Since there's been a lot of mentioning around the board lately about crediting the sources of photos and other artwork and stuff like that, I was wondering what people think is the best way to actually do this. Maybe with some kind of standard that a lot of people use, more people would be willing to actually credit their sources.
Writing it in blank space around the image I think would be the best way. Clearly visible and not obstructing the image itself.
------------------------
I just discovered a nice thing... In photoshop, if you go file:file info (i believe) you can comment to your hearts content without it being ontop of the image (which i hate to do, it makes me feel as if my image has been violated by a lawyer.) Then, you can open the image in photoshop, go file info, and read the crap, or i beleive, right click on the file in explorer, hit properties, and view it there. nifty, eh?
Can you view it in the properties on a machine that doesn't have Photoshop installed?
funbaby: does it matter? :) it's really like a lawyer's trick, having some artist credited so's your ass doesn't get busted. if the public doesn't have PS - well, woe is the public. but as you have put these damn credits in - SOMEHOW - than you're not a ripper but an interpreter :)
If it's legality you're talking about, then I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter if you just CREDIT the artist. You need PERMISSION.
fun: ive tried.. they never respond to emails so i gave up trying. Im not gonna stop making artwork for the fear of a lawyer
Does anyone know a lot about copyright law, or whatever laws apply to this kind of stuff? Does the original artist have to explicity say that they require permission for other people to use the pics? Also, does the matter of commercial art vs just hobby art like ours make any difference in all this?
I study Multimedia at University where we do indeed touch upon Copyright. It is a funny business, especially when talking about digital media, and especially the web.
SAUCE works for JPEG files, too. :)
SAUCE .. rocks :) Too bad many viewers don't support it. And ACiDview fucks up when i try to view vga stuff :) (probably a problem with my settings)
Yeah, you must suck nightstalker ;)
Is sauce not really used these days? I've been 'saucing' everything Hallucigenia releases, because when I was in Mist, that's what we always did.. however, when I asked my members to start adding the sauce to their own work--so I wouldn't have to do it--no one knew what I was talking about.. even amoung some of the 'scene-literate'.. I'm just curious, does anyone pay attention to the sauce anymore?
They must not REALLY be 'scene-literate' :) sauce has been part of the scene for as long as I can remember. I've always been to lazy to 'sauce' my artwork though
geee.. ARE YOU NUTS???
sprocket:
I don't view vga in dos anymore for the same reason as nightstalker. In fact, it locks up my system completely when I try. :)
iCE doesn't go through and sauce everything because sauce is a bad idea. Saceu works by adding data BEYOND the end of file marker and adding a SECOND EOF (this must violate about a thousand different RFCs and standards :). This has been known to cause all kinds of problems in lots of applications. When it comes to ANSI, it's not such a big deal, but we've had people complain to us a lot about fubar'ing the hirez work and rips with sauce. In a text only medium like ANSI/ASCII, Sauce works pretty well.. I used it when I made Union packs, and its by far the best way the scene has come up with to keep titles in art work. For the world at large though, it presents problems.
>When it comes to ANSI, it's not such a big deal, but we've had people complain to
Getting back to the tracking / mixing parallel I established in the previous discussion area, DJ Spooky That Subliminal Kid has been lobbying for enouhg cd-liner space to list the source of all of the samplse he uses in his songs - a case where where the samples are from are more important than what they say. (A made-up example of this would be listening to a song and hearing heavy breathing in the background, then flipping open the liner notes and reading that it was taken from White House phone logs of calls Bill Clinton made while entertaining Mrs. Lewinsky...
"But again I'm speaking in terms of collage here and this is a medium I've not seen in artpacks at all. Why is this? "
That may be the case - I've got an old computer, a slow modem and limited hard drive space. Can you refer me to a particular filename or group where I may find works in that medium? 8)
i have a collage i may release in the next hrg pack.. like... real world collage.. with scicors and glue
what i always do is if i use somebody elses work or a scan, i always credit it on my website.. i have descriptions of the work in the gallery.. but yeah.. i dont wanna be putting alot of text all over my art. thats why i hate people who do vga bbs ads.. it ruins the art
cthulu: check out the last CIA pack, or some current HRG packs. In my review for CIA this month, I tried to outline some of the many different styles of image sampling and manipulation that are possible and which could be seen in that one pack alone. Not all of them are collage in the terms you're probably thinking of, but I think the pack demonstrates that there's a wide continuum of different methods and uses for sampled/manipulated imagery, just as there are a huge variety of styles of music that encorporate sampled sound.
I for one am not about to put text on top of my artwork just for this purpose.. it would ruin the finished product. Maybe just increase the canvas size a little and put the text on black beside the image? Although this could be a nuisance for people who intend to create full-screen pics, like 640x480 or 800x600. A separate text file maybe? Imbedded jpeg comments? No one seems to use those much.
Anyone have any other ideas on what's best?
By Darkmage on Tuesday, December 22, 1998 - 06:11 am:
Just something simple like:
"Photography by/ © ..."
"Based on ... by/ © ..."
"Original art by/ © ..."
Kind of a nuisance maybe, but if you use someone else's work, the artist/owner is entitled to the recognition. And of course, there is a very simple way to avoid having to credit other people in _your_ work :)
-darkmage[iCE]
By Leo on Tuesday, December 22, 1998 - 11:54 am:
--darkmage[iCE] Said:---
Kind of a nuisance maybe, but if you use someone else's work, the artist/owner is entitled to the recognition. And of course, there is a very simple way to avoid having to credit other people in _your_ work :)
------------------------
Exactly!
Whenever I look at a peice of artwork, however much effort it looks like they put into it is how much I respect and admire that drawing and artist. Usually, a 100% original freehand or rendered drawing takes alot more effort than a touched up photo or a borrowed idea. Most of the time I'd rather see a mediocre doodle,than a technically perfect photo touchup. Although there both art, I prefer to see how people can manipulate their ideas rather than see how people can manipulate tools.
Leonardo.iCE
By Atom on Wednesday, December 23, 1998 - 12:23 pm:
By Funbaby on Wednesday, December 23, 1998 - 12:56 pm:
By Shere Khan on Wednesday, December 23, 1998 - 01:28 pm:
By Funbaby on Wednesday, December 23, 1998 - 02:04 pm:
By Atom on Thursday, December 24, 1998 - 07:35 am:
By God among Lice on Thursday, December 24, 1998 - 03:12 pm:
I'm really not too studied on this, but I've always felt the same as atom, too.. I'm not about to stop creating the art, especially since the chances of a lawsuit or whatever is pretty damn remote, at least for the kind of stuff I would use other people's images for.
By Dangermouse on Thursday, December 24, 1998 - 07:21 pm:
In a perfect world, and one many artists think they exist in, you have to OBTAIN copyright permission from the original artist who made the work. The said be said if you wished to use Adobe's logo on your website -- believe it or not.
But here's the catch. A lot of the time, especially if the work is for non-profit, a lot of them won't give a toss. If you credit the artist within the comments (in Photoshop) or on your piece of artwork, then atleast you are saying that the idea is not soley your own.
Of course, if you get permission from the artist to use the artwork, as you have to do in the real world where some of you will work for profit, then that's all that much sweater.
In closing, try and obtain permission for pieces of artwork you wish to use. If you can't, then do the next best thing by at least mentioning the original artists name. Just think, one day you may be the commercial artist who's livelyhood depends on your art, and you see some dude using your artwork as your own.. How would you feel?
By RaD Man on Friday, December 25, 1998 - 03:23 pm:
SAUCE supports something called a "COMMENT block" which allows the author to enter up to (I believe) 128 lines of text in addition to the title/author/organization, etc. It's there for the specific purpose of filling in any blanks that couldn't be covered by the hard-coded fields within SAUCE. It's up to the individual how to fill in comment area...
...Alot of the artists in ACiD take advantage of it by throwing in greets, URLs, comments about the pic, influences, references, et cetera.
Another little-known fact is that ACiD View 4.3x/DOS reads in the first three lines of the SAUCE comment block. Just hit the <TAB> key twice to display them.
-r
By Nightstalker on Sunday, December 27, 1998 - 08:57 am:
By Dangermouse on Sunday, December 27, 1998 - 10:30 pm:
By Etana on Monday, December 28, 1998 - 12:21 pm:
By Leonardo.iCE on Tuesday, December 29, 1998 - 08:57 am:
leo
By Sprocket HRG on Tuesday, December 29, 1998 - 08:02 pm:
>>Just something simple like:
>>"Photography by/ © ..."
>>"Based on ... by/ © ..."
>>"Original art by/ © ..."
If i do photomanips why I must feel myself
like i have lepro, or i'm doing crime?
I think all this discussion about crediting
is idiotic, sorry...
<b>2 all new wave artists:</b>
Guys, just do your work good, people love it..
They think about your artworks not about
photo credits...
By Tomi on Wednesday, December 30, 1998 - 05:38 am:
maybe you don't have to worry about crediting,
but when someone uses your finished work, adds
a lensflare to it(so it comes as photomanip or whatever) and credits it only for himself
i'm sure you get fucked up.
By God among Lice on Wednesday, December 30, 1998 - 06:03 pm:
I think a lot of people are like me and view vga in a windows viewer of some kind. So I don't think it's as important that people use sauce with hirez, so long as the artist and title are listed SOMEWHERE in the pack. In HRG we use a text file to list all the artists and titles for the hirez pieces, but I'm pretty sure all the ascii is sauced.
I think it's really up to the group leaders to decide on a method and stick with it, and it'd be pretty hard to get all the members to sauce their own files.
I personally hate the way ice doesn't sauce anything, or even worse how a few are sauced and most aren't. If they're not gonna sauce they should at least have a list of titles or descriptions somewhere.
hmm.. then again maybe most of ice's art is of a style that doesn't require titles? They're often simply illustrations. :) Guess there's another fact to back up their low-art status.
By Mass Delusion on Wednesday, December 30, 1998 - 09:39 pm:
iCE does, btw, include a list of descriptions in our .DSC file, if you use iCEView, all of the pieces are described and show up perfectly.
We're working on some new systems that might eliminate that all together however with our new viewer. We'll see if the results warrant publishing them and if so, maybe we'll make a dent on the little scene the same way sauce revolutionized it a few years back.
As to whether or not our work is "low-art" is up to the viewers discerning (or lack thereof) taste. I do enjoy that we now have "facts" to describe art, finally someone has mathematized art for us! Computer scientists rejoice! :)
-Mass Delusion / iCE Senior Staff
By RaD Man on Friday, January 1, 1999 - 12:35 pm:
>us a lot about fubar'ing the hirez work and rips with sauce. In a text only medium like
>ANSI/ASCII, Sauce works pretty well.. I used it when I made Union packs, and its by
>far the best way the scene has come up with to keep titles in art work. For the
>world at large though, it presents problems.
As far as the scene goes, SAUCE has never given me any problems. I'm not aware of any conflicts or issues related to SAUCE'd RIPscrip or ASCII-type files. There may be some JPEG-type image viewer out there somewhere that doesn't like it's hirez with SAUCE, but I've yet to see one. Granted it's bound to cause problems somewhere for someone with the "world at large" but that goes for just about anything!
P.S. I still have the original UNISPOON.EXE coded by The Hit Man. :)
-r
By Cthulu of Mistigris on Monday, January 18, 1999 - 02:48 pm:
that just adds a whole other dimension to the work, don't it?
I believe that collages and songs like this can be like essays, where you refer to many items of cultural detritus and then elaborate on their source (and the significance of that source) in footnotes and bibliographies, where the work is a small thing that leads to dozens of gateways to larger things.
But again I'm speaking in terms of collage here and this is a medium I've not seen in artpacks at all. Why is this?
By Root88 on Tuesday, January 19, 1999 - 06:33 am:
Because you haven't looked at enough art packs I guess.
;)
By Cthulu of Mistigris on Tuesday, January 19, 1999 - 10:05 am:
By Atom on Tuesday, January 19, 1999 - 04:35 pm:
By Jae on Tuesday, January 19, 1999 - 05:16 pm:
By God among Lice on Tuesday, January 19, 1999 - 08:09 pm:
As for the idea of crediting every possible sample source, that certainly does add another dimension to things. However, for me, the idea of that becoming commonplace is really pretty scary. One thing I dislike about the postmodern world is this possibility of a never-ending flow of information... there seems to be too much *analysing* going on, and not enough *synthesizing*. If you become so caught up in the details of something, or the origin of many parts, and in turn the origin of *their* parts, etc., you may lose sight of the whole that the artist was creating in the first place.
Certainly, it's up to the artist what kind of approach they mean to take in this regard. I personally like to see images and sounds taken for what they are. Obviously, it would be hard or impossible to entirely rid images of clues about their original context, and often some of that contextual info is needed. But I simply wouldn't feel comfortable living in some kind of massively recursive world in which understanding a work of art necessarily requires a never-ending search through the origins of all the information that is appropriated by each consecutively removed image.
Still, the idea is interesting. It sort of throws the idea of the single artist out the window, in a way.. It's like maybe we're looking not at the work of an artist, but art's own work of art -- sort of like memetic theory, where ideas don't really belong to people, but to themselves... they multiply by their own favorable patterns for replication.