-
While watching one of the medal ceremonies at the recent Olympic games I was inspired by the playing of our National Anthem, so I dug out Gary's flag tutorial and re-did it. Here's the result.
Sorry about the size, but I wanted you to be able to read the inscribed verse. I printed it out on a 12x18 inch sheet of watercolor paper and it really came out great.
Thanks Gary, for the great tut!
Jack
[This message was edited by Old Dog on March 02, 2002 at 09:59.]
-
I am flattered. You have done very well with the image and I love what you have done with the rope and connector. The text, although not readable at this size, is a very nice touch too.
As the image was created from a tutorial, I do not think you should add your copyright however. People might think that you created the image from scratch as opposed to improving upon an existing tutorial. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif[/img]
Still and all, very well done.
Gary
Gary Priester
Moderator Person
<a href="http://www.gwpriester.com">
www.gwpriester.com </a>
XaraXone
-
Really liked the use of color. You can imagine the Olympic Flame in the background. Very nice.
GARY: this is a question for you. I read the copywrite blurb you added in. So if we create an image, even though it resembles the one from a tutorial we can't copywrite it?? Even though it was our effort and time and talent that got the job done??? Could you explain what's appropriate and acceptable in enableing us to 'claim' the image as our own. Must it be a completely different subject or should Jack simply make the flag wave differently??? Seems a bit vague to me.
Thank you
RAMWolff [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]
-
I will be removing the copyright post haste. I was a little vague as is Ramwolf as to what is proper. Although I used the tutorial as a guide, I did make some changes. The flag is shaped and streched differently and the rope attachment is different from the tut. However, your are correct, it is basically your image. Also, adding the first verse of the National Anthem was my own idea. Just shortly before this tut was posted, I saw an almost identical design concept on another site (I believe it was on a PSP site) where the artist had superimposed the image of a New York firefighter in front of the flag. At what point does it become an original idea or the copy of someone elses. Like Ramwolf, I'm really interested where infringement begins and ends. If after using yours, or anyone elses tutorial to learn the techniques, at what point does a similar concept become copyrightable by the new artist? There seems to be a lot of gray area here. I've looked into this on the U.S. Copyright website and still don't really have a definitive answer. Had I used a different nations flag but still followed the tutorial as to color and layout, etc. Would that much of a change be ok to copyright?
It's not that I disagree with your point in the least. I'm just unclear. Could you, maybe give all of us a better understanding how this works as to tutorials.
Thanks again,
Jack
-
RW and Jack
My rule of thumb is this: If someone looks at Jacks image and then looks at my image and says, hmmm? someone is copying someone here, then there is a problem. Because Jack's copyrighting his image can cause confusion in the viewer's mind and could even hurt my credibility as an illustrator.
I state on the tutorials that they are for your personal use only. Hence if Jack, or anyone else recreates one of my tutorials and then places her or his copyright the image then this is a violation of my copyrights.
This is not to say that you should not always copyright your own images.
By law, any original and non-derivitave work of art you create is automatically copyrighted. But if you really want to protect your copyrights, you should register your image with the US Dept of Commerce Copyrights web site. This way if you need to sue an infringer on your copyrighted image and you win the suit, the violator has to pay your court costs. But only if you register your images before the infringement takes place.
My wife, Mary Carter wrote a splendid book on copyrights called Electronic Highway Robbery - An artist's guide to copyrights in the digital era that is sadly out of print now although you can still find copies here and there on the web.
Gary
Gary Priester
Moderator Person
<A HREF="http://www.gwpriester.com" TARGET=_blank>
www.gwpriester.com </a>
XaraXone
[This message was edited by Gary W. Priester on March 02, 2002 at 10:43.]
-
I'm certainly not being argumentative here, but I did just now go to the U.S. Copyright website to try and find a clarification in this matter. Here's what I found:
Not copyrightable due to right of public domain: Ideas, Facts, Titles, Names, Short Phrases, and Blank Forms.
Subtext:
Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your discription, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work.
This still is not totally clear, so I have written the U.S. Copyright office with my specific question to see if they can really give a definitive answer.
It does seem to me, by the definition I found on the site, that a tutorial falls under the definition of "Method of doing something" and therefore would not be protected by copyright. That's not to say your finished work shown in the tutorial is not protected. I could not copy your finished piece and try and pass it off as my own, but by this definition at least, the work I create following your instructions is copyrightable by me as an original work of art.
That's my interpretation of what the copyright law says, but that doesn't mean I'm correct. I will wait until I hear back from the copyright office with their clarification. Until then, I have removed my copyright from my painting and it will remain that way until I'm told differently.
I will post their answer as soon as I get it. I'm sure it is something that will be useful to all of us in the future.
Most respectfully,
Jack
-
The courts have ruled time and time against against persons who have copied or reproduced a copyrighted image. There is a case where an Italian sculptor created a scupture from a photograph taken by a California photographer. The artist claimed the his was a totally new work and he only used the photograph as reference. The courts found that the sculpture was similar enough to prove that Art's copyrighted image had been infringed.
Several years back, the Grand Prize winner in the Corel International Design Contest had a stunning image of an Native American. The image he used for reference was a copyrighted photo from the Tony Stone Stock Photography collection. The infringer was ordered to pay Tony Stone Images all the money he received from Corel, around $100 thousand in prizes among other awards.
I strongly urge you to try to find a copy of Mary's book because it will really explain all this so much better than I can.
In short, if your image you create looks enough like someone else's copyrighted image, you may very well be guilty of a copyright infringement.
I just looked on Amazon.com and they have Mary's book for $13.00 or $6 used. It is money well spent. Click Here to go to the link. (The cover art is mine, by the way).
Gary
Gary Priester
Moderator Person
<a href="http://www.gwpriester.com">
www.gwpriester.com </a>
XaraXone
-
... of doing something...
Use Gary's "method" for creating the flag to create your own "designs"...
Gary's flag is not a "method" it is a "design".
Gary's "method" of creating the flag is not copyrighted - anybody can do things in whatever order they wish.
The books (tutorials) and so forth that "explain" a method are of course copyrightable.
Basics of copyright is easy - If a judge/jury can see the resemblance of two pieces... you are in trouble. AND there is no... "I was not aware of the other design"...
Risto
risto@ristoklint.com
Visit my web site!
-
that needed to be clarified.
I will most definetly (can never spell that one right) purchase your wifes book. As I'm sure she covers not only internet copyrights but most others. As I get closer and closer to wanting to put together a publishable portfolio of my works, I wanted to get clarification on what I can copywrite and call my own and pieces I need to give credit to whomever.
I would never point blank steal or "borrow" an image and copy it verbatum and call it my own creation. BUT to learn techniques and get ideas from others works is something I think all artists do to further ther abilities and add to their repetoire.
Thanks for the clarification and the link Gary.
RAMWolff [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]
-
Gary, I will definitely check out your wife's book. I think the amount, and varied response to a simple comment of yours shows how important this subject is to all of us.
I really want to dig deeper into this matter with the U.S. Copyright office. Not over my flag piece, you were right and I was wrong and I have removed my copyright from that painting. It also would not bother me if you removed it from this thread. I would be glad to re-post it with the copyright removed. I never meant to take any credit for your design. I made it clear in my post that it was credited to you and your tutorial. I simply placed my copyright on my finished piece believing that I had made enough changes to warrant it. You have my apologies, sir.
Jack
-
I didn't realize I could edit my attachment after a certain length of time. I have re-attached my corrected painting without a copyright!
Jack
-
raises this question in my mind - If its author denounces having a copyright does it put it into the public domain? I seems strange to think that Jack should put a copyright symbol and Gary's name on his (Jack's) image. Is there some practical way for the image to acknowledge it is a derivative work based on a copyrighted image.
In these days of Google Image Searches that in effect take images out of their webpage contexts and facilitate copyright violations, there should be a way to identify a derivative work on the image itself. (Aside: The google image search really facilitates people taking your images without permission. Note that if you are concerned about such things, don't give pics you put on websites descriptive names. ie. don't use a name like flag.jpg --- search for "flag" in the google image search and see what comes up: it is a great resource for image theives eh?)
Mr. Jack O.Dog - Your drawing looks great. Even though I'm not into the nationalistic subject matter I can still admire your results. One little thing bothers me: It has to do with the top of the flag pole. The straight-on view detracts from the realism of the image. We very rarely see anything straight-on. I'd suggest modifying the top of the flag pole, were the gilded finial meets the pole, to look like you are looking more up at the flag. I think doing so could be beneficial. I have a couple of other comments about flag poles. First, only very small poles tend to be untapered. There are both technical and aesthetic reasons for tapering the poles. Seeing your untapered pole suggests, to me at least, that this is a small flag. Second, flag pole hardware is typically designed to allow the flag to swivel around the pole without getting all tangled up. When there is such a swivel mechanism it is located right at the top of the pole where you show the the gilded cap under the finial ball. On some flag poles it is exposed. Others have it concealed - those ones tend to have a much larger cap than you show. Here is a webpage that shows some flagpole hardware. Note the swivels and the various clevis and clip styles used to attach the flags.
Regards, Ross
<a href=http://www.designstop.com/>DesignStop.Com</a>
-
Ross, and everyone else who is interested
Most of the cases of copyright infringement of my images has been innocent enough where a person thinks that adding a HTML copyright notice with my name below an image is all they need to do to appropriate one of my images and post it on their sites. And the HTML notice often appears in the seach engines when I do a search on my name.
There is also a product called DigiMarc which is an electronic digital watermark that travels along with your image on the web and when a viewer mouses over your image, wherever the image is, your copyright notice appears in the browers status bar.
Digimarc also has a product called (I belive) Digi-spider which goes through cyberspace (and the Internet too :-) looking for your digital watermark and reports back a list of sites with your images.
The downside to this is Digimark is pretty expensive and beyond the financial reach of most of us poor folk.
Gary
Gary Priester
Moderator Person
<a href="http://www.gwpriester.com">
www.gwpriester.com </a>
XaraXone
-
As far as I remember, that mould shaping idea for creating flags, which according to the forementioned laws cannot be copyrighted, is invented by Steve Newport. That doesn't mean I'm accusing anyone, I just think it shouldb't be forgotten as although I've never needed this one, I'm sure, that if I ever wanted to do a flag I would do it Steve's way.
-
Ross, thanks for the comments. I agree with you on most points about the pole and it's detail. It is tapered, although slightly, and is somewhat lost towards the bottom because of the sky and highlight coloring being so similar in tonal value. I also agree with you that it appears to be being viewed head on, because it is. To have made it appear to be being viewed from below looking up, even the flag would have had to have been re-worked, and that was a little beyond my current ability. I'm still trying to figure out how to do shading and manipulate shapes to achieve my desired effects. Sometimes it gets really frustrating when I know how to achieve something I want if I were working on a canvas with brush and oils and can't, for the life of me get it right in this medium. The challange and seeing the wonderful work I see you and the others do is what keeps me going. I plan on doing this painting again from scratch, it's how I continue to learn. I want to get more realism in the means for fastening the flag to the pole. Your link will help there. I had looked for information on flag pole hardware when I was doing the painting, but didn't have much luck finding anything that showed enough detail. I want to make the clips more realistic and also re-do the rope to achieve more realism.
Gary, thanks for all the info on copyrights. Like I said before, I think there is a lot of gray area here and confusion. So much so, it's the reason it has taken the courts such a long time in deciding the outcome of the whole napster.com situation. And that, in my opinion was a clear infringement of artists rights. The laws are vague and left up to interpretation, hence, the reason we end up in the courts. Judges do nothing more that interpret the law and that is why we have appeals courts and a higher court system. One judge's interpretation is not necessarily right or the final say. I agree with you that I should not have put a copyright on my painting due to the fact that I freely admitted creating it from your tutorial. However, the idea of an American flag waving in the breeze from a flag pole at sunset is not something that can be copyrighted. If I, or any other artist were to paint an original work having never seen yours or your tutorial, it could easily be argued that two people simply had the same vision and idea. In the cases you mentioned this was the case. The artist in question had admitted using another's work as a guide. i.e. the sculptor you mentioned. Had he not admitted using another persons work as a guide he could have easily argure he had a similar vision. I do know, from years working as an amateur photographer, and having sold many prints of my work, that if two people happen to come upon the same circumstance at the same time and take virtually the same photograph using the same length lens, sutter speed, exposure, film and angle of view. Both own the copyright to their original photograph even though they both are virtually the same to the naked eye. Each of them being able to produce an oringinal negative guarantees their rights to the photograph.
Making a copy of someone else's work is un-questionably not allowed. The copyright laws are very specific in that, but I'm still a little unsure in the technicalities of creating an original work that appears to look very similar to someone else's. However, my opinion doesn't apply in the reason this topic came up. I gladly removed my copyright mark from my painting and I hope you know it was never my intention to try and take credit for something you did, and I never would. I just thought that I had made enough changes in my painting from yours to allow my copyright.
I will be much more careful in the future.
Jack
-
What are the rights of Miss Ross in all of this??
Seriously, wouldn't it be great if the next version of Xara had a simple method of a digital signature/watermarking built in?
Regards, Ross
<a href=http://www.designstop.com/>DesignStop.Com</a>
-
Ross, you raise a good point. However, our dear Betsy was under commission to make the flag and thereby had no rights to the finished product.
I have removed my painting from my original post because it has opened such a huge can of worms, and that was never my intention.
In this thread we have stumbled into two very different and unique situations which are related in subject, but not in circumstance. A number of comments have been made concerning copying someone else's original copyrighted work, and that is clearly not allowed under the law, and I am in total agreement. I did not make a copy of Gary's finished piece and then make some alterations to it and try to claim it as mine. I made an original work of art by following someone else's instructions. I also made some changes and added some things to suit my own tastes, and to me that made it alright to claim copyright. When Gary pointed it out that he didn't think that was right, I had no problem agreeing, and I removed my copyright marking. However, it really got me thinking as to how closely one persons original artwork may resemble someone else's before it is an infringement. I have long since believed that as long as your work is a product of your own hand, and no matter how much it might look like someone else's work, if there is enough difference that a layperson can clearly see that it is not an exact reproduction of the other persons work, it is then your original work and you may clain copyright. I could be wrong, but that's the way it has always been explained to me. I will do some research into this matter through the U.S. Copyright office and see if I can get a definitive answer. Not because I am questioning Gary's, or anyone else's opinion, but because I really want to know what work I created can be truly considered mine. I think all of us should want to know that.
I am in total agreement in the need for copyright protections and would never intentionally infringe on anyone else's work.
I'm here to have fun and to learn!
Jack
-
Guys,
I just followed this very interested thread.
Especially in my business, it's very important to be very aware of copyright issues.
The legal situation here is a bit different, but mostly even more confusing.
Apart from all that: I don't see any image, with or without ©-notice ...
Is it just me ??
Wolfgang
-
Old Dog
Quote: "However, it really got me thinking as to how closely one persons original artwork may resemble someone else's before it is an infringement."
- - - You can bet your life on it that for every dollar you make on a copied work the more it will resemble the original. Meaning, the likelihood of getting sued increases for every dollar you make with an image (or de-devalue the original, or the compromise the integrity of the creator).
Risto
risto@ristoklint.com
Visit my web site!
-
The all mighty dollar is the lead in almost all matters.
I guess what has interested me the most in this particular matter is the subject matter. I completely understood and respected Gary's point. If the subject matter had been a painting of, say, something less noticable it would be easy to see how creating an image so similar would be of concern. But in this case we are dealing with the American flag, alone, in a setting that is used by artists every day. Gary is right in this case, because I freely admit to using his tutorial in order to created my image. The similarity issue is what's got me. I have seen hundreds of images of the American flag that could easily be considered to be this similar to the one Gary produced. In fact there is a U.S. stamp that is real close. And, I did see another artist's work that was published the week of the World Trade Center tragedy that is so similar, the artist could easily contend that Gary copied his work. (which I'm sure he didn't, I'm just making a point) I wish I could remember where I saw it. I would link everyone to it so they could see, just what it is that I'm talking about.
Some of the points that have been made here in this thread have gotten a little off base. The question is not about physically or mechanically copying someone else's work. It is about how closely a new original work can look like another's before it is an infringement. Even in music, only a certain number of notes have to be changed before a composer's work is considered a new composition. It is the same for art in any form. That's what I want to know. How closely can a new work look or resemble someone else's before it's stealing instead of expanding on someone else's idea?
If 25 art students are sitting in the same studio and painting from the same model and using the same medium and compsition, is no one allowed to copyright their original work because it too closely resembles everyone else's. I don't think so. I don't think the answer to this matter is as black and white as that. If it were, anyone of the 25 hypothetical art students could easily argue that another student looked over his or her shoulder and copied their work.
I hope everyone understands my point and concern. When does it become your original work. How much has to be different. Like I said before, in this case we are only dealing with a limited subject matter. An American flag and a flag pole at sunset. If a customer came to you or anyone else and said, I want a painting of an American flag waving in the breeze from a flag pole at sunset and I want it displayed in the traditional manner, left to right. How could you possibly produce the work without creating something very similar to work already copyrighted. There are only so many ways to depict the scene.
There are no new ideas, only new ways of expressing them!
Jack
[This message was edited by Old Dog on March 03, 2002 at 10:36.]
-
I would most definetely want to hear what information that you get from the U.S. Copyright office. I think that your concerns are most valid and of interest for many in this forum. Can of worms or not this is important information to know about.
As for the similarity of your piece compared to Gary's, as I read through all the posts again, the one thing that stands out is that if someone were to copy someones ORIGINAL art work, say someone were to point blank copy Steve Newports 'Liquid' piece and maybe just change the color from lime green to orange and then put their name on it and make $$ off of it, that would be a blatant copyright infringment. But the American Flag can only wave so many ways and your depiction is a very common one that you yourself, as most of us have seen, a very common depiction of a flag waving in the breeze. In my opinion, and I'm hoping in the case of what information that you get back from the U.S. Copyright office, will state that your piece and Gary's are BOTH considered originals of the same subject matter. The fact that you added a flag pole and made noticeable changes to the rest of it and created it using a tutorial that is public domain or made available to the public to learn from, even though it was written by Gary, should not, in my opinion, be considered an issue of copyright infringement. As you stated, the other piece that you saw done by 'another artist' then could be constrewd as a claim for Gary and the 'other artist' to fight over about who ripped who off. But it being such a common subject matter, 1000 other artists could get into the middle of it as well.
I would love to see your piece re-posted and for Gary to post his and then we could study it. For such a common subject matter, I think you would both have original pieces, even though one was the teaching aid and the other was a product of that teaching aid. Just my observation and opinion.
RAMWolff [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]
[This message was edited by RAMWolff on March 03, 2002 at 10:43.]
-
...can be made to wave in a million different ways.
The perspective can be different and the cropping of the image...
Shadows and translucency can be made...
Different texture for the flag can be used. There are a million and one color combinations that can be used. I can think of atleast 1 million and 4 backgrounds and colors that can be used.
In the same way, there are as many color casts that can be applied to an image.
Old Dogs image was spot-on with almost everything (he did a great job with the tutorial).
My first reaction when I saw the image was: "Oh, Gary's flag!"...
Risto
risto@ristoklint.com
Visit my web site!
-
Rrristo, that's what frrrench pipul call déjá-vu. And excuse moi my terribul frrrench accent.
(okay.. that's all I know from french, don't ask for more ;-))
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> My first reaction when I saw the image was: "Oh, Gary's flag!"... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is exactly what a judge and jury would probably say as well.
But more importantly, Jack created an image from a tutorial. I would say that about 80-90% of Jack's image was faithful to the tutorial, the other 10-20% were Jack's improvements. So did Jack create a totally new image or did he modify an existing one? I think the answer to that is fairly straightforward.
Remember George Harrison was sued, and lost for using 4 consecutive notes from some other song. I would have said it was a long long shot that he would lose on the basis of four notes. But he lost, big time.
I posted earlier but maybe RW did not read all the posts. Art Rogers who lives in Pt. Reyes just north of San Francisco, had been photo documenting the people of Pt. Reyes over a ten year period. Many of Art's images were made into post cards and sold in many stores that sell such things. A derivitave artist, Jeff Koons, had an Italian foundry produce a series of bronze statues based on Art's black and white photo. When Art saw the sculptures, which Koons was selling at an astronomical price, he sued. And eventually he won. Even though Koonz said that his piece was bronze and Art's was a photo, there was no doubt in the judge's mind that Art's copyright to his image had been infringed.
Not that I would consider doing such a thing, but if Jack were to publish his illustration as a poster and sell it under his copyright, I have no doubt at all that in a court of law I could prove infringement. The similarity is too great.
Roman -- to your point about Steve Newport coming up with the enveloping technique, that is quite a different matter. It is not the technique for applying the mould shapes but the final image. Do you see the difference? For what it is worth, I had used that technique many times in the past to apply multiple mould shapes to an object. It is faily obvious and not something that you could copyright even if you wanted to. It is a technique and not a finished image.
Mary's book explains all of this stuff in such clear and simple English that even I can understand it [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif[/img] Tad Crawford who writes the Legal Review column for Communication Arts Magazine reviewed several books on copyright for artists and of all the books he reviewed, he had the highest praise of any for Mary's book. It is a little gem.
Gary
Gary Priester
Moderator Person
<a href="http://www.gwpriester.com">
www.gwpriester.com </a>
XaraXone
-
This reminds me of article I've read about Babylon 5 - science fiction series. They were created by Joe Michael Straczynski. He asked fans not to send any suggestions for the series and episodes to avoid possible problems with later claims of authorship of the ideas as he had plans already for the whole series. It was chance that someone could reinvent the wheel and later claim that it originally was his idea, not authors.
I just wanted to point out that rectangle cut to smaller rectangles and then moulded to a shape of flag was first posted here by Steve, but that doesn't of course mean that you wouldn't use the same approach.
Roman.
[This message was edited by Dmagician on March 03, 2002 at 17:24.]
-
... you are so right! Steve is a very smart guy - oh, my god is he ever! I'm one of his biggest fans. I have even offered him my oldest daughter for marriage for Pete's sake!
I don't know why everybody is obsessing about moulding this - or tut that - the method means nothing!
That is the point - nobody cares about how an image was put together. It is the end result that counts - be it created with Xara X, oil paints, blowing watercolor through two straws in your nostrils (don't try it - it hurts... and the Cadmium Red tastes awful...) [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]
Risto
risto@ristoklint.com
Visit my web site!
-
Straws up the nose to do art?? Okey, Dokey [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
Gary, I did read all the posts, it was just an observation and in a perfect world it would not be such an issue. But in our "Sue Happy" society I guess we all just keep digging deeper and deeper for reasons to come out on top. I will most definetely be buying your dear wifes book. I love supporting Amazon.com any way I can.
Thanks for your, as usual, expertise in getting this situation understood a little more clearly.
RAMWolff [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]
-
1 Attachment(s)
This makes me think.
If I took Gary's tut on the Mac gel buttons and made a web site out of it with my own text in it is that breaking copyright?
Then I thought one step back? Is Gary's tut breaking Mac's copyright?
My view would be not on both counts - interested to here views on that one from others.
I see Gary's point on 80% of the tut was followed, but that is what tuts are for - to teach you techniqes. If you only follow 20% of the tut then do your own thing to get to the end art work is that ok?
I have not see the flag as it has been removed. I'd like as someone suggest to see both side by side - given there is no money/profit being made and it would help other on the board to appreciate the useful topic I don't see it a problem to show the pics (maybe with a large water mark throught it, if your worried about it being picked up by a archive web site etc).
If I make a cat - face on, using the Tut pposted re fur, based onthe wolf - is it breaking copyright because I followed the tut, it has tow eyes, etc and is face on?
My concern is most of what I do must have over tones of Gary's tut. See attached based on an early tut Gary did. I had to ask him direct for the link as the link to the tut was brocken before I could create it. Am I breaking copyright? I.E. The twigs are straight from the tut and the metal top has the exact fill from the light bulb.
Turan
-
we are getting to the point I was hoping to make.
Before, too many people were getting side tracked on the idea of someone actually physically, mechanically, photomechanically, or electronically reproducing someone else's finished work of art. That, I hope everyone agrees, is completley a violation of copyright laws.
The point I was hoping to explore was, just how closely can someone else's original work resemble another artist original work of art.
I was never trying to argue in defense of my original piece that I submitted for viewing here, that started this discussion. Originally, when I finished my painting, I had felt I had made enough changes to my work to permit me to put my own copyright marking on it. However, after Gary pointed it out to me, I took another hard and long look at my piece and came to the same conclusion as he. Even though my work was completely done by me, it did look entirely too much like Gary's finished work and I happily removed my copyright.
I hope everyone understands that. I was never disagreeing or arguing with Gary concerning this particular piece. He was 100% right.
It's just that the situation brought the question to my mind. Just how much can a new work that you do resemble someone else's work, and you are still safe in claiming copyright for that piece?
Although I am trying to research this with the U.S. Copyright office, I'm betting I won't get a clear cut answer. The written law, like most, is somewhat specific and at the same time, a litte vague. Our laws are written so they can be left up to interpretation. That's why we have judges. We put everything in their hands. Good or bad, right or wrong, that's the way it is.
After reading everyone's contributions to this thread I have come to the conclusion, for myself at least, that if you truly believe you are in the right and someone challenges your work. You have no choice but to stand by your work and let the other party make the next move, and be willing to possibly leave the decision up to an impartial (hopefully) judge to decide if in fact your work is completely original.
I believe Risto made the point (if it wasn't you Risto, I apologize. I didn't feel like going back and re-reading all the post to see who it was) that the all mighty dollar plays a huge part in a dispute like this. If you are making a lot of money from your piece, and someone thinks they have a claim against you. You can bet your bottom dollar, they will make it.
I will re-post my original painting, void of my copyright marking and my signature, so that everyone can see for themselves. I think if you compare my painting to Gary's you will be able to see that, yes, my work is original and different from his, but he is right, there are not enought differences and it is far too similar to be copyrighted by me.
Thanks for everyone's posts. This is a subject we should all be very interested in and it has been interesting to read everyone's different view points.
Oh, one other point. Concerning the method of molding the flag, and who invented it. It wasn't young Steve or Gary. It was the programer who developed it. Steve and Gary simply used the mold tool in a manner that the programer allowed it to be used.
Thanks again to everyone,
Jack
[This message was edited by Old Dog on March 04, 2002 at 07:46.]
-
1 Attachment(s)
with the original message because the forum won't allow it after a certain length of time.
So, I will upload it here.
Gary, if you are able to take it an place it back with my original message, please do so. If not, I guess it will be fine leaving it here.
Thanks,
Jack
-
Now if Gary would post his and somehow place his text AFTER the image then there won't be to much scrolling. I think Gary should leave your image, Jack, where it is for this reason alone. In the case of your request to re-post it back in the original first page would make it time consuming to go from one page to another.
Just making a suggestion, doesn't really matter.
RAMWolff [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]
[This message was edited by RAMWolff on March 04, 2002 at 10:43.]
-
we should probably, now leave my painting where it is in the thread.
Risto - I agree with you completely in everything you said about the number of ways the flag could be waving, color, perspective, etc. etc.
However, here's the question I'm posing. Just how many and how much of these different things would you have to change in order for you to win an argument that your work is not a copy of someone else's.
Here's my point, in my painting here are the things I did differently from Gary's tutorial.
The background: I did not follow the tutorial's fill suggestions. I changed the cloud formation. I also didn't follow the colors. I used a darker orange than the tutorial suggested because I thought it was a little more dramatic. Same for the transparent fill over the flag.
The flagpole: This is almost exactly as the tutorial instructed. I did make a change in the color sequence of the highlight fill on the main part of the pole, because of what I assumed was a typo in the tutorial, two of the colors were reversed.
The flag: Although the flag is cut into three pieces as in the tut, I did shape it in my own way and didn't follow the precise instructions as the tutorial. I also streched out the far right bottom corner of the flag to get a more pointed and downward shape to it. I also did not use the sizes the tutorial suggested for the stars because when I did they seemed too small for my eye.
I didn't use the same color suggested for the white stripes either. I darkened it up a bit for personal preference.
When it came to fastening the flag to the pole I wanted a little more realism than the tutorial, so even though I used the same clips as the tutorial I detached the bottom clip from the pole and attached it to a rope and let the rope hang free from the pole. Also if you look closely at the clips where they fasten to the flag. You will see that they are reversed from the method in the tutorial and go thru the grommets in the flag from the oposite direction. No real reason for that, except that I'm left handed and things always seem to look backwards to me. Also, the crop and positioning of the flag is slightly different and the finished piece is a compelely different size.
And finally, my addition of the first verse of the National Anthem in the lower right corner is of my own design and not a part of the tutorial.
So, as you can see, I did follow a lot of my own concepts and made a lot of the changes you mentioned and I still came up with a finished painting that, I agree with Gary, is too similar to his to permit my own copyright.
Therefore, my question remains, how much do you have to change? Because I did change a lot, just not enough!
Jack
-
1 Attachment(s)
First off, Old Dog, nice image, Gary's tut's always help!
To be honest, I really have no clue as to what side I should take on this!
Gary, you are giving out step-by-step info on how to create a picture exactly like the end result... Isn't that the point? For somebody who takes the time to do the entire tutorial and to denie them the right to pass it off as their own work and labor seems kind of... wrong!
Sure, the image you created first was your original idea and picture, but you went ahead and showed the world how to make a pic EXACTLY like it, which is fine. But if you don't want pictures exactly like yours floating around, then don't show others how to do it. Instead, just show them the technique and give a note that your design is copyrighted, and for them to use the technique in whatever way possible without infringing upon your copyright.
Along with that, Dmagician brought up that, in fact, I did have a very similar image with a very similar tutorial before you had posted yours. Whether or not you had started first or not is irrelivant, I could have very well gotten angry and such. But to be honest, although somewhat stunned at the lack of credit, I really didn't care, and still don't! You could have very well done my tutorial and based it upon yours, and that would have been fine, because I had posted a tutorial in order so others could benefit from it. But if I had been picky about it, I could have gotten mad that my idea was taken and also that I was given no credit. But I didn't and shouldn't have, because my tutorial gave out a technique for use by anyone for any purpose. Notice I did not give them step-by-step info on how to exactly reproduce my image, therefor I believe it retains it's copyrightt. I gave a tut on what I felt comfortable giving out. If you don't want an image reproduced like yours, don't give them the opportunity, or I think your image can no longer be protected.
(Sorry for the length!)
BUT, if you had added a note that says this tutorial is only for technique purposes and the image should not be reproduced then you probably would have been a little safer. But I believe something that you do not want others to know, should not be given out... if that makes sense!!
Sorry for my rambling, these arguments are all in good fun and I enjoy seeing the views and points brought up! If you disagree, please say so and try bringing my views to where they should be! Thanks for the in-depth thread Old Do [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
Steve Newport
-
I think they are quite similar, but there are many differences as well. I guess it's a toss up, in MHO. But I'm sure a judge would give it to the originator, this of course is just as an example. Gary thanks for posting yours with Jack's, how did you get two images in the same post??
It all comes down to that 'George Harrison 4 notes' situation that Gary mentioned. I guess, bottom line is, the tutorial can be used to learn from but original pieces need to be thought out and executed in order to have exclusive copyrights.
Steve, nice to see you joining in. I agree with your veiws. Seems to bring it to a head. If Gary or anyone else, regardless, wants to share an idea or technique then so be it, if an image is an end result of that lesson then a note of copytight should be added at the end of the tutorial stating something along the lines of: "Persons creating exact duplicates of this image and claiming copyright to it are in violation of the copyright laws. Please be creative and design your own ORIGINAL images so this is not an issue. Thank you..............." Oh, and I LOVE your perspective design. very nice piece Steve, thanks for sharing. I like the straight on veiws of the flag but in reality, we really are quite a way's down from where most flags are waving, eh?? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
I close saying that this was a very imformative lesson for many of us. I look forward to recieving Mary's book. Gary, I liked the personal review you gave it [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] I'd do the same for my spouce.
RAMWolff [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]
[This message was edited by RAMWolff on March 04, 2002 at 13:08.]
-
that's an awesome flag Steve. Your artwork is superb and inspiring. I can't figure out which piece in the Featured Artist section I like the most. And now this one with lense flare and an incredible sky.
On this topic, I was wondering about the elfish writing on your rings pictures. How close is it to the movie posters? Is there a font or are they hand drawn?
Another question, if I am using a picture to start a dirivative work, that work also falls into the copyright issue to doesn't it?
Great talent!
Dale Fipp...
[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif[/img]
-
and especially to Gary for adding his image along with mine. It allowed me to see just how different mine did turn out from yours. Although it hasn't changed my mind. I still am in agreement with you that mine is too close to yours. I think I will have to re-do this painting from scratch without the aid of the tutorial and get something a little more mine.
Steve, thanks to you for your input. You raise some very interesting sides to both arguments that I hadn't really been considering. I think you've made us all think even more on this subject. Your work is simply amazing, you have remarkable talents. You have one of the best eyes for light and shadow that I have ever seen. Keep up the beautiful work and show us as much a possible. It's very inspiring.
Finally, I hope everyone that has visited this thread realizes there was never any anger involved here. Certainly not on my side, and I'm confident there was none on Gary's part. It just developed into a very interesting subject that we all are concerned with.
Thanks again to everyone,
Jack
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> My concern is most of what I do must have over tones of Gary's tut. See attached based on an early tut Gary did. I had to ask him direct for the link as the link to the tut was brocken before I could create it. Am I breaking copyright? I.E. The twigs are straight from the tut and the metal top has the exact fill from the light bulb. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The image you produced does not in the least resemble anything that I have done. Not only that, but the image looks much better than my tutorial, especially the branch.
The purpose of the tutorials is twofold, for many of us, the tutorials are like a crossword puzzle. The satisfaction is following the instructions and creating the final image. Maybe not the best anology, but you get the idea.
For some of us, each tutorial teaches us a technique which we can apply to a totally new image. And even though Turan has used one from column A and one from column B (we call this the Chinese menu approach) the image he has produced is entirely new and one to which Turan can proudly affix his copyright notice to.
Jack you have been more than patient and I know that this is a learning process for all of us. I bear no hard feelings to anyone.
Gary
Gary Priester
Moderator Person
<A HREF="http://www.gwpriester.com" TARGET=_blank>
www.gwpriester.com </a>
XaraXone
-
This had bothered me before but after all this dialog I have to refer to This post called Four
Now Gary you know I luv you but I was shocked to see you, the preacher of copyright infringment, when you posted another version of Old Dog's picture and put your copyright sig at the bottom.
Now if YOU actually created the 1st version not Old Dog, I never saw it.
Judi
My Stuff
-
While this thread was going strong Jack posted that new piece then Gary put a version, the ball was lowlighted and then put his sig and @ on it for fun. It was, I'm sure, meant in a fun sort of a way.
Gary? Jack??
RAMWolff [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]
-
I had not caught that before! I see the smiley after your name Gary, so is this meant to be a joke?! If not, I agree with Judi, it must be changed right away!
Old Dog, you will RARELY see anyone get mad at anyone here unless Peter P. steps in the door! These are just simple little arguments to get our points out here and I think we all understand. If one was mad at the other I would think they would tell them truthfully! Think about this
A companion tells you what you want to hear
A Friend tells you what you need to hear
And we're all friends, righ [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
Steve Newport