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

[Cergorach]

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?

I think you mis understand me, i', saying exactly that, two faces cost someone a lot of work, while actually drawing two faces would have made him work in the long run. I find that not only lazy, but also stupid, not to mention 'not nice' for the original artist.

When i saw those two faces, compared them to the linked to art work and finally agreed that this was ripped off i started wondering if the rest of the artwork in the pdf was also ripped off somehow. Even the dawningstar logo becames suspect (as i don't know who made that). And who else published art by this artist.

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.

This i resent, a lot, not only do you make assumptions that are ill informed, but also question the integrity of my work. WTF? Because i question the methods used to advertise this copyright infringement and the lack of proof provided with the statement i suddenly become untrustworthy? This is making me decidedly unhappy, if not rightout pissed. Just because i don't mind if a fellow rpger would use a map or image i made on their campaign website? Just because i don't agree with copyright law doesn't mean i don't abide by it when doing something in an official capacity. I don't start foaming at the mouth when someone screws a publisher.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

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.

That's a big part of the problem. You mistakenly believed I was making assumptions. I'm rather certain my position in the matter is rather solid.

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).

1) Many of the professionals around here disagree with you, but continue to rage on, as you please.

2) How can you still fail to get this? The proof WAS there. It's been verified. The fact that Gary took it down so that you, personally, can no longer see it isn't relevant -- no more so than you, personally, having to see the gun in order for some guy in Denmark to be convicted of murder.

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.

Oddly, many of the things you've been saying with concerns to copyright and artist and/or publisher culpability are outright wrong. I suggest you brush up because a "lot" of what you know, if your points thus far are any indication, is common heresay and misconceptions twirled about the Internet on the back of speculations and assumptions.

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)?

This is what I'm talking about. You have no idea how copyright works. The publisher is a third party existing entirely outside of any arrangement made between Gary and anyone else. The relationship between Justin and Gary has to be legally solid in and of itself, without relying upon third party legal documents that Justin isn't privy to. What would happen if Justin printed the book and this other artist said "hey, you stole my work!" What proof of such an agreement does Justin have? As Justin has clearly stated, Gary isn't the easiest person to get a hold of, so Justin would be left holding the bag without any documentation as to the legality of the piece in question.

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).

When a, b and c are all intertwined in the context at hand, you'd better believe you better know how they all interact together within that context, otherwise you're not adding anything to the point. You're speculating and, frankly, most of your speculations to this point have been flat-out erroneous.

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.

You are free to conduct your business any way you like. I think, however, you'll soon realise how naive you are if anything you're involved with has to go to court and you're asked to provide paperwork backing up your position. The arguement "I'm a trusting lad who doesn't believe in contracts" doesn't go very far to convince anyone that you're position is the correct and binding one.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

This i resent, a lot, not only do you make assumptions that are ill informed, but also question the integrity of my work. WTF? Because i question the methods used to advertise this copyright infringement and the lack of proof provided with the statement i suddenly become untrustworthy? This is making me decidedly unhappy, if not rightout pissed. Just because i don't mind if a fellow rpger would use a map or image i made on their campaign website? Just because i don't agree with copyright law doesn't mean i don't abide by it when doing something in an official capacity. I don't start foaming at the mouth when someone screws a publisher.

I think you're reading it witht he wrong spin. What he's saying isn't that you're "untrustworthy" in the sense you're purposely going to try and pull the wool over someone's eyes, but rather the position you've taken and the things you've stated to back up that position may communicate to publishers that your understanding of what your responsiblities and rights are, especially in relation to the publisher's rights, don't make you safe bet. In other words, your misunderstanding of several very important things that every professional should be very clear on could make you a risk to work with.

That's how I read what he was saying, anyway.

 

[Cergorach]

That's a big part of the problem. You mistakenly believed I was making assumptions. I'm rather certain my position in the matter is rather solid.

Your entitled to your opinion.

1) Many of the professionals around here disagree with you, but continue to rage on, as you please.

Some of the regulars seem to see my point...

2) How can you still fail to get this? The proof WAS there. It's been verified. The fact that Gary took it down so that you, personally, can no longer see it isn't relevant -- no more so than you, personally, having to see the gun in order for some guy in Denmark to be convicted of murder.

This is my big problem with this, your not the bloody police! Your just some dude on the internet that says he's an artist and a professional and knows what he's talking about. I'm not saying you are, but what i am saying is that if i made a decission that you were, i would need proof.

Oddly, many of the things you've been saying with concerns to copyright and artist and/or publisher culpability are outright wrong. I suggest you brush up because a "lot" of what you know, if your points thus far are any indication, is common heresay and misconceptions twirled about the Internet on the back of speculations and assumptions.

Uhm... Just where did i say anything (i knew for certain) concerning artist/publisher culpability. As i have indicated i know very little about that. What i do know about copyright is when, where, how much, and under what circumstance i can or cannot do things with copyrighted material. I do not know very much about culpability of an artist/publisher. Which btw might very well be different in your part of the woods then it is in mine.

This is what I'm talking about. You have no idea how copyright works. The publisher is a third party existing entirely outside of any arrangement made between Gary and anyone else. The relationship between Justin and Gary has to be legally solid in and of itself, without relying upon third party legal documents that Justin isn't privy to. What would happen if Justin printed the book and this other artist said "hey, you stole my work!" What proof of such an agreement does Justin have? As Justin has clearly stated, Gary isn't the easiest person to get a hold of, so Justin would be left holding the bag without any documentation as to the legality of the piece in question.

I would assume that it's the responsibility of the artist to have everything in order concerning rights of images used. Again, i'm not saying this is like this, i assume it is, but common sense =! laws.

When a, b and c are all intertwined in the context at hand, you'd better believe you better know how they all interact together within that context, otherwise you're not adding anything to the point. You're speculating and, frankly, most of your speculations to this point have been flat-out erroneous.

Speculations on what i've indicated i am no expert on, have no impact on the etiquette used on this board. Or the expectations i have of publishers after seeing a good many posts on this board by a good many publishers.

You are free to conduct your business any way you like. I think, however, you'll soon realise how naive you are if anything you're involved with has to go to court and you're asked to provide paperwork backing up your position. The arguement "I'm a trusting lad who doesn't believe in contracts" doesn't go very far to convince anyone that you're position is the correct and binding one.

Naive i might be in certain aspects. But isn't a verbal or emailed agreement as binding as a contract? Should it be stated in a contract that the contracte isn't allowed to do anything that is not legal? Maybe i'm going a bit far with that common sense thingy...

 

[Cergorach]

I think you're reading it witht he wrong spin. What he's saying isn't that you're "untrustworthy" in the sense you're purposely going to try and pull the wool over someone's eyes, but rather the position you've taken and the things you've stated to back up that position may communicate to publishers that your understanding of what your responsiblities and rights are, especially in relation to the publisher's rights, don't make you safe bet. In other words, your misunderstanding of several very important things that every professional should be very clear on could make you a risk to work with.

That's how I read what he was saying, anyway.

As far as i know the responsibilities and rights can be whatever what's agreed to, if it's within the laws of the country the agrement is made in (in other words, you still have rights and responsibilities if the law says you do). If this is not correct, please educate me.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

Your entitled to your opinion.

Which is backed by the experience of several rather long, expensive lawyer consultations. I like to know what I'm getting into before I begin investing money in a business, and knowing, as a publisher, how copyright applied to me, especially as it trickled up from my freelancers, was a major point I was sure got brought up ... once or twice.

Some of the regulars seem to see my point...

If by some you mean "let me play Devil's Advocate here" ...

This is my big problem with this, your not the bloody police! Your just some dude on the internet that says he's an artist and a professional and knows what he's talking about. I'm not saying you are, but what i am saying is that if i made a decission that you were, i would need proof.

Nope, I'm not the police. Neither is Justin. In fact, I think you can be quite assured that the police will never get involved in this or just about most other copyright infraction. And I don't "say" I'm an artist and a professional (I am, in fact, a writer, soon to be publisher, and professional). My published credits, registered business and rather high legal consultation fees say all of that for me.

Uhm... Just where did i say anything (i knew for certain) concerning artist/publisher culpability. As i have indicated i know very little about that. What i do know about copyright is when, where, how much, and under what circumstance i can or cannot do things with copyrighted material. I do not know very much about culpability of an artist/publisher.

Some of the points you've made very directly make a stance on publisher/artist culpability -- for example, your erroneous assumptions about an artist's responsibility concerning the use of third party rights. When, where, how much, and under what circumstances YOU can use copyrighted material is a VERY different matter from then taking that material and, by act of publication, trying to pass those same rights off on to the publisher. You were wrong in your position on this, which shows you don't know as much about copyright as you think. You also brought up the point of "so long as it's not for profit," which is one of the oldest and most damaging misunderstandings of Fair Use going around.

Which btw might very well be different in your part of the woods then it is in mine.

So then, the question comes up as to whether Gary or Justin are in your part of the woods as well. If not, why does your part of the woods have any bearing on the legality of Justin's situaton?

I would assume that it's the responsibility of the artist to have everything in order concerning rights of images used. Again, i'm not saying this is like this, i assume it is, but common sense =! laws.

So far as the artist is concerned, in a professional vacuum, yes. Once he brings in a third party, such as a publisher, the situation is entirely different. Another artist can give you rights to manipulate his work and do whatever YOU want with it on your own, for instance, but that isn't legally or ethically the same as trying to sell it to someone else, such as a publisher, on its own or as part of a compilation work (such as a rpg book) that alters the context of the original artist's intentions and granted rights. Again, assuming something about this is incredibly wrong and you could end up getting into big trouble not learning the facts instead of using guess work and "common sense" -- you owe it to yourself, if nobody else, so that you won't stick your leg in a bear trap down the road.

Speculations on what i've indicated i am no expert on, have no impact on the etiquette used on this board. Or the expectations i have of publishers after seeing a good many posts on this board by a good many publishers.

Quite obviously, your priorities and definition of what constitutes "etiquette" in a situation such as this differs quite radically from people who potentially have a lot more to lose than you. In other words, publishers who may currently have, or may have been thinking of initiating, work with this artist.

Naive i might be in certain aspects. But isn't a verbal or emailed agreement as binding as a contract? Should it be stated in a contract that the contracte isn't allowed to do anything that is not legal? Maybe i'm going a bit far with that common sense thingy...

Theoretically, yes. I think you'll find, however, that they are a LOT more difficult to prove in court. If you have legal-minded friends to consult, I suggest you do so in this regard. The problem with email is that time stamping and headers can VERY easily be falsified (in fact, it's as easy as me rolling back the clock on my computer). Verbal agreements have to be substantiated by witnesses, something that is very difficult to do when much of the rpg industry doesn't work face to face and consists of little more than the rare phone call, plenty of emails, and mailed contracts. Unless you've recorded the conversation or had a face-to-face in front of reputable witnesses, a verbal contract likely won't prove to be worth the paper it's written on.

With a contract, the clauses, conditions, dates and signatures are there for everyone to see, plain as day.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

As far as i know the responsibilities and rights can be whatever what's agreed to, if it's within the laws of the country the agrement is made in (in other words, you still have rights and responsibilities if the law says you do). If this is not correct, please educate me.

Incorrect. First off, the contract can have conditions that have nothing to do with the law, but become binding in and of the themselves due to the laws concerning contractual law as a whole. In other words, there doesn't have to be a law stating Fact A for Fact A to be written into a contract, agreed upon by all parties, and therefore become binding. Second, the laws of the country the agreement is a sticky business if both parties are in different countries (or even states) if the contract doesn't include a clause stating exactly where all disputes are settled. For example, all of my contracts specify that any disputes will be settled in an Ontario court. So, no matter where the other person who signed that contract lives, if a dispute arises it gets solved where the contract specifies, even if I and my business later move to France, for example. Then we get into an entirely different set of laws concerning agreeing to changes of venues, yadda, yadda.

 

[hellbender]

This i resent, a lot, not only do you make assumptions that are ill informed, but also question the integrity of my work. WTF? Because i question the methods used to advertise this copyright infringement and the lack of proof provided with the statement i suddenly become untrustworthy? This is making me decidedly unhappy, if not rightout pissed. Just because i don't mind if a fellow rpger would use a map or image i made on their campaign website? Just because i don't agree with copyright law doesn't mean i don't abide by it when doing something in an official capacity. I don't start foaming at the mouth when someone screws a publisher.

Steve hit the gist of what I was trying to say.

 

[hellbender]

As far as i know the responsibilities and rights can be whatever what's agreed to, if it's within the laws of the country the agrement is made in (in other words, you still have rights and responsibilities if the law says you do). If this is not correct, please educate me.

And abide by International Copyright Law.

 

[Eric Lofgren]

This is my big problem with this, your not the bloody police! Your just some dude on the internet that says he's an artist and a professional and knows what he's talking about. I'm not saying you are, but what i am saying is that if i made a decission that you were, i would need proof.

The thing is, as I see it, this board, along with the numerous other freelancing boards I frequent daily, go to great lengths to help freelancers and small publishers be as self-policing and responsible to and for themselves as they can. The way I see it, it's the most accesible and useful means of protection available to us outside of small claims court, that can actually yield effective results for both parties, publisher and freelancer alike.

And if, by making public a very serious copyright issue (that was proven out long before you had the opportunity to see it for yourself), a potential conflcit of interest issue for someone else can be averted by a thread such as this one then more's the better. Quite frankly, what you (and you alone it seems) are effectively calling dubious and damning actions on Justin's part should be more appropriately seen (and is seen by many) as a bold step in the right direction of qualifying and legitamizing an oft times seemingly unregulated and cutthroat industry.

Gary made a decison and he was caught on it. I have seen much of his work from the past and I'm actually quite confused as to what his motivations were for doing what he did. But regardless, he did something that was beyond 'rude' as you seem to see it. It's something that, for work'a'day freelancers, is an anathema to this close knit industry we work in. To that end I think a lot of people feel that Justin could be rightly doing a lot worse than what he is doing. But his discretion, I think, is highly commendable. In the end, the way I see it, we can be thankful that we have such an effective resource and network as Enworld, Rpg.net, ConceptArt and all the other great meeting places.

Just some musings from the field

Eric Lofgren
www.ericlofgren.net

Have signatures been disabled?