Recycled patriotic tutorial....

[RAMWolff44]

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.]

[Old Dog]

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

[Steve Newport]

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

[RAMWolff44]

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.]

[dafipp]

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]

[Old Dog]

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

[gwpriester]

<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

[Judi A]

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

[RAMWolff44]

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]

[Steve Newport]

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