you might want to grab a cold drink and prop your feet up first... this is a bit long (ya think?), but I have something to say and want to hear your thoughts as well.....

Does this bother you? This could have been going on for ages before I got here, but it's been gnawing away at me that there have been quite a few entries lately that are not the work of the person entering it and/or hardly any work added to it. I don't mean their little sister did the work, I mean they've snagged the art from well known artists, photographers, magazines, well known characters from Disney, etc., logos from well known companies, Photoshopped images from well known sites such as W1K or even from a site they found thru a Google image search that they didn't bother checking for copyrights or permissions or just don't care. Some companies even have fonts trademarked.

There is an entry right now that was created by a well known CG artist and team of artists and a photographer... Their website and interviews show the details and hard, hard work they performed to create their finished piece. First the idea process, then hand drawings, cad drawings, textures, photographs incorporated, lots of photoshop work. It must have taken days maybe even weeks to get the finished product... and yet there it sits facing me in an entry where a small bit was changed to use our source pic - a very small bit. Not this person's idea and certainly not the hard work involved that it took to create the original and very much copyrighted art that was used as this person's unmentioned external. Shame on you! Even voters noted certain things in the art... things that were not done by the person who entered it and they didn't find out until someone else recognized the original art and now everybody knows. But it's too late if you've used a vote on what you thought was clever and a lot of hard work.

There were one or more snagged pieces in the chain contest, the light bulb contest and many others. Why do you do that? Why do you not speak up and let voters know just how much work you've actually done - if any. Do you want to see your art that you worked hours on, snagged and used as tho it's someone else's work? I know it bothers others here if some other site shows one of our entries without permission and without credit.

PSC has rules against using copyrighted materials:
Legal Issues
Q: Can I use copyrighted material in my entries?
A: Not unless you contact the proper owners of the image and obtain permission. Contact them first, you may be surprised at how many will give you the OK.

Q: An image of mine has been placed on your site without my permission!
A: We try out best to keep the site free other people's hard work. Sometimes, however, our users sneak one past us. We will promptly remove any offending image and warn the author. If they have been warned before for the same reason, we will delete their account and ban them from using our site. In short, we will do everything possible to clear the site of any unwanted presence of your copyrighted material in a timely manner.

If you see a copyrighted image in the entries, use the Contact Us form (link found at the bottom of the home page) and chose Copyright Concern from the subject menu.

** If you see copyrighted images, let your PSC friends know too... friends don't let friends get fooled! **

Using Google Image Search....
This is a popular place for searching for externals and just for ideas on an entry.... but most of the sites you actually get the art from will have copyright warnings on them. Be careful what you're using.

While I do use Google image search to find things, I look for things that are generic. The sky for example... no particular view or sky event that has been seen by everybody on some magazine cover, but just a plain sky - a photo that anyone could have taken on any day. Perhaps I change the hue or the clouds, too. I know not to use things that are obviously copyrighted materials - photos you remember from Life or National Geographic magazine for example.

Perhaps I want a body, well using a body that is recognizable from a copyrighted source or from a well known person -- stay away from that. You need to change things so much so that it's now only an unidentifiable limb or such... change a lot, and show people what you've done. Show them how you took your generic externals and created some really cool piece of art... clever you! If you can't find generic, use a part of something, remove the identifiable parts, piece things together. For example, I was looking for a body in the correct position for the red paint contest... I finally found a photo of some guy passed out drunk on a bar... I used parts of his upper body and removed him from the bar and removed his face. On my external link page, I blurred out his face.

You've created a really clever piece and now you're thinking of slapping a logo of sorts on it? Don't snag a copyrighted logo - even if you change one little thing, if it is recognizable it is still using someone else's trademarked art. Make your own... maybe you use similar colors as the other one, maybe a play on words, be creative!

Another example: the gif I made with Marco, Claf & Granulated... for the decorative fence contest - the original bodies were some ordinary skanks, (now they're special skanks!) They were no one recognizable, but I changed them anyways - changed them a lot - in order to use them. Obviously I changed their faces, but also changed their clothes. The gal in the middle was sporting a bra and panties, so I made everything just flesh (no naughty bits), then used the pen to create a one piece swimsuit shape and created my own suit incorporating the source pic, added lots of patterns, colors, airbrushing skin and hair... The original art that survived the chopping was arms, legs and hair.

The original piece of art I used for the grefix/gordunk's daddy "very bad, very good" gif was a rolling stones cover with a couple of recognizable gals wearing bullets from a machine gun. I removed all the bullets, the cover information, changed the UPC symbol to our PSC barcode from a while back, changed the magazine name - did NOT use the same font as Rolling Stone, made my own panties, put together the chains (using the source pic) colorizing and curving them around the bodies, adding generic padlocks - and of course changed the faces!! Then I set about putting clothes on them, using generic skirts that I changed to fit them, tops were used in part from a blouse on a Google search, but I only used part of the bottom half and made the top part myself.

as you can see my work can take hours if not days - (I hear you, takes hours to read about it!) and can take a while to do a search for the right externals and check to see how and IF I can use them, and then putting the whole thing together. If there is any chance that people would think that I did something myself that I didn't do, I list in the externals - the gals are very obvious that those weren't the original bodies. Sometimes I just list externals if I've used so very little and want to show that I've created so much on my own without help - like the bits of fingers for "Down Below" gif. And if I don't use any externals, I list that too - unless it's obvious there are no externals.

***

So what kind of artist are you? Are you hard working, honest and clever, or do you just don't care, looking to cut corners, downright deceitful, a slacker, lazy? Does it bother you that artists, even some here, try to fool you into thinking they've done their own work or have implied that they've done a lot more work than they actually did merely by not telling you anything? Does it bother you when a famous (and copyrighted) photo or piece of art is staring you in the face and someone has used it? When you're voting, are you basing your vote on the image itself no matter what, or are looking to reward hard work, good thinking and skill? Maybe you don't care? What if you spent several hours on a fantastic entry only to be beaten out by someone cutting corners?

I usually have ideas for every contest, they are usually something that is going to take way too much time looking for externals, and if I don't have time, I either try an all source chop - which can seriously take a lot more time than you think, or I just don't enter that contest. I'd never snag some ready piece of art and throw it in as my entry.

I don't allow advertisers to use copyrighted artwork - protecting myself and my company from copyright infringement. Some of these advertisers are just plain stupid and others are just deceitful hoping that I'm gullible or stupid enough to let them use copyrighted works. If they lie and say they have permission to use the artwork, I pull out a form that they have to fill out, sign, date and attach a copy of the permission letter..... in 9 years only 1 person actually had permission and had no qualms about filling out the form. I also have to do a visual scan the advertisements for copyright infringement in other ways... making sure the copy isn't lies or discriminates and art is ok... such as a political ad that the artist actually used the Energizer bunny and some of the Energizer commercial verbage for the politician. Idiots! The ad was not allowed in our publication.

So you see it really really bothers me when someone tries to fool us or just blatantly uses copyrighted images.

What are your thoughts? (besides the complaints of how much I can type... I type over 90 words a minute so when I'm passionate about something - the fingers just fly!)

non of our images are copy righted.

Using Google Images is a quite good way to find COPYRIGHTED images. Copyright laws are applicable even if there is no "Copyright John Doe 2007" at the bottom of the website/magazine page/whatever.
Read more about © and stuff:
http://painting.about.com/cs/artistscopyright/f/copyrightfaq3.htm

Most copyright laws are international and apply in most countries, except a few (like Cuba), so it doesn't matter if you're from Hong Kong and find a German image on an Israeli website on a Brazilian server while being on holidays on Hawaii drinking Swedish vodka...

Using your own photos is of course the best option, as there is no doubt who the author is and if you've got the proper permissions. SXC.hu however is an alternative, as long as you don't plan to print and sell the image. They have quite clear rules about this.
http://www.sxc.hu/info.phtml?f=help&s=8_2

Also, I guess most work on PSC, unless it's "Source only", are collages. Multiple sources joined into one image. Normally made with paper and scissors but I doubt the laws are limited to one technique only...
Read more about collages:
http://painting.about.com/cs/artistscopyright/f/copyrightfaq10.htm

And a question:
If I make a "Source only" entry at PSC and wants to sell the image though some print-on-demand website (e.g. Cafepress), is that ok? Do I have to ask the source image supplier first, or are all claims of compensation dropped when a source image is uploaded? There is NO info about this anywhere...

If you are the author of an original work of art or copyrightable expression in various mediums, than you have a copyright to your work.

A copyright is provided to the authors of "original works of authorship," regardless of whether the work has been published and regardless of whether the work has been registered. Unlike patents, copyrights come into being at the moment an original work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. While there are significant advantages to a federal registration of a copyright, no registration is required in order for a copyright to exist. Likewise, no registration is required for an author to begin using the familiar copyright symbol --- ©

***
Who is an Author?
An author is someone who contributes copyrightable expression to the work.

What is Copyrightable Expression?
Copyrightable expression is original authorship, fixed in a tangible medium of expression.

Examples of copyrightable expression, assuming they are original, could be:
Poetry; prose; computer programming; artwork; musical notation; recorded music and/or song; animations; video footage; Java applets; a Web page; architectural drawings; photographs.

***
If you create one of these copyrightable expressions at work, for use at work and while an employee of this company... then the ownership of the copyright is to that company.

***

BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971)
Article 2, regarding literary and artistic works

(1) The expression "literary and artistic works" shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramatico-musical works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb show; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography; photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; works of applied art; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science.

depends on whether your work is original and you can prove that it is your work... say files on your computer.

if you've incorporated obvious outside sources that you don't have permission to use, than I'd say no on the selling bit. Even if you're taking photos of say your friends kids for a chop, you might want to get a model waiver...


but if you're doing your own work, from your own sources and have proof of your work (such as psd files), than you are the author of the work and have copyrights to it.

other sites will note that they own the rights - altho they are not the authors of the work... I believe W1K says something to that effect.... their rules page is about a mile long. They plaster their logo on the entries and use them advertising.

now if you've won some prize for your work on this site, they may have some right to publish it for advertising the site... you'd have to ask proc for details.

It's fun to get other "versions" of your art - put it on a mug, a calendar, photo prints, I've even gotten WalMart gift cards with some of my funny chops of co-workers for gifts for them. Walmart 1 hr photo does that -- those are great - and Walmart does not have any rights to your work, and you upload images to do that.

buncha clepto/maniac/homo/reartitsucking/bottomfeeding/yellowbellie/scalliewaging...................ohhhh sorry whimsea....never seen ya serious....ughhhh...i'll just come back later....note to self: when whimsea types more than two lines.....HIDE fast. yall quit that stealing. the steelers are from pittsburg

brought to you by dewdews02

the great thing about shitty chops is the fact that you dont have to worry about copyrights. so i dont have to worry about people stealing, and could'nt we all do with just one less worry

WhimSea - I tried to read all that but about a third of the way through my eyes glazed over and I had a NASTY dream about Pamela Anderson and a bucket of fresh shrimp...

good morning dewdew... (typing fast - close your eyes)

but I recently let a few of my PSCr's in on a ripped off image in a contest, and they were not happy about it at all, so I know I'm not alone, I just type more than they do!

Edovan.... I would say it would depend on what of the source has ended up in your final chop as to whether you need the source author's permission. Like if you used a bit of the St. Louis arch - anyone can get a photo of that, but if you're using Carl - then you'd need a model release from Carl, to use his image. I saw your Sabre entry on your website - that is so far removed from the original source, and anyone could take a photo of a trowel, you wouldn't need permission for that.

Look at Serp's winning entry today - the original is not in tact, so he wouldn't need permission from Rumsteve who the original is from, but he would need to get a model release from that gal he used!

you might ask Naiko about selling works - Micose, that is, is a painter - digital and otherwise. I don't know if he sells his entries but he could. He does all source work and they are very unique.

try Evelyn Wood Speed Reading. just skim thru, I'm sure you'll get the point and then we can have your ideas - how you feel about the subject

well perhaps you don't worry about people snagging YOUR art, but what do you feel about others ripping off copyrighted images - well known or otherwise - and making them the majority of their entry and allowing you to drool over "their" work, giving them a vote, possibly a win, when they didn't do the work

dewdews view: copyrights are such a giant grey area its hard to say. IF you take credit for the whole piece such as shadows,texture,the overall feel ,the idea....yeah thats a no no. but on the other hand if i take leonardo's self port and slap a bandana, a gituar, and some pig tails on him and call it leowillie. (by the way i do plan on)i dont see that i need willie's, nor leos,..john hancock. i really dont know carl so i'll give ya that one. i do see what your saying, and yes like many i thought at first it was a complete 1 off, if you will. after seeing it was'nt and that it was just really well intergrated (really well). i would'nt say i was disapointed but it took away some of that wow factor. yes you should leave a entry noting the source, but as far as chops go, i would say it was a prime example of what chopping is.

ps. if carl walks down a public street and i walk down the other side and decide i'll take a pic of ol carl walking....snap. and go home and use carl or his image in any thing other than some thing slanderous or hurtful, carl can't do a thing but check out my carlwork. he may be pissed, but other than protest outside on the same public street he got snapped the first time, he can do nothing. just as long as i dont portray carl in a false manner.

so if you voted on a false pretence assuming it was all made by the entrant, i can see why you would have a problem, so i dont want to stand in your way of justification, just wanted to let ya know how i feel. by the way if ya see carl tell him i have that waiver form....he wont speak to me

well the difference dewdew is that Leonardo's work is past the copyright issue, it is now in the public domain... you can legally use old master's work but there a lot of people out there that even frown on that as a sacrilege to the master

"I think you've said it all in a nutshell RR
The guys a Fcwuking Idjut!