[BDG] Dawning Star on Temporary Hold Due to Artist Issues

[Cergorach]

I also do artwork and illustration and I am glad this was exposed. Nobody blacklisted the fraudulent artist but himself. He posted the stolen work in the wrong place. And let me tell you, we at ConceptArt can be extremely vicious on this sort of thing, and justice is dealt, often very swiftly and in a most satisfactory manner. I saw the work before it was taken down and also saw the Blue Devil pdf preview. Gary took Travis's work, slightly altered it and claimed it as his own. Anyone that steals another's work and claims it as their own deserves this sort of exposure. How would you feel if someone took a piece of your artwork and claimed it as theirs and made a profit? Would you like it if others in illustration left you to your own devices, or would you prefer some backup from your peers?

Hey, i'm all for backup, i'm more then willing to provide backup. But all i have to go on is the word of people i don't know on a personal basis, see my problem? I hate it if someone tries to make a profit of someone else's work (i don't particulary mind using it on a nonprofit basis), but what i hate more is a mob mentality.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

I'm not saying it isn't usefull, i'm just saying that it just feels 'wrong'. But dealing out 'justice' isn't our forté, that's the courts buisiness, and the person that can claim copyright infringement is the artist slighted.

This also affects me, as i also commision art, i have in the past and will in the future. Using someone else's art without permission is rude at best, the problem is that i can't really see wether he used someone else's art. It's just that i also illustrate on occasion, and if it's this 'easy' to get someone on a 'blacklist', then i find it very scarry.

I think the big problem here is that you see this as Justin "dealing out justice." That's a rather naive and unprofessional way to view the situation, especially in a forum carrying a title like this one does. The slighted artist isn't the only one with a legal case against Gary, for instance, as I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that Justin was smart enough to include a clause in the contract Gary signed stating something to the effect of "You assure that all work you contribute is your own and nobody else's."

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

Hey, i'm all for backup, i'm more then willing to provide backup. But all i have to go on is the word of people i don't know on a personal basis, see my problem? I hate it if someone tries to make a profit of someone else's work (i don't particulary mind using it on a nonprofit basis), but what i hate more is a mob mentality.

So then feel free to use Gary for future jobs and prove how willing you are to rage against the mob mentality. After viewing those threads, I for one will find myself using artists without such proofs against them. And by the way, concerning ...

I hate it if someone tries to make a profit of someone else's work (i don't particulary mind using it on a nonprofit basis)

This latter statement (emphasis mine) has nothing to do with legality. You can still violate someone's copyright without making profit from it -- if no money had exchanged hands, the situation wouldn't suddenly be okay, nor would it automatically become legal.

 

[Ghostwind]

Playing Devil's Advocate here for a moment, I think what Cergorach's main objection is the open naming of the artist who plagurized the work in the press release. Whether or not the information is factual concerning the plagurism, in some courts of law (depending on the judge), you could be walking a fine legal line of slander. Perhaps a better way to put it would have been:

"...some of the artwork proferred by one of the primary artists for Dawning Star was derivative of and unattributed to another artist, which was passed off as his own. In short, plagarism.

First, I would like to offer my deepest apologies to Travis Charest, the artist whose work was lifted. I can assure you that I was unaware of the error..."

You could then simply add a statement saying that publishers interested in more details should contact you directly. This way, you still get the word out about the project being delayed and let publishers know that you are willing to discuss this individual privately without creating this drawn out and confrontational discussion over the merit of naming names publicly. It adds a little more professionalism to the release and still provides relevant details that the public need only know.

Just a thought from an objective outsider...

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

Just a thought from an objective outsider...

The thing about worrying about being slapped with slander is you only need to concern yourself if there's a chance you can be proven wrong. The great thing about instances like this is that there's little room for interpretation in such a visual medium.

Having read those two threads (especially considering the context of the purpose of the places those discussions took place), and having spoken with some of the artists participating in one of them -- artists who always act as strong advocates of artist rights and are 110% supportive of their peers -- I don't believe Justin is too concerned with Gary trying to slap him with slander seeing as how he [Justin] has copies of both images in question.

 

[Justin D. Jacobson]

Playing Devil's Advocate here for a moment, I think what Cergorach's main objection is the open naming of the artist who plagurized the work in the press release. Whether or not the information is factual concerning the plagurism, in some courts of law (depending on the judge), you could be walking a fine legal line of slander. Perhaps a better way to put it would have been:

"...some of the artwork proferred by one of the primary artists for Dawning Star was derivative of and unattributed to another artist, which was passed off as his own. In short, plagarism.

First, I would like to offer my deepest apologies to Travis Charest, the artist whose work was lifted. I can assure you that I was unaware of the error..."

You could then simply add a statement saying that publishers interested in more details should contact you directly. This way, you still get the word out about the project being delayed and let publishers know that you are willing to discuss this individual privately without creating this drawn out and confrontational discussion over the merit of naming names publicly. It adds a little more professionalism to the release and still provides relevant details that the public need only know.

Just a thought from an objective outsider...

There are two problems with this. First, Gary was the one and only artist working on this project, so that wouldn't have worked from a practical standpoint. Second, and more importantly, your solution (assuming there were other artists on the project) would have unfairly cast a cloud over the other artists. That's precisely the reason I named Gary specifically. His misstep shouldn't cast a pall over the other contributors to the project.

 

[Cergorach]

So then feel free to use Gary for future jobs and prove how willing you are to rage against the mob mentality. After viewing those threads, I for one will find myself using artists without such proofs against them. And by the way, concerning ...

I currently have other artists in mind that i would want to hire, people that have shown what kind of work they can produce.

This latter statement (emphasis mine) has nothing to do with legality. You can still violate someone's copyright without making profit from it -- if no money had exchanged hands, the situation wouldn't suddenly be okay, nor would it automatically become legal.

I was only saying that in relation to my own work. Violating copyright without profit isn't as big a biggy in my book, but that is my personal opinion and not something i expect others to agree with.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

I was only saying that in relation to my own work. Violating copyright without profit isn't as big a biggy in my book, but that is my personal opinion and not something i expect others to agree with.

I fail to see the relevance of your personal opinion about who can use your art for what with regards to plagerism in a professional capacity. Your personal willingness to allow others to manipulate your work without permission for non-profit projects does not bring a single bit of use to a topic concerning a freelance artist trying to sell art based off of someone else's art to a publisher without proper credit. There is absolutely nothing similar about the two situations, professionally, ethically or legally.

The artist whose work was manipulated could even have given Gary permission for all we know, but even then that wouldn't change the fact that a) a standard artist contract states the work to be handed in must be entirely your own and b) Gary failed to credit the original artist anyway. Even if the permission had been given, Gary still would have been in breech.

 

[Ghostwind]

There are two problems with this. First, Gary was the one and only artist working on this project, so that wouldn't have worked from a practical standpoint. Second, and more importantly, your solution (assuming there were other artists on the project) would have unfairly cast a cloud over the other artists. That's precisely the reason I named Gary specifically. His misstep shouldn't cast a pall over the other contributors to the project.

I understand where you are coming from, Justin. I don't know the specifics behind your project rather, I was merely pointing out that there are other ways to go about saying what you said that would be perceived as less confrontational. This industry is very small and publishers talk back and forth frequently. When an artist or writer flakes out, it doesn't take long before the whole industry is aware of it. I've had more than one freelancer fail to deliver for the companies I work for, so I know your frustration. Like I said, it was merely an exercise in devil's advocacy to show that things could have been worded differently and yet the same objective achieved. That's all.

 

[hellbender]

I fail to see the relevance of your personal opinion about who can use your art for what with regards to plagerism in a professional capacity. Your personal willingness to allow others to manipulate your work without permission for non-profit projects does not bring a single bit of use to a topic concerning a freelance artist trying to sell art based off of someone else's art to a publisher without proper credit. There is absolutely nothing similar about the two situations, professionally, ethically or legally.

The artist whose work was manipulated could even have given Gary permission for all we know, but even then that wouldn't change the fact that a) a standard artist contract states the work to be handed in must be entirely your own and b) Gary failed to credit the original artist anyway. Even if the permission had been given, Gary still would have been in breech.

Bravo on the first paragraph, well said. On the second paragraph...Travis did post in the thread on ConceptArt. He has a great sense of humor with it in the thread, but I gather he didn't give permisssion for his art to be manipulated.