|
|
Post by goldenknots on Jun 17, 2014 19:49:22 GMT
to clarify, it's me paying someone else to make a gkc picture. That would probably piss him off, bigtime. |
|
|
|
Post by hypixion on Jun 17, 2014 20:11:15 GMT
to clarify, it's me paying someone else to make a gkc picture. That would probably piss him off, bigtime. Guess i'll have to try and make it myself. I don't see commission the same as selling actual gkc art or prints because it's only drawn as request and the payment is for the service rather than the content. But I don't want to do it if Tom doesn't approve. |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Jun 17, 2014 21:18:58 GMT
I don't see commission the same as selling actual gkc art or prints because it's only drawn as request and the payment is for the service rather than the content. If you commission someone to draw GKC art for you, you are not paying them just for the service of drawing. You are paying them for the service of drawing GKC art. Part of my work is photo lab stuff, and especially since I'm in a tourist town, we get a lot of customers who try to print off copies of pictures taken for them by professional photographers and photo companies around the area without providing the necessary copyright information, then get all huffy because they claim they're only paying for the service of using our machines. But they're not. They're paying for our materials, to use our machines, and for the end product as well, and without a copy of the professional photographer's copyright permissions for our records, the company I work for would be at risk of being sued by said photographer or possibly even losing the license to make and sell photos at all. |
|
|
|
Post by hypixion on Jun 17, 2014 21:38:15 GMT
I don't see commission the same as selling actual gkc art or prints because it's only drawn as request and the payment is for the service rather than the content. If you commission someone to draw GKC art for you, you are not paying them just for the service of drawing. You are paying them for the service of drawing GKC art. Part of my work is photo lab stuff, and especially since I'm in a tourist town, we get a lot of customers who try to print off copies of pictures taken for them by professional photographers and photo companies around the area without providing the necessary copyright information, then get all huffy because they claim they're only paying for the service of using our machines. But they're not. They're paying for our materials, to use our machines, and for the end product as well, and without a copy of the professional photographer's copyright permissions for our records, the company I work for would be at risk of being sued by said photographer or possibly even losing the license to make and sell photos at all. Can't argue with that. |
|
|
|
Post by keef on Jun 17, 2014 21:53:22 GMT
to clarify, it's me paying someone else to make a gkc picture. That would probably piss him off, bigtime. So what about the guy with the Coyote Tattoo; should he pay Tom directly, or should the tattoo-artist pay Tom? Could be fun if they can't come to an agreement... And of course welcome to the forum hypixion |
|
Sal
New Member
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Posts: 31 
|
Post by Sal on Jun 18, 2014 7:24:48 GMT
That would probably piss him off, bigtime. So what about the guy with the Coyote Tattoo; should he pay Tom directly, or should the tattoo-artist pay Tom? Could be fun if they can't come to an agreement... And of course welcome to the forum hypixionTattoos have largely been considered as outside the realm of copyright issues. As of 2012 there are no precedents from the courts; the few copyright infringement cases regarding tattoos have been settled out of court. I'd go so far to say that an art trade (I draw something for you, you draw something for me) is okay too. I have had much success with this, actually. |
|
eskhn
Full Member
You like 'em? Huh? You like 'em?
Posts: 167
|
Post by eskhn on Jun 19, 2014 15:11:16 GMT
Commissions don't have to be for money. The "Could you please draw XY in the following scene:"-kind is just fanart. I'd go so far to say that an art trade (I draw something for you, you draw something for me) is okay too. If we have a Word of Tom that overrides my opinion, let me know.  That's how it tends to work, like with the various Coyote figurines I've seen floating around deviantArt. |
|
CloudedAtTheMoment
Junior Member
Anyone watch Steven Universe? ....oh, well...great show!
Posts: 74
|
Post by CloudedAtTheMoment on Jun 21, 2014 22:56:32 GMT
 So like I was thinking about Antimony and how she's changed so drastically from the start of the comic (personality wise, physical growth, and just overall character.) And this kind of inspired me to make this. While drawling little Annie, I had a lot of fun trying to combine Tom's older art style with his newer one. Yeah, I really need to stop hogging up this thread through... :l |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Jun 22, 2014 5:25:51 GMT
Disagree...
|
|
|
|
Post by freeformline on Jun 23, 2014 7:24:20 GMT
Yeah, I really need to stop hogging up this thread through... :l Nah, the rest of us just need to step up our game! You keep doing what you do, sir! |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Jun 25, 2014 15:20:12 GMT
Just Another Mask  Every party needs a pooper. Back to good ol' paper and pencil. The tablet works fine for touch ups and coloring and other latter-half work, but I'm sucking at doing the initial lines with it. |
|
QuotePilgrim
Full Member
Behind my door, there are twelve other doors.
Posts: 142
|
Post by QuotePilgrim on Jun 25, 2014 19:13:33 GMT
to clarify, it's me paying someone else to make a gkc picture. That would probably piss him off, bigtime. Possibly, yeah. But I simply can't comprehend it. I mean, if I were making a webcomic, I would encourage people to sell fan work of it, as long as they credited me as the original creator, because I know I would benefit a lot from people selling derivatives of my work. I am (to some extent at least) a copyright abolitionist, so I may be a little biased, but I really do believe abolishing copyright (or making it a lot less restrictive) would benefit everyone. Yes, even content creators. An I am a published author. To be specific, I believe all copyright laws should be replaced by this: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/If anyone's interested, I recommend watching this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlIAnyways, that's not why I'm commenting, I just got carried away. I came here for this: hypixion: If you care about Tom's opinion, you should try to find it out what it is, because no one here actually knows. Yes, commissioning a GKC picture would be violation of copyright, but so is fanart in general, and Tom actually likes that people make fanart of GKC (there is a post from him on this thread - in the first page, I believe). It is hard to contact Tom, but you should try anyway. If you dislike copyright and don't care about Tom's opinion on it (which doesn't seem to be the case, but still), then just find an artist who's willing be paid to make a GKC picture for you and, well, pay them to do so. (Just try not to do this here on the forum.) You wouldn't be harming Tom in any way by doing it. P.S.: Just to be clear, I actually wouldn't pay someone to make fan art if the original creator weren't okay with it. I just don't think it would be wrong to do it. |
|
QuotePilgrim
Full Member
Behind my door, there are twelve other doors.
Posts: 142
|
Post by QuotePilgrim on Jun 25, 2014 19:47:33 GMT
I don't see commission the same as selling actual gkc art or prints because it's only drawn as request and the payment is for the service rather than the content. If you commission someone to draw GKC art for you, you are not paying them just for the service of drawing. You are paying them for the service of drawing GKC art. Part of my work is photo lab stuff, and especially since I'm in a tourist town, we get a lot of customers who try to print off copies of pictures taken for them by professional photographers and photo companies around the area without providing the necessary copyright information, then get all huffy because they claim they're only paying for the service of using our machines. But they're not. They're paying for our materials, to use our machines, and for the end product as well, and without a copy of the professional photographer's copyright permissions for our records, the company I work for would be at risk of being sued by said photographer or possibly even losing the license to make and sell photos at all. (First off, sorry for the double-post.) I don't think it's quite the same thing. For instance, if I paid someone to, say, draw a dragon for me (an original drawing, not fanart of anything), then that person would still own the copyright for the dragon drawing. I wouldn't be able to sell copies of it without violating copyright, because I would not own the final product. So I am clearly paying just for the service, not the content. Likewise, could pay a photographer to take a picture but not for the picture itself, so I wouldn't be able to sell copies of the picture without violating copyright, even though I have the original in my possession. So, if I paid someone to make GKC fanart, then obviously the artist would be violating Tom's copyright, but just like in my dragon drawing example, I wouldn't own any rights over the picture. In the end, the artist would be violating Tom's copyright on GKC in the exact same way we violated it ourselves by posting our own fan arts. (It would be a totally different scenario -- and closer to what you describe in your post -- if someone made a fan art and started selling prints somewhere.) Your post describes a situation that is more like what it would be if someone tried to print copies of the original pages of the comic. P.S.:If Tom wanted to, he could successfully sue us for the fan art we posted here anyway. He could send a cease and desist letter, and we would be forced to take our posts down. |
|
|
|
Post by jasmijn on Jun 25, 2014 20:48:07 GMT
Replacing all copyright by CC BY-SA would be the same as replacing it by CC BY. (Since you can't say "nope i'm keeping the copyright on this derivative work" because the concept has been abolished.) I wouldn't go that far personally, but I would like to see copyright only lasting a couple of years (somewhere between 5 and 50) and much less power for copyright holders in the mean time. |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Jun 25, 2014 20:55:11 GMT
I don't think it's quite the same thing. For instance, if I paid someone to, say, draw a dragon for me (an original drawing, not fanart of anything), then that person would still own the copyright for the dragon drawing. I wouldn't be able to sell copies of it without violating copyright, because I would not own the final product. So I am clearly paying just for the service, not the content. Likewise, could pay a photographer to take a picture but not for the picture itself, so I wouldn't be able to sell copies of the picture without violating copyright, even though I have the original in my possession. "In cases of works made for hire, the employer or commissioning party is considered to be the author." ( source) This is unless prior arrangements are made between the commissioning party and the commissioned artist. Without such arrangements, you could make and sell as many copies of your dragon picture as you wanted. In the case of the professionally made photographs that I talked about above, the arrangement is that the photographers share copyright with the people who had the photo taken, which is why we need both parties' permission to sell copies of the photos. If those people wanted to go home and make their own copies with their own equipment and hand them out to all their friends and neighbors, they have the right to do that, and the photographers have the right to display photos as examples of their work, things like that. But aside from the fact that yes, you would own the final product, there's still the matter that I mentioned before. If you commission an artist to just draw you anything, whatever pops into his or her head, doesn't matter what, then there might be some leeway in saying you're just buying the service. But if you specifically commission an artist to draw something copyrighted by a third party, then you are most definitely buying both the service and the content, because you specifically asked for said content as part of the initial agreement upon which your business relationship began. At the very least, you would be an accomplice or accessory to copyright infringement. To make an analogy in as absurdly hyperbolic a manner as I can think up, it would probably be very hard to convince the judge that you only paid for a ride in the car, not for the pile of freshly severed limbs in the backseat that the chauffeur put there by your request. Not at all, though attempts at outright theft and infringement like that does happen, too. The professional photographers are commissioned workers, and they do these photos as work for hire just like any other artist who takes commissions, so the situation is definitely comparable. And some of them even do this for a third party, such as the arrangement Sharpshooter Imaging has with Dixie Stampede to take pictures of folks with some of the people in the show against a Dixie Stampede backdrop and with the Dixie Stampede logo stamped on the pictures. If they didn't have this arrangement with Dixie Stampede and were taking these same kind of pictures and selling them, then they would be just as guilty of copyright infringement as someone selling commissioned fan art of Gunnerkrigg Court, and for the same reasons. Oh absolutely. Keef and Sal talked about tattoos earlier, and even without current precedent and with the out-of-court settlements being the most common resolution, strictly speaking those instances could probably be fully prosecuted and won by the true copyright holders if they wanted. One of the primary reasons they're not - and why there are, in fact, so many work-by-commission artists out there who sell fan art all the time with no trouble - is because it's largely unenforceable. Hasbro does, for example, go after some of the bigger, more problematic artists selling commissioned My Little Pony art (and even then, they're pretty gentle about it), but if they tried to shut down every single person who did it on DeviantArt alone? They'd go bankrupt just trying to keep everyone's paws off their copyright. Even as snarly as Disney is about their copyright (so snarly that they actually work to get copyright law changed every time Mickey Mouse's deadline comes close) and with more money than God, they can't stop every single person out there. So, for the most part, even those who would otherwise love to shut down every single fan artist out there (and there are those who have tried) don't bother because it's not worth it. Such tolerance does not mean, however, that it is legal to do it, of course. So again, you are completely right on that. |
|
QuotePilgrim
Full Member
Behind my door, there are twelve other doors.
Posts: 142
|
Post by QuotePilgrim on Jun 25, 2014 21:13:04 GMT
I don't think it's quite the same thing. For instance, if I paid someone to, say, draw a dragon for me (an original drawing, not fanart of anything), then that person would still own the copyright for the dragon drawing. I wouldn't be able to sell copies of it without violating copyright, because I would not own the final product. So I am clearly paying just for the service, not the content. Likewise, could pay a photographer to take a picture but not for the picture itself, so I wouldn't be able to sell copies of the picture without violating copyright, even though I have the original in my possession. "In cases of works made for hire, the employer or commissioning party is considered to be the author." ( source) This is unless prior arrangements are made between the commissioning party and the commissioned artist. Without such arrangements, you could make and sell as many copies of your dragon picture as you wanted. Well, OK then. My bad. Still, I can pay someone to draw something and let them own the copyrights. So I still don't see such a big difference in just drawing fan art, or selling it by request. I don't know, they just feel like the same thing to me. Replacing all copyright by CC BY-SA would be the same as replacing it by CC BY. (Since you can't say "nope i'm keeping the copyright on this derivative work" because the concept has been abolished.) I wouldn't go that far personally, but I would like to see copyright only lasting a couple of years (somewhere between 5 and 50) and much less power for copyright holders in the mean time. I actually meant to link to the CC-BY license. But replacing it with CC BY-NC, in addition to allowing fan art and fan fiction to be sold (so that only commercial uses of the original work, unmodified, would be prohibited), would be just as good. |
|
|
|
Post by Covalent on Jun 25, 2014 21:22:43 GMT
So, I take it no one happens to be taking requests right now? D:
|
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Jun 25, 2014 21:27:28 GMT
Still, I can pay someone to draw something and let them own the copyrights. In other words, it is possible to pay for just the service, and not the content. Whether or not you hold the copyright or any other form of ownership over the finished piece is irrelevant. Once again, if you ask for specific content to be drawn, then you are indeed paying for the content since you asked for that specific content as part of the service. |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Jun 25, 2014 21:32:57 GMT
Still, I can pay someone to draw something and let them own the copyrights. So I still don't see such a big difference in just drawing fan art, or selling it by request. I don't know, they just feel like the same thing to me. One is the unauthorized use of intellectual property, the other is the unauthorized use of intellectual property for monetary gain. When money becomes involved, it makes a huge difference to a lot of folks. |
|
|
|
Post by hypixion on Jun 26, 2014 0:38:55 GMT
Well, I have been reading some of Tom's comments and it seems he will not be okay with it. So let's close off this question/discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by fwip on Jun 28, 2014 5:24:26 GMT
I have almost all meme edits/fan art/etc. that's been posted in this Forum saved. If the image wasn't expired around September/October 2008 chances are that I have it. I found this claim by Fuin in the Opportunity thread. I PM'd him and he sent me the archives and I started to* curate it for your enjoyment - there's more in the Opportunity thread. (If you would like to claim authorship of an image, or have any other corrections, please PM me. Also, if it already appeared in this thread, please PM me and I'll remove it. Here is the original repository of all the images saved by Fuin: And here's most of the rest in Imgur format: imgur.com/a/9pWUS I hope to finish curating the rest soon, but until then, enjoy! There are >1800 there, so no doubt it will take a while.[/spoiler] |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2014 9:18:26 GMT
 Today I drew everybody's darling, Hetty, pretty much by accident, using a biro. The oversized head is because she's a doll. The rest is because I can't draw for shit. Some other scribblings were in the way; therefore I cut her legs and feet off. The colour looks a bit washy having undergone the webcam treatment, compared to the original's navy blue. edit: Alternative takes. The unfinished partner-in-crime on the left is (supposed to resemble) Gogol. If you move your eyes within like 15cm of viewing distance towards the screen, you might be able to make out the shapes of irises and the like, although I can't guarantee it |
|
|
|
Post by keef on Jun 28, 2014 11:18:08 GMT
I have almost all meme edits/fan art/etc. that's been posted in this Forum saved. If the image wasn't expired around September/October 2008 chances are that I have it. I found this claim by Fuin in the Opportunity thread. I PM'd him and he sent me the archives and I started to* curate it for your enjoyment - there's more in the Opportunity thread. First: Thank you fwip and Fuin. I always wanted to ask Fuin myself, because I noticed quite a few things missing on both the Opportunity and the fan-art threads. But using speedyshare is not a very good idea, I luckily had an old XP computer that's ready for scrap anyway, because the security software on my main PC refused to download from there. The antivirus on my old PC blocked the install of some spyware, no big deal if it missed some stuff. If there are people who want to download, but don't want to use speedyshare I'll put it in my dropbox for a few weeks. |
|
Fuin
Junior Member
Posts: 65
|
Post by Fuin on Jun 28, 2014 14:55:42 GMT
I found this claim by Fuin in the Opportunity thread. I PM'd him and he sent me the archives and I started to* curate it for your enjoyment - there's more in the Opportunity thread. First: Thank you fwip and Fuin. I always wanted to ask Fuin myself, because I noticed quite a few things missing on both the Opportunity and the fan-art threads. But using speedyshare is not a very good idea, I luckily had an old XP computer that's ready for scrap anyway, because the security software on my main PC refused to download from there. The antivirus on my old PC blocked the install of some spyware, no big deal if it missed some stuff. If there are people who want to download, but don't want to use speedyshare I'll put it in my dropbox for a few weeks. Haven't noticed any problems with Speedyshare, but then I both block ads and use NoScript so I wouldn't know. Alternative links: mega.co.nzMegacache |
|
|
|
Post by fwip on Jun 28, 2014 18:28:10 GMT
First: Thank you fwip and Fuin. I always wanted to ask Fuin myself, because I noticed quite a few things missing on both the Opportunity and the fan-art threads. But using speedyshare is not a very good idea, I luckily had an old XP computer that's ready for scrap anyway, because the security software on my main PC refused to download from there. The antivirus on my old PC blocked the install of some spyware, no big deal if it missed some stuff. If there are people who want to download, but don't want to use speedyshare I'll put it in my dropbox for a few weeks. Haven't noticed any problems with Speedyshare, but then I both block ads and use NoScript so I wouldn't know. Alternative links: mega.co.nzMegacacheyeah, I just went ahead and used SS, it seemed kind of shady but it worked - although it tried to install some malware too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2014 10:14:09 GMT
I drew half of Annie and half of Zimmy (the nose was edited with MSPaint):   Synthesis (with the original badly-drawn nose; also note how terribly inconsistent the colours are):  |
|
CloudedAtTheMoment
Junior Member
Anyone watch Steven Universe? ....oh, well...great show!
Posts: 74
|
Post by CloudedAtTheMoment on Jul 2, 2014 2:32:48 GMT
Not bad for my first attempt at pixel art, wouldn't ya say?  Actual size:  |
|
CloudedAtTheMoment
Junior Member
Anyone watch Steven Universe? ....oh, well...great show!
Posts: 74
|
Post by CloudedAtTheMoment on Jul 3, 2014 21:55:51 GMT
Sorry to double post, but Annie looked kind of lonely. So I gave her a Kat!    I tried to make Kat about the same size, but she ended up a little bigger. So I just edited her down a bit. So like I guess that thing I said earlier about not being too good at PC art doesn't apply to pixel stuff. :/ |
|
|
|
Post by Gulby on Jul 4, 2014 11:13:31 GMT
They are lovely !  Super cute ! |
|
QuotePilgrim
Full Member
Behind my door, there are twelve other doors.
Posts: 142
|
Post by QuotePilgrim on Jul 6, 2014 17:10:51 GMT
@cloud: Those are really cool pixel arts. You are much better at this than I am, specially when it comes to animation. I have a few advice for you though. First, avoid black as much as you can, especially for outlines inside the sprite. Second, the colors would be a little better if you used hue shifting (it's more or less making darker colors more blueish, and lighter ones more yellowish). Because of this, I'd use a very dark blue for kat's hair, instead of black. Third, consider using anti-aliasing, there are a lot of ways of doing this, but this tutorial shows my preferred method. (Though I only use one intermediary color 90% of the time.) And here is a tutorial for pixel art in general. Now, you inspired me to do some pixel art, too (it's been months since last time):  I've drawn Annie because I hadn't before. She is one of my "least favorite" characters though. (It's not that I dislike her, It's just that I like just about anyone else more than her.) I sketched her in MyPaint first, because I am pretty much unable to do pixel-art using only a mouse. Here is an Imgur gallery showing the main steps of the process, with comments explaining what I did. |
|
(by thunderstruckcomic at Deviantart)
(by eliontirien at Deviantart)
(http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?241334-Chrome-s-Artings/page3)
(by Sorbetberry at Deviantart)
(by MonteCreations at Deviantart)
(by MirageFlames at Deviantart)
(by Pietja8t8 at Deviantart)
(by BAMillustration at Deviantart)
(by Arabesque91 on Deviantart)
(www.storylamp.cafe24.com/xe/94837)
(apparently from whatido.co.uk)
(by thereisnosaurus at Deviantart)
(by illeity at Deviantart)
(by Rowleykins at Deviantart)
Props to whoever made this.
(by raddishh on Deviantart}
(by i.ta.li.a on 4chan, apparently)
(by Arabesque91 on Deviantart)
(by raddishh on Deviantart)
(http://user-reny.nnover.ru/fotogalereja-reny/7535472.html)
(from Deviantart, unknown artist)
(http://twicsy.com/i/WrqE5d)
(http://forums.relicnews.com/printthread.php?t=187616)
(by turbofanatic on Deviantart)
(http://flynn_the_cat.squidoo.com/Gunnerkrigg-Court)
(by Klarque on Deviantart)
Super cute !