Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
  1. #11
    Senior Member Deathbat6120's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    UK
    OS
    Android
    Posts
    297
    Did a whole bunch of Iron Maiden fan art as part of my Art Exam a while back (Except Carnival Ed, he was a fun little idea). Teachers insisted it wasn't "fine art" and told me to take it out of the exam book.. so you guys can appreciate it here instead!

    Name:  carnivalpharaoh.jpg
Views: 133
Size:  117.9 KB
    Name:  trio.jpg
Views: 133
Size:  82.1 KB Name:  troop.jpg
Views: 133
Size:  109.8 KB
    Deathbat-9018 - Romero's Legion

    Your friendly neighbourhood Guide-ian Angel, a helpful source for Events and Missions alike.

    Most wanted - Coalgiver, Number Of The Beast, Samurai Emperor, Tour 2019, Ed Hunter, Ramesses, Virtual XI, Magma Beast, Where Eagles Dare, Van Helsing, Gangland
    Lucifer, Major Malakhov, The Count Dracula, Sirius, LoL, LoL, Dark Lilith, LoL, The Beast, Krampus, LoL, Minotaur

  2. #12
    Senior Member Yup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    OS
    iOS
    Posts
    3,482
    Quote Originally Posted by Discordian View Post
    I own that original glass-plate diapositive for the stereoscopic version of that slide. Therefore, copyright of my work (as well as scanning and cleaning the scratches) does indeed reside with me. My copyright attorney agrees.
    not at all how copyrights work.. nice try though.


    Quote Originally Posted by Discordian View Post
    That particular instance of the image is of my copyright. I took an extremely scratched up instance of a fairly common - but more-than-usually tonally rich slide, and I did a lot of work on it.
    It is important to realize the reformatting or reconstituting copyrighted materials into a new form does NOT mean you can claim new copyright. -- You have created a derivative work.. that does NOT make you the copyright holder.

    Think of it like a DVD.. you buy a DVD of some movie.. you then rip that DVD to a .mkv file.. you can't claim copyright over the .mkv file because you don't have copyright over the original content. All you've done is change the format of the content. Nothing new was created and without the original content your alterations to the format would not exist. Therefore scanning a glass plate dispositive may reconstitute the original image into a new form.. however it does not create new copyright.

    The photo is 100 years old.. copyrights last (in the US) for 75 years after the creators death. So, unless that photographer died in 1943, which is entirely possible... there may still be a valid copyright in place which you clearly can not claim is yours. If the photographer did die prior to 1943, that would mean the photo is in Public Domain which, again, you can not claim ownership over.

    ------------------

    I only point all this out because I make my living via intellectual property and specifically illustration and artwork. While the general public seems to often feel they have "copyright" because they have replicated, reproduced, or altered, some image they found.. this is an entirely incorrect assumption. You can not claim copyright over a derivative work. It does not matter how much you altered an image or what you altered. There is no such thing as "change it by X amount, and it's okay."

    -----------------


    Sorry, I honestly didn't mean to divert the thread so much.. but this is my profession.. my living..... for more than 30 years.. please do not claim copyright when you've merely stolen the work of someone else. You FOUND a photo and placed some type over it... that's all. It's derivative work entirely and not one single part of it is original in any way.

    We can just leave it there. While I stand behind all I've typed. I do feel kind of like the ass in teh room for pointing it out. I know I'm absolutely 100% correct in every statement I've made.. but I don't want to ruin anyone's fun.
    Last edited by Yup; 11-08-2019 at 06:36 AM.
    -----
    insert witty remark here.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Yup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    OS
    iOS
    Posts
    3,482
    Quote Originally Posted by Deathbat6120 View Post
    [stuff]
    Dude, nice work. Great use of perspective and foreshortening in some of those!
    -----
    insert witty remark here.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Discordian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    OS
    iOS
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Yup View Post
    not at all how copyrights work.. nice try though.

    Blah blah blah a bunch of bullshit

    -----------------


    Sorry, I honestly didn't mean to divert the thread so much.. but this is my profession.. my living..... for more than 30 years.. please do not claim copyright when you've merely stolen the work of someone else.
    Alrighty Yup, go take "[your] profession... [your] living..." and [redacted]

    You're quite incorrect on copyright age for works created before 1 January 1978; they blanket expire a certain number of years after their creation date. This is why, for example, books, photographs, and movies published in 1923 and before are universally in the public domain, including the BASE IMAGE that was used here. My work on fixing it up - that's not in the public domain! When professionals like Marina Amaral colorize an original photograph, they own the rights to the colorization; when professional retouchers retouch a photo, likewise, although there is usually a contract between retoucher and photographer reassigning copyright.

    I don't give a toss one way or another if people USE this image, I was making clear the fact that I was not violating anybody else's copyright in posting it. I tend to do this specifically because I respect copyrights myself; every three months I submit my most recent body of work to the US Copyright Office to make it official.

    I can't claim ownership over the original work. Neither can anybody else. I can claim copyright over the changes, inasmuch as they're not part of the original. At some point in time, someone colorized a version of this scene (which was actually left there for hours) shot with a regular camera. If they colorized it after 1923 and didn't expire before 1978, their copyright to that colorization still holds.

    See, I'm a professional as well, and I take offense when [redacted] accuses me of not understanding copyright law. Since I've made a living for the past 20 years creating intellectual property, have entered into complex negotiations for the transfer of that property, and have numerous times sought legal recourse when people have violated my copyright, I think I know what I'm talking about here.

    TL;DR: STFU.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Yup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    OS
    iOS
    Posts
    3,482
    See.. I never once called you any derogatory name or swore at you...

    Your reaction is quite typical and honestly, expected. If one can not communicate in a professional manner, why should I believe they are professional in their actions?

    (psst.. you CAN'T own copyright on a derivative work such as colorizing or retouching...)

    Okay then.. I'm done here.
    -----
    insert witty remark here.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Discordian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    OS
    iOS
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Yup View Post
    Okay then.. I'm done here.
    Nobody asked you to come in here and comment on my shit, [redacted]

  7. #17
    Senior Member Beddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    England
    OS
    iOS
    Posts
    181
    Mate the meme wasn’t even that funny and you don’t own any part of it so stop

  8. #18
    Senior Member Discordian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    OS
    iOS
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Beddie View Post
    Mate the meme wasn’t even that funny and you don’t own any part of it so stop
    If you didn't find it amusing, that's fine. You win some, you lose some.

    I just didn't appreciate Yup's condescending attitude towards someone he clearly views as his junior (which I doubt I am).

  9. #19
    Senior Member Yup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    OS
    iOS
    Posts
    3,482
    No. I merely disliked the misinformation regarding copyright. that's what I commented on. Someone was claiming ownership over stolen imagery. I felt compelled to comment.

    Again.. I'm not the one calling people names.
    -----
    insert witty remark here.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    OS
    Android
    Posts
    193
    Eh, IP laws differ around the world. I thought you could claim ownership on things that you'd significantly recoloured or altered. As amusing as this all is however, it's unrelated to the rest of the thread.

    Awesome pencil sketches Deathbat!

    And Devs, if you want to slow down your event schedule to focus on server stability, not sure too many people would hold that against you
    Azagthor-0732

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •