Well can't say I wasn't warned! As I stated in an earlier posting the moderator informed me I needed to get written permission for the lineart I was using to color. Not having that permission and then posting new art where I very clearly gave credit I found my stuff getting pulled down out of my gallery. it is a shame really as I was getting some positive feedback and actually improving because of the suggestions that were being made. You guys don't know me from Adam , but I have always lived my life as a very honest person and I understand rules and try my best to live by them, however I am disturbed by this turn of events. policy or not I think it is wrong to pull my images when I have given ALL proper credit and am not gainging anything from the use of the images for practice, and since I have seen some of the same images that I have stored on my hard drive for future use in other galleries with no indication of explicit permission for thier use, I wonder why I'm targeted here? I'm not saying someone is out to get me. I'm sure it's just my bad luck, but I can't be the only person in this entire community using images taken from the internet to use in thier art who does not have express permission, but who give all due credit. At anyrate thank you all for the advice and criticism I hope to have a web site of my own up soon and maybe some of you can go there and continue to help me along. thanks, joe

It's very common for people to use images like that, but you may have invited selective enforcement by admitting you used somebody else's images. Others, who use images like that, aren't as honest as you, so they may escape enforcement for a while. But even on your own website, you may be subject to enforcement by your ISP, so that's no guarantee of safety, even where enforcement is lax or capricious, e.g. msn or yahoo.

If you grab stuff off of the web, and then use it in your own art -- credited or not, it's still a violation of copyright.

That would be like saying that it's OK to take chapters out of a famous writer's novel, copy them verbatim, and then use them in a novel of your own......so long as you gave "proper credit".

It don't work thataway........and it doesn't matter whether you are using the purloined art to make money with or not. It's still a copyright violation.

Another thing: even if copyright violations happen to be allowed on other websites -- or posted in other galleries elsewhere on the web -- is irrelevant. They don't allow it to happen here.

However:

And this is "iffy" -- there are often wide exceptions made for fan art.......but even there, the blatant copying of the work of others wouldn't be kosher.

You are not the victim here, you're the perpetrator.

Well calling you a "perpetrator" while technically correct is IMHO being a bit harsh on you.
It's a very common misunderstanding among the most honest of people that if you can "right click save" it's OK to use as you wish.
Giving credit is nothing but a nice gesture, but written permission from the creator is what is needed to legally and morally use that work.

You want to color lineart....

I see by the two remaining images in your gallery that you use Photoshop and Poser.
With PS you can take a digital photograph or scan your photos and create lineart.
Better yet with Poser you can use the "Sketch Render" to create your lineart.
There are hundreds of thousands of objects for free on the net that you can bring into Poser for that use.
You don't need them textured and can use any of the formats Poser accepts...obj's, 3ds,etc.

Youll also find it more satisfying as not only will you have more control over your work, but also you are creating something that is originally all yours.

Have fun, SWAMP

Message edited on: 02/23/2005 15:55

I'm not going to get engrossed in a battle over what is right or wrong the TOS that govern Renderoisty are in place understandably to protect the organization and seem to be pretty clear. I can not use other people's lineart to colorwithout express permission. However, I am indeed the victim here and perpetrator is a bit harsh simply because of the conotation and the novel analogy is completely off base(I'm sure that with some relection everyone might agree). Anyway, My girlfriend and I both have copyrights for several written pieces and the copyrights are in place to protect us from individuals who wish to profit from or take credit for our creative efforts. I'm not angry at the moderators. I am just a bit frustrated and dissapointed that among creative people there is no understanding that there IS a marked difference sometimes between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Again, rules are rules I like Renderosity so I will abide by them (which is why I won't be posting anymore) I won't be responding again to anything written here. I just want to thank those folks who gave me advice and feedback and want to wish everyone good luck with thier artistic endeavors. Best, joe

Oh well.....I tried.

I'm not angry at the moderators. I am just a bit frustrated and dissapointed that among creative people there is no understanding that there IS a marked difference sometimes between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. I suggest you hang out in the Copyright Forum here for a few weeks, and see the number of artists who get ripped off on an absolutely daily basis, often by people who claim they're obeying the "spirit" of the law, if not the "letter" of it. Then perhaps you'll understand why Renderosity and the people who hang around here tend to be extremely quick on the trigger where copyright matters are concerned. bonni

It's a very common misunderstanding among the most honest of people that if you can "right click save" it's OK to use as you wish.

One might reasonably suggest that this was an "honest mistake" -- until the first time that the individual was informed otherwise.

After that, it's simply a case of someone that refuses to acknowledge that the elephant in the room exists.

XENOPHONZ, I was trying to give someone the benefit of doubt, but after his last post.... youre right. SWAMP (cleaning elephant shit off his shoe)

Joe I'm sorry if you feel you are being singled out but that is not the case, whenever copyright issues come to our attention the artists will be contacted & images removed. You have been offered suggestions for finding art you can use legally but showed no interest in following up on that. If you do not feel you can abide by the rules & will not communicate with me then any images you post violating copyright will continue to be removed. bevchiron 2D moderator

It looks like I'm a bit late to the post as Joe may not read this now, but I'll give my 2 cents worth for the benefit of anyone else who thinks its okay to steal other's work. I'm not going to get into a huge dissertation on what Art is, but I will say this. When an individual creates anything from their mind (not copying or whatever, just like the Masters did) they are creating an original work. Not just in appearance, the creation reflects every part of their brain functions, beyond that of technical training. What makes an Artwork unique is the fact that an individual created it and no other, even if he/she copied it, could produce the same image/experience for the viewer. If we all copied from each other, then Art would die as it would become as generic as the rest of reality. You can colour in other people's creations all you like, you will never be considered an Artist by most of your peers (and that's where Artists are really judged). Anyone can colour in. What we like to see in Art is originality, your OWN creations, from your head, not someone else's. I really can't see a point to calling yourself an 'Artist' otherwise. Personally? I see copyright violations like this another form of identity theft which seems so prevalent these days...really, people should find their own identity to express.

"You can colour in other people's creations all you like, you will never be considered an Artist by most of your peers (and that's where Artists are really judged). Anyone can colour in. What we like to see in Art is originality, your OWN creations, from your head, not someone else's. I really can't see a point to calling yourself an 'Artist' otherwise."

I would disagree. For instance, I'm working on "coloring in" some flower scans from Dover. For those who don't know, Dover offers collections of out of copyright designs. It would be perfectly legal for me to upload my finished work to my gallery.
The flower scans are just outlines. In two hours I've only finished 4/5's of one tulip. (there are 5 plus leaves and stems) This should tell you there is more to it than just "coloring in". This project acomplishes several things: a creative outlet, future work to build on and digital Photoshop painting practice.

If jbeauvais is just beginning then it's perfectly natural to begin with something easy. To condemn him at the start is elitism. Educating him on copyrights and all that go along with it does not mean criticism as there are lineart sources for him to seek out and use legally for his practice and posting to his gallery.
Keep in mind, children are given coloring books, not blank pieces of paper, to start with. This site caters to beginners as well as experts.

Sorry I really didn't mean to be elitist, and as my post said, I don't wish to turn this into a 'what is Art' debate. I think it should be said here that Joe chose not only to use copyrighted images (which for many reasons, beyond that of artistic integrity, viotates the TOS and is illegal without the Artist's clear written consent) he chose to use the images of a very well respected Artist within this community. When asked to stop doing so, he continued anyway, thinking a simple credit will make it right. The bottom line here, as should be with all original artistic creations (not available for free public use) is that this is theft. The artist is not there to provide images for others to alter, in fact most would find such a thought barbaric and verging on vandalism. I know this sounds like an elitist stance, but an artist's creations are not only an image, but an expression of everything they have experienced to create it. It is something very personal to an artist and almost as if someone is taking their child and calling it their own. That may sound extreme, but we should think of these extremes, especially when specifically asked to stop doing something that is causing another distress. I should add, that I was being very extreme when saying that colouring in is not an artform, it is, but it shouldn't be seen in the same light as the specific work that is being discussed. No ill intent or elitest views intended :)

Attached Link: stock.xchng

Colouring in flower scans from Dover's out-of-copyright designs would be fine and I can't imagine you'd get your work pulled for doing this, as you'd be working with sanctioned sources. jbeauvais on the other hand has been trying to use other people's non-sanctioned works, permission was neither sought nor given, regardless of him giving acknowledgement. There are plenty of people around who provide free stock material (www.sxc.hu and www.deviantart.com are two fine examples, thousands of images to be found there and in high resolution!) so why use copyrighted works when there are so many legitimate alternatives? If speaking in favour of protecting artists' intellectual property is considered elitism then it's become a pretty sad state of affairs. I agree with crrunchyfrog that an artist has a great emotional connection with their output and to see someone else appropriate it (especially after being asked not to - how respectful is that?) could be most distressing and frustrating. I cast my mind back to an incident where someone I know here made a drawing based closely on a photo by a professional photographer. He sought permission *after* posting it, and even though his intention was basically one of flattery the photographer felt insulted at not being asked first and came down on him like a ton of bricks, demanding that he delete the post or there would be legal action. This is the way of things. You have to see it from the side of the artist as well, creative people are typically sensitive about the fruits of their labour.

Message edited on: 02/26/2005 11:54

"If speaking in favour of protecting artists' intellectual property is considered elitism then it's become a pretty sad state of affairs."

That's not what I said, is it. I recall a thread of him asking for information regarding the use of line art. What I refer to is criticising his choice to color line art and not taking into account his probable 'newbie' status. Not allowing him to violate copyrights. If he did that he was wrong but in this case, education should have included better support and more information on where he could have obtained material to work with.

Okay, I had a look at that earlier thread, thanks for that (and sorry for the misunderstanding above). Anyway, Joe was given some suggestions, even a link to the Comics section, where he could make inquiries. But five days later he's coming back saying his images have been pulled - having been pursuing his original route instead. This is nothing to do with him being a "newbie" or otherwise; upon having an image pulled for the first time the mod didn't descend on him like a ton of bricks but just pointed out his mistake and offered an alternative route. If he took it he'd be able to keep creating and posting, instead of deciding to stop posting altogether which is a shame. This isn't about elitism, just accepting that some things are off limits. I do agree though that the site should maybe have these issues covered in text somewhere (or at least more prominently - I went hunting but couldn't find anything, maybe that's my crappy hunting skills though!). Maybe there could be a forum specifically for newbies that covers these bases? :-)

Attached Link: Copyright Policy

The link to Copyright Policy can be found in the drop down menu for Rederosity Info at the top right of the page ;) Yet, I too think it is something that should be featured a lot more prominantly. I'd also like to apologise for my little misconception above as I thought Joe had used the work of someone I know, who's been subjected to such misuse of their images lately. If this had been the case, well, in my eyes its akin to painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa. As Jim so eloquently explained, Joe had been offered support, that which fitted in with the law. It isn't about elitism, but the fact that not only is Joe liable should the original artist wish to sue him, so is Renderosity. All emotional sentiment aside, this is why you cannot publish copyrighted work without written permission from the artist. And newbies are always welcome to my support and help ... if they ask nicely of course ;)

Just for future reference there's also a link to copyright policy on the TOS page (also found in the Renderosity info drop down menu!) there is also a link to a copyright overview on the 2D & Mixed Medium gallery banners : ) Kendra I can assure you Joe was offered help & support but unfortunately he chose to ignore my suggestion in his first post & my IM's & post here instead which almost inevitably leads to misunderstandings.