An artist with a gritty kind of style

[Dave Chase]

Almost all of them have the signatures, and several list the author's website.

Not all do. And sometimes people do like to be credited for their work. It's no skin off my nose, but I'm just saying that people need to be careful about just posting links to pictures like this.

Question on your comment.

Posting links to artist websites or just their pictures?
Or are you referring to the posting of pictures on a forum (with or with out links)?

Thanks in advance. Just trying to make sure I understand your point of view.

Dave Chase

 

[EDG]

Just that posting pictures without anything to say "this is from X website, by Y artist" seems wrong to me. And sometimes on the artist websites it will explicitly say that the art cannot be reproduced without permission from the artist - even having a link to the art instead of reposting the image may be a bit of a grey area.

 

[Dave Chase]

Just that posting pictures without anything to say "this is from X website, by Y artist" seems wrong to me. And sometimes on the artist websites it will explicitly say that the art cannot be reproduced without permission from the artist - even having a link to the art instead of reposting the image may be a bit of a grey area.

OK, now, I have some real questions to ask

How can posting directly to the artist homepage website be a grey area?
I understand posting to back links, image files directly and some of the other issues with that.
But I don't understand how link posting to an artist homepage that they have purposely placed for the public could be a grey area.

Thanks for the earlier response. I enjoy reading your points.

Dave Chase

 

[EDG]

It's up to the artist. But without knowing where the images are from, we can't tell if the artist is OK with it or not. I know some sites (galleries especially) do say that images posted there cannot be reproduced elsewhere.

Plus it's, y'know, polite to include credits. Seriously, I'm not sure why my comments here are baffling people. Where's the problem in making sure you're allowed to post images from other sites (or link to them) before you do so? And where's the problem in putting a link to the site you're getting them from? It just covers the bases and ensures that nobody is pissed off - it surely can't be too much to ask, can it?

And mostly I'm commenting on the ones Kafka posted here.

 

[Dave Chase]

Nope, not baffling just making sure I fully understood your points.
Which it turns out I did and do.

I was Director of Entertainment Licensing and Gaming Initiative for Fleer Trading Cards (before they went under) and I am aware of what is and was considered acceptable for posting pictures/images of artist.

And you make some Good Points EDG. I know what should be done when posting and what you should not post. But being that I know that I sometimes forget that others might not know.

So, knowing that I am in full agreement with you. I concur that some level of courtesy should be shown to those artists when posting things from their website (or any website).

Thank you for your time. And please don't assume that everyone who posts questions to you are questioning you. I for example am only questioning what you mean to insure that I fully understand.
(sometimes knowing to much about to many things can lead me to not notice the obvious to the unknowing. IE I know that I don't see things the same way most of those living do.

LOL

Dave Chase

 

[Chronus]

even having a link to the art instead of reposting the image may be a bit of a grey area.

But I don't understand how link posting to an artist homepage that they have purposely placed for the public could be a grey area.

I fail to see why this would be a grey area as well. The creator is making it available for public viewing. The link is simply an address, not a copy.

Otherwise we have something similar to this analogy . . .

The Al La Paris Museum decides to exhibit its paintings of Monet for free. I provide someone directions on how to get there. The Museum calls "foul" and drags me to court. (sorry, I often need analogies to help me work it out)

How a copy is used determines whether it is legally used or not . . . no? A copy of the image is already created on your PC when you view it, but no one is breaking any laws in that regard.

 

[AKAramis]

You can't direct link to the "art" on my homepage. Site software won't let you.

Some sites specifically request one not to deep link; others not to direct link to the images. Failing those two conditions, it's a non-issue for me.

 

[EDG]

I fail to see why this would be a grey area as well. The creator is making it available for public viewing. The link is simply an address, not a copy.

The point is that we don't know. If someone just directly links to the image with no indication of any disclaimers or legal stuff from that site, then we have no way of knowing if he's actually allowed by the IP owner to link to it or not. Everything that anyone else says on the matter is just an assumption without that information - maybe that assumption is correct, maybe it isn't, but we don't know. And therein lies the problem.

 

[Yogah of Yag]

No, no, no!
You're all wrong!
This is Traveller:

No, you're wrong too, THIS is Traveller:

Um, Buck Rogers would be much more Star Frontiers, but, you're right. It could be CT too! :wink:

 

[hhawk]

even having a link to the art instead of reposting the image may be a bit of a grey area.

But I don't understand how link posting to an artist homepage that they have purposely placed for the public could be a grey area.

I fail to see why this would be a grey area as well. The creator is making it available for public viewing. The link is simply an address, not a copy.

It is called cross-linking ,and it can be bad because the image appears (taking the bandwidth that the artist paid for) and does not appear it in its original format.

 

[Dave Chase]

even having a link to the art instead of reposting the image may be a bit of a grey area.

But I don't understand how link posting to an artist homepage that they have purposely placed for the public could be a grey area.

I fail to see why this would be a grey area as well. The creator is making it available for public viewing. The link is simply an address, not a copy.

It is called cross-linking ,and it can be bad because the image appears (taking the bandwidth that the artist paid for) and does not appear it in its original format.

Mr. hhawk, just how does posting a link (url code) take bandwith?
Just how does a 50-100 letter url code not appear in its original format?
Better yet how does just posting the link (no picture) cause it to not appear in its original format?

If you will note: I only posted the artist homepage link. I commented on his style (IMO) and even stated what his current work was. So, pray tell, how does that be considered crosslinking?

Or did you just quote without reading all the indivdiuals comments (referring to mine) and assume that I had posted pictures that I did not own on to this forum.

Dave Chase

 

[hhawk]

I fail to see why this would be a grey area as well. The creator is making it available for public viewing. The link is simply an address, not a copy.

It is called cross-linking ,and it can be bad because the image appears (taking the bandwidth that the artist paid for) and does not appear it in its original format.

Mr. hhawk, just how does posting a link (url code) take bandwith?
Just how does a 50-100 letter url code not appear in its original format?
Better yet how does just posting the link (no picture) cause it to not appear in its original format?

If you will note: I only posted the artist homepage link. I commented on his style (IMO) and even stated what his current work was. So, pray tell, how does that be considered crosslinking?

Or did you just quote without reading all the indivdiuals comments (referring to mine) and assume that I had posted pictures that I did not own on to this forum.

Dave Chase

Well, I was referring to the many image links that link directly to the pictures on the thread (i.e. cross linking). The URL that was posted at the beginning was fine. It was my opinion that the real concern was about links to images without a link to the actually page.

 

[EDG]

Mr. hhawk, just how does posting a link (url code) take bandwith?

If you post an image, that image is downloaded onto the viewers computer each time the thread is viewed. The artists' server may have bandwidth limits that can't handle a massive increase in load (one of my maps got mentioned in the comment on a slashdot post once. My bandwidth use for that month went through the roof!).

A link to an image is OK though, then the image itself is only downloaded when it's clicked on.

 

[Dave Chase]

OK, I will apologize for being so rough with my questions.

I understand and agree with both hhawk and EDG.

I honestly think that image posting should be in a set section with notification along the lines that you are entering a section with large downloads.

I personally hate when someone directs me to a website and I get there and there is MUSIC.

Now if I was warned that the website produced sound, I would be prepared. But many times when I arrive at such with no notice that there will be music playing, I just back out or kill the browser.

Dave Chase

 

[hhawk]

I personally hate when someone directs me to a website and I get there and there is MUSIC.

I usually turn off sounds in my web browser for this reason.

 

[kafka]

Yup, the very first page screams Traveller. I like the fact there is gender parity without the generic Princess Gloria appearing...this is one area that Traveller has much more work to do.

I wonder if Traveller influenced the aesthetic of many videogames...why did Traveller not learn from those same games and improve the art accordingly...

 

[GypsyComet]

Largely because art chews through a project budget at an alarming rate if allowed to, and good art chews faster...