Forums » Art & Creativity » Art Theft & You

Sylvirr's bit about getting less roleplay because of a lack of visuals is so painfully true, especially on Furcadia. It's a kind of unwritten standard for the game. No art? Good luck on getting any rp at all.
I know there are some cases that its not true but most of the time; characters without visual references, whether they be FCs or 'reference' art pulled from google, dont get much attention.

I'm not going to be responding to this often because, frankly, I've work to do, and don't have the energy. I actually had this written up more than a week ago and just remembered to post it - hooray for all the executive disfunction in my life!

Okay.
(Removed your sizing because, this isn't personal, but I can't see writing that small, and lemme tell you, magnifier, double sizing the website, making the fonts all bigger - it's all really, really inconvenient for me. I hope in the future people will think about that when using small font sizes)

It's really not. 'Why' has been well covered, but, again: What they're doing is illegal, unethical, and can get this website - RPR - in legal trouble. It's perfectly reasonable and perfectly fair to expect them to stop.

Did you know I've reported profiles for literally using photos of women and asking people to RP raping them? Actually, did you know there's an entire community based around non-consensual acts, it's a hugely popular one? Even if this weren't the case... Let's post Coltara's video again, so everyone can watch it.



Do me a solid and watch that. I mean really watch it.

IDK man, the wording of this makes me really uncomfortable. Actors aren't made. They're not a product. I don't mean to be kinda poopy pointing out your single line here, but it's just - this whole FC thing, with literally not respecting others' humanity, it really stood out to me.

---

I get it, a lot of you are taking this very personally, with how defensive people are being in this thread, re: faceclaims, or how poor you are.

This is an issue that could get RPR in legal trouble. I want everyone to stop and think about how their personal feelings are being put above RPR even existing.

And for the people who admit to blatantly stealing art - There are so many resources out there, and you've come here to go 'still gonna steal art'?

You know what? I haven't had my own glasses replaced in almost a decade. (Isn't it funny how at the top of my post I have had to enlarge Fiebs' post? To think that people yell at me for caring about inaccessible things..) Art is my income. This whole devaluing of art, that it's ok to steal it - you're taking money from my pocket, even if you were never going to commission me, because you are directly contributing to this horrid belief that stealing art is ok.

---

Using an image without permission, regardless of credit, when you are not doing something that falls under Fair Use (RP characters aren't fair use!), that is theft.

Using images of real people who have not given their permission to be used (yes, celebs are, indeed, people) is theft, and it's morally - at the very least - questionable, if not outright objectionable. I'm sorry that a lot of ya'll feel personally attacked on this. It's not personal. Except to the person whose image you're using.

---

Sidenote:
Actually, the previous version of this thread was removed because I used screenshots of peoples' RPRs and Kim asked me to replace those screenshots, and removed the thread before anyone could be personally offended by it. I admit I shouldn't have done that! And replaced it with fake screenshots.

I was OK'd to repost this thread, and even given the code for all the resource links, because this is a needed thread and is helpful. This was even looked over in google docs when I wrote it, and OK'd. Now, my current response hasn't been OK'd, because, well, nature of posting a reply in a forum. But yeah, no, sorry, this was actually wanted.

To be clear: the site assists in cases of art theft very frequently, and it's a real problem. One that we don't yet have a long term solution for. The staff doesn't endorse any specific opinion in this thread, but the discussion was approved to occur and I for one am extremely interested to see people's opinions and respectful debate about it because it is critically important to our community. I hope to hold some official discussions on similar topics in future as well.

Technology has (and is) developing faster than the law's ability to make sense of it, and certainly MUCH faster than the abilities of enforcement (I include myself in that.) Using "found" art on your own website/profile/tumblr is still in many cases illegal, even if it's easy or common. Society is evolving to use and require updated notions of ownership, when some property can be copied simply with a left click. Discussing how we feel about that is fascinating and important, as we're a microcosm of the larger social and technological trends and we will be greatly impacted by changes in this area of law and public opinion. My own opinions are still very much in flux, having been on both sides of this question and dealing with the practical fallout for both sides on a day to day basis.

What we're looking at here is a situation akin to every person on the planet suddenly having the ability to steal anything from anyone merely be thinking about it. There's no evidence trail beyond perhaps serial numbers on the items in question, and original reciepts on file at stores -- in this situation stealing would remain illegal, but 99.9% of people would do it and never get busted, because even though the police investigate and respond as fast as they can, their resources would be woefully inadequate. And we might start to question what the relevance of the law is, and perhaps we'd want different, more nuanced laws about ownership, at the same time we know that it is a law and if you are one of that small percentage of people caught and convicted with those very small enforcement resources, you can still suffer consequences. And even as we wanted more nuanced laws, we'd also be furious when something we designed, invented or bought poofed off our kitchen Table and showed up in all of our neighbor's houses the next day.

As a site, we remove images that an arist complains is theirs and being used without permission all the time, because the person using it doesn't necessarily have the right to reference by saving and reuploading. This includes photos. Legally speaking, what the profile owner has the right to do is link to the art they want to reference. We'd certainly remove someone's Instagram photos the same as any other artwork if they made us aware of them, even if they were photos of a celeb.

It is maybe interesting to remember that although actors play roles, they also have the power to turn them down. They don't play every role they are offered in their careers, sometimes because there are concepts they don't want to be associated with.

All that said, a question to our anti-faceclaim members: would linking to someone's Instagram and saying "My character kind of looks like this," make you any less weirded out than someone harvesting and reuploading the images from the very same Instagram, with the same note?

If it's going to get RPR in trouble then I would delete my Canon cherries websites. I have no problem with that.

You absolutely cannot help but use gifs. Everyone uses those to convey. I don't think of that as stealing one bit.

Barring the category of 'please rape my character', yes, this is a very good solution. The artist is getting credit because the link is to their page, they are possibly getting revenue simply from clicking, they are possibly getting commissions (or new fans, etc) due to them being directly pointed to. As a whole, it is a much better solution than reuploading the photo, as that is where the theft lies. (Because the theft is indeed about more than just the photo, too, as I said - revenue from clicking, from becoming more known, etc)

There will, of course, still be people who are not okay with having their images linked to, but I think by and large we can avoid that with not having the barred category doing so.

having had my insta photos used for fetishized articles w/o permission has made me very sympathetic to this sort of thing. i think if someone linked to it and said that, yeah, i'd be cool with it. it's much, much less weird and intrusive than clicking a page on the internet and going 'oh, huh. dat me.'

very nicely said as for the rest of your post.

edit: yo tate so i watched that whole video, nice addition. things like that and what i mentioned above play a huge factor in what a private person i am online and make the whole FC thing a question of consent, really. i do think i stick with links explicity stated as references regardless of the type of RP though.

TIL... I'm a bad person for explaining that my money goes to my real life needs first. Okie dokie, then. Sorry for having priorities that hurt your feelings?

just don't steal art and don't get upset when people say that's a bad thing to do, lol. artists need money for their real life needs too.

Let's be super clear here... I HAVE NOT STOLEN ART IN A LONG TIME. Old characters of mine DO have stolen art. But I don't have the time or money to replace them with commissioned work or work I make myself.
My money is being saved for my real life needs. And before people start being... more rude... I am an artist, too. You think I don't know how bad the art community is about money? It's why I am going to go get a non-art job this fall.

Resized the font on all posts for accessibility.

I didn't see any cursing but then again my brain tends to omit it.

There are probably more people out there using faceclaims then there are members in this community.

I've also reported profiles for rape/child exploitation, these had face claims. But then as context that shouldn't be on RPR's site to begin with, right? These characters I find are rare in comparison to characters with faceclaims that are used with respect and responsibility. It's unfair to generalise. They don't mean any harm, they're not trying to hurt anyone, it's certainly unfair to villianise them.


Question tho: if this is to be strictly followed I imagine this means you can't use icons that weren't made by you, you can't use gifs in guestbooks, you can't use gifs in a gif-war thread?

If we did a cleanse, we'd strip RPR of a lot of content on it because of the law. Everything would be replaced with hot-links. I think our best bet is to refer to 'reasonable usage' or to compile a guide that handles faceclaims/references with respect.

I think it's unfair to suddenly make an overnight rule; it's better to allow the process to peter out over a few years, if anything. Or people will leave RPR. You will drive them away. They will go elsewhere.

on what fiebs said: i think gifs and stuff are different. you're not outright saying "this is my character", you're using it to emote something. like when my friends text me they're excited for the weekend we have planned and i text back "💯💯💯🔥" i'm not saying "300 fires". haha sorry that's corny but i thought this thread could use a little lightening up.

but ye i think it's a bit different for emotes/gifs/refs/etc as opposed to FCs.

Topic briefly locked to allow for cooling down and prevent further knee-jerk responses, and to give the mod team some time to do some cleanup.

---

Topic tentatively re-opened for discussion!

Let's keep in mind some ground rules as we continue:

• Please, no more cussing. I just went through and removed a number of f-bombs. Luckily, they were not directed at anyone, but even so, they change the tone of a conversation in unnecessary ways, and are against the rules.
• You may feel free to disagree with and debunk each other's ideas, facts, and claims, but you may not attack one another's personal character. Whether you like someone is irrelevant to how good their ideas are.
• By extension, let's please avoid peppering posts with expressions of disbelief or casual poo-pooing that someone could have a particular thought ("Are you serious?" is an example of this). This is another human being on the other side of the keyboard, with their own life experiences and opinions. They are being vulnerable by sharing their own perspective. They may or may not have all the facts. Using wording that discounts their thoughts without engaging with them ignores that person's contributions in ways that make that person less likely to hear the points you are making, and more likely to hear only attacks.

In addition, I think a large amount of confusion has come from varying understandings of copyright and fair use laws, so I offer the following clarification:

All images are considered to be copyrighted the moment they are created, making every image except ones that are specifically labeled as free for any non-commercial use technically illegal to use for face claims. Most people think that if there's no copyright symbol or disclaimer on the image then it's free and clear, but the exact opposite is true.

In the US, fair use is mainly applicable if only a small portion of the work is reproduced, and it is for the purposes of criticism, news reporting, teaching or research. RP is none of the above, even if it is non-commercial, so the fact that you are not making money off your RPs doesn't actually alter the legal circumstances.

This means that gifs for reaction, face claims for respectful reference and photos of celebs are all equally as illegal as taking a piece of art with a prominent watermark on it that is clearly labeled as a commission of someone else's character concept and covered in requests to not use without permission.

That said, how we each feel about the fairness, realism, practicality of these laws - and how we think on-site enforcement of these laws should be carried out in a world where "share" is a button that appears almost everywhere across the net - is a point far from settled, and very much worth debating from all angles.

Well stated, Kim! That's totally what I'm looking to get out of this conversation and why I've been focusing more on ethics than legalities - where copyright stands is rather clear, but the more nuanced usage of images beyond that is a much more complicated topic. It's important to address the reasoning why copyrights exist in the first place rather than being concerned if they're going to be acted on. I see a lot of people focusing on their personal desires or legal unlikelihood before being concerned about the people whom these images or identities belong to.

This is actually sort of addressed in the first post - yes, but it still depends on exactly how the image is being used. In that particular hypothetical example there's some important distinctions to look at. In the opening post there is a link to a reference gallery of my own that I give artists to use as basically a research tool. It's used in that sort of sense, with a few different images of real people being used as examples of what certain features of my character roughly look like. I am sure they are copyright and I have not gained permission to use them, but I'm not displaying them on a profile or claiming direct likeness of the individuals to use for my characters. It's used purely for a reference between me and the artists I hire rather than a public resource.

I don't feel like someone is taking anything away from another when they share images purely as material for rough reference and inspiration rather than as a direct likeness. This sort of use seems much different from uploading images straight to a character gallery and going 'this is more-or-less exactly what my character looks like and so this image is a representation of them'. That's a claim on a likeness and use of an image. Saying 'my character looks kind of like this' with a link to the source not only seems like a really responsible way to go about things, but seems to be showing an awareness of the person behind the image and not even trying to claim a likeness in entirety. It's a much more clearly drawn line - for sure a better solution all around and a good example of more 'reasonable use'.

'course I'd hope someone would have the tact to message the Instagram user to ask if they were comfortable - especially if they're a low profile individual with their appearance not already in the public eye! While someone may not mean to hurt another doing these things, the truth is we really don't know how each individual might feel. It seems wiser to be as respectful as possible first before making assumptions for our own benefit, and to be honest, acting as though a celebrity is more 'free game' to claim the likeness of than anyone else seems rather dehumanizing. A prominence in society makes some images more accessible and use of them less likely to be commented or acted upon, but it doesn't really change the nature of trying to claim someone else's likeness for personal use.

In my personal opinion it just kind of boils down to showing another human being common courtesy. I feel like that's realistic enough to ask consideration for.

I also feel that there is a little bit of a difference when it comes to using gifs, but more or less what rule-63 said! It doesn't feel like appropriating content in the same way because generally nothing is being claimed in any way. It seems that typically such images are being used to convey some sort of specific detail or thematic tone - which leans a bit more towards the idea of fair use, even if the copyright does technically still apply. I feel this is not entirely comparable to using 'faceclaims' because it usually lacks the same potential for harm or lack of consideration, e.g. someone feeling uncomfortable with their likeness being used or having their art taken, even if the 'public domain' feel of using images from well established media is very much the same.

( I also still strongly feel that an inability to afford art is a personal problem and has very little to do with the topic at hand. I don't think an unfortunate situation justifies anything in this particular case - while one might strongly desire visual references for their character, they are not so necessary as to excuse something like outright art theft. )

apologies if this has already been stated, but i'd like to reinforce a quick point. ('you' here is used generally.)

art is a luxury. rp is a hobby. you do not need art in order to engage in rp with people. it's a useful visual aid, but it is not crucial. i don't have money to commission art, so i write detailed descriptions and make do with free resources! it's a text based world we're exploring after all!

if i want a new pair of shoes, do i steal them from a shop or another person? no. i make do with my old ones until i have enough money to upgrade! there's no reason art should be any different.

ultimately, people's interest in rping with you will rely solely on your writing abilities, not on any graphics. they can draw people in, certainly, but it's up to you to produce the writing that will sustain partnerships!

I actually wanted to touch on this, as it is also nuanced. Slightly off topic, but also honestly related.

If I needed new shoes (as opposed to just wanted new shoes), because the weather threatened my safety, or my current shoes were falling apart, or I needed a job but my shoes would make my interviews go poorly...Would I steal? If I had to, yes. Because these things seriously effect my life. But, as someone who has been homeless before and been in these situations... I knew where to find free shoes and other resources.

So while this topic doesn't seem related, it is, in a way - I could, indeed, for free, get what I needed, but usually not what I wanted. But, to go further - Even if I couldn't, stealing shoes in such situations would be a need, not a want.

As much as this can be upsetting to people - yes, custom art of your character, or anything to portray your character is a want, not a need, and so while you might steal a pair of boots to keep from getting frostbite while homeless in the middle of a below freezing winter, art is simply not the same.

(Thank you for bringing that up)

(Also, Fiebs, thank you for enlarging your text. It means a lot to me. Really, it does, I get so much poo-pooing toward my need for accessibility, it means a lot when someone listens)

YES KIM. I really want to emphasize this fact as it's one of the most common misunderstandings in copyright and fair use.

The difference between commercial and non-commercial use has almost nothing to do with the definition of fair use. It has effectively zero effect on whether something is considered infringement or fair use.

It does however have a lot to do with enforcement. Companies generally don't get litigious unless someone is actively making money from copyright infringement. But not making money isn't a free ticket to using images that you don't have the explicitly stated rights to.

So as Kim said, from our point of view, it's a matter of policy, fairness, and practicality. No one is super likely to get sued over a face claim. But doing something because it's being done a lot, has always been done, or isn't actively enforced by law doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do.

A couple people have made the point of: "I don't have art and I still get rp" and while that's great for you that's not true for everyone. This is an argument that is used for many social issues of greater importance. Just because this doesn't effect you doesn't mean it doesn't effect a greater population. I can also say that my characters with no art get absolutely no rp at all - no matter how much detail I put into them (and I put a lot, have you seen Lucas?). For that reason I choose not to rp characters with no art, it's a waste of time for me to put all that effort in just to get ignored.

This honestly is a topic that largely makes absolutely no sense to me - as a rper and as an artist. I've roleplayed since I was 9 years old (read: 14 years) and for as long as I can remember face-claims have been a thing, as has "borrowing" art and crediting the original artist. Up until Furcadia I didn't even know that you could commission an artist for custom art of your OC. That wasn't a thing that was heard of on forums - even ones that were based around custom species didn't do custom art for individual players.

While outright theft is never ok (taking & not crediting the artist or claiming it as your own), I see absolutely no issue with borrowing something and crediting the artist (hello, we all did it in school for projects and reports) until such a time that you can either afford custom art or find someone to do it for free.

That, however, brings me to my next point. Good art isn't free, or even cheap. You really want to tell me that paying $60 for a 95x95 square of pixels that you'll only use to roleplay (not decorate your house, give as a gift to a loved one, etc) is cheap? No. Just no. And while I may have an "expensive ($1200.00)" gaming computer that doesn't mean I can throw money at art that has no physical or quantitative value (i.e. just because you think your art is worth $100 doesn't mean it actually is, and art can't really be measured in dollars). My computer is used for more than just gaming, like work and school. It has a value that can be measured and is used for more than just one thing, and it will last me a long, long time.

No one has the right to tell anyone else how to create and/or roleplay their characters. It's theirs, not yours. If you don't like it that's fine, don't roleplay with or talk to them. If your art has been stolen, send them a polite message and ask for it to be removed and if they don't seek the administrators. Otherwise you're stirring up a whole lot of hooplah and upsetting/hurting people and making them feel bad for absolutely no reason.

I abide the witch's law in all things, including this: if it harms none, do as ye will. Basically if it's not hurting you, then leave it alone because it's not your business.

I like your argument and all, just this segment really bothers me personally. This is something that artists have to deal with on a regular basis is thought processes like this. It harms us greatly, and it makes us one of two things: resentful and bitter, or stubborn and devoted.

I told myself that I wouldn't step in on this discussion at all, however, when I see an argument that essentially implies to a number of artists reading through this that their time, that their effort is not worth what they feel like it is (which is usually almost always less than what it should be worth in some cases), that's where it really irks me.

Some of us have to rely on our art just to scrape by -- some of us are disabled and all we have is art that we feel that we are good at. Some of us feel like we only have art to help pay our bills and to help pay for food or utilities because some of us don't have the luxury of being able to go out and get the help we desire. My parents still have to help me and my fiancé pay off our apartment and utilities because my disabilities are often swept under a rug by both people I apply to for work, and/or by people that say they help people like me, though fail to carry out that promise.

So this?

This is what irks me. Because this essentially tells me that there are a number of people who will see this and think that their time, effort, and more importantly, their life, their struggle, are worthless.

I have nothing else to add except that. I have no further plans on replying further to this thread.

I'll admit, my dislike of faceclaims is probably entirely a personal preference thing, but to me it just feels a lot less creative, I guess. The way I see it, they should be used as something to springboard off of, not base an entire character around.

Personally I would never use one because to me, the enjoyment of making characters comes from deciding their features and everything myself, rather than snagging some stranger's face and going from there. That's why I love it when people put together those neat lil' reference board things like Tailbone's in the first post, because it shows that somebody is putting way more thought into a character's look then just their face. I've also seen characters that go much further than just a reference, using the same person as a character's voice ref, body type, even down to that person's -personality traits-, including changing the character's hair color because the actual real person did. That just feels...creepy and extremely uninspired to me, but that's neither here nor there I suppose.

That being said, this whole thread is also making me rethink some things I've done with my own pages, even though I'm entirely in agreement with the points Tate, Tailbone, Kim and Ben are making, and things along those lines. I'm not entirely cozy with the idea of using stuff that's not totally mine in general, maybe that's an artist thing? I'unno. I also don't feel that 'not being able to draw' is a valid argument here -- learn. That's how a lot of artists got started, wanting to be able to draw their own characters because they were unsatisfied with all the free resources out there. It's not some magical ability bestowed upon only some select few, a lot of people just don't want to invest the time and effort.

rp is a hobby. art is a luxury.

that's also plagiarism, and is absolutely illegal.

this isn't sufficient justification for theft, and i'm curious as to why you've intoned the word borrowing like that?