Fairly Simple Photomanipulation

[sojourner]

I am going to guess with your attitude towards the issue, you would be better off not posting anymore of "your" work in this forum then.

The argument that "everyone else does it" is fairly childish and (as most parents would tell you) doesn't make it right.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Not taking sides but how is what Dakota posted that different than sojourner's avatar? They're both manipulation of existing images, none of which were created by the person displaying them.

 

[WRStone]

I am going to guess with your attitude towards the issue, you would be better off not posting anymore of "your" work in this forum then.

Sigh. It's a frakking digital collage. I'm the first person to say so.

I assume that you've looked at my tags and captions and disagree that this is appropriate credit:



(I know, I've not tagged the models. That's because I don't know their names. DeviantArt says they're "chiaki and ona", but I don't know which is which or even if those are real names.)

The argument that "everyone else does it" is fairly childish and (as most parents would tell you) doesn't make it right.

I apologize, as that wasn't the argument I was actually making.

The argument I'm making is that computing equipment is so cheap and these images so public that to ask everyone in the world to not use them is a pointless exercise in futility.

Not sell them, certainly. Not make a profit from them in any way, absolutely. But to just let the images sit there, not even amusing yourself by messing with them? You're asking to go against human nature itself.

Furthermore, the Internet being what it is, there's absolutely no way to stop me if I feel like it. Nyah.

And seriously, this isn't enough credit??

DakotaSmith

 

[Dac]

EDIT: Situation appears to have blown over, my comments might have been taken as inflammatory and so i've decided to remove them.

 

[sojourner]

^I agree it's enough credit as the group bills themselves as Chonastock. I do think you should have at least included that in your original post if not on the image as a lot of people (myself included) don't always click through to the original. (or even notice that the image is clickable)

 

[WRStone]

I suppose I could put that information right on the picture, but to be honest that sort of thing tends to annoy me as a viewer. It's one thing to do it with schematics, like crediting Vance's Toolkit. It's another when the picture is purely artistic.

I guess it sort of feels to me like tacking on all kinds of information to the Mona Lisa. It detracts from the artistic value of the portrait to write all over it.

(And no, I'm not comparing the artistic value of this pic with the Mona Lisa.)

That said, the point is well-taken. It's one of the reasons I like JPEGs and their internal comment. I suppose I could put all that info into the internal comment.

It might even be better, as regardless of who distributes the work, the comment probably won't be changed. One look at the comment, and you'd know I didn't do the original work.

(In point of fact, I routinely insert a standard comment in my images. I'm sort of conducting an experiment: how long and how many pictures will it take before Google searches return my pictures based on their JPEG comment?

(Actually, I just checked: while not fantastic, the Jackalope, Sonic Screwdrivers, and yellow avatars with a black circle are all from the JPEG comment rather than the filename.)

I'll see what I can do. To be honest, it's a fair amount of effort for something that, in ten years will probably only be found accidentally with a Google search.

Dakota Smith

 

[WRStone]

I wonder if you could make the dome a little closer in color to the other buildings. That's the only thing bugging me.

I'd noticed the same thing. Unfortunately, that kind of manipulation is beyond my meager artistic skills.

Here's a pic to demonstrate what I mean:



This is a publicly-posted pic of libertarian activist Allison Gibbs altered to be an Orion.

It's within my skills to change her skin color to green while leaving her hair, bikini, and background alone. Basically, though, it was a big chunk of skin on which I messed with the color. I'm not entirely thrilled with it, but it's what I can do.

The dome in the pic is so complex that I'm not sure how I would even select the parts that needs to be recolored.

I'm pretty much talentless were it not for the Gimp.

Dakota Smith

 

[sojourner]

I'll see what I can do. To be honest, it's a fair amount of effort for something that, in ten years will probably only be found accidentally with a Google search.

Dakota Smith

Well, just keep in mind it's part of the board rules, so not really an option for posting here.

 

[WRStone]

I'll see what I can do. To be honest, it's a fair amount of effort for something that, in ten years will probably only be found accidentally with a Google search.

Well, just keep in mind it's part of the board rules, so not really an option for posting here.

I think I'd need some definitive statement from a mod that I'm in violation of rules by posting the way I have. I link to the pic's Picasa page as a matter of course, and I've now got more identification on those pages than the users here have on their own work.

I think people need to have a certain perspective on this:

I've not failed to credit the original images. Credit is all over their Picasa pages, where they should be.I'm utterly talentless artistically, as are the majority of people in the world. When asked, I'll give credit where credit is due and make no bones about it.

What you're asking those of us artistically challenged to do is manipulate software and insert information into pics. Most people have little idea how to do this.

By suggesting that it's absolutely necessary to do something most people don't know how to do, you drive them away from the BBS -- or they just start lurking.

Now, there's so much really good work in this forum that lurking is fine ... it's just a shame. It'd be fun to see more photoshops, but given the IP-related reaction to this one, I'm unclear why anyone would make the effort.

I mean seriously, I posted a photoshop of a couple of chicks, a background, a shuttlecraft, and a bullet train. I never tried to claim any of them as my own, and indeed bent over backward to give credit where it's due.

In fact, what I've done in the last 24 hours on this one series of three images is considerably more work than most people would consider doing for a totally optional "good time". In fact, requiring us to give this level of credit in a specific format takes the "good time" kind of right out of it.

This was supposed to be a late-night time-killer, not the Spanish Inquisition ...

Dakota Smith

 

[Ptrope]

I suppose I could put that information right on the picture, but to be honest that sort of thing tends to annoy me as a viewer. It's one thing to do it with schematics, like crediting Vance's Toolkit. It's another when the picture is purely artistic.

Actually, no, it's not. From the forum FAQ:

Q: I want to use part of someone else’s work in some of my own. How do I give them proper credit?
A: This is a case where cluttering up the image is not a matter of choice. PROPER CREDIT MUST APPEAR ON THE IMAGE for elements that you yourself did not create. If you like to render 3D fleet battles containing dozens of starship meshes by other authors then every single one of them must be credited. If you don't know who created the element you want to use then at least acknowledge that its creator is unknown so there’s no confusion that you might be claiming it as your own. The format is fairly typical: “ Enterprise mesh by Dennis Bailey” or “Photomanipulation by Captain Robert April.” This also applies to image elements from sources such as the NASA website or sites with astronomical images.

I guess it sort of feels to me like tacking on all kinds of information to the Mona Lisa. It detracts from the artistic value of the portrait to write all over it.

And if you are Leonardo da Vinci, its creator, you don't need to add a credit to the painting, but he did, anyway, as do most artists when they sign their work. If you aren't da Vinci, and you use the Mona Lisa in your own work, then you need to a) have permission to do so and b) give credit to its creator. Especially in a case where the original art you use is the majority of the finished piece, as is the case with yours - there's a certain amount of fair use, but adding the city in the blank background and retaining all of the foreground subject from the original is most definitely an issue. And, no, it is not a collage - simply adding minor elements to another composition while retaining the majority of that composition is, quite simply, misappropriating the original, and it's illegal.

Also, I'm flaunting nothing with respect to how easy it is to do what I've done. The fact that it's easy is kind of the point: I can (and may) stop posting such things in public to avoid IP Nazis losing it on me. But that absolutely won't stop me from amusing myself in private.

That's the way the Internet works: millions of individuals using it to do whatever the hell they feel like, regardless of what any other individual may think.

In short, if you post something on the Internet, it becomes fair game because that's how the Internet works. You can make me retreat to the shadows and amuse myself alone, but you can't make me stop amusing myself.

(By the way, I should note that from an Internet perspective, I'm just being a nice guy by even mentioning the original artists. The overwhelming majority of people couldn't care less and would laugh at the suggestion. That's just how non-intuitive the argument is.)

If you post something on the Internet, legally it is not fair game, any more than publishing it in print or any other medium is - the same protections apply, and, ultimately, the same punishments can apply, as well. No one can stop you from doing anything you wish to the images you find in private, but publicly distributing them without permission or credit is different - you are then violating copyright law (even with credit, if you do so without their permission). On sites such as this one and other fan sites, there is a certain leniency offered by the various artists (not all, mind you, and not something you or anyone else are entitled to), but regardless of the artists' attitude, this board still has rules regarding the use of art and content created by someone other than the poster. Keep in mind that your moderator is also a posting artist on deviantArt, and folks there are a lot less lenient when it comes to having their work appropriated.

In the end, it's not that hard to add credit to the images you post - and it can't just be 'back where they're hosted,' it has to be on the image where it is being displayed - and it is, ultimately, written in the rules that you agree to abide by to participate on the board. There's no justification to be done, no qualification of percentages, no perspective to be viewed from - it's just the rules.

You have your definitive statement from the mod.