). Or start your own.. oh, wait, you actually have one, but I didn't notice, because all I saw was an annoying watermark. I just realized that for several minutes, I stared straight at these watermarks as I encircled them, zoomed in up the wazoo, and I didn't even notice. Delicious irony.

 

Now would you -please- take them down again.

 

LadyCrimson beat me to it, bless her heart, probably because while it'd all be under Fair Use (also, I'm in Sweden, so wooo, legal conundrums!), the forum has it's own rules. I probably would've edited it out per your request anyway, but eh, would probably have waited until the edit window was just on the edge of running out, whenever that is.

[curryinahurry]

...

 

That is literally the worst example you could've given. The Mona Lisa is public domain, no one has the right to watermark it. No one owns the right to the artwork of the Mona Lisa (though the Louvre I believe owns the physical painting). This is a case where an artist publishes her own artwork, artwork she owns, herself. Watermarking, and thus protecting it under copyright and maintaining ownership over it, is thus something she damn well should do. 

 

 

Although I do think it's ironic that he chose a painting that was stolen no less than 4 times throughout it's history (including a rumour that DaVinci stole the painting back from the Patron that originally commissioned it) 

[Katarack21]

Oh, no! Somebody likes to show their artwork and get credit for it! What a horrible, evil, selfish, arrogant, egotistical BASTARD they must be, amirite?

[LadyCrimson]

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.

 

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.

[Luckmann]

@Luckmann, yeah it's fair use to remove the watermark. It is not fair use to then publish the portraits without the watermark in a public place. That is totally breaking copyright law under basically any jurisdiction (certainly Swedish law prohibits it). So you were in the clear all the way until you uploaded these pictures without the watermark. That's where you crossed the line.

Hahaha, no. I've been in this situation. As someone that doesn't give a hoot, it's hilarious. There are too many factors to account for, including loss (on part of the originator) or gain (on part of the.. eh.. me) of profit, relative spread, and whether or not it can be considered to be a parody or malicious. If you disagree, feel free to try to prosecute and good luck. Either way, I have nothing to steal.

 

Also, hilariously, this is fanart. You know why fanart is prohibited in pretty much all commercial contests? Because it's derivative and the concepts effectively belongs to the holder of the IP. Fanart is produced under... drumroll... fair use (FU)!

Edited March 23, 2015 by Luckmann

[Sensuki]

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

 

I'm not a fan of this type of discussion at all, but I'm with Bester and Luckmann on this one.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Sensuki

[Katarack21]

Whether it's derivative or not doesn't make what Bester is saying any less insulting or asinine.