I apologize if this post in any way seems too blunt, I'm just going to go through addressing things point by point and stick to the topic as closely as I can in the process.
I'm sorry, but that's sort of irrelevant. It's already been gone over why. It's really unfortunate this happens to you, but your difficulty does not afford you any special liberties. This is a fallacy called a red herring.
Appeal to Tradition. Another common fallacy. Your personal experiences do not inform ethics nor law. There's also a saying that goes 'ignorance of law excuses no-one.' What Ben said is really vital.
That's possibly because you're not considering what makes for fair use or not - projects in school very much fall under research when properly cited. It's not the same.
This seemed unnecessarily rude; no, good art isn't cheap. It shouldn't be just because you personally value it less than others do. I please ask that you not make statements like this as it is a hot point of offense in artistic communities as demonstrated. You're insulting artists in broad strokes by insisting your personal evaluation of their work takes precedence over the fact that artists very much deserve to be paid at least a reasonable hourly wage for their expertise - especially if it's something you cannot do yourself. You can very much measure art in dollars. It's how I pay for most of my commissions.
No, but they do have the right to offer fair criticism and open conversation if something seems potentially harmful or infringing on the rights of someone else. It's not for absolutely no reason - it's a worthy discussion and questionable behavior should probably be avoided in the first place. If someone takes offense at the idea a stolen image or a faceclaim might be offensive to the owners of the imagery, that is very much a personal problem and turning something back around on itself like that is not conductive to the conversation. It's another emotional appeal that frankly, seems very dismissive.
Cami wrote:
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.
I'm sorry, but that's sort of irrelevant. It's already been gone over why. It's really unfortunate this happens to you, but your difficulty does not afford you any special liberties. This is a fallacy called a red herring.
Quote:
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.
Appeal to Tradition. Another common fallacy. Your personal experiences do not inform ethics nor law. There's also a saying that goes 'ignorance of law excuses no-one.' What Ben said is really vital.
Quote:
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's possibly because you're not considering what makes for fair use or not - projects in school very much fall under research when properly cited. It's not the same.
Quote:
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.
This seemed unnecessarily rude; no, good art isn't cheap. It shouldn't be just because you personally value it less than others do. I please ask that you not make statements like this as it is a hot point of offense in artistic communities as demonstrated. You're insulting artists in broad strokes by insisting your personal evaluation of their work takes precedence over the fact that artists very much deserve to be paid at least a reasonable hourly wage for their expertise - especially if it's something you cannot do yourself. You can very much measure art in dollars. It's how I pay for most of my commissions.
Quote:
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 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.
No, but they do have the right to offer fair criticism and open conversation if something seems potentially harmful or infringing on the rights of someone else. It's not for absolutely no reason - it's a worthy discussion and questionable behavior should probably be avoided in the first place. If someone takes offense at the idea a stolen image or a faceclaim might be offensive to the owners of the imagery, that is very much a personal problem and turning something back around on itself like that is not conductive to the conversation. It's another emotional appeal that frankly, seems very dismissive.
rat wrote:
Cami wrote:
I don't have art and I still get rp" and while that's great for you that's not true for everyone.
rp is a hobby. art is a luxury.
Cami wrote:
(hello, we all did it in school for projects and reports)
that's also plagiarism, and is absolutely illegal.
Cami wrote:
for as long as I can remember face-claims have been a thing, as has "borrowing" art
this isn't sufficient justification for theft, and i'm curious as to why you've intoned the word borrowing like that?
RP is also a coping mechanism for some which is why your attack on that itself is unwarranted. I don't steal art and the only art I have up has been drawn for my character(s) personally for free as gifts. But I don't commission art as I am more of a gamer for release of my social insecurities. How the thread has been handled I can see how both sides feel attacked and THAT is why both sides are feeling aggressive. It's what you just said that brought me in.
Lorvilran wrote:
RP is also a coping mechanism for some which is why your attack on that itself is unwarranted. I don't steal art and the only art I have up has been drawn for my character(s) personally for free as gifts. But I don't commission art as I am more of a gamer for release of my social insecurities. How the thread has been handled I can see how both sides feel attacked and THAT is why both sides are feeling aggressive. It's what you just said that brought me in.
it was never intended as an attack, and i'm not pointing fingers at anyone (especially not at you, since you weren't present). rp is also a coping mechanism for me, but it is by all common definitions a hobby (is this what your issue was? i'm unclear, sorry.) it's something i do in my downtime to relax. what i'm attempting to reinforce is that art is not necessary for rp to function, and thus theft is not necessary.
rat wrote:
Lorvilran wrote:
RP is also a coping mechanism for some which is why your attack on that itself is unwarranted. I don't steal art and the only art I have up has been drawn for my character(s) personally for free as gifts. But I don't commission art as I am more of a gamer for release of my social insecurities. How the thread has been handled I can see how both sides feel attacked and THAT is why both sides are feeling aggressive. It's what you just said that brought me in.
it was never intended as an attack, and i'm not pointing fingers at anyone (especially not at you, since you weren't present). rp is also a coping mechanism for me, but it is by all common definitions a hobby (is this what your issue was? i'm unclear, sorry.) it's something i do in my downtime to relax. what i'm attempting to reinforce is that art is not necessary for rp to function, and thus theft is not necessary.
For many it is(art not theft), you often can't get someone to rp with you unless you know them without art. The theft of art was the topic but how do people know if someone has stolen art I mean really? I can verify mine isn't stolen, all that I've linked to or put up myself was made for me. (me being knightish on DA) But to be fair using things in a project if it's sourced correctly is fair-use and pictures are allowed to be used in a project without drawbacks aslong as they're not the biggest part of it. (Schoolwise) On here what I caught was both sides wanting so badly to be right that they kind of went off on each other and noone looks good. Yes I went off but that's cause of how the reply started out.
I want to add my own views in brief here.
@Lorvilran No one is attacking rpers! I think what a lot of people are trying to say is that rp doesn't need to be funded as it free hobby. If you cannot afford or you simply cannot justify paying a certain price for a piece of art you wanted, then do not. We are a strong, creative community and we can paint an image of our characters with words. Use professor Snape as an example. Long before art of him was provided people across the world had already drawn him and no matter who's art of him you looked at you recognized him for who he was based on what you had read.
No one is entitled to someone else's work without permission and quite frankly no one needs it. I've had my own art stolen in the past and it strikes very close to home, but i understand it's also very hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes.
@Lorvilran No one is attacking rpers! I think what a lot of people are trying to say is that rp doesn't need to be funded as it free hobby. If you cannot afford or you simply cannot justify paying a certain price for a piece of art you wanted, then do not. We are a strong, creative community and we can paint an image of our characters with words. Use professor Snape as an example. Long before art of him was provided people across the world had already drawn him and no matter who's art of him you looked at you recognized him for who he was based on what you had read.
No one is entitled to someone else's work without permission and quite frankly no one needs it. I've had my own art stolen in the past and it strikes very close to home, but i understand it's also very hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes.
Degu wrote:
I want to add my own views in brief here.
@Lorvilran No one is attacking rpers! I think what a lot of people are trying to say is that rp doesn't need to be funded as it free hobby. If you cannot afford or you simply cannot justify paying a certain price for a piece of art you wanted, then do not. We are a strong, creative community and we can paint an image of our characters with words. Use professor Snape as an example. Long before art of him was provided people across the world had already drawn him and no matter who's art of him you looked at you recognized him for who he was based on what you had read.
No one is entitled to someone else's work without permission and quite frankly no one needs it. I've had my own art stolen in the past and it strikes very close to home, but i understand it's also very hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes.
@Lorvilran No one is attacking rpers! I think what a lot of people are trying to say is that rp doesn't need to be funded as it free hobby. If you cannot afford or you simply cannot justify paying a certain price for a piece of art you wanted, then do not. We are a strong, creative community and we can paint an image of our characters with words. Use professor Snape as an example. Long before art of him was provided people across the world had already drawn him and no matter who's art of him you looked at you recognized him for who he was based on what you had read.
No one is entitled to someone else's work without permission and quite frankly no one needs it. I've had my own art stolen in the past and it strikes very close to home, but i understand it's also very hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes.
Maybe a more concrete example would help frame this? For example, exercise is also a common coping mechanism, but people aren't allowed to break into gyms to which they don't have a membership, or walk out of stores with yoga mats that they want, no matter how bad their lives are.
They also aren't allowed to start shoplifting because they don't agree with the price the store set on the yoga mat; the store still gets to set the price, and then suffer the consequence of no one buying if they set it wrongly, not being looted.
But people whose coping mechanism is exercise can still go for runs or do yoga without those things, much as people who cope via RP can still write as much as they like even if they don't have the cash for personalized art.
There are also oodles of resources out there for totally legal art and references, so even if you believe you can't convince someone to RP with you without art, there's lots of other ways to get it. The question is, why are these methods objectionable enough to justify taking it from people who are often actively saying, "this is mine and it will hurt me personally if you steal it from me"?
They also aren't allowed to start shoplifting because they don't agree with the price the store set on the yoga mat; the store still gets to set the price, and then suffer the consequence of no one buying if they set it wrongly, not being looted.
But people whose coping mechanism is exercise can still go for runs or do yoga without those things, much as people who cope via RP can still write as much as they like even if they don't have the cash for personalized art.
There are also oodles of resources out there for totally legal art and references, so even if you believe you can't convince someone to RP with you without art, there's lots of other ways to get it. The question is, why are these methods objectionable enough to justify taking it from people who are often actively saying, "this is mine and it will hurt me personally if you steal it from me"?
Lorvilran wrote:
The theft of art was the topic but how do people know if someone has stolen art I mean really? I can verify mine isn't stolen, all that I've linked to or put up myself was made for me.
unfortunately all that can feasibly be done to combat genuine theft is to combat the mentality that encourages people to see art theft as borrowing (which is flawed, as borrowing implies asking). there's no way to track every piece of art across the internet, but hopefully the more this issue is discussed the more people will become aware of the effect it has on artists both as people and as an industry. i'm sorry if i upset you! it's the risk of using text for talking, it can seem blunt at times.
(and thank you, kim. that's a great example!)
As a fresh art-artisan graduate, I'll drop in my two cents:
I have no other talent. The only thing I can do is art. I can't do any kinds of other work. My body has gotten weaker and I'm not physically as strong and capable as I used to be.
I'm a bit shy and new to the whole 'working life' and 'jobs'. They scare me, but one day I want to have a real job that brings me money so that I can live on my own and not be afraid of having to live on the street and god knows what
But for now, if I want to make any money of my own, art is the only way. I am an art-artisan, I'm supposed to have all the capabilities of an artist. Photographing, painting, web-design (although if only to a very very small level) it's still My Job at the moment. But the thing is, I don't exactly get paid for it and I don't think anyone will ever hire me to work for them, ever, not as an artist they won't
The only way I can make money is By selling things to others, through commissions. I'm still too new and scared about it all, and I want to develop, so I do hard work, try and train every day and I hope that I'll catch someone's attention and they'd maybe ask for something... Maybe... Unless I deny it because I'm too scared... This paht really isn't for me, I don't have the nerves to be an artist, but it's the only thing I've got going for me. I got nothing else
If anyone ever stole anything from me, I'd be very upset, mostly because I pretty much only draw for myself
I dunno... I was going somewhere with this but it turned into a sob fest
Aaaaaanywaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
Don't steal, it's not cool. That person is trying to make a living. The tools they use cost, their work takes time out of their life and that costs, the materials cost. Digital artists might need to buy a new program every so often and those most of the time can cost too. It's not cheap. And then they need to add a little bit extra just so that they can get that little extra back to them so that they've actually made money and that they can buy a slice of bread because of their hard work
Art, especially painting, is Super expensive and time consuming. I would only put a 150€ as a price for one of my big paintings if I was happy with them because it took a month to make, craft and paint and oil paint is not cheap. It's also a risk to my health in a way and all that stuff. I saw people crowding around these 2 less than a meter in diameter oil paintings and they really wanted to contact the artist and ask for commissions and to buy the paintings. As I was handing out the notes and numbers I looked at the price and it was 200€ per painting. I was Super shocked myself, but the people didn't care, at the moment at least. But hey, the art was cool and I'm sure the person who made them had worked very hard on them, so it's all good for them
I really should stop, I dunno where I'm going
I have no other talent. The only thing I can do is art. I can't do any kinds of other work. My body has gotten weaker and I'm not physically as strong and capable as I used to be.
I'm a bit shy and new to the whole 'working life' and 'jobs'. They scare me, but one day I want to have a real job that brings me money so that I can live on my own and not be afraid of having to live on the street and god knows what
But for now, if I want to make any money of my own, art is the only way. I am an art-artisan, I'm supposed to have all the capabilities of an artist. Photographing, painting, web-design (although if only to a very very small level) it's still My Job at the moment. But the thing is, I don't exactly get paid for it and I don't think anyone will ever hire me to work for them, ever, not as an artist they won't
The only way I can make money is By selling things to others, through commissions. I'm still too new and scared about it all, and I want to develop, so I do hard work, try and train every day and I hope that I'll catch someone's attention and they'd maybe ask for something... Maybe... Unless I deny it because I'm too scared... This paht really isn't for me, I don't have the nerves to be an artist, but it's the only thing I've got going for me. I got nothing else
If anyone ever stole anything from me, I'd be very upset, mostly because I pretty much only draw for myself
I dunno... I was going somewhere with this but it turned into a sob fest
Aaaaaanywaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
Don't steal, it's not cool. That person is trying to make a living. The tools they use cost, their work takes time out of their life and that costs, the materials cost. Digital artists might need to buy a new program every so often and those most of the time can cost too. It's not cheap. And then they need to add a little bit extra just so that they can get that little extra back to them so that they've actually made money and that they can buy a slice of bread because of their hard work
Art, especially painting, is Super expensive and time consuming. I would only put a 150€ as a price for one of my big paintings if I was happy with them because it took a month to make, craft and paint and oil paint is not cheap. It's also a risk to my health in a way and all that stuff. I saw people crowding around these 2 less than a meter in diameter oil paintings and they really wanted to contact the artist and ask for commissions and to buy the paintings. As I was handing out the notes and numbers I looked at the price and it was 200€ per painting. I was Super shocked myself, but the people didn't care, at the moment at least. But hey, the art was cool and I'm sure the person who made them had worked very hard on them, so it's all good for them
I really should stop, I dunno where I'm going
I wouldn't know as I don't steal, I've never used art on my characters except for Galork (Art done by someone who was in the D&D campaign he's part of at the time it was done) And Silverin, who's is a link but the link is to my DA account which has the pic and a link to the actual artist. I refuse to use most of those sources as they usually fall short of my characters and how I want them so I just stopped looking.
Rat, it may be partially my fault as I am under higher stress than usual but just a note, saying it's a hobby, fine it may be that for the majority but the minority who it is used to cope with life and their stress factors some may not enjoy that being treated like it doesn't matter. x.x It would have been better to have left that part out and stuck to art being a luxury.
Rat, it may be partially my fault as I am under higher stress than usual but just a note, saying it's a hobby, fine it may be that for the majority but the minority who it is used to cope with life and their stress factors some may not enjoy that being treated like it doesn't matter. x.x It would have been better to have left that part out and stuck to art being a luxury.
I am physically ill and can no longer do the work I used to - where I worked as a clown, I breathed fire on the weekends, and I held down a more regular job as a cashier. I am also mentally ill, and honestly, those jobs were incredibly hard on me, even when I could physically handle it.
I only bring this up to say: Art is my job.
You know what? Yes, that piece is worth $100, because I took ~4 hours to make it, and I charge $25 an hour for my labor and my decade+ of experience. And frankly, I charge low - because I am doing personal work, and not work for industry/profit use. Even as far as personal work goes, I am still charging quite cheaply.
Why do I charge $25/h? Because I need to make a living wage. I need to help pay rent, I need food, I need to care for my pets, I need to save up for extraordinarily expensive healthcare that regular insurance doesn't cover. (And I frankly shouldn't have to work 3+ hours to get the same amount of money, re: minimum wage in the USA, which is nowhere near enough to make a living off of. Believe me, the entire time I was homeless, I had a min wage job and could never afford an apartment, let alone everything that goes with it)
Stealing my work steals food from my mouth. It puts me at risk of being homeless once more. This whole belief, even, that my work is not worth the prices I set is damaging to my income. But - also - I am not an amazingly popular artist, but, frankly? My art is in demand. Clearly, it is worth the price.
This information is partly in response to certain posts in here. But it is also put out here to humanize me, to humanize other artists - theft isn't harmless. And my fellow artists? You should be making money more than just covering your costs. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Back to work....
I only bring this up to say: Art is my job.
You know what? Yes, that piece is worth $100, because I took ~4 hours to make it, and I charge $25 an hour for my labor and my decade+ of experience. And frankly, I charge low - because I am doing personal work, and not work for industry/profit use. Even as far as personal work goes, I am still charging quite cheaply.
Why do I charge $25/h? Because I need to make a living wage. I need to help pay rent, I need food, I need to care for my pets, I need to save up for extraordinarily expensive healthcare that regular insurance doesn't cover. (And I frankly shouldn't have to work 3+ hours to get the same amount of money, re: minimum wage in the USA, which is nowhere near enough to make a living off of. Believe me, the entire time I was homeless, I had a min wage job and could never afford an apartment, let alone everything that goes with it)
Stealing my work steals food from my mouth. It puts me at risk of being homeless once more. This whole belief, even, that my work is not worth the prices I set is damaging to my income. But - also - I am not an amazingly popular artist, but, frankly? My art is in demand. Clearly, it is worth the price.
This information is partly in response to certain posts in here. But it is also put out here to humanize me, to humanize other artists - theft isn't harmless. And my fellow artists? You should be making money more than just covering your costs. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Back to work....
We're getting a lot of questions about the official policy on the site. It's looked like this almost since the day the site started, and is part of the Site Rule and Terms:
We don't have any specific rules relating to face claims. I don't even have a personally fully formed opinion of them; however, photos of people's faces are legally copyrighted unless labeled otherwise, so I'm not sure any separate policy is or ever will be needed. Most of what is being discussed here is cultural attitudes surrounding these laws.
We ask our members to do their own legwork to ask permission/find out if the thing they want to use is under a license that allows for non-commercial use, because it is every person's personal responsibility to not break laws, and it is a practical impossibility for us to do the research about every image that is uploaded to the site on a daily basis. If we get a complaint from the artist or rights holder, we take illegally obtained images down promptly.
Site Use Rules and Terms wrote:
By uploading or posting any content, including writings and images, you certify that you have the right to use said content. Please do not post copyright works to which you do not have a right or explicit permissions to use. If we are made aware of your use of copyrighted content, we will have to take it down and possibly suspend your account if you persist in posting content that does not belong to you.
We don't have any specific rules relating to face claims. I don't even have a personally fully formed opinion of them; however, photos of people's faces are legally copyrighted unless labeled otherwise, so I'm not sure any separate policy is or ever will be needed. Most of what is being discussed here is cultural attitudes surrounding these laws.
We ask our members to do their own legwork to ask permission/find out if the thing they want to use is under a license that allows for non-commercial use, because it is every person's personal responsibility to not break laws, and it is a practical impossibility for us to do the research about every image that is uploaded to the site on a daily basis. If we get a complaint from the artist or rights holder, we take illegally obtained images down promptly.
Lorvilran wrote:
Rat, it may be partially my fault as I am under higher stress than usual but just a note, saying it's a hobby, fine it may be that for the majority but the minority who it is used to cope with life and their stress factors some may not enjoy that being treated like it doesn't matter. x.x It would have been better to have left that part out and stuck to art being a luxury.
I don't believe Rat intended the word 'hobby' as one to invalidate the usefulness of any practice. My roleplay and writing is a hobby (a pleasurable and relaxing activity) just as much as it is a coping mechanism and a craft. These descriptors don't have to be exclusive and there's nothing inherently negative about the word, it just suggests it's not necessarily related to what you do to get by in life career wise. Just a misunderstanding in interpretation here!
Edit: In following up Kim's post, I think this discussion is also looking for an agreeable solution that will make the job of moderating RPR easier and not require so much policing in the first place - basically we need to make sure we're doing all we can to follow the already established rules. It's totally our responsibility and this discussion is supposed to help us figure out if we're doing just that.
(i appreciate the support in clarifying, but we're probably starting to derail the discussion over semantics, so i think i'll ollie out at this point. 
it's been interesting to read everyone's views!)
it's been interesting to read everyone's views!)
I feel like the title of this thread was wholly misleading; when one thinks about the theft of ART, we think of illustration, vectors, homemade projects, etc and how an artist or an owner of a piece deals with that threat/ occurrence in a positive and constructive manner. (Which albeit is a needed discussion, just like commission etiquette is a discussion needed to be shared among artists and commissioners and other ART related topics) However, I feel like the bulk of this conversation is dominated wholly by the topic of the utilization of a face claim of a personal or canonized character. Therefore, is promoting a misleading premise of discourse to which people come in upon and then ultimately feel mislead and become riled up.
I agree with the majority of Dio's post and also
Now, personally I do not come from a background of utilizing face claims nor have a long winding history with it but I understand their use. From the lack of disposable income to commission (actually getting a spot in some one’s commissions is even half of the battle), an artist’s requirement, the feeling that this particular facial shape fits your character or how you envision it to many other roleplaying communities requiring the utilization of a face claim. There is a plethora of reasons as to why people may want to have a face claim for their character. To some degree I enjoy the use of a face claim to get a general idea of what a character might look like (colors, face shape, body type) but then spring off from there. What I do not condone are a very few things
. saying that your character exactly-exactly looks like a particular person (celebrity, youtuber or not); saying that your character is essentially Morgan Freeman without being Morgan Freeman.
. Shaming, bullying, guilting and negativity towards those who do decide to utilize face claims to describe the manner in which their character may appear in a character environment.
. the lack of credit where it is due or outright theft of commissioned artwork meant for another person and their character.
What is the thought of those who chimera-hybridize their face claims? For example; I really like this eye shape, and this can be seen on this person at this place or I really like the structure /shape of this kind of face which can be viewed on this person. Etc etc etc? But not a direct, THIS IS WHAT MY CHARACTER LOOKS LIKE EXACTLY. or the use of this is what inspired me to make this character come in to existence?
I agree with the majority of Dio's post and also
Now, personally I do not come from a background of utilizing face claims nor have a long winding history with it but I understand their use. From the lack of disposable income to commission (actually getting a spot in some one’s commissions is even half of the battle), an artist’s requirement, the feeling that this particular facial shape fits your character or how you envision it to many other roleplaying communities requiring the utilization of a face claim. There is a plethora of reasons as to why people may want to have a face claim for their character. To some degree I enjoy the use of a face claim to get a general idea of what a character might look like (colors, face shape, body type) but then spring off from there. What I do not condone are a very few things
. saying that your character exactly-exactly looks like a particular person (celebrity, youtuber or not); saying that your character is essentially Morgan Freeman without being Morgan Freeman.
. Shaming, bullying, guilting and negativity towards those who do decide to utilize face claims to describe the manner in which their character may appear in a character environment.
. the lack of credit where it is due or outright theft of commissioned artwork meant for another person and their character.
What is the thought of those who chimera-hybridize their face claims? For example; I really like this eye shape, and this can be seen on this person at this place or I really like the structure /shape of this kind of face which can be viewed on this person. Etc etc etc? But not a direct, THIS IS WHAT MY CHARACTER LOOKS LIKE EXACTLY. or the use of this is what inspired me to make this character come in to existence?
I apologize that my statement was not only taken out of context but taken incorrectly, unfortunately you cannot accurately infer emotion/meaning from text.
When I say that the value you place on your art does not necessarily mean that is what it is worth, I mean this: I can be at an art museum and see nothing but a black spot on a piece of white paper and think its the greatest thing that has ever been made, totally worth millions. However, the person next to me may think its not worth the paper it is drawn on. The value of art cannot accurately be measured in dollars, that's just how it is. Different art and different styles are worth different things to different people. Art is not objective, it is subjective and the value of it is left up to the viewer. You can charge whatever you want, no one is required to believe that is its worth. You cannot quantitatively measure time and effort with numbers and dollars. It is simply not possible because everyone thinks their time/effort is worth something different. My company thinks my time/effort/skills are worth $16.00 an hour, I disagree but it doesn't matter to them (and on that note $25.00 an hour far exceeds a "living wage", I live in an exceptionally expensive area and live comfortably on $32k a year but that is a debate for another time/forum/topic).
"Borrowing" was used because when it comes down to it there is no english word for "obtaining permission to use a photograph to portray a fictional character in a text-based roleplaying game until such a time that you can acquire custom work from an artist". I have yet to state that stealing work (i.e. not obtaining permission nor crediting the artist or claiming that a piece of work is your own) is acceptable, it's not. However if you google something, take all the necessary steps to obtain authorization to utilize a photograph or picture, and in the end cannot get a hold of the original artist then I see absolutely not issue with using it as a generic place holder (so long as credit is given to the source where you found it) until such a time that you find art worth dropping $60.00+ on or you find someone to do it for free. The primary point is this: if you credit your sources correctly and make an effort to get permission then I have no issue. You're not making profit off someone else's face or work, and to me that's the main thing because it's not hurting anyone.
I pay for my art, I've paid for all of my art that wasn't gifted to me. I will continue to pay for my art. But that doesn't mean I don't see the flip side where young kids or who don't have a job (who want to be able to show an idea of what their character looks like) are coming from. They want to enjoy themselves, and if they have made an attempt to contact the artist, aren't making money off it, and properly cited their sources they really aren't doing anything wrong. They aren't hurting anyone.
Also everything Clove said. Yes, that. Nail meet hammer.
With that said this is the last I will reply. Please stop messaging me, I don't care for the "thank yous" or the "I hate yous" in my inbox.
When I say that the value you place on your art does not necessarily mean that is what it is worth, I mean this: I can be at an art museum and see nothing but a black spot on a piece of white paper and think its the greatest thing that has ever been made, totally worth millions. However, the person next to me may think its not worth the paper it is drawn on. The value of art cannot accurately be measured in dollars, that's just how it is. Different art and different styles are worth different things to different people. Art is not objective, it is subjective and the value of it is left up to the viewer. You can charge whatever you want, no one is required to believe that is its worth. You cannot quantitatively measure time and effort with numbers and dollars. It is simply not possible because everyone thinks their time/effort is worth something different. My company thinks my time/effort/skills are worth $16.00 an hour, I disagree but it doesn't matter to them (and on that note $25.00 an hour far exceeds a "living wage", I live in an exceptionally expensive area and live comfortably on $32k a year but that is a debate for another time/forum/topic).
"Borrowing" was used because when it comes down to it there is no english word for "obtaining permission to use a photograph to portray a fictional character in a text-based roleplaying game until such a time that you can acquire custom work from an artist". I have yet to state that stealing work (i.e. not obtaining permission nor crediting the artist or claiming that a piece of work is your own) is acceptable, it's not. However if you google something, take all the necessary steps to obtain authorization to utilize a photograph or picture, and in the end cannot get a hold of the original artist then I see absolutely not issue with using it as a generic place holder (so long as credit is given to the source where you found it) until such a time that you find art worth dropping $60.00+ on or you find someone to do it for free. The primary point is this: if you credit your sources correctly and make an effort to get permission then I have no issue. You're not making profit off someone else's face or work, and to me that's the main thing because it's not hurting anyone.
I pay for my art, I've paid for all of my art that wasn't gifted to me. I will continue to pay for my art. But that doesn't mean I don't see the flip side where young kids or who don't have a job (who want to be able to show an idea of what their character looks like) are coming from. They want to enjoy themselves, and if they have made an attempt to contact the artist, aren't making money off it, and properly cited their sources they really aren't doing anything wrong. They aren't hurting anyone.
Also everything Clove said. Yes, that. Nail meet hammer.
With that said this is the last I will reply. Please stop messaging me, I don't care for the "thank yous" or the "I hate yous" in my inbox.
Clove, your points have already been addressed as has your question! I'll try to quote answer them below. In regards to a misleading title, photographs still count as art and the subject of faceclaims are directly tied into the reasoning people take imagery that isn't their own to begin with - they feel they lack other resources and feel they need the reference. It's really quite interconnected in regards to how people choose to portray their character and general copyright issues. It's taking up more of the conversation because it's a more nuanced and complicated topic.
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'.
Tailbone wrote:
I think someone having a harder time getting roleplay, being unable to afford art or draw themselves, and image use being 'fun' are entirely irrelevant in trying to figure out if something is ethically and legally acceptable or not - those are all personal problems that don't really add to the discussion.
Tate wrote:
In the case of my own commissions - this particular example is from a piece Tailbone purchased from me -, it’s often looked like this:
Resulting in this:
Here, you can very clearly see the difference between a faceclaim (example being the photos of myself - other examples are photos of many people who look similar), and reference (bits and pieces picked from many photos to direct an artist to put together an entire piece).
Something that needs pointed out about references is that, in general, this is a private matter between artist and client. As I’m using those photos in an educational manner, that falls under fair use, but posting them in your gallery like such, without permission, would indeed be theft. Here is another (semi-NSFW) example of what referencing looks like. Again, please note that this isn’t being used in someone’s gallery, and is instead being used as an artists’ tool.
Resulting in this:
Here, you can very clearly see the difference between a faceclaim (example being the photos of myself - other examples are photos of many people who look similar), and reference (bits and pieces picked from many photos to direct an artist to put together an entire piece).
Something that needs pointed out about references is that, in general, this is a private matter between artist and client. As I’m using those photos in an educational manner, that falls under fair use, but posting them in your gallery like such, without permission, would indeed be theft. Here is another (semi-NSFW) example of what referencing looks like. Again, please note that this isn’t being used in someone’s gallery, and is instead being used as an artists’ tool.
Tailbone wrote:
Kim wrote:
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?
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'.
Sometimes people do things. Surprisingly, they don't do them specifically for you.
I think everyone should stop being so bitter about it. In the end..what exactly is this doing to change anything?
Nothing, live and let live. If you don't like FC characters...don't play with them.
Everyone is sure their opinion is the right one when really discussing it does nothing but upset people on the other side of the fence and goes nowhere.
Isn't free thinking awesome? We have the ability to form and hold separate opinions. That's pretty stellar on it's own.
We also are given the ability to not be jerks, and tear people down because they play differently than you do. Just saying!
I think everyone should stop being so bitter about it. In the end..what exactly is this doing to change anything?
Nothing, live and let live. If you don't like FC characters...don't play with them.
Everyone is sure their opinion is the right one when really discussing it does nothing but upset people on the other side of the fence and goes nowhere.
Isn't free thinking awesome? We have the ability to form and hold separate opinions. That's pretty stellar on it's own.
We also are given the ability to not be jerks, and tear people down because they play differently than you do. Just saying!
Clove --
I would argue that a photograph of someone is art. If it doesn't belong to the person being photographed, it belongs to the photographer (as is often the case when people are photographed in public).
Unfortunately, in terms of pure legality, using a photograph without explicit permission is copyright infringement. It actually doesn't matter whether someone claims that their character looks just like it, or is just using it as a general reference. The act of using the image its self is not, strictly speaking, legal.
Here's the thing. In order to be considered "transformative", an image needs to be changed significantly enough to alter its inherant meaning or to add significant meaning on top of it. This just doesn't happen on RP profiles.
That doesn't mean that our policy here at RPR is hardline. As Kim mentioned, we trust our members, and prefer to remain 'hands-off' (for the sake of our time and sanity) when it comes to copyright issues until someone makes a claim. At that point, we have to take images down.
From a mod standpoint, it's not a matter of shaming, and we certainly don't require everyone to go combing through their galleries to purge them RIGHT THIS SECOND. But, anyone using a face claim should be aware that if we get a request to do so from either the subject or the photographer, we will very likely take it down.
Cami --
Unfortunately, from a legal standpoint, it's not considered to be true that no one suffers if you're not making money. It's still theft. As I explained earlier, monetary gain has very little bearing on whether or not something is considered to be copyright infringement. Your example, making effort to find an artist and not being successful, and so using their work anyway - is still not legal.
I would also like to point out that freelancers quite often charge more for their time as they rarely fill a full 40 hour week with their freelance work, and the value they are offering is quite often unique. I also think that the whole fine art gallery process is ridiculous, but I think that an artist assigning a project fee or fee per hour CAN have a legitimate qualitative value assigned to their time and work.
It isn't just artists who suffer when commissioned pieces are used. Alright -- you don't think something is worth $60. But someone else does, and they paid for it. In many cases they become partial, or full, rights owners of the piece. The art is worthwhile to them and they are hurt by people using it without permission.
I would argue that a photograph of someone is art. If it doesn't belong to the person being photographed, it belongs to the photographer (as is often the case when people are photographed in public).
Unfortunately, in terms of pure legality, using a photograph without explicit permission is copyright infringement. It actually doesn't matter whether someone claims that their character looks just like it, or is just using it as a general reference. The act of using the image its self is not, strictly speaking, legal.
Here's the thing. In order to be considered "transformative", an image needs to be changed significantly enough to alter its inherant meaning or to add significant meaning on top of it. This just doesn't happen on RP profiles.
That doesn't mean that our policy here at RPR is hardline. As Kim mentioned, we trust our members, and prefer to remain 'hands-off' (for the sake of our time and sanity) when it comes to copyright issues until someone makes a claim. At that point, we have to take images down.
From a mod standpoint, it's not a matter of shaming, and we certainly don't require everyone to go combing through their galleries to purge them RIGHT THIS SECOND. But, anyone using a face claim should be aware that if we get a request to do so from either the subject or the photographer, we will very likely take it down.
Cami --
Quote:
The primary point is this: if you credit your sources correctly and make an effort to get permission then I have no issue. You're not making profit off someone else's face or work, and to me that's the main thing because it's not hurting anyone.
Unfortunately, from a legal standpoint, it's not considered to be true that no one suffers if you're not making money. It's still theft. As I explained earlier, monetary gain has very little bearing on whether or not something is considered to be copyright infringement. Your example, making effort to find an artist and not being successful, and so using their work anyway - is still not legal.
I would also like to point out that freelancers quite often charge more for their time as they rarely fill a full 40 hour week with their freelance work, and the value they are offering is quite often unique. I also think that the whole fine art gallery process is ridiculous, but I think that an artist assigning a project fee or fee per hour CAN have a legitimate qualitative value assigned to their time and work.
It isn't just artists who suffer when commissioned pieces are used. Alright -- you don't think something is worth $60. But someone else does, and they paid for it. In many cases they become partial, or full, rights owners of the piece. The art is worthwhile to them and they are hurt by people using it without permission.
Hi Mina! Reading through the thread, you would find out that, indeed, these things are hurting/affecting people, and thus ignoring it really isn't much of an option!
Aside from how art theft effects artists... here is an example of why this hurts people, re: faceclaims!
(Note to everyone else: This was posted on the second page, twice)
ALSO RE: $25/h in other posts: You're right, if I worked 40 hours, $25/h would far exceed what I need to live. But I don't. And I shouldn't have to.
But also a small discrepancy in my own post: I failed to distinguish between a basic living wage and a skilled labor wage and used the terms interchangeably.
Aside from how art theft effects artists... here is an example of why this hurts people, re: faceclaims!
(Note to everyone else: This was posted on the second page, twice)
ALSO RE: $25/h in other posts: You're right, if I worked 40 hours, $25/h would far exceed what I need to live. But I don't. And I shouldn't have to.
But also a small discrepancy in my own post: I failed to distinguish between a basic living wage and a skilled labor wage and used the terms interchangeably.
You are on: Forums » Art & Creativity » Art Theft & You
Moderators: Mina, Keke, Cass, Auberon, Claine, Ilmarinen, Ben, Darth_Angelus