Our lithographer

[TakeWalker]

http://forums.starfox-online.net/index.php?topic=2647.0

I'm not saying anything yet. But this is just a photomanip. I may be completely steeped in the FurAffinity AUP, but this isn't exactly what you call a grand artistic endeavor: he took an official picture and added a Photoshop filter to it.

My concern is, given the content of the thread so far, it sounds like he's planning to do more manipulations like this, under the misguided heading of 'fanart'. Shall we nip him in the bud, say, "No, no, bad dog, don't do it again?"

And the only reason I'm asking is there's nothing specifically against this in the fanart rules.

[Mr. Krystal]

I don't think so. As long as it's in one thread or related to the thread posted, I think it's okay. It IS different from the original, however small. This is only my opinion, by no means should I have the final say in this.

[TakeWalker]

It's more the idea of "this is not his artwork". It's not even coloring in the lines, just using a filter to modify another's creation.

[Infinity]

I have to speak from the side of an artist here. I really don't think that it really belongs either. A simple filter does not equate to however much time an artist took to draw, ink, color, and then finally shade a drawing.

I'm fond of things one can do from scratch and not something that is not even a part of one's own artistic initiative.

If you hang around Youtube for some time you might get a little annoyed at the number of AMVs that you see for anything and everything. One might say that you would wish that the submitter of the video would have something unique to show, something they made. You know how wonderful fan flashes can be. That's how I feel about things like this.

[Mr. Krystal]

So the general consensus is to tell starfox87 not to post any more eh?

[Infinity]

Well in accordance to the current rules he's not breaking any of them... So we'd need to change the rules a bit to enforce that...

I'd like to see some more people's opinions, however...

[TakeWalker]

So the general consensus is to tell starfox87 not to post any more eh?

Any more lithographs, anyway...

Infinity brings up a good point, and I guess it's the reason why I posted this in the first place. There doesn't seem to be any clause in the rules stating that artwork posted must be by the artist. Of course, we'd need a bit more clarification in order to cover this situation, but still...

[DZComposer]

I don't want to take a hardball stance on this. No rule was broken here.

We can't say don't post stuff that ain't yours unless we want to close the Krystal thread. That is something I do not want to do out of fear of mutiny. Then, if we make the rule and don't close that thread, it makes us look like hypocrites.

I would be more supportive of something like "If you make a derivative work, give credit where credit is due."

Or better yet, just say give "credit where credit is due." That covers more bases.

[Mr. Krystal]

We can't say don't post stuff that ain't yours unless we want to close the Krystal thread. That is something I do not want to do out of fear of mutiny.

Mutiny, lol!

Or better yet, just say give "credit where credit is due." That covers more bases.

I like were you're going with that.

[TakeWalker]

The difference between the MKFAT and this is the former is a list of "here's some art by other people", with links directly to the artists' pages. It is obvious who did what, and no one is claiming ownership, only providing links to offsite content. What starfox78 did was say, "Look what I did guys!" when he really hasn't done anything of artistic merit; to be precise, he's ripped off someone else, modified their work without permission, and claimed it as his own artistic endeavor.

And I think that's the extent of my complaint, other than nipping him in the bud before he posts more and thinks that sort of behavior is okay.

[Mr. Krystal]

The difference between the MKFAT and this is the former is a list of "here's some art by other people", with links directly to the artists' pages. It is obvious who did what, and no one is claiming ownership, only providing links to offsite content. What starfox78 did was say, "Look what I did guys!" when he really hasn't done anything of artistic merit; to be precise, he's ripped off someone else, modified their work without permission, and claimed it as his own artistic endeavor.

And I think that's the extent of my complaint, other than nipping him in the bud before he posts more and thinks that sort of behavior is okay.

Actually, if you look at the lithograph topic, not only does he not say "this is my art," and he admits that all he did was "[take] an image of Krystal and made it look like a lithograph." Since this is official art, to give credit would be redundant in my opition. Everyone edits official art, be it in signatures, avatars, or something more extensive. We've never complained that members don't have original art in their sigs before, why are you concerned with this guy who's neither claiming credit nor pretending that it took more skill than it did?

[TakeWalker]

Okay.

Request withdrawn.

[Infinity]

Hey, I don't want to be viewed as kicking up old dust, but I did a little research into this because someone was talking about edited sprites and I found what he did is kinda illegal, if not unethical.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a

to prevent any intentional distortion' date=' mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right,[/quote']

So... if I understand this correctly unless Nintendo has the right to take action on modified Nintendo works if someone is not given permission to do so.

There is a slim to none chance that Nintendo would actually care, but still if we allowed it we would be allowing a copyright violation.

Thoughts?

[Mr. Krystal]

Hey, I don't want to be viewed as kicking up old dust, but I did a little research into this because someone was talking about edited sprites and I found what he did is kinda illegal, if not unethical.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a

So... if I understand this correctly unless Nintendo has the right to take action on modified Nintendo works if someone is not given permission to do so.

There is a slim to none chance that Nintendo would actually care, but still if we allowed it we would be allowing a copyright violation.

Thoughts?

The copyright code doesn't really apply here. (It actually does, but realistically speaking, it doesn't.) Nintendo, unlike a lot of companies, isn't looking to "take down" others unless they are being harmed. It wouldn't help them to attack us for any reason, because we have no assets to sue, etc. Secondly, Nintendo encourages fan participation. One could argue that any work of fanart or fanfiction is copyright infringement, and it is, but Nintendo doesn't ask that they be taken down. Remember all the fanart topics on the Official Nintendo Forums? The reason is because they know we are their customers and that they get free publicity through our activities. Thirdly, Nintendo.com's actual copyright policy states this (paraphrased):

"You may not use any imagery, content, or information on this site in any way that causes confusion for potential customers (emphasis added). So basically, Nintendo's all for giving out images for use on the internet, so long as you don't use them for porn and whatnot. How do you think IGN is allowed to post images and video of Star Fox games? Nintendo literally gives them stuff to post at http://press.nintendo.com/loginSplash.jsp