eisuverse reblogged
eisuverse reblogged
It had to be done.
This is cute! Tears! (if you saw the Summerween episode, you'll get this ^o^)
eisuverse reblogged
eisuverse reblogged
Adcom Art Theft/Tracing/Copying
Who or what is Adcom?
Adcom is a creative training institute that uses artwork tracing as a method of learning. This is not something new or unheard of.
But Adcom has gone beyond the pale by using traced works in their advertising.
What exactly has happened?
Observe a sample of Adcom’s advertising (also note the drawing is credited to trainee Louis Cheng)…and Stanley ‘Artgerm’ Lau’s Wonder Woman Return illustration.
When confronted by Lau on Facebook, Adcom did not take any action beyond an apology, going so far to dismiss their “copying” as a simple training exercise.
It’s more than that. It’s harmful.
Why is this harmful?
- Using traced and copied art in promotional material misleads the viewing public to their first and original creative source.
- It legitimises traced works as 100% original, again without acknowledging their source.
- It insults the effort put in by the original artist, whose art is being effectively used without their knowledge or permission for the profit of a third party.
- It does a grave disservice to any original creative efforts of its staff and students, wittingly or unwittingly making them accomplice to art theft.
- It is professionally unethical, and sets a bad example for the current and coming generation of creative professionals.
But it was just once, right?
Upon further investigation, it’s possible that Adcom has done this at least three four times:
- Student work, March 2012, vs Wang Wei’s Hellboy illustration
- Student work, Feb 2012, vs Olev Shekhovtsov’s God of Pretence
- Student work, Dec 2011, vs Dave Allsop’s Cemetery Reaper
- Student work, Jan 2012, vs Tiago Hoisel’s Chico Bento
So what can I do?
Please reblog, link, tweet or share this blog within and beyond your circle. This is especially important for those working or residing in Malaysia and Singapore, as a creative professional of any capacity.
If you see an Adcom ad with content you have seen elsewhere, let the maintainer know through the ask/submit button.
Also feel free to contact Adcom [1] [2] and make your case, politely: that their use of traced/copied material in promotional items cannot be condoned and must not be repeated, and that their inaction at policing student works—or condoning the use of traced work in advertising—helps nobody. In fact it hinders not just themselves, but the regional creative industry as a whole.
Who’s behind this, anyway?
Just another young Malaysian professional. It does me no good to point out the failings of my industry and its ethics. But art theft affects us all, and I cannot keep my silence on a problem that seriously affects others in my field.
eisuverse reblogged
superhappyisdead-deactivated202
eisuverse answered your question: draw a character in another style meme?
Can you draw em in my style?!
it’s kind of a messy version of your style, sorry bout that D:
Ha ha ha, no problem, this is awesome ^o^ Thanks dude ^o^
DON'T JOIN SHOPAXE
Or “How I Learned To Keep Worrying and Love Reading Fine Print”
This morning I received a very pleasant, complimentary note from a group on deviantART supporting a site called SHOPAXE, which is supposed to be something like deviantART but more professional. I was asked if I would be interested in joining their site, most particularly posting my portfolio there to help bolster numbers while they get off the ground. I’m always up for helping new sites get their running shoes on (I do web design partially for this exact reason) so I checked it out. The first thing I noticed was how disorganized the front page seems to be, followed by the running ticker of things people have recently bought. So this is a commercial based site rather than a community based one, that’s fine. I read through their information, and found no mention of intellectual rights, commercial usage, etc, so I went looking for their Terms of Service. Like most sites, it’s at the veeeery bottom of the page, in the tiny tiny links along the footer. Overall the terms seemed fairly normal (you must own copyright to everything you post, no theft or plagiarism, etc) until I got to the clause titled “Use of Information and Member Content.” This is what I was looking for. And this, folks, is why I ALWAYS read the fine print. I’m going to break this down.
We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to the use and assignment of all of your information and Member Content regarding your use of our Website, Service, or Products in any manner consistent with our Privacy Policy.
SHOPAXE can tell people about how you use their website, according to the terms in their privacy policy. (I didn’t bother reading the policy, but I’m sure it’s worth a look given the rest of this clause.)
All remarks, suggestions, ideas, graphics, Member Content, or other information communicated by you to us (collectively, “Submission”) is considered assigned to us and is as such considered our property.
If you upload something to SHOPAXE, they own it. But wait, you say, doesn’t deviantART have a similar clause, for use in advertising, Daily Deviation selection, etc? Yes, yes they do. What deviantART’s terms lack, however, is the following.
To the extent that such Submission contains copyrighted, either owned by you or licensed to you, you grant Shopaxe a perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, world-wide license to use such Submission as we see fit, in any form whether on our Website or elsewhere. We will not be required to treat any Submission as confidential, and will not be liable for any ideas (including without limitation, product, service or advertising ideas) and will not incur any liability as a result of any similarities that may appear in our Service or other operations.
If you submit something to SHOPAXE, not only do they have the right to use the image however they want, but they can also copy the concept if they like it, and there is nothing you can do about it. That logo you created for a local company? It’s pretty cool, and they want to make something identical for their own use. Because of this clause, they are allowed. There is nothing you can do.
Without limitation, we will have exclusive ownership of all present and future existing rights to the Submission of every kind and nature everywhere. We will be entitled to use the Submission for any commercial or other purpose whatsoever, without compensation to you or any other person sending the Submission. You acknowledge that you are responsible for whatever material you submit, and you, not us, have full responsibility for the message, including its legality, reliability, appropriateness, originality, and copyright.
Emphasis mine. They can use your work, sell your work, do whatever they want with your work, and they neither have to compensate nor notify you that they’re doing it. Furthermore, you’re the one who maintains the legal responsibility of the piece, meaning if they put something into print that contains copyrighted material (eg: fanart, commercial fonts, etc) and get sued for it, the artist is the one responsible for handling the suit. The artist, who might not even know that their piece has been used commercially, will be the one to go to court over it. This is why it’s so important to always, ALWAYS read the ToS on a new creative works site you’re joining.
Reblogging with full text, as I feel this post raises some EXTREMELY important points for all artists who post their work on the web.
Most of us are conditioned to gloss over the ToS of the sites we join. Most of the time it’s pretty innocuous and just covers the company’s ass, and you know you’re pretty safe with big, well-known corporations like Google or Blizzard.
But not everyone is Google or Blizzard.
Some newer, lesser known companies, such as the above, may use the ToS to slip in clauses that doesn’t just protect them, but allows them to take advantage of their users. As the author pointed out, Deviant Art does have some sections in their ToS that allows them to use anything you submit for a very limited, specific set of purposes. Your rights as an artist, however, are still fairly well protected.
This company strips artists of their rights, but manages to leave them with legal responsibilities at the same time, and does so in an underhanded way. They know 99% of the people who sign up won’t bother to read the fine print. Even if they don’t exercise these clauses over you, the fact that they exist is pretty terrifying!
So please, before you post your artwork ANYWHERE on the web that’s not on your own personal hosting, read the Terms of Service!
Reblogging to warn my tumblrinos
eisuverse reblogged
This is sweet
eisuverse reblogged
