FUR: Furry art piracy!
chib...@gmail.com
within the furry community should listen and weigh in.
Sites like fchan.org that blatantly violate well known
Do-Not-Redistribute art, such as that of
http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Klaus_Dobermann (and links in the article
even re-confirm Klaus' request, which was blatantly violated as
specifically pointed out on the fchan article talk page at
http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Fchan).
I hope artists who value control over their own work will weigh in on
this issue.
Here's an excuse of one:
"BasementCoder: And yes, maybe I do ignore the incredibly petty whims
of artists with overinflated egos."
(BasementCoder is the owner and operator of wtfur.org)
If a pirate site operator doesn't like you, as an person, they feel
they have a right to abuse your creative and intellectual property
rights as they see fit. Wikifur is the best resource the furry fandom
has to establish standards and define terms so those who wonder "where
is the line in violating an artist's wishes" can find an answer. This
is your opportunity to weigh in and let your voice be heard on the
topic of art piracy:
Kathmandu
<chib...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160344035....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
How about you take another spin on the Wheel of Furry Drama and mabe
something else will come up. Yes piracy bad... evil evil. But, dear god,
this shit is old.
fchan goes a long way toward not being evil compared to other sites like it
and the moderators have little tolerance for people who break the rules of
the site.
chib...@gmail.com
> How about you take another spin on the Wheel of Furry Drama and mabe
> something else will come up. Yes piracy bad... evil evil. But, dear god,
> this shit is old.
>
> fchan goes a long way toward not being evil compared to other sites like it
> and the moderators have little tolerance for people who break the rules of
> the site.
This "shit" is fresh, check the "history" dates on the Art piracy
article.
Fchan falls way short. Rules like "don't point out most of this art is
unauthorized and we don't give a shit about the artists." Klaus
Dobermann has well-known, public posts on his group forbidding
redistribution of his art and fchan doesn't abide by it. Unauthorized
redistribution = art piracy. Pure and simple.
Care to try again?
BR
> Care to try again?
I'll take "What is a lawyer?" for $10,000, Alex.
Seriously we're all "talked out", when it comes to the subject. The people
doing it (and their supporters) don't care. And those who would like to do
something are not only fighting them, but the apathetic*, with limited
resources. I'm afraid that things will have to get much worse before the
message gets out, that "illegal copyright infringement" (you can thank the
pendant for me having to spell it out) benefits no one.
*An interesting read: "Everybody does it:crime by the public:
ISBN:0-8020-6828-6" or just torrent a copy.
chib...@gmail.com
Here's a thought ... let's say, hypothetically, there are 1,000,000 in
the furry fandom worldwide right now. And let's say, hypothetically,
there will be 1,100,000 next year. Wow, that's 100,000 who would be
unaware of "talk outs" that "we" have "all had."
The whole point of wikifur, for me at least, is a place where several
furs can work on articles to expand one another's knowledge of the
fandom. Ideally, it would be a good insight into the fandom from
non-furs as well, but realistically I think at least some of us use it
to find things out we didn't know before.
Hammering out a definition of art piracy is, I think, important and of
value. Its plagued the fandom for some time. I think a lot of furs
proceed on ignorance on the subject ... its hard for a new fur,
starting out, to really know what an artist's life is like. Its easy
to forget those .JPeGs, .GIFs, .PNGs and what not don't create
themselves, don't come from some mindless machine ... they started with
an artist, a person.
Suppose just a handful of new furs to the fandom, or even oldbies who
aren't fully certain, read the article on "art piracy" and are
enlightened ever so much to the point they'll shy away from doing it
because they realize that while a lot of people may be doing it, that
doesn't justify it and every act of piracy is like another piece of
garbage littered on the highway. Enough people doing it drives some
artists away, and does the fandom really have too many artists?
I'll agree that probably 99 out of 100 people who visit the article may
not change their mind about it, but isn't the 1 in 100 worth it?
Kathmandu
<chib...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160349057.5...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Well, the first link goes to an article about about a non morphic and erotic
artist getting a job in Saudi Arabia and wanted all thier art removed from
the net because of a serious possibility of them being beheaded if the
Saudi's found out about it then it devolves into someone pretending to be
this person then this then he said, she said. I didn't even bother reading
the other link.
Best advice is don't make dirty pictures, put them on the internet then go
to countries where they behead you for it.
If you want to educate people on art piracy you need to do it on people who
are actually defending their artwork like Jeramy Bernal or the story of how
Sibe is doing hard time.
Jim Lee Jr.
"Kathmandu" <kath...@cableone.fishcatcher> wrote:
> Well, the first link goes to an article about about a non morphic and erotic
> artist getting a job in Saudi Arabia and wanted all thier art removed from
> the net because of a serious possibility of them being beheaded if the
> Saudi's found out about it then it devolves into someone pretending to be
> this person then this then he said, she said. I didn't even bother reading
> the other link.
You misspelled "their" and "Saudis."
Kathmandu
"Jim Lee Jr." <peejs...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:peejster01-082A7...@news.isp.giganews.com...
heh, how pendant of you.
BR
> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:00:28 -0500, BR <brodr...@comcast.net>
> declaimed the following in alt.fan.furry:
>
>> pendant for me having to spell it out) benefits no one.
>>
> You wear that phrase from a neck-chain? <G>
>
>
> pendant a charm dangling from a chain
> pedant a stickler for accuracy
:) Sometimes it feels like it.
Jim Lee Jr.
"Kathmandu" <kath...@cableone.fishcatcher> wrote:
> Heh, how pendant of you.
Thanks, I try to be the best grammar Nazi I can be.
chib...@gmail.com
>
> Thanks, I try to be the best grammar Nazi I can be.
Who is grampar Nazi then?
BR
> Could someone summarise this for me? Is this the teenage furry artist
> who has never been published, bitching because some other nobody has
> taken their valueless rubbish which they will be embarrassed about in 5
> years, and posted it somewhere else type complaint again? Or something
> else.
Does it have to be otherwise for the complaint to be valid?
Chibiabos
> Does it have to be otherwise for the complaint to be valid?
Some people are more equal than others.
Tim Gadd
It depends on what you mean by 'valid'. If you mean technically a legal
infringement, possibly. If it involves fewer than a certain amount of
items/money it's a civil, not criminal issue, though. Also, it can be an
infringement of copyright to print a webpage or download an image to your
hard drive, but when's the last time an individual hired a layer over that?
And I've seen the most absurd copyright claims - like someone takes a
screencap from a movie and then tells you you'd be breaking their copyright
if you used it, and even demanded money to allow you to reproduce it.
Never mind that they're the ones who broke the original owner's copyright
by making the screencap in the first place. It's just a measure about how
demented people can get over the whole concept. But anyway...
I'm basically a pragmatist, and if by 'valid' you meant anything like
something which anyone other than a few screamingly possessive megalomaniac
artists could care less about, no. You can take something off my webpage
and reproduce it. What does it matter, except to my ego? I've thought of
putting a 'I don't give a toss if you reproduce anything on this site,
though I'd prefer you didn't claim to have
written/spoken/drawn/photographed it' notice And even if you did, a lot of
this stuff has been sitting there for nearly 10 years and I've hardly
become rich because of it, so ultimately, you're not going to make any
money from it either, and frankly if you did, I'd almost be tempted to
think 'well at least it made money for someone.' Besides, there would be
no problem in my ever proving that I was the original creator if it ever
did come to a lawsuit that was actually worth pursuing.
This has probably been said to often that it sounds trite, but if something
is so important to you that you can't bear the thought of it being
reproduced, don't put it on the web, because sure as shooting, that's
what's going to happen eventually. That's not a moral argument, just a
realistic one.
'Five years, my brain hurts a lot
Five years, that's all we've got'
- Bowie, 1972
--
Tim Gadd | fluke .com.au
Hobart, Tasmania | @southcom
http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/university/222/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
iBuck
> has to establish standards and define terms so those who wonder "where
> is the line in violating an artist's wishes" can find an answer.
No, it isn't.. the best place to establish standards is with the US
Copyright office, and with clear terms on the artist's website, and if
those are violated, through the use of the court and legal system,
specicically, the use of properly formated and issued DMCA takedown
notices, and infringment lawsuits.
Beyond that, anything else is hot air, wikkifur -cannot- establish
standards, for the comunity, if for no other reason that as a Wiki
based site, it can be changed at will by any of the participants,
beyond that, individual artists tollerance for the redistrobution of
their work may vary wildly, from "NO WAY NO HOW" to "Sure, as long as
you keep my name on it, to "Whadevah.." posting notices on your
website is only good against those who visti the website, (frankly,
I've never heard of Klaus Doberman, so his "well known" redistrobution
policis, frankly, isn't) once a peice gets passed around, it looses
it's accredation, and attached policies, leaving it a guessing game as
to what the artist's wishes in fact -are-
> This
> is your opportunity to weigh in and let your voice be heard on the
> topic of art piracy:
I've allready taken my opportunity, numerous times, at length, what
makes this particular Wiki talk so gosh-darned important?
iBuck
> If a pirate site operator doesn't like you, as an person, they feel
> they have a right to abuse your creative and intellectual property
> rights as they see fit.
Oh, by the way, I'm sitting here, laughing my ass off here about
getting all sorts of dramatic over an artists who's claim to fame is
erotic fan art, and how -his- rights are being violated, despite the
fact that the work in question is arguably a violation of the original
artist's wishes..