| Deviant Login | Shop | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
The Journal Portal
Browse Journals |
Polls |
deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]
Keep in Touch!
|
Deviousness `ChewedKandi has certainly gone out of her way to keep the vector community on the right path. Always making sure that her talents are infinitely scalable, Sharon has put her bezier curves to excellent use, and firmly anchored herself as an inspirational leader. We're absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for June 2013 to `ChewedKandi. Congratulations, Sharon! Read More
|
Sta.sh
each ) on this giveaway.
It's easy to participate 
This journal.
3 x a 1 Month Premium-Membership
Yea... and if you don't read the rules, you won't get anything out of this.
What you have to do
Advertise; you don't have to but is looked up upon
You can enter as many times as you want.
Neutral 
Earlier this year, the BBC used one of my works in a promotional video with Matt Smith and the rest of the Docotr Who cast [link] No one ever asked me- I only found out about it b/c fans told me about it here on DA. But I was THRILLED that my work was getting that kind of publicity, and it wasn't like the BBC was taking money out of my pocket (they could have just as easily NOT used it and still have had basically the same product).
The year before, I ran into a guy at a Con who was selling the exact same piece on knockoff posters (with my signature removed). I told him to his face he had to destroy the counterfeit merch or I'd take the matter to the Con organizers (he immediately complied). Similar on a certain level to the BBC thing, but wildly different too. Truth be told, if it were an original character of mine and not fanart, I wouldn't have even given the guy an option. Now, if I saw someone in Artist's Alley selling original fanart BASED on a creation of mine... I'd probably feel a little irked, but I'd mostly be flattered that my character had made it too a level to merit fanart (a lot of it would depend on the quality of the art and how derivative it was too). But really, we should all be so lucky.
Intellectual property laws have definitely been taken way too far. It's not good for creativity and it's not even good for commercial innovation and competetion (the Samsung/ Apple lawsuit being the most glaring and recent example). We do need SOME though. If an artist can't put in hard work on an original idea and make money off it, there's going to be a lot less good art in the world.
I wholeheartedly agree on the reselling issue. But as I understood the original article the artist also implied intellectual property as a concept itself was outdated (the McCartney argument). Which i find quite dangerous in the long run. Originally those principles have been established to protect the artist and not faceless brands (e.g.: The Hogarth law). Revoking those privileges might make the latter even more powerful.
P.S.: Congratulations on your TV appearancde. But be it as it may - even the BBC could/should have gotten down from their high horse to ask. Especially having in mind a certain fanart knitting debacle some years back...
But not being able to at least protect SOME rights gives me headaches. Or would it be fair to make a mint by simply copying/interpreting someone's artwork in a different medium? The original artist deserves not only recognition, but also financial compensation for their part in an artwork derived from the original.
E.g: Even if it wasn't out of a question to sell my fan art: Both photographer and the person portrayed deserve compensation, so I'd probably never sell it on a large scale even if i could.
So i guess I'm going to stick with the Creative Commons crowd, after all.
This DA user is debating over inspiration/reappropriation, which is another complicated issue.
(I fear i lack the vocabulary to make my case totally clear without betraying my thoughts, so i'm gonna stop right here)
(And indeed, discussing in English always ends in frustration for non-native speakers like us).