I am new to Renderosity. I uploaded one of my pictures, but it shows up on the site all pixelated. Why is this? I made sure the file size was small enough. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

When that happened to me, I updated my browser and everything went back to normal. I don't know if that's your problem, but it might help?

I ... finally figured it out. I had my thumb as the same file name as the wall..which, I do on my site because of folder differences. It's fixed though, but thank you.

I'm glad you solved your problem. I've been having the same one and I don't seem able to get it licked. Tried changing all my thumbs to "...thumb.jpg. It didn't work. As for updating my browser, I've got IE 6.0.2900.etc, etc. The only way I can get my stuff up is to upload everything but the thumbnail, then go back to "edit" and then upload the thumb. If anybody can figure out why or has some tips, I'd be glad to hear them. Thanks.

I just changed my thumb name to my pic name with an sm after it (for small version, lol) That seemed to work. Although, doesn't matter now, I can't post 90% of my work here now. They already deleted my last one sigh I guess, fan art is not ok because of copyright crap or whatever. I could understand if I were making money, but I'm not..I'm just doing it for fun. Oh well.

Attached Link: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Copyright law protects ALL of us. You might think that traffic laws are crap, too, until a trucker decides that the double yellow lines don't apply to him and he runs head on into you. Or maybe the OSHA laws are crap, until you are the one blinded or handless from a workplace accident. There are days when I wish that artistic license really was something that a person needed to be tested and trained for before being set loose upon an unsuspecting public. Infringement has nothing to do with whether you are making money from someone else's labor and skill. You might want to read up on copyright laws. Templeton's article on debunking the myths is a good place to start. Carolly

I can't post 90% of my work here now. 90% of "your" work is based on someone else's? Not sure how to say this, and I hope it's not perceived as a personal attack (it's not personal), but have you considered doing something original? Then you wouldn't have to worry if you're violating "copyright crap or whatever" and when you have something creative that is truly your own, you may have a better understanding of why observing copyright laws is actually a good thing. bonni

I actually do a lot of my own work. But, being on various fangroups, I also do a lot of fan art, which, believe it or not, isn't exactly easy.

Please forgive my ignorance, but since so many people seem to be so steamed up about this, I'm curious. What, exactly is "fan art" and how is it an infringement on anyone's copyright? I'm totally in the dark here.

Angelfire...Fanart is any art having to do with a fandom. For the most part, you cap DVD scenes, then pull extract parts of the picture (often using multiple screencaps). Add background, make textures (either ps a texture, or use digicam pics of odd objects, even add to bryce renderings). I'm a huge Stargate fan, so a good portion of my work is based around that. The whole copyright problem, is that I use images of the characters on the show.

Thanks, stargategeek. I admit, I'm not an expert on copyright law. I took a class in it back in my school days, which was a long time ago! Must have known enough of it then to pass the class. But that's beside the point. Please, don't anyone think that I'm being snide or sarcastic, because I'm not. But, what's the difference between what stargate is doing and sampling records, which is legal and not considered an infringement against the original artist's copyright?

You'd probably get better answers on this topic in the Copyright forum. Lots of copyright experts there (not lawyers, but folks who know a LOT about copyright). I've often wondered why sampling is legal. Possibly, they actually have permission and/or pay royalties, or maybe it's some other technicality, I dunno. I know a lot about copyright when it applies to some fields, but music copyright is terribly complicated. It's enough to make you pull all your hair out, IMHO. ;-) Anyway, drop around the Copyright forum and ask. bonni

Copyright laws for music and dance and such are different from copyright laws for the visual arts. I imagine that people producing musicals or operas or ballets spend a lot of time with their lawyers... or retrict themselves to 200 year-old productions of classic fairytales. ;^)

Thanks everybody for taking the time to explain a complicated subject. And thanks, hauksdottir, for the link; it gave me a headache, but it did answer a lot of questions. "smile" By the way music copyright law 101 was the course I took. But it was simply an elective for music students. There was a whole major field of study, so my course didn't even began to scratch the surface. I do remember that there was a court case concerning the sampling issue. I still don't understand the rationale behind the findings on that case. I remember thinking at the start of the case that it would be over in a couple of days with "sampling rights" losing hands down. As it was the case dragged on, I believe, for over a year, and the samplers won. I'm still curious about that. Might go over to the Copyright Forum and ask. But if these people talk like lawyers, I'm sure I won't stay there long! lol Thanks again.

Attached Link: http://www.music-law.com/sampling.htm

"If you use samples without obtaining the proper clearance licenses, you have to be aware of the penalties. A copyright infringer is liable for "statutory damages" that generally run from $500 to $20,000 for a single act of copyright infringement. If the court determines there has been wilful infringement, damages can run as high as $100,000."