Fanposters!

I've made some fanposters for my players and I was quite satisfied with them!
I think I posted them in the wrong forum first, so here I am again!
How do I delete a post?

[Removed Because of angry dumpshocker, and because I violeted the sacred law of copyright]




(I'm sorry Kat Von D, Megan Fox, Smokin Aces dude or anyone else if I have used your photo or your work)

Very cool, your players should be thankful to say the least

I really need to have Jasmina's contact info hot damn!

Defintely. Every runner should have his own poster and enough copies to pin them up everywhere he goes.
Mesh

Very, Very Nice Indeed...

Keep the Faith

Preferably with the word "Wanted" nowhere on it.

you can't

Guess I have to live with the shame then!

You can allways edit the posting.
Or ask one of the nice mods to do it for you.

Outstanding work!

If I'm reading the note at the bottom of your post correctly, none of the elements in the posters actually belong to you? Do you know that's illegal without permission? You want to stick to stock photo galleries and filters that have been offered under a creative commons license Or even better: take your own pictures and make your own elements.

You are absolutely correct - I don't own the Kat Von D, Altered MeganFox picture or any of the stuff, and I certainly could just keep it for myself and put it on the wall for myself. But I thought maybe someone else here could make use of it...

If I really offend you or anyone else, I will remove it.

In here?
You are SURE to offend someone . . should you care?
Probably not. Point is, the people who have ownership or copy rights to the stuff you used could get upset, and that probably could get you in trouble.

Yeah, there is always the Lawful people and the Chaotic ones struggling, isn't there?

I'm aware if the copyrights, but honestly I was more eager to share my work than thinking of the rules!

But, I sure don't want to offend any dumpshockers, so I'll just remove the posters then... I'll maybe try to make a new one with my stick-figure skillz in art!

I was under the impression that something like this would easily fall under Fair Use, but maybe that's just me.

No, it's not just you!

Like I said, just use stock photos and things offered under creative commons, no need to be so extreme.

Also it doesn't have to do with being offended, although I have to say, that as an artist I probably will always stand up for my right, and the right of other artists not to have their work altered, it -is- against the law, in an easy to catch you at doing manner, and a great many people -do- persecute for copyright violations.

Yawn.

Information yearn's to be FREE!

People think information wants to be free.

Information itself mostly doesn't care one way or another.

First of all, and I am really, really sorry, I cannot help it, but it's prosecute. Persecute is Torches & Pitchforks, prosecute is Courtrooms & Gavels. Again I am really sorry.

Second, I do kind of have to agree with the above statement. When I was showing my poetry to some friends one of them added a verse to the end the original and only copy of my one and only attempt at a rhyming poem. I still cannot believe how someone would think that an action like that is a good idea.

*starts to look out my window more often...*

No worries, this actually happens to me a lot with words that sound similar and have similar meanings. Since the spell check didn't yell at me about it I didn't realize I had the wrong one. Heh, spell check can fix the bad spelling, but it can't save me from things that sound the same, or nearly the same, to me.


Although judging from how some of these guys send their fans after people, the other word might not be the wrong one either. >.>;

Because no true art has ever been created by sampling other artists work!!!!




Sorry could not resist.

I can understand how an artist can feel that way but there is a very good reason copy right eventually expires.

It needs to be added to the public body of work so that other can build on it.

Copyright lasts nearly a full lifetime after an artist dies, going to their heirs.
..and then its called plagerism instead of copy right violation, when someone uses work which is not their own.

But, again, the "plagiarized" art pieces that were originally in question in this particular thread were obvious "collages," thrown together from a few different sources, made for personal use and shown here under no pretense that it was wholly original work. That's got fair use written all over it if anything I've ever seen has.

Honestly, I'd think an artist would have to have their hoop scrunched up pretty tight to get pissy over their work being "misappropriated" like this. Might as well have National Geographic suing school kids for using cutouts from their pictorials without citing the photographer.

Edit: I apologize if this reads as somewhat heated, and I don't mean to bait. For the record, I myself have been on the supply side of similarly small-scale "borrowings," and I actually find it kind of flattering.

Education actually falls under the fair use laws. Additionally school children don't know any better.

You may be okay with people using your work for this sort of thing, in which case you can mark your own property creative commons, thus allowing it, but I've seen some people seriously upset because their work was taken, and altered.

Hell -I- have had it done, had some artwork of mine put in 'collages'. In that particular instance, they chose work I'd done more than ten years ago, and the piece was made so that people could ridicule the artists involved.

This is obviously -not- the same case here, but there's a reason one can -choose- to offer ones work under a creative common, and you aren't supposed to use pieces that have not been.

I didn't get to see the piece before it was removed...but I do remember that 'satire' is protected in the U.S..

As far as "some people seriously upset" isn't that just human nature?

Heh... not to quibble, but that's actually one of the applications of fair use law that's most consistently upheld-- the partial use of a work to criticize or lampoon that work.

Creative Commons is awesome, and I'm all for it, but the whole point of fair use laws is that they make any copyrighted property OK to use in certain contexts. It is neither illegal nor intrinsically morally wrong for a person to do so, even if it may torque off the artist a bit. Now, in some cases-- like the person who used your ten-year-old piece-- it probably does make them a jerk, which is unfortunate but not usually actionable.

I'm with you in that I generally don't think you should use someone's work as a resource if you know they don't want you to. I'm just clarifying that, under the right circumstances, you're perfectly free to do so. It's sort of a moot point anyway, as Obbehobbe was awesomely polite and obliging when confronted with the possibility that he might offend someone, but I don't see a single thing wrong with him hashing together a few simple posters for the enjoyment of his players and then posting them here in this one small corner of the internet because he thought they turned out kinda neat.

Right, I know that them making fun of -my- work was legal, if aggravating, however taking other peoples work and creating a new piece out of it is one of the ones that is most often shot -down-.

And aye, Obbehobbe was awesome to go ahead and take it down.

I have to say though, I honestly don't understand why its hard to use CC works and stock photos and whatnot- things that were made specifically for the kind of thing he was doing with them? I mean if you go over to deviant art and actually look at the stock photo listings there are some -really- wiz pieces there, I was just browsing through it and found a ton of SR applicable photography.

I could go to DeviantArt and browse through the zillion pages, and "maybe" find what i wanted, but since I actually did this for myself and my players, I did not.

I respect what you think Dragon Girl, but I guess I am more like the "no big deal" kind-of guy!

If I would make something for commercial use, selling it or stuff like that, I wouldn't use copyrighted material.

Now, what exactly do you think is copyrighted? I'm honestly not sure myself!

(I'm from sweden, and my English isn't my bla bla bla...)

Everything. Every individual element you took and put together into those posters holds a copyright of its own.

Also, It is -really- friggin easy to find things that are CC on DA, easier than snatching them from google image. you go over to it and type in say 'Woman Tattoo stock photo' and sort by most popular, and there you go.

lets see what just a minute of browsing can give me, using that search string:
http://fav.me/d1w8ig9
http://fav.me/d2gfyol
http://fav.me/d17945z
http://fav.me/d19ork7
http://fav.me/d1m8e4m

..plenty of stuff to use there, I'd think

Uhm... no, there are elements that I have created, some free to use photoshop brushes.


Honestly, I wouldn't use anything of the stuff you posted. Hey, I'm aware of DeviantArt and there IS indeed some good stuff, but once again, if I create something for personal use, I don't need to go to DeviantArt. This is nothing I'm going to sell, putting out to commercial use or in anyway making a profit of.

So, this ends up with one thing - how pedantic you want to be on a Shadowrun forum!

Let me quote Stephen Fry on this one

"If you're the kind of person who insists on this or that 'correct' use... abandon your pedantry as I did mine. Dive into the open flowing waters and leave the stagnant canals be... Above all, let there be pleasure!"—Stephen Fry

That's entirely up to you hon.

Also I did ask initially if you had created or gotten permission for any of the pictures or elements in the posters, I will point out.

However. If you create something for personal use, and then post it on the internet, it loses the 'for personal use' argument.

..I'm actually getting fairly tired of playing ring around the circle here though. I am obviously not going to persuade anyone to respect other people's personal creations, and no ones going to persuade me that what they're doing isn't disrespect, so I vote we close this, and you and your players enjoy your posters for your game and ignore one fanatic defender of copyright on the internet whom you don't even know

Haha, sounds good to me Dragon Girl!

That's not actually accurate. I'm not sure what country you are located in Dragon Girl, but the US has something known as Fair Use. Now, Fair Use itself is a bit murky, but if Obbehobbe cites the sources his images came from, doesn't use the images in their entirety, doesn't attempt to pass them off as his own work, and doesn't attempt to sell them, he isn't going to suffer any negative repercussions. Mainly because if he isn't making money off of their ideas, or claiming their work as his own (by failing to cite his sources), no one will care. But also because he is legally protected. And if he's doing it for the express purpose of parody or satire, he's still good to go.

And don't get me started on Copyright in general. Stagnation is not innovation, no matter how loudly the "innovators" scream to the contrary.

There's a difference between "stagnation so Disney doesn't lose 'Steamboat Willy' to public domain and thus screws people out of creating Sherlock Holmes, Lovecraft, Invisible Man, etc. derivative works" and tossing the baby out with the bathwater and not allowing artists (writers, musicians, filmmakers, graphic artists, etc.) have some legal control over how their work is used and distributed.

Yeah everyone, I think we all get that we can "parody or satire" under Fair Use.

Maybe I missed something, but how exactly is that relevant in this situation. (I realize that many, if not most, of us haven't seen the original images. But from what I've read, I don't see how the parody/satire clauses are relevant at all.)

They're not. I mentioned them earlier in the discussion in response to a specific comment, and somehow they managed to stick around.

As loathe as I am to draw on Wikipedia as a standalone resource, though, the link IcyCool posted to their explanation of (United States) Fair Use law explains why it most probably does apply here, though, even if not under the parody umbrella.

That's it for me here, though. I'm taking the same tack as Obbe and Dragon Girl here. We all agree to disagree, and the world keeps on spinning.

Really, it will all boil down to what type of copyright they hold on their work. Some types of copyright support fair use, and others (like the big movie images and other powerhouse-owned images) are quite likely nailed down very strictly and those are enforceable if they find out about it.

http://www.indieguide.com/wiki/page/The_Di...es_of_Copyright
http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses

In my experience, information wants to be very, very expensive....

Information wants to be free. The problem is that there are many well-paid men in suits that speak legalese that believe in data slavery and they get VERY pissed when people try to take their slaves, er, data.

And technically, at the current tech level, I do not think the information really wants anything. Give it a decade and maybe it will want more.