Have you ever downloaded and image and frame it?

[Bullseye]

No prints exist and the artist is not interested in selling prints. Have you ever downloaded the image which the artist uploaded onto a public site and had it printed out and framed for your own collection? This is not about selling multiple prints just printing a single copy for yourself?

[nbr3bagshotrow]

Nope, but I'll admit the thought has crossed my mind. But then:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0kW1MOBiIyA/TlUY-n-9n4I/AAAAAAAAAOk/utFTOiOIvZs/s1600/AngelDevil.gif

[Marvelito]

This is not about selling multiple prints just printing a single copy for yourself?

If this is the reason, I see nothing wrong with it. My main concern would be finding an image file of a high enough quality to blow up, print and frame.

[El Pulento]

Yes I have done it....

[nbr3bagshotrow]

This is right there with pirating DVDs and music.

[Mean Green]

Is it really? If it's already on a public site, I think it's different.

[Marvelito]

This is right there with pirating DVDs and music.

I feel like "pirating" implies on a large scale and for sale illegally. This to me is no different than downloading an image unofficially and using it as wallpaper on your computer, it's for personal use and no one is profiting from it.

[nbr3bagshotrow]

Is it really? If it's already on a public site, I think it's different.

Only if the original "owner" of the piece posted it then I would agree.

[Bullseye]

This is right there with pirating DVDs and music.

Hardly as the studio has not uploaded the movie onto the internet. I am referring to where an artist himself/herself has uploaded on image onto the internet on a site for feedback. The image is pretty high quality.

[Mean Green]

You could ask the artist if it's ok and then you'd be golden :)

I don't think he/she would object especially since they don't plan on producing prints.

[Argonus]

I don't see any harm in doing so if you're only doing it once, to frame and display in your house.

[Argonus]

I feel like "pirating" implies on a large scale and for sale illegally.

Yarr; I be agreein' with ya, t'is true.

[Argonus]

Only if the original "owner" of the piece posted it then I would agree.

True; that helps.

[nbr3bagshotrow]

I feel like "pirating" implies on a large scale and for sale illegally. This to me is no different than downloading an image unofficially and using it as wallpaper on your computer, it's for personal use and no one is profiting from it.

Ok, then not pirating but copyright infringement.

What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

[Marvelito]

Ok, then not pirating but copyright infringement.

What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

This is definitely copyright infringement based on this definition.

Is it morally wrong though? That's up to the individual, and personally I don't think so in this case. Downloading something without permission when it's available commercially is both illegal and morally wrong, but doing so when it's not available otherwise and won't be done for profit seems harmless. Unless the artist in question has publicly stated he does not want this piece reproduced or shared that is.

If I were an artist and for whatever reason decided not to make a piece commercially available, and a fan wanted to go through the expense of making a copy for personal use, I would not have a problem with it. But again, this is just my opinion, the artist in this case may feel differently.

[Bullseye]

Just to clarify its on deviant art and on the right hand side of the page there is a facility to download the image???

[Matches Malone]

If this is the reason, I see nothing wrong with it. My main concern would be finding an image file of a high enough quality to blow up, print and frame.

This has always been my sole barrier bro. Honestly I assume that you, like myself, pump thousands of dollars a year into the coiffers of theses studios, comic companies and artists. You are a customer and I look at providing the image as a customer service myself, a small bone for the folks paying the bills. This is a pretty minor act and as mentioned I see it as akin to using an image as desktop wallpaper. I say fill your boots if it is solely for your personal use.

[Marvelito]

Just to clarify its on deviant art and on the right hand side of the page there is a facility to download the image???

So he's obviously open to sharing the image, sounds like he's open to whatever interpretation one would put to "sharing", as long as no one is profiting from it's use which basically goes without saying.

[Marvelito]

This has always been my sole barrier bro. Honestly I assume that you, like myself, pump thousands of dollars a year into the coiffers of theses studios, comic companies and artists. You are a customer and I look at providing the image as a customer service myself, a small bone for the folks paying the bills. This is a pretty minor act and as mentioned I see it as akin to using an image as desktop wallpaper. I say fill your boots if it is solely for your personal use.

Obviously :iagree: :D

[MrYac]

there is nothing wrong with it, and frankly the guys who say there is are way too up on their moral high horse. i'm as much a crazy law abiding guy as you can find but give me a friggin break, printing out a friggin picture to hang on your wall violates not a damn thing, ESPECILLY if it was personally uploaded by the artist with no other intention but to share their art....or did all of you guys who are saying it's a moral issue get expressed written concent from all the copyright holders of the people involved in the creation of your avatar images too ;)

[ReplicantSavior]

I've downloaded a few high resolution videogame artworks that I'll print and frame eventually. The artists and companies put the images out there. For example, the original Japanese ICO cover and some artwork by Orioto. But the images are really high resolution. I don't think for example Artgerm released a suitable image of his Chun Li art for printing.

[Matches Malone]

If it is posted on deviant art but features trademarked characters I am going to suggest that it is unlikely that the artist had permission to use the characters in the first place. Not 100% certain but unlikely based on what I have seen on the site.

[Tetragrammaton]

So I guess everyone here using an avatar of a licensed or copyrighted character is legally and morally wrong.

[Marvelito]

So I guess everyone here using an avatar of a licensed or copyrighted character is legally and morally wrong.

:doh!:

[Luminous]

EDIT: Further research on the subject forces me to reevaluate my earlier statement.

[FROBAY]

I would. Your not trying to make a buck off the artist.

The artist should be flattered. I see no problem.

[Nidgit]

Never done it myself, but I don't really see an issue with doing it. Let's face it, alot of the private commissions (whether they are statues or comic art) typically involve two parties who don't own the rights to the character. The person who commissions the piece and the artist who sketches it. If anything, that's a bigger infringement of copyright than someone downloading a pic and printing it out for private use. At least no one's actually making any money of the latter. The only issue would be, if years down the track Bulls decided to sell it.

[risingstar]

I can't see myself using a printed pic. There's way too much stuff out there to buy to fill my wall space.

[ONEYE]

As long as you aren't selling it, I don't see a problem. You may have a problem if you try to print it outside the home.

I've done this with movie prop replica's, I'll search for an image of the prop used in the film, print it, then place the photo next to the prop replica. Easy since the print is 4x6 or 5x7 and I can do it all "in house".

[risingstar]

I don't see any harm in doing so if you're only doing it once, to frame and display in your house.




What if the Ex takes the house AND the frame?

[Argonus]

What if the Ex takes the house AND the frame?

:laugh:

Thankfully, my art (framed and otherwise) made it out alive. :buttrock:

[risingstar]

:laugh:

Thankfully, my art (framed and otherwise) made it out alive. :buttrock:

Note to self: Hide cash inside the frame!

[Argonus]

Note to self: Hide cash inside the frame!

:laugh:

[MrYac]

dunno if thats a good idea, as much as you guys love your art i'd think in a reall bad divorce it would find it's way to the dishwasher

[Nidgit]

My wife has already made it clear that if things go south in our marriage, she'll be taking a hammer to my statue collection. Scary stuff (yet oddly arousing) :confused2

[ratchet]

I don't see any harm in doing so if you're only doing it once, to frame and display in your house.

Exactly. I am not interested in having printed pieces of art on my walls - but anyone who does so is not breaking any laws - it's just silly to think otherwise.

[Underdog07]

I dont care whAt anyone does, but i find it Funny how misinformed many still are especially as to whether someone must be looking to profit in order to violate a copyright.

Think about the people who downloaded songs for their own use

Yes, it would be copyright infringement. Yes, it is morally wrong as you would be knowingly taking the property of an artist for which they have the moral rights.

And also, someone displaying their works is not an invitation or explicit consent for you to take their works.

[Underdog07]

I know many do not want to accept that the law is an unauthorized copy for personal use with no gain is copyright infringement, but it is. That's the way the law is written. Just like going 26 in a 25 mph zone is speeding. Will you get prosecuted or sued? Very very unlikely but the law is what the law is

[Argonus]

And also, someone displaying their works is not an invitation or explicit consent for you to take their works.

I only display art that I've bought, be it paintings, OA, commissions.. whatever.

.. I don't understand why some people would duplicate someone else's work (I mean download/photocopy/etc, not "attempt to recreate".. actually BOTH of those would apply, here) and sell it to make a profit... well, I DO understand why, but it's incredibly bad juju to do so.

[Underdog07]

A Massachusetts court just upheld the $675,000 verdict against a man for downloading 30 songs.

[ratchet]

A Massachusetts court just upheld the $675,000 verdict against a man for downloading 30 songs.

But those artists were SELLING those songs - and the man STOLE them from the artists.

Bulls asked about an artist who was not interested in selling a piece of artwork. Just showing it off.

Your example is a bad one.

[ratchet]

Not to mention - like many have said - this artist is most likely using characters that don't belong to them in the first place.

[Underdog07]

But those artists were SELLING those songs - and the man STOLE them from the artists.

Bulls asked about an artist who was not interested in selling a piece of artwork. Just showing it off.

Your example is a bad one.

It was just to show that what people consider to be lawful is in fact not and the decision just came down today. There are examples of people taking for own use and having to pay about 1k per song.

[Underdog07]

Not to mention - like many have said - this artist is most likely using characters that don't belong to them in the first place.

2 wrongs do not make a right. And, while I disagree, the artist may still have copyright rights in the piece that uses the character he does not own. :jawd:

[ratchet]

It was just to show that what people consider to be lawful is in fact not and the decision just came down today. There are examples of people taking for own use and having to pay about 1k per song.

But that was never considered lawful - stealing is stealing. This "artist" that Bulls is talking about is not asking for money for his piece. To me - that makes a huge difference.

[Underdog07]

NOw, at the end of the day, does anyone care? Not likely other than perhaps the artist. Would Bulls get in trouble probably not in the US, more possible I. The UK and even more possible in France.

[ratchet]

2 wrongs do not make a right. And, while I disagree, the artist may still have copyright rights in the piece that uses the character he does not own. :jawd:

Even if he uses them without consent of the actual copyright owner? I'm not so sure...

[Underdog07]

But that was never considered lawful - stealing is stealing. This "artist" that Bulls is talking about is not asking for money for his piece. To me - that makes a huge difference.

I don't follow this logic. That would mean every work of art that was not offered for sale would not be covered by a copyright and the law just does not read that way (nor is it applied that way).

[ratchet]

This may not apply - but - when Syco tried to release the Fergino "Hulk" statue Marvel stopped them - because they own the copyright to the character - even though they had nothing to do with the sculpt that was created.

[Underdog07]

Even if he uses them without consent of the actual copyright owner? I'm not so sure...

I have been told that by attornies who actively practice CR law. As I said, I don't agree but that seems to be the case. I looked into this about 6 years ago for people on this forum

[Underdog07]

This may not apply - but - when Syco tried to release the Fergino "Hulk" statue Marvel stopped them - because they own the copyright to the character - even though they had nothing to do with the sculpt that was created.

Yes - but Syco still has copyright in the statue, meaning, Marvel could not just take it and sell it. All they could do is prevent Syco or get money damages.

[ratchet]

I don't follow this logic. That would mean every work of art that was not offered for sale would not be covered by a copyright and the law just does not read that way (nor is it applied that way).

No - you are right - it IS against the law - I am not arguing that point anymore. What I am saying is that the artist is showing a piece on a public site - not offering it up for sale - and not looking for money for it. I think printing it out and hanging it up on your wall to admire is not the same thing as stealing songs that bands are trying to sell - or artists are trying to sell for that matter.

[ratchet]

Yes - but Syco still has copyright in the statue, meaning, Marvel could not just take it and sell it. All they could do is prevent Syco or get money damages.

But they don't have the copyright to the statue - because they don't have the copyright to the character it is of...

[Underdog07]

No - you are right - it IS against the law - I am not arguing that point anymore. What I am saying is that the artist is showing a piece on a public site - not offering it up for sale - and not looking for money for it. I think printing it out and hanging it up on your wall to admire is not the same thing as stealing songs that bands are trying to sell - or artists are trying to sell for that matter.

Sure. And, it's quite possible the artist just wouldn't care and might be flattered by it. And this type of stuff happens all the time with no repercussions coming from it.

[Underdog07]

But they don't have the copyright to the statue - because they don't have the copyright to the character it is of...

That's we're it is convoluted. They do not have cr in the character but they do in that 1 representation of it. However, they can not do anything with it and broke the law in creating it.

I will shoot my buddy an email and ask him to confirm this again. I always disagreed with it, but that doesn't mean much.

[ratchet]

It is confusing - because I know what you mean that Marvel cannot take the sculpt and do whatever they want with it without the artists consent and most likely compensation - and same goes for the artists to Marvel - but since the artist cannot do anything with the piece does he own an actual copyright to the piece - or is it considered something else?

[risingstar]

NOw, at the end of the day, does anyone care? Not likely other than perhaps the artist.



Some copyright owners seem to care.
I imagine it generally comes down to the amount of chutzpa.





http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc323/risingstar67/disney_2.jpg

http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc323/risingstar67/disney_full_1233234480.jpg

[Luminous]

Well, I did some research on this subject since Underdog decided to drop some knowledge on us. It turns out it technically is "illegal". Copying an image for personal use that is protected by Copyright, despite not profiting from such work or claiming it as your own, is illegal...... technically.

I was sure that the Fair Use Doctrine would be under effect in a situation like this. However, despite the fact that fair use is always subject to interpretation, it is still pretty specific (I use that term lightly) about how one may use something that is copyright protected. So if someone decides to print an image for the purpose of displaying it in their own home, it will be up that person to try and claim that it was either done so for the purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. That's IF you ever need to defend such a claim.

The fact that fair use is subject to interpretation makes this particular example utterly ridiculous to me. I can't imagine it being difficult to claim that the image was printed for one the reasons mentioned above. Not to mention the fact that printing a downloaded image isn't exactly traceable. If artists were really concerned about this sort of thing they wouldn't be openly sharing their work on something like the internet. There are way too many loop holes for anyone, including the government, to give a damn.

Obviously a risk exists if someone decides to print and display an image that is under copyright in their own home. How big is that risk? Well that is up that person. My opinion? It seems practically non existent.

[Nidgit]

I have a question though. Is the artists work automatically protected under copyright law or does the artist have to actively 'copyright' his work.

If I draw a fantastic original sketch (yeah right) and post the image on the web and then someone copy's it, is that an automatic copyright infringement or should I have somehow 'copyrighted' the image.

And if I draw a fantastic sketch of a Marvel character and post the image on the web and then someone copy's it are we both infringing copyright.

And finally, where the f.... have all my socks gone. It seems no matter how many pairs I buy, I never have enough socks

[Bullseye]

Interesting discussion. I got the go ahead from one artist to print a copy for myself but no response from the other as yet.

[Bullseye]

Something to digest. Neither he nor I have have created a contract where monies were paid for the use of copyrighted characters. I would suggest that commissions are a much bigger risk particurly for the artist. That is why in general I prefer published artwork.

[Underdog07]

Some copyright owners seem to care.
I imagine it generally comes down to the amount of chutzpa.





http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc323/risingstar67/disney_2.jpg

http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc323/risingstar67/disney_full_1233234480.jpg


Disney is very aggressive. As are most companies. I was talking about a no-name artist as being flattered. That's a great image btw.

[Underdog07]

I have a question though. Is the artists work automatically protected under copyright law or does the artist have to actively 'copyright' his work.

If I draw a fantastic original sketch (yeah right) and post the image on the web and then someone copy's it, is that an automatic copyright infringement or should I have somehow 'copyrighted' the image.

And if I draw a fantastic sketch of a Marvel character and post the image on the web and then someone copy's it are we both infringing copyright.

And finally, where the f.... have all my socks gone. It seems no matter how many pairs I buy, I never have enough socks

Automatically.

[Argonus]

And finally, where the f.... have all my socks gone. It seems no matter how many pairs I buy, I never have enough socks

A man and his socks are soon parted...

[joy_division]

I have printed off a hi-res image of J.H. Williams III promo pic of the upcoming sandman cos there was a chance that I would meet Neil Gaiman in Edinburgh(I did) and J3 might agree to sign it at Morrisoncon in Las Vegas as I knew someone who was going there(he did agree)

A3 size. Should have gone with A4 though

[risingstar]

Someone very recently PMed me twice for high res pics of a painting I recently acquired as they wanted to repaint the painting (for themselves, they said). I felt uncomfortable about that and didn't send pics. If I can feel off about something like that, I can only imagine how much worse an artist must feel.

[JadeGiant]

Someone very recently PMed me twice for high res pics of a painting I recently acquired as they wanted to repaint the painting (for themselves, they said). I felt uncomfortable about that and didn't send pics. If I can feel off about something like that, I can only imagine how much worse an artist must feel.

As would I, that request would have the alarm sounding for me as well.

[Underdog07]

A man and his socks are soon parted...

What bothers me is when my socks mate up with other socks. Really, one blue and one black. Lord help me.

[Underdog07]

Someone very recently PMed me twice for high res pics of a painting I recently acquired as they wanted to repaint the painting (for themselves, they said). I felt uncomfortable about that and didn't send pics. If I can feel off about something like that, I can only imagine how much worse an artist must feel.

Still waiting on those high res scans RS. When can I expect tem. :muahaha::muahaha::muahaha::muahaha:

[Underdog07]

As would I, that request would have the alarm sounding for me as well.

You shut your mouth (unless you talking bout Shaft)

[Mean Green]

You shut your mouth (unless you talking bout Shaft)

You shut your mouth when you're talking to me!

[Underdog07]

You shut your mouth when you're talking to me!

:bawling: but I was talking bout Shaft, can you dig it?

[Mean Green]

:bawling: but I was talking bout Shaft, can you dig it?

I was talking about Wedding Crashers :)