Interesting how we jump on the "ripped" tags created by forum members (e.g. recent pixel thread) as a serious infringement of copyright laws.

 

 

 

Yet 'render' tags -- essentially a mess of colours under a "ripped" piece of artwork (such as a copyrighted photo or popular illustration) -- are seen as fine and dandy, and are sometimes even encouraged.

 

 

 

Is this double-standard reasonable? Or hypocritical?

 

 

 

Discuss.

Reasonable IMO, most of us don't have the resources nor the money to make our stuff out of scratch.

 

 

 

 

 

I can tell that there will be some flaming here.

They're permitted for use. I know it's probably not anything like this, but people say using renders are ripping, since you didnt make them, technically, using photoshop is ripping/whatevering, since you didnt make it. Its there, available for use, and so are renders.

You can't compare something made specifically by someone for someone else, to something that has a copyright which can be used freely by anyone for non-profit purposes.

Reasonable IMO, most of us don't have the resources nor the money to make our stuff out of scratch.

 

People using MS paint to slap their name on somebody else's tag have even fewer resources than those making 'render tags'.

 

 

 

It's not expensive to illustrate 'from scratch'. A pencil and paper is all you need. If you want to be a digital artist, you'll obviously need more resources, such as a computer, an input device (mouse and/or tablet) and the appropriate art programs (Blender3d, Gimp, Inkscape, etc). But since you're posting here, it's pretty clear that you already have (or can freely acquire) those necessary resources!

 

 

 

Seems like there is more to it than the monetary costs. ;) Don't get me wrong, I agree with the copyleft movement, but there is a pretty obvious double-standard here.

 

 

 

I know it's probably not anything like this, but people say using renders are ripping, since you didnt make them, technically, using photoshop is ripping/whatevering, since you didnt make it. Its there, available for use, and so are renders.

 

This topic, though, is about copyright infringement -- not "Who made it?" but "Who owns it?"

 

 

 

to something that has a copyright which can be used freely by anyone for non-profit purposes.

 

I'm not referring to open source media. The licenses of many 'ripped' works in The Gallery -- from 'renders' to Photoshop itself -- is explicit in that we do not hold the rights to copy, modify or distribute the work or any derivatives, even for non-commercial purposes.

 

 

 

Imagine if we could simply hide behind the 'non-commercial' clause after illegally downloading hundreds of songs and/or movies for personal use! :)

The owner of the image, gives permission, usually, or so I've heard, game covers and screenshots aren't copyrighted.

It's fairly easy to find renders that are free for use.

 

And anyways I don't think the original owners of copyrighted material go to great lengths to protect it. It might even act as free advertisement.

 

And anyways I don't think the original owners of copyrighted material go to great lengths to protect it. It might even act as free advertisement.

 

 

 

That is the point why I think they don't copyright it. Game covers are widely distributed over the internet by the publishers themselves, and they give it too people who want to create something.

 

 

 

And when you use a render, more than half of it is your own work. So that doesn't count it as ripping. I'd say around 90% of it is your won work.

Game screenshots and covers are created by artists as well, most people forget this. I sigh at the thought of some teenager doing a chop-shop job on an amazing art piece just so he can make a cool signature.

 

 

 

Imagine this: You're a 3D designer, and you make a wallpaper which consists of a model you worked on for weeks, painstakingly and carefully as you paid attention to the detail. Then some no-name kid chops up the wallpaper you made, rips your 3D model right out of context and plops it onto what might as well be an infringed piece of work (slapping on brushes? Classic) that uses your hard work as the focal point. I know I would be pissed.

 

 

 

 

 

Granted I'm not going to fight it, it's too much of the norm. Some of the older users will remember I tried to fight it (flame anyone who used "renders", discourage it) but in the long run it didn't really help. I just wish that artists would use more than an easy focal point, or if they do want to do something like that use a stock image from various (great) stock sites around the world. Hell, perhaps they would even develop their own style other then the generic signature that is so prevalent online today.

 

 

 

 

 

Is this double-standard reasonable? Or hypocritical?

 

 

 

So.. I agree with you ven. I do think it's hypocritical of people, but I do understand. Most people view these images and designs in games as "Free reign" or they don't view it as art because it is commercial. Yet I will bet you any amount of money that any of these images people chop up and use are created by artists with IMMENSE talent and take a hell of a lot more time than a 15 minute signature.

"Yet I will bet you any amount of money that any of these images people chop up and use are created by artists with IMMENSE talent and take a hell of a lot more time than a 15 minute signature"

 

 

 

Except signatures take more than 15 minutes to do.

Solution: Learn to make tags from the tools that Gimp has to offer. It's not as hard as it sounds.

 

 

 

Hmm, that gives me an idea for a contest.

"Yet I will bet you any amount of money that any of these images people chop up and use are created by artists with IMMENSE talent and take a hell of a lot more time than a 15 minute signature"

 

 

 

Except signatures take more than 15 minutes to do.

 

 

 

No they don't, and you're splitting hairs. The "renders" you guys use take weeks to complete.

really doesn't bother me, i like using stocks where the creator says anyone can us it

Nadril:

 

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=757221&start=20#p6033388

 

I dont get it, did you mean like the game characters? Or just these abstracts? Caus this is pretty ambiguous.

i like using stocks where the creator says anyone can us it

 

 

 

The 'creator'?

 

The kid that cut it out from the game he played,

 

or the game developer that spend months on making the character look good?

 

 

 

I personally think its a kind of 'trap' that new sigmakers fall for.

 

They are starting out, and they need something to work with. The thing they need first is a cool image to work with, lets say their favorite character from a game.

 

 

 

Render websites like http://www.planetrenders.net claim that everything can be used without permission (they do have rules, but downloading the renders is too easy over there) and thats why I think that they have to change that.

 

 

 

On the other hand, I havent seen any big game companies like Blizzard or Activision that sue a render website because of the copyright infrigment. What would happen if a company would actually sue a website? They have the right to do that.

Nadril:

 

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=757221&start=20#p6033388

 

I dont get it, did you mean like the game characters? Or just these abstracts? Caus this is pretty ambiguous.

 

 

 

 

 

Anything that is created by an artist (Game render, 3D render, whatever) that is used as a "render" without said artist's permission. There are many, for example, abstract 3D packs that function as stock because the creator allows it so. But really, game 3D models take incredible skill to make and it saddens me to see these artist's great work used in such a way. People wouldn't want their own pixel guy they spent time on in a piece someone else made, now would they?