- This topic has 25 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 17 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Has this been brought up yet? The description pisses me off. I have sent it to John. I dont remember this being brought up before. GAH! With such an education in art, they aught to realize what they are doing is wrong and makes their capabilites questionable. 👿
That’s a new one to me, and in some ways is even worse than the statue knock-offs. With the knock-offs it is rarely a skilled artist doing it- it’s usually just someone wanting to make a quick buck with minimal effort (or, someone in China). In this case it’s a (supposedly) educated artist who should not only know better, but I’m of a strong opinion that one does not progress as an artist by copying other’s work.
I’m glad you sent this to John. Hopefully he can send her an educational note about copyrights/dress code and the pitfalls of copying other’s work.
Using reference to educate oneself in the arts is one thing, but you should never publish said drawings, less profit from them.Volunteer mod- I'm here to help! Email me for the best response: nambroth at gmail.com
My art: featherdust.comI don’t remember seeing this before. I think you’ve found something new. I hope John can do something. 👿
If she is that good an artist, she shouldn’t need to copy other people’s things!! That just pisses me off 👿
Jasmine wrote:If she is that good an artist, she shouldn’t need to copy other people’s things!! That just pisses me off 👿
Nambroth wrote:That’s a new one to me, and in some ways is even worse than the statue knock-offs. With the knock-offs it is rarely a skilled artist doing it- it’s usually just someone wanting to make a quick buck with minimal effort (or, someone in China). In this case it’s a (supposedly) educated artist who should not only know better, but I’m of a strong opinion that one does not progress as an artist by copying other’s work.
These were pretty much my thoughts. It made me angry when she was talking about how ‘original’ it was. 🙁
Maybe I’m misunderstanding this – so I’m just asking.
If someone draws their own picture of an object that is copyrighted, are they actually infringing on that copyright? The reason I ask is that I have seen many photographs and drawings done of famous pieces of art (i.e. The Thinker, etc) and I don’t believe it would infringe on the original piece. I think it would if it was a direct copy was of Melody’s drawings, but if it’s another artist’s drawing of one of her sculptures, does it apply??
I think this is an unusual situation.
I cant answer you Silver… I just know that copying a peice of art then calling it original is wrong whether its legally or morally. Maybe Nam or one of the other artists can tell you.
I was wondering along the same lines…and also, if a windstone is included in a still life piece, is it copy right infringement?
"He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."
-J R R TolkienEven if she had given due credit to Melody for the statue, it would still be wrong if she had gotten specific permission. It’s okay to copy classics, since ony can’t ask Titian whether he’s all right with reproductions, but a male dragon says Peña and Windstone Editions and a little effort will find the artist, who’s still very much alive and kicking and able to say whether she minds someone putting her 3D art into 2D.
For classic pieces, where the artist has been dead for many years, the image is considered “public domain.” It’s the same way for text. The author has to be dead 75 years (I don’t know the number of years for art). Public domain means that it now belongs to everyone, so people can use it at will.
Artists that have not been dead that long, or are still living, still “own” their art. You need permission from them (or their estate) to use it in any way.
Sometimes I go to sci fi conventions and I see drawings in the art auctions of characters from LOTR, Harry Potter, or Star Trek. That drives me crazy. I KNOW they did not get permission to use that person’s image (and they need to in order to sell them), yet they’re selling them there. Grrr….
emerald212 wrote:For classic pieces, where the artist has been dead for many years, the image is considered “public domain.” It’s the same way for text. The author has to be dead 75 years (I don’t know the number of years for art). Public domain means that it now belongs to everyone, so people can use it at will.
Artists that have not been dead that long, or are still living, still “own” their art. You need permission from them (or their estate) to use it in any way.
Sometimes I go to sci fi conventions and I see drawings in the art auctions of characters from LOTR, Harry Potter, or Star Trek. That drives me crazy. I KNOW they did not get permission to use that person’s image (and they need to in order to sell them), yet they’re selling them there. Grrr….
This is correct.
On the plus note Emerald, the last sci-fi fantasy con I went to for the first time did not allow these sorts of infringements in the gallery! 😀
Volunteer mod- I'm here to help! Email me for the best response: nambroth at gmail.com
My art: featherdust.com
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
