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

[Eric Lofgren]

Wow, it's slower than mollasses in winter today trying to post here. I'll post later on on this topic.

I just wanted to weigh in on Justin's defense although it would be nice to eventaully hear from Gary on this.

 

[Eric Lofgren]

I need to retype this post. It somehow posted on me before i was finished my line of thought

 

[hellbender]

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.

I am not Justin, however I wanted to make a little comment here.There is a difference between flaking out and lying, stealing and falsely representing yourself for profit. Yes, the industry is small and those that fall in the latter group deserve what they get, no mercy. Nothing wrong with a little tough justice now and then. All in all, this guy is off the hook easy, some of the publis executions of frauds on ConceptArt have been rather spectacular. I have gotten into several incidents with people who would steal other's work, and have gone tooth and nail until the end. There can be no mercy and no quarter given, each art thief, when proven guilty, exposed for what they are.

 

[Cergorach]

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.

*shrugs*
Whatever makes you smile. I was only saying that although i'm not happy with people making money of work i did without asking or me telling, i am not a copyright fanatic like you seem to be.

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.

a) This i would find strange, because some illustrators use photos that are someone else's work but have been licenced for use in illustrations. I would asume that contracts would state that you only use images you have the right to use.
b) If permission was given to use the image without the need to credit the original artist, why would you still need to credit the original artist?
I highly doubt the man got any such permissions.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

copyright fanatic like you seem to be.

Copyright FANATIC? Because I happen to know what my legal responsibilities, as a writer and as a publisher, are? Because I understand what could have happened to Justin if nobody had spotted this art and he published, allowing someone to spot the infringement AFTER it went to print? Because I can see Gary's wrong doing by breeching his contract and infringing on someone else's work? That's not fanaticism, my friend, that's responsibility. Because I chose to actually educate myself on how copyright works (you know, by consulting lawyers and the like) and have not just taken for granted every speculation I'd ever read on the matter on the Internet, it's the sort of knowledge that will keep me from being sued.

"Fanaticism" indeed. :\

a) This i would find strange, because some illustrators use photos that are someone else's work but have been licenced for use in illustrations. I would asume that contracts would state that you only use images you have the right to use.

In such instances the artist would be required to request permission from the publisher first. If the publisher's contract specifies "entirely original," you're then asking him to assume additional legal responsibility for a third party once he's purchased the work. Just because the artist has the rights doesn't mean they will automatically transfer on to the publisher for publication.

b) If permission was given to use the image without the need to credit the original artist, why would you still need to credit the original artist?
I highly doubt the man got any such permissions.

Obviously because Justin was not expecting any third party involvement. He's clearly illustrated a desire to give everyone involved with the project their dues and, legality aside, I could see how a publisher would consider it a breech of trust not to include proper attribution. And, again, we return to likely clause concerning original work: without an attribution, regardless of whether or not permission is given, the clear message is one of obfuscating the piece's origins.

Quite frankly, I don't think you really have any grasp at all on the artist's responsibilities to the publisher, the publisher's responsibility to the artist, the publisher's responsiblity to their consumers, or the publisher's and artist's legal responsibilities to themselves or to others. You need to become a bit more "fanatical" about educating yourself on copyright and how it relates to publishing before you start accusing publishers of mistreating people.

 

[Cergorach]

I just aquired a copy of OQLPreview.pdf and i must say that what was used isn't worth the hassle. Don't get me wrong, i don't mean the fallout that's going Mr. Simpsons way, but i mean, come on, putting it all on the line for two faces? I call that lazy! I'm convinced that whomever did the illustrations 'stole' atleast those two faces, the thing i start asking myself is "What else?". No thanks to any of you for providing 'proof'.

That still leaves the issue that i find it not appropriate how this is brought to the attention to possible victims and the mode of notification. It almost sounds like an excuse, "Well it's not done,but it's his fault!", especially when someone says that Justin was 'warned'. I just think that the warning would have better fitted in the Open Calls forum and not have been squeezed in with a statement that was obviously aimed at the consumer instead of the publisher (where the warning should have been directed to).

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

It almost sounds like an excuse

Actually, it's the very definition of a REASON.

I just think that the warning would have better fitted in the Open Calls forum and not have been squeezed in with a statement that was obviously aimed at the consumer instead of the publisher (where the warning should have been directed to).

You're welcome to that opinion. However, the press release was not, in any way shape or form, an Open Call. Justin was not asking for artists to submit new work. He had a delay in his project and he was stating as to why. He posted it in the general d20 and Open Gaming PUBLISHERS forum, the description of which reads something like "the forum for communicating with publishers" -- I didn't see the part where it specified "for consumers to communicate with publishers, but not a place for publishers to communicate with each other."

For what it's worth, Justin, I found your manner in your press release and in your private PM to me to be of the utmost professionalism. I felt that Justin was just stating facts as they are and was in no way trying to impress his personal opinions on the matter on to me or anyone else. In fact, he [Justin] has invited people to form their own opinion of Gary and their relationships with him [Gary] rather than relying solely upon Justin's experience and account of things. He addressed the point clearly for both consumer, freelancers, and fellow publishers. I'd call that going about the situation about as well as one could, all things considered.

 

[jmucchiello]

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...

I've been chomping at the bit reading these message to post essentially the same thing. Thanks for doing it for me GW.

As a side thought, perhaps Justin (or someone else) could ask Mr. Charest for permission to include a low-res copy of the infringing work and the source work in the other threads involving this problem for posterity sake?

 

[hellbender]

I just aquired a copy of OQLPreview.pdf and i must say that what was used isn't worth the hassle. Don't get me wrong, i don't mean the fallout that's going Mr. Simpsons way, but i mean, come on, putting it all on the line for two faces? I call that lazy! I'm convinced that whomever did the illustrations 'stole' atleast those two faces, the thing i start asking myself is "What else?". No thanks to any of you for providing 'proof'.

Sadly, someone threw away a career chance over "just two faces". And you see the evidence yourself and it still does not sink in, none of the implications. You complain about no proof, see it, then dismiss it. Do you understand that "just two faces" turns into an avalanche of deceit. What about the next job Gary Simpson got? What would he do then? What if Blue Devil had printed thousands of copies of an entire book and then caught this situation? Do you know that these are the only two pieces sent to Blue Devil?

My advice, Cergorach, is that until you understand copyright law, at the very least, that you do not submit artwork for consideration. By some of the statements you have made in this thread it would make me question the integrity of your work. I am not accusing you of doing the same thing, but it doesn't seem to bother you when people do commit this type of crime.

 

[Cergorach]

Copyright FANATIC? Because I happen to know what my legal responsibilities, as a writer and as a publisher, are?

Nope, that's actually pretty good and if it wasn't presented to me in a preaching manner i think i might have learned a lot. But the tone and the assumptions made inclined me to be less absorbing in the possibly usefull information you presented.

Because I understand what could have happened to Justin if nobody had spotted this art and he published, allowing someone to spot the infringement AFTER it went to print? Because I can see Gary's wrong doing by breeching his contract and infringing on someone else's work? That's not fanaticism, my friend, that's responsibility.

That's nice, but i'm not saying the right people shouldn't be informed, i'm saying that how it was done it isn't 'professional' (how i hate the use of that term). And that without providing proof it becomes a trust or distrust issue, on the internet that's a difficult issue at best (the crap some people dare to pull on the internet is scarry).

Because I chose to actually educate myself on how copyright works (you know, by consulting lawyers and the like) and have not just taken for granted every speculation I'd ever read on the matter on the Internet, it's the sort of knowledge that will keep me from being sued.

Here you go again wih the assumptions... I actually know a lot about US and Dutch copyright laws, because i like to know when i'm doing something that is not legal. And i actually used a book of law to research the matter, discussing matters with folks that actually are trained to make it (around here anyways), also helps a bit... What i do not know is when people are responsible for something if a third party broke the law.

In such instances the artist would be required to request permission from the publisher first. If the publisher's contract specifies "entirely original," you're then asking him to assume additional legal responsibility for a third party once he's purchased the work. Just because the artist has the rights doesn't mean they will automatically transfer on to the publisher for publication.

That's true, But from what i understand, it's common in the rpg industry that publishers often don't 'own' the work and thus can't use or reuse the work in another work of art. Thus if Simpson got permission to use those parts of the image to sell to a publisher, wouldn't the chain of 'ownership' then not stop at the publisher (assuming the publisher doesn't own the work and can't resell it in another form then in a book illustration)?

Quite frankly, I don't think you really have any grasp at all on the artist's responsibilities to the publisher, the publisher's responsibility to the artist, the publisher's responsiblity to their consumers, or the publisher's and artist's legal responsibilities to themselves or to others. You need to become a bit more "fanatical" about educating yourself on copyright and how it relates to publishing before you start accusing publishers of mistreating people.

If a+b=c and i don't know b, i can still talk about a.
In other words, i don't need 'special' knowledge to 'appropriate' behavior (this sounds more condecending then i intend, let's just say that i don't agree on how it was presented).

My train of thought is when i hire an artist: He doesn't ripoff another artist and proclaim it as his work, makes the image to specs x, gets paid on time by me, agrees to let me use it y ways and he gets it done by z time. The same goes for when i illustrate for someone else. I dislike contracts and have dealt without them in the past, if someone wants to use a contract (and it is acceptable) i'm ok as well. To date i have better experiences with folks that didn't use a contract then the folks that did want a signed contract. As for accountability, i take responsibility for any faults i make and make other take responsibility for faults they make.