web page up
fugitive
that's me. It says in the page, that I've had it for 65
weeks, pretty quick, huh. It's a template site, so no,
fancy graphics, I'm stuck, unless I want to pay, and really,
can't afford to. Feel free to critique away, it's all in a days,
rework.
greg
gallery http://gregsplace.50megs.com
mike
"gregfarr,kill_trolls"@earthlink.net wrote on 9/20/03 3:42 PM:
> Feel free to critique ...
Why?
--
Mike
* Logo Design *
Put some fun in your next logo!
Site at: http://www.artistmike.com
Tom H
Uni
> in article 3F21B23F...@earthlink.net, fugitive at
> "gregfarr,kill_trolls"@earthlink.net wrote on 9/20/03 3:42 PM:
>
>
>>Feel free to critique ...
>
>
>
> Why?
He can't afford to "pay" web site. I guess the smudge "art" he sold
didn't bring in any decent bucks.
:-)
Uni - http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/uni_stuff/uni-page.html
>
>
>
fugitive
JP Kabala
I debated before hitting send on this--- It's probably going to
annoy you, but I'd feel bad if you, or someone else, got
into a legal wrangle for doing some of the things I see here.
There are some pretty things there, and it is lovely as an exhibition
of your hobbyist work. And as long as it remains your hobby,
you have no concerns. Art you create for your own enjoyment can
be anything you like. But once you cross over into the
commercial realm (i.e. taking money for the work) it's a whole
new ballgame. You open yourself up to some serious hassle
from the owners of the copyrighted photos ---particularly the
living celebrity stuff. Unless you personally get lucky and see
Anna Kournikova or Madonna walking down the street
and take a picture of them with your own camera---(and even
then I'd make damn sure I had an original with all the EXIF
data intact) I wouldn't use celebs in any digital art for sale
without their express permission. The same is true for all work
using living non-famous people.... you need a signed model's release
on file--
Why do you think I spend so much time painting birds, boats, beaches
and buildings? They can't sue and I don't need releases. I do lots
of paintings of friends and clients and their children, but they don't
appear on my site for legal reasons. Even if a model gives you
permission to use her image in a painting, unless the release
specifically says so, you may not have the rights to internet display.
Even the members of my own family seen in my portfolio site are all
either deceased or virtually unrecognizable. (infant photos of folks now
eligible for Medicare)
Registered copyrights run, for the most part, 70 years past the death
of the original artist or photographer---which is why no one loses
sleep over a Mona Lisa or American Gothic parody....but Mickey Mouse
and Norman Rockwell will land you in court. It is easy for a natural
media artist to "prove" that he/she painted, sculpted or drew the work based
on another photo as inspiriation-- the physical canvas, sketch or sculpture
exists totally separate from any digital image used as inspiration. By
choosing
digital as your medium, you have less protection, and therefore need to be
more cautious. A good first step would be purchasing and learning
to use a good digital camera, so you can incorporate your own images
into a mixed media project with absolute confidence. A good second step.
if you are working from models in traditional art or from previously
copyrighted work is to maintian "work product" copies that clearly
show your process (all layers intact, preliminary sketches, color tests.
textures developed, artists notes)
The tradition of learning art techniques by copying the old masters
is a venerable and honorable one. Art schools have been using the
technique for hundreds of years. Tradition also requires that you clearly
identify the resulting work as such. "After Lautrec" implies "in the
style of" or "inspired by" not digitally reproduced and marginally
altered......and the name of the original on page 1 is "Elles: Woman
in a Corset" http://tinyurl.com/o4rf A more realistic and accurate
title for your piece might be "Digital Pastel Rendition of Lautrec's
'Woman in a Corset' " If you drew an original image of your next-door
neighbor wearing a corset using Lautrec's style, *that* would
be legitimately "after Lautrec"
The same is true for the Leroy Neiman work (who has definitely NOT
been dead for 70 years and whose copyrights are very much still enforceable)
Here's his original Piazza
http://www.leroyneiman.com/merchant.ihtml?pid=109&step=4
Working from digital or lithograph rather than acually seeing the
originals is limiting. If you've ever seen his originals up close, the
broad strokes of pure color and palette knife work don't really lend
themselves well to soft-edged pastel treatments and, FWIW, he has
been rumored to have a less than benevolent attitude toward copyright
infringement.
I know you hate the idea of writing tutorials and documenting
your process, but you would gain a great deal of credibility if you
considered putting just one illustrated article on your site, taking
the reader through your process from inspiration to completion.
Not only would others learn from your process, but you could put
to rest, once and for all, the "smudger" namecalling.
And here's a site you should really become familiar with,
as it deals wth many topics you need to be clear
on before you attempt further commercial sale of your work--
particularly via the net, where crossing national borders
is as simple and seamless as clicking a link. (Hate to have customs guys
knocking on your door. Especially when you are
taling about European art masterpieces that are subject to
the intellectual property laws of other countries. The 70
year rule is a US thing.... other places have other rules)
Don't count on what you've heard in art forums or from other artists...
most of that kind of advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.
The Intellectual Property Law Server actually has lawyers who know
what they are talking about. Here's one discussion you may
find on point.
http://www.intelproplaw.com/Copyright/Forum/index.shtml
M. Arthur Auslander is the real deal---I looked him
up in Martindale Hubbell-- (don't know what M-H is?
ask your attorney or go here
for the Cliff's Notes version. The actual books and dB
have a great deal more information on every licensed
attorney in the U.S. but that's pricey Lexis/Nexis
paid info. I suspect M. Arthur is semiretired these days
and having a grand old time answering intellectual
property questions on the net. But 40+ years of experience
and a Harvard Law degree probably gives him some
useful insights.)
I wouldn't worry about fancy graphics, but you
might want to spend an hour taking out the
template placeholder text and replacing it with
real descriptions and your own information.
As it is right now, it's just confusing.
Tough to shut up an overeducated art history buff with
a buncha lawyers stretched out in hammocks under the
family tree. :-)
JP
mike
j...@jpkabala.com wrote on 9/21/03 1:33 PM:
Looks like Smudger got his pants taken down and spanked.
":^) ®
Uni
:-)
By a PSP poster child. Darn!!!
:-)
Uni
>
>
Tom H
JP Kabala
that happens to me fairly frequently.
A client will sometimes offer me a formal photographic portrait of a
subject--
a baby, wedding or graduation photo or the like, and ask if I can do a
larger painting from the photo.... and the answer is.... yes and no.
Yes I can do it, no it will not be an exact copy. I, frankly, have almost
gotten to
the point where I refuse this sort of thing unless I know the folks involved
really well.
If your daughter's graduation photo is sun damaged, you can certainly scan
it
and restore it for your own use, or as a birthday gift or use it as
the basis for a painting--as long as that painting is not to be sold.
But you cannot, when you are charging for your services, scan or
duplicate professional portraits taken after 1928 without permission.
The copyright for such things resides with the artist or studio who
created them (or the estate thereof).
But, when you are **charging** for this service, be extremely cautious with
commissions of this type. Protect yourself, document EVERYTHING,
and make sure that you have added/changed something of real consequence
to the new rendition to reinforce the case for your authorship. Just
changing
the background from pink to blue won't cut it. And get a signed release.
Restoration of damaged photos or prints falls into a different category,
but if the studio or photographer still exists, it may be worth your while
to
contact the studio to ask for permission. At the very least, have the
client
sign a release authorizing you to do the work and SAVE A COPY of the
damaged "before" scan for your records in case there is any dispute later.
All those 1970's Sears, Penneys and Olan Mills portraits are starting to
look
kind-of strange, and there's money to be made in fixing them up, but it can
be a real swamp legally if you don't keep good records and cover yourself.
The STRANGEST challenge I've ever seen was just last year. A friend
of mine who photographs weddings for a living is also a semi-professional
acrylic artist. He saw a particularly lovely wedding cake on one of his
assignments, and, having photographed it, decided to do a painting of it.
It turned out incredibly beautiful, and he sold the painting to a greeting
card company to use as the basis for a line of party goods.
The designer/decorator of the original cake tried to sue him. They settled
out of court. Nobody was a clear "winner"
Words to the wise.
CYA
JPK
JP Kabala
began
by saying that it was a lovely portfolio of hobbyist work.
It is mixing business and pleasure that gets people in trouble.
Greg has said here, on the website referenced, and elsewhere that he is
interested in
making a profit on his work. If that's the case, then he needs to have
the facts in hand, and he needs to know where to go to get good information
from people who truly know the law. That's not me, or the people on an art
forum,
it's an attorney who knows intellectual property. It is a sad fact that most
art and design
schools have had to add such courses in to the curriculum. The post
was really meant as a cautionary, not chastising, note. I happen to know
that Greg is
largely self-taught, and has not has the advantage of dispassionate
instruction
in the nuts and bolts of the business side of art. We would like it to be
a pristine creative process, but it cannot be. It is a business like any
other
and has sometimes difficult aspects. This is one of them.
There's an inherent difference between a hobby and a commercial enterprise.
The same rules do not apply. 200 years ago, to be a "barber" all you
needed
was a razor and a sign, and all you needed to be an artist was a pencil and
a
flat surface. Well, today you can cut your own hair or your friend's hair
for free, but if you charge for it, you have to play by the rules for salons
issued
by the state. Change may not always be progress but it is folly to ignore
it.
Want to paint a Mickey Mouse on your own kid's walls as a cute mural?
Fantastic! Want to do it on someone else's wall for a fee? Illegal.
Want to decorate your own Christmas tree with ornaments made
from scans of Precious Moments figures! How adorable! But you can't
sell them--even at the church craft fair, even for charity. That's copyright
infringement.
Want to copy famous artists and hang them in your living room?
Cool! Want to put them on your website for free? Fine, as long as
you identify properly them as such. The law has begun to recognize the
web as "publication" and that adds a few interesting wrinkles as well.
Want to sell them?? If you aren't careful it can land you in court, or jail.
The reproduction rights to many works of art are held by the museums
which house them. Most will permit their use by students and hobbyists,
but expect compensation if they are used commercially.
I sometimes wish it were 300 years ago when artists could be "artistes"
and not have to worry about this kind of stuff, but today the moment you
cross
over from hobby to paid art, it becomes a whole new ballgame.
Intellectual Property theft is a serious matter. The internet, scanners,
computers, and
the like make it even thornier. For those of us who choose digital as a
preferred medium,
there are as many benefits as pitfalls, but ignoring the pitfalls does not
make them
vanish. Preserving the work product and playing by the rules keeps us all
safer and happier.
Sorry you thought I was being adversarial.
"Tom H" <thous...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:0Qpbb.18645$Qd.6...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
fugitive
Adrian McKenna
background I am generally doing 3d model based art and with limited
'freehand' type stuff. I would certainly love to be able to do such natural
freehand type images. Keep up the good work.
Cheers
Adrian
"fugitive" <"gregfarr,kill_trolls"@earthlink.net, Gallery
http://gregsplace.50megs.com> wrote in message
news:oxrbb.1542$gR1....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Xalinai
>The STRANGEST challenge I've ever seen was just last year. A friend
>of mine who photographs weddings for a living is also a semi-professional
>acrylic artist. He saw a particularly lovely wedding cake on one of his
>assignments, and, having photographed it, decided to do a painting of it.
>It turned out incredibly beautiful, and he sold the painting to a greeting
>card company to use as the basis for a line of party goods.
>
>The designer/decorator of the original cake tried to sue him. They settled
>out of court. Nobody was a clear "winner"
>
>Words to the wise.
>CYA
>JPK
If you go to a trip to Paris - don't try to sell the pictures taken of
Eiffel Tower. The company keeping the thing intact expects you to pay
royalties....
Michael
fugitive
I'm sending you a membership in my fan club, meet the other two,
members, Michelle and Tom.
fugitive
diddly
about it.
fugitive
JP Kabala wrote:
>
> Well, you asked......
>
> I debated before hitting send on this--- It's probably going to
> annoy you, but I'd feel bad if you, or someone else, got
> into a legal wrangle for doing some of the things I see here.
>
> There are some pretty things there, and it is lovely as an exhibition
> of your hobbyist work. And as long as it remains your hobby,
> you have no concerns. Art you create for your own enjoyment can
> be anything you like. But once you cross over into the
> commercial realm (i.e. taking money for the work) it's a whole
> new ballgame. You open yourself up to some serious hassle
> from the owners of the copyrighted photos ---particularly the
> living celebrity stuff. Unless you personally get lucky and see
> Anna Kournikova or Madonna walking down the street
> and take a picture of them with your own camera---(and even
> then I'd make damn sure I had an original with all the EXIF
> data intact) I wouldn't use celebs in any digital art for sale
> without their express permission. The same is true for all work
> using living non-famous people.... you need a signed model's release
> on file--
>
> Why do you think I spend so much time painting birds, boats, beaches
> and buildings? They can't sue and I don't need releases.
> JP
Jeanmarie kicked my ass all over the field, I fought back, with
remarks
about lawyers, and then, I decided, that in more ways than one, she is
correct, and I need to get off the celebrity ride, that's been so much
fun, and paint the neighbors dog, and cat with flowers. This painting,
will be forthcoming, not!. Perhaps a more conservative use of
copyright,
material, will ensue though. As far as the site, it will
change/evolve,
often. Thanks JP.
Greg.