Um... Look inside, DnD image theft...

[hellbender]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Um... Look inside, DnD image theft...

Second, from the pictures both there and in the print catalog: If this is an imitation, it is DAMN hard to tell the difference. Even looking at it with a magnifing glass, it looks to be the same image. Eventualy you reach the point where what is the difference between an imitation and a copy?

Don't get me wrong, I am not encouraging any type of image infringement, however, a knee-jerk subject is already condemning the knifemaker without *any* backing information.

A subject line saying, "Um Look inside, DnD image theft" before you know anything is really jumping the gun. if you had unmasked the scoundrels, then you deserve a pat on the back, most assuredly, but just making an accusation is a bit out there. If you have a question, message Wizards or get ahold of Todd Lockwood. Then point out the crime, if there is one.

hellbender

 

[seankreynolds]

Todd Lockwood says he doesn't own the rights to that illustration and he didn't give permission for it, so either WotC gave permission or someone is stealing from WotC. Please report it to customer service.

 

[Darth Shoju]

I'm not sure if it was copyright infringement or not, but the other day I saw a local bookstore using the Phoenix picture from Monster Manual II to advertise the new Harry Potter book. And by local bookstore I don't mean some little mom and pop store, I mean one of the big chains up here in Canada. I dunno if they were doing this legallly or not.

 

[Angcuru]

First we had to deal with the idea thieves, and now there's art thieves abound. *sigh* When will it all end.

 

[Number47]

Not sure what the contracts with the D&D artists say, but from what I understand from the Magic side of things the artists retain the ownership of the physical paintings, and can sell them if they want. WOTC owns the copyright though, so the artist can't sell the rights to the picture. I think the artist is also allowed to display the picture on a website or stuff like that as well.

If you look through your Magic cards, it is pretty easy to tell when Wizards changed the policy. They used to license the image, and had great art from all kinds of artists. Then they changed to purchasing the copyright entire, and suddenly the art just sucked.

 

[Tsyr]

As a note, I did contact WotC the day I posted this, via customer service, and I got a message monday thanking me for the tip, but beyond that I haven't heard anything (not that I would expect to... My involvement in this is done now, after all).

 

[Welverin]

If you look through your Magic cards, it is pretty easy to tell when Wizards changed the policy. They used to license the image, and had great art from all kinds of artists. Then they changed to purchasing the copyright entire, and suddenly the art just sucked.

It seems you didn't quite understand what Staffan was saying, his point was that the artists own the actual painting while WotC owns the copyright. This would not necessarily have changed when WotC changed from licensing the artwork (I believe initially this was done in addition to giving them stock or part ownership to get them to work on what was big risk at the time) to having it done on a work for hire basis.

 

[Number47]

It seems you didn't quite understand what Staffan was saying, his point was that the artists own the actual painting while WotC owns the copyright. This would not necessarily have changed when WotC changed from licensing the artwork (I believe initially this was done in addition to giving them stock or part ownership to get them to work on what was big risk at the time) to having it done on a work for hire basis.

I understand perfectly. The art started sucking bad when Wizards insisted on owning the copyright while paying the same scale for them. No self-respecting professional is going to take that, if they don't have to. Clearly they didn't, because all the decent art disappeared.

 

[Mercule]

I understand perfectly. The art started sucking bad when Wizards insisted on owning the copyright while paying the same scale for them. No self-respecting professional is going to take that, if they don't have to. Clearly they didn't, because all the decent art disappeared.

Well, that's as good of an explanation as "WotC hired an Art Director without any taste."

Regardless, the suckage of D&D art over the past few years really isn't the issue at hand. I'm not a huge supporter of the obscene copyright laws that currently abound, but the artist should still be able to have limited monopoly for a handful of years. I hope this issue gets cleared up.

 

[Drawmack]

Has anyone thought to also report this to the knife company?

How can we, simple fans of a game, make judgements about who is in the right and who is in the wrong?

I personally think that you are being biased and unfair if you do not contact both concerned parties.