Help With Cruxforum Copyright Do's And Don't's

[Pippajayne]

Thanks for the award all, I really must mend my ways and click that like button a bit more than I do myself, knowing now what it can mean to us.

Which brings me to some of my favourite contributors like Damium, Eulalia, Rotrex, and Madiosi, just to name a few. Thing is Madiosi and the "Crucifixion Manipulations Construction Kit" gives the impression that stuff and concepts on the site has a free for all licence to manipulate, I recently posted one recently based on Rotrex, and "insult-to-injury" I did think it only right to add a credit to Rotrex for this. I’m no artist, but I have found myself loving manipulation, so using bits and pieces from pictures found is like a necessary evil. My first attempts were taken using a hillfort near home, so I shot the backgrounds myself, but Damium introduced me to the excitement of the Arena, where I could meet my fate as the public’s star attraction.

I love Damium’s work to bits so in no way would want to upset him, but I have use a few of his to manipulate in such a way as to include myself in the plot. I will sheepishly add a couple here, so please Damium if they offends we can ask a moderator to take them down.



It would be nice to hear everyone’s views on this, especially the views of any grand masters themselves.

I must add, any images of mine, I will feel honoured for anyone to use if they wish, beginner and masters alike. Love Pippa xxx

 

[Madiosi]

It is always a pleasure when I components from the CMCK recognize again in foreign manipulation. So please use the components!
If one uses on existing manips ... I'd like that might not be so very much. On the other hand, a contest is not to be despised.
But as a principle, it is acceptable not to manipulate manips.

 

[thehangingtree]

As one who does manips I think the original Manip artist has little ground to stand on UNLESS they manip their own original pictures since their manip is usually uses someone else's art. It would wouldn't hurt to acknowledge where you extracted the original manip and if you are using a contemporary artist's original work or photography and you know who it is always note that!!!

Otherwise, have fun...

Tree

 

[fat slave girl]

Thanks for the award all, I really must mend my ways and click that like button a bit more than I do myself, knowing now what it can mean to us.

Which brings me to some of my favourite contributors like Damium, Eulalia, Rotrex, and Madiosi, just to name a few. Thing is Madiosi and the "Crucifixion Manipulations Construction Kit" gives the impression that stuff and concepts on the site has a free for all licence to manipulate, I recently posted one recently based on Rotrex, and "insult-to-injury" I did think it only right to add a credit to Rotrex for this. I’m no artist, but I have found myself loving manipulation, so using bits and pieces from pictures found is like a necessary evil. My first attempts were taken using a hillfort near home, so I shot the backgrounds myself, but Damium introduced me to the excitement of the Arena, where I could meet my fate as the public’s star attraction.

I love Damium’s work to bits so in no way would want to upset him, but I have use a few of his to manipulate in such a way as to include myself in the plot. I will sheepishly add a couple here, so please Damium if they offends we can ask a moderator to take them down.

View attachment 354620 View attachment 354621

It would be nice to hear everyone’s views on this, especially the views of any grand masters themselves.

I must add, any images of mine, I will feel honoured for anyone to use if they wish, beginner and masters alike. Love Pippa xxx

You have great taste in tormentors!

Mmmmm! Big Black Cock...

 

[Eulalia]

It's a difficult one for us, or any site moderators, to 'police'. Certainly if you know the identity of the original artist who created the image, and/or the source of the manip you're 'recycling', it's at least a courtesy to mention them. Some images are - or were originally - produced for sale, and are strictly speaking copyright. You should certainly avoid using any that you know are currently being offered in paid-for form (e.g. Damian's current and recent booklets) But once an image gets into the public domain, it's a devil of a job to prevent it being reproduced and/or manipulated. I think your #2 image is your reworking of a Melissa & Julie manip of a Damian original, but that's probably only part of the story

 

[thehangingtree]

It's a difficult one for us, or any site moderators, to 'police'. Certainly if you know the identity of the original artist who created the image, and/or the source of the manip you're 'recycling', it's at least a courtesy to mention them. Some images are - or were originally - produced for sale, and are strictly speaking copyright. You should certainly avoid using any that you know are currently being offered in paid-for form (e.g. Damian's current and recent booklets) But once an image gets into the public domain, it's a devil of a job to prevent it being reproduced and/or manipulated. I think your #2 image is your reworking of a Melissa & Julie manip of a Damian original, but that's probably only part of the story

I'm sure this will not please Damian but at times he walks on soft ground with his manips- not by using others' art but by selling his work with uncompensated art!!!

My sister is an art professor at a major west coast private university and she publishes art appreciation books. In order to use images even of classic art she must pay royalties to the current owner because she is (hopefully) profiting from her book! Some times the royalties are so steep that she will pick a different more affordable piece to illustrate her point in the book. While they may be able to come after someone like me they would have a very weak case because I am not profiting from the art. It's not the same if a museum or a private collection finds someone has used the image they control the rights to and manipulate them for profit... no matter how small.

Just a word of caution.

 

[Jollyrei]

It's a difficult one for us, or any site moderators, to 'police'. Certainly if you know the identity of the original artist who created the image, and/or the source of the manip you're 'recycling', it's at least a courtesy to mention them.

I'm sure this will not please Damian but at times he walks on soft ground with his manips- not by using others' art but by selling his work with uncompensated art!!!

My sister is an art professor at a major west coast private university and she publishes art appreciation books. In order to use images even of classic art she must pay royalties to the current owner because she is (hopefully) profiting from her book! Some times the royalties are so steep that she will pick a different more affordable piece to illustrate her point in the book. While they may be able to come after someone like me they would have a very weak case because I am not profiting from the art. It's not the same if a museum or a private collection finds someone has used the image they control the rights to and manipulate them for profit... no matter how small.

Just a word of caution.

Having done some photography, and some photo-manip work myself, I looked into a bit of this. If you are using full images by other artists, and representing that as your work, there may be a problem. However, there are "fair use" laws in most countries that allow for use of images in composite works (such as manips) without necessarily coming into contravention of copyright. In one or two manips of mine, I have used cropped bits of paintings (as have other members) and added other figures, crucifixions, etc. This is likely okay, from a copyright law point of view, especially since, as Tree notes, the manips here are not produced with commercial sale in mind, for the most part. It is, of course, courteous to credit other artists, especially if one uses a complete painting/photograph as a background.

Example case: a photographer took photographs of another artist's paintings and framed them in a gallery, and sold them as his own work. This went to court and it was ruled that the photograph was the work of the photographer, even though the "picture" was of the painting. Mind you, he had to go to court to "prove" his rights.

Another issue is in the CMCK - the pictures of crux models. Of course these pictures are available all over the internet quite openly. We are unlikely to run into any trouble for using them in our manips. However, if we were to display some manips more publicly or for commercial use, we might run into some problems as all those pictures are of identifiable people, and we do not, as far as I am aware, have releases from any of them for the use of their images. Again, fair use probably applies as long as you don't try to sell a manip featuring "Alice" (for example) as your work without her consent. (I expect Makar had her signed consent for the shoot.)

 

[thehangingtree]

Having done some photography, and some photo-manip work myself, I looked into a bit of this. If you are using full images by other artists, and representing that as your work, there may be a problem. However, there are "fair use" laws in most countries that allow for use of images in composite works (such as manips) without necessarily coming into contravention of copyright. In one or two manips of mine, I have used cropped bits of paintings (as have other members) and added other figures, crucifixions, etc. This is likely okay, from a copyright law point of view, especially since, as Tree notes, the manips here are not produced with commercial sale in mind, for the most part. It is, of course, courteous to credit other artists, especially if one uses a complete painting/photograph as a background.

Example case: a photographer took photographs of another artist's paintings and framed them in a gallery, and sold them as his own work. This went to court and it was ruled that the photograph was the work of the photographer, even though the "picture" was of the painting. Mind you, he had to go to court to "prove" his rights.

Another issue is in the CMCK - the pictures of crux models. Of course these pictures are available all over the internet quite openly. We are unlikely to run into any trouble for using them in our manips. However, if we were to display some manips more publicly or for commercial use, we might run into some problems as all those pictures are of identifiable people, and we do not, as far as I am aware, have releases from any of them for the use of their images. Again, fair use probably applies as long as you don't try to sell a manip featuring "Alice" (for example) as your work without her consent. (I expect Makar had her signed consent for the shoot.)

To clarify my point, if "Alice" signed a release with Makar she has pretty well given up all legal rights. If you or I use her in a manip but do not try to sell it but only post it in the US he would have limited legal remedy and 'Alice' still has none. However if I use the image of 'Alice' maniped into a classic painting owned by say the Getty Museum and sell it on a pay site "Alice" probably still has no recourse (depending on how her 'release' was worded) but both Makar (owner of the 'Alice' image) and the Getty Museum (owner of the painting) could both go after the manipulator (and the website that facilitates the sale)!

Something to think about...

 

[admihoek]

Something to think about...

Makar???????????????????