FA+
Shop
631
Views
Views
37
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 931
File Size 274.9 kB
Report this content
More from JesterDeLorean
Group pic giftart
say what you want
it was free wasnt it? XD
I'll be framing the original at some point...
say what you want
it was free wasnt it? XD
I'll be framing the original at some point...
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 931px
File Size 274.9 kB
Hmm.. have to agree with Jester here. >.<
As can probably see, she had a lot on her plate.. suppose it's a case of gratefulness. If she'd just scribbled you on then fair enough for having a bit of a dig but she's obviously made the effort to get you in as best she can so I think she just wants a Thank You :P
As can probably see, she had a lot on her plate.. suppose it's a case of gratefulness. If she'd just scribbled you on then fair enough for having a bit of a dig but she's obviously made the effort to get you in as best she can so I think she just wants a Thank You :P
If i'm not that amazing then why do you trace my artwork? ;D
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5189017/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5151847/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5377680/
*look at all the fucks i give*
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5189017/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5151847/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5377680/
*look at all the fucks i give*
You Know what Jess you can think all you want now... and Don't think about drawing CharlieBear ever again... as He is my creation and I am not giving you permission to draw him... and Don't even try to apologize... as the mood I am in now I don't want anything more to do with this... and I ask to be removed from this picture...
Actually fuck it. I'm sorry I wanted you to improve as an artist... Happy now?
Tracing is pretty low, but at some points it can help someone get a grasp of working anatomy (as terrible as my own is), all you had to do was ask permission, you know, I'd have actually let you do it had you been more patient, and honestly I take it as a compliment, I justfind it annoying when my groundwork appears as someone else's final piece, it's like being robbed of creativity.
If you honestly never want me to draw your fursona again, then that's your call... though I'm not going to remove you from the pic, due to it being in past tense, I can't help but feel you're using someone elses grudge against me as fuel for your hate towards me, but the picture will remain as is, If I happen to work on a digital version of this, then fine, don't be in it, but don't complain to me for leaving you out. Free art is free art, If you don't like then then so be it.
again, I apologise if you thought my critique was a little bit harsh, all I wanted was for you to grow as an artist, but if you can't even accept that then I guess you don't deserve to improve at all.
Tracing is pretty low, but at some points it can help someone get a grasp of working anatomy (as terrible as my own is), all you had to do was ask permission, you know, I'd have actually let you do it had you been more patient, and honestly I take it as a compliment, I justfind it annoying when my groundwork appears as someone else's final piece, it's like being robbed of creativity.
If you honestly never want me to draw your fursona again, then that's your call... though I'm not going to remove you from the pic, due to it being in past tense, I can't help but feel you're using someone elses grudge against me as fuel for your hate towards me, but the picture will remain as is, If I happen to work on a digital version of this, then fine, don't be in it, but don't complain to me for leaving you out. Free art is free art, If you don't like then then so be it.
again, I apologise if you thought my critique was a little bit harsh, all I wanted was for you to grow as an artist, but if you can't even accept that then I guess you don't deserve to improve at all.
I promised myself I wouldn't get involved. I'm not. I'm on neutral grounds here. But this argument is just not going anywhere.
Jess - The picture that Charlie traced doesn't count as stealing. He gave you credit in the description. It's a picture that you drew for him and, in my opinion, he's entitled to colour it if he pleases. It would only count as stealing if Charlie claimed he drew it himself, which he didn't.
Charlie - It's not polite to point out flaws in free art. Someone drawing a picture for you for nothing is a nice gesture and it's kind of rude to speak out against it in a negative fashion.
Now can we all play nice, kids?
Jess - The picture that Charlie traced doesn't count as stealing. He gave you credit in the description. It's a picture that you drew for him and, in my opinion, he's entitled to colour it if he pleases. It would only count as stealing if Charlie claimed he drew it himself, which he didn't.
Charlie - It's not polite to point out flaws in free art. Someone drawing a picture for you for nothing is a nice gesture and it's kind of rude to speak out against it in a negative fashion.
Now can we all play nice, kids?
Actually it does. Even though it was a picture for him, the intellectual property is that of Jess. Even if he credited Jess, it is still the copying of a whole creative work without authorisation of the copyright owner.
It also is not so much unpolite to point out 'flaws' in free art, it's about how you bring it. It needs to be constructive criticism. In his comment though, it's plain criticism, and that indeed is unpolite.
It also is not so much unpolite to point out 'flaws' in free art, it's about how you bring it. It needs to be constructive criticism. In his comment though, it's plain criticism, and that indeed is unpolite.
It was a gift. Drawn for him. He has the rights to it. If he didn't credit the artist, then it would be theft. It doesn't count as Intellectual Property in this way. He isn't/hasn't made a profit from it.
If he submitted it and said "This is my 100% original work which I drew all by myself" then it's stealing. But saying "This is a sketch my friend drew for me that I wanted to colour" is NOT stealing.
If he submitted it and said "This is my 100% original work which I drew all by myself" then it's stealing. But saying "This is a sketch my friend drew for me that I wanted to colour" is NOT stealing.
Without the permission of the copyright owner, he took a creative work, modified it but not to the extent of making it a new creative work, and re'published' it, therefore it is violationg the copyrights of the original copyright owner.
Now she doesn't consider it a problem, so therefore it is not a problem. But nevertheless it is in violation of the copyright-owner. Also I want ot point out that he does NOT have the rights to it. Just giving a copy of a creative work does not grant the copyrights of the creative work depicted in that copy to the person receiving it. Copyrights need to be explicitly given over to a new holder.
Now she doesn't consider it a problem, so therefore it is not a problem. But nevertheless it is in violation of the copyright-owner. Also I want ot point out that he does NOT have the rights to it. Just giving a copy of a creative work does not grant the copyrights of the creative work depicted in that copy to the person receiving it. Copyrights need to be explicitly given over to a new holder.
The whole modifying rule is a bit retarded to start with. How do you go about judging how much something has been edited? I stick a filter on in PS that technically has modified the whole image. He has fully coloured it in. So that is the whole image if one was to be nit picky. There is no chart or way to judge how much of the image has been modified. You can easily claim it has or has not.
But the thing to annoy me the most (and this is going to make me hypocritical) is why have you really stuck your nose in the matter?
But the thing to annoy me the most (and this is going to make me hypocritical) is why have you really stuck your nose in the matter?
The whole modifying rule is a bit gray, that's a given. Nevertheless, the modifying rule is there.
The 'judging' guideline waters down to that a work must be modified enough to become a creative work on it's own. And it is something that's decided on per case. Though I reckon we can all agree that modifying it with a filter, or colouring it does not make it a creative work on it's own, but at most an extension to it.
The reason I'm 'sticking' my nose in the matter is because I wanted to shed some light on the matter. This is in a public forum, so I have as much right to leave my comment on them, as you have to leave yours on me. The other reason is because I consider Jess a friend, and in my humble opinion, charlie was treating her unfairly.
The 'judging' guideline waters down to that a work must be modified enough to become a creative work on it's own. And it is something that's decided on per case. Though I reckon we can all agree that modifying it with a filter, or colouring it does not make it a creative work on it's own, but at most an extension to it.
The reason I'm 'sticking' my nose in the matter is because I wanted to shed some light on the matter. This is in a public forum, so I have as much right to leave my comment on them, as you have to leave yours on me. The other reason is because I consider Jess a friend, and in my humble opinion, charlie was treating her unfairly.
But she DIDN'T copyright the work. She didn't say to Charlie that he couldn't colour it. Copyright needs to be bought or lawfully given. Intellectual property only comes into effect if the person is making money off it. There is no copyright here, only fair use.
I just wanted to make a fair point. Jess and Charlie are my friends, and they're both being unfair to each other. Jess is in no position to accuse him of stealing when he credited her, and you don't seem to have a fair grasp of what copyright actually is.
I just wanted to make a fair point. Jess and Charlie are my friends, and they're both being unfair to each other. Jess is in no position to accuse him of stealing when he credited her, and you don't seem to have a fair grasp of what copyright actually is.
Copyright law is different from country to country, and a copyright notice is required in about 20 countries for a work to be protected under copyright.[32] Before 1989, all published works in the US had to contain a copyright notice, the © symbol followed by the publication date and copyright owner's name, to be protected by copyright. This is no longer the case and use of a copyright notice is now optional in the US, though they are still used.[33]
In all countries that are members of the Berne Convention, copyright is automatic and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the copyright holder, or rightsholder, is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights. However, while registration isn't needed to exercise copyright, in jurisdictions where the laws provide for registration, it serves as prima facie evidence of a valid copyright. The original copyright owner of the copyright may be the employer of the author rather than the author himself, if the work is a "work for hire".
Last time I checked, the United Kingdom is a member of the Berne Convention. So therefore Jess got the copyrights over her creative work, just by creating it.
Perhaps you yourself should read up about copyright laws?
Your point is also unfair. As Jess is fully within her right to call Charlie out on violating her copyright. She would even be in her right when she'd decide to undertake further action. Fact of the matter however is that she just pointed it out to him.
In all countries that are members of the Berne Convention, copyright is automatic and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the copyright holder, or rightsholder, is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights. However, while registration isn't needed to exercise copyright, in jurisdictions where the laws provide for registration, it serves as prima facie evidence of a valid copyright. The original copyright owner of the copyright may be the employer of the author rather than the author himself, if the work is a "work for hire".
Last time I checked, the United Kingdom is a member of the Berne Convention. So therefore Jess got the copyrights over her creative work, just by creating it.
Perhaps you yourself should read up about copyright laws?
Your point is also unfair. As Jess is fully within her right to call Charlie out on violating her copyright. She would even be in her right when she'd decide to undertake further action. Fact of the matter however is that she just pointed it out to him.
Yes it is a open forum but I meant more why comment on something that was clearly just between them 2 and furthermore had been resolved. There was no need to throw in what could of easily been a copy and paste from somewhere else just to boost your own internet ego and to seem smarter, flaunting all you know.
I'm stopping here because you're just going to keep giving me your ~points about copyright~ and yet, I'm sorry to say but you're still wrong. Believe what you want, though. If you think it's breaching copyright? Fine. But at the end of the day, Jess doesn't care, I don't care, and Charlie still isn't a thief.
What.
I am not saying the law is wrong; I'm well aware of copyright laws.
However, if you cared to look at how they're applied to situations like this, then you'll surely know that this is not a copyright case. If it's a free work that has been put on the internet with no intent to make money, then it forfeits intelectual property laws. Since this is FA, it means Jess would have to take it up with the website, not the person who posted it.
I am not saying the law is wrong; I'm well aware of copyright laws.
However, if you cared to look at how they're applied to situations like this, then you'll surely know that this is not a copyright case. If it's a free work that has been put on the internet with no intent to make money, then it forfeits intelectual property laws. Since this is FA, it means Jess would have to take it up with the website, not the person who posted it.
This is a case of intellectual property. Just posting it 'for free' on a website does not mean she forfeits her copyrights. It just means that she's distributing it the way she wants. Does not mean people are allowed to pick it up and do with it what they want.
FA's TOS, SA and AUP acknowledge that the IP holder keeps all copyrights over his creative work.
The fact that you first claim that someone should register his copyright first, eventhough that hasn't been necessary ever since the Berne Convention, proves that you're not as aware of copyright laws as you claim to be.
FA's TOS, SA and AUP acknowledge that the IP holder keeps all copyrights over his creative work.
The fact that you first claim that someone should register his copyright first, eventhough that hasn't been necessary ever since the Berne Convention, proves that you're not as aware of copyright laws as you claim to be.
Actually Charlie, in this case she is allowed to draw your fursona under the Fair Use Policy.
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
1. The purpose and character of the use is a nonprofit drawing to portray a gathering of people.
2. The nature of this copyrighted work is a creative portrayal of the copyright-owner. It is however not a registered brand and/or trademark, and it does not tarnish the brand and/or trademark.
3. The intellectual property is used only partially, and obscured by the scale of the drawing.
4. As far as is visible, you have no potential market for your intellectual property, nor does this work damage the value of your copyrighted work.
In other words, yes, Jess is actually allowed to draw your fursona in these settings. Especially considering it was a gift to not only you, but all the others who have and have not visited that meet.
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
1. The purpose and character of the use is a nonprofit drawing to portray a gathering of people.
2. The nature of this copyrighted work is a creative portrayal of the copyright-owner. It is however not a registered brand and/or trademark, and it does not tarnish the brand and/or trademark.
3. The intellectual property is used only partially, and obscured by the scale of the drawing.
4. As far as is visible, you have no potential market for your intellectual property, nor does this work damage the value of your copyrighted work.
In other words, yes, Jess is actually allowed to draw your fursona in these settings. Especially considering it was a gift to not only you, but all the others who have and have not visited that meet.
also: *coughs*
FA respects the work of artists and content creators. Tracing is not permitted on FA, and images confirmed to be traced will be removed from the site. In addition, the uploader will receive a 30 day suspension and a one-time warning. Plagiarism, or taking credit for another artist's creation, will result in permanent suspension.
*quoted from AUP, ahthankyou ;3
FA respects the work of artists and content creators. Tracing is not permitted on FA, and images confirmed to be traced will be removed from the site. In addition, the uploader will receive a 30 day suspension and a one-time warning. Plagiarism, or taking credit for another artist's creation, will result in permanent suspension.
*quoted from AUP, ahthankyou ;3
Comments