Hello,
I am artist and I will show how to make great promo artwork for spaceship in star citizen. Remember that i do not say stealing artwork is good! You should not do this. This is for education only!
This time i show how Drake Promotion was done with stolen stock photo (This is real: Star Citizen company did this you can check for yourself)1. You steal stock photo from internet stock site.
2. You remove watermark and ring from right hand so no one notice is stolen, change dress a little, make shadow on floor. Nice! No one will see!
3. You make nice looking new face but Boss wife is getting angry so you photoshop Boss wife face into it.
4. You still get fired when people find out artwork is stolen and you did bad job at hiding watermark, shoes and removed ring on hand.
5. No profit
Please do not steal artwork from other people, i am artist and it is not nice to do this. If you are company with $115 million you do not steal artwork because that is just really bad!
I hope you like my tutorial. Please write me fedback!
This was tweet thing from Boss wife on Facebook!
https://www.facebook.com/215475438505750/photos/a.429027047150587.107566.215475438505750/1049223538464265/?type=3&theater
Comments
on top of that, blurry outlines, and the neck of the sandy thing is deep in the uncanny valley
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
The cake is a lie.
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living.
If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them.
Tweet at me - Visit my website
And because he did it for a company it falls back to the company
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
The cake is a lie.
https://www.facebook.com/215475438505750/photos/a.429027047150587.107566.215475438505750/1049223538464265/?type=3&theater
I look at concept art because i am artist and like to learn from other artist. CIG has very good artists! (not this one)
So when i look at it i find something seem not right with neck and right hand is smudge from bad photoshop. I think this is shitty artist and then i remember stock art photo because we use 123rf a lot at work.
So i look up stock art and find they stole it and used for promotion.
You can check yourself with zoom from facebook picture.
You never use watermark copyright pictures for promotion, marketing or any thing that public sees. NEVER. Is learned first thing in art school.
All artist use copyright material for concept internal review. That is normal. But you keep this secret
For one, yes, CIG is held responsible for the fact that one of their artists did something like that, but it is a matter of internal punitive action against the artist who make the piece.
On the legal end all this means is they pull/edit the image, or just pay whatever the cost is for the stock image.
They can make a public apology if they want, but it's really not necessary in the least. Any punitive action taken against the artist, be it mild or severe, is also not necessary for them to report on.
So to be clear,
- Stealing stock/art = bad
- Person/people responsible = company
- Punishment necessary = none
If we're gonna call this any sort of problem, it's an internal affair for them to deal with as they see fit. Personally I'd just do a check into the rest of the artist's work to look for other discrepancies and so long as nothing else pops up all that'd happen is a warning. If they are a repeat offender then actual punishment would come.This may be something people can be unhappy about, but it's also something that no one but CIG and the owners of the stock image has any reason to fret over.
Plus there's some rather annoying quibbles to be made about the laws around the use and alteration of art online. "Fair Use" can be fudged in many cases to justify things, and the fallback would be the claim that's it's been heavily edited and repurposed. However, it being an art piece for a for-profit company makes it fall somewhat outside the actual legal bounds of fair use.
As I already explained though. that's all a problem for CIG to deal with internally with the owners of the stock art.
Not saying it's good or bad (personally I'd say it's bad), but I am saying it's not something people should lose their cheese over unless they really enjoy headbutting a wall.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
So you say: No punishment for company if it steals art from artists but is ok that companies punish people when they steal their art? I will bet you money if i steal art from star citizen company and sell it they will come and punish me. If i go make t-shirt with their logo and spaceship they will punish me.
your world is wrong! I have no word in english to say how wrong it is what you say.
Why I said "punishment necessary = none" is because there is legally and functionally nothing that can be done by anyone save for CIG itself and the owners of the stock art (as I already stated).
Your argument just falls in-line with my already made statement. Hence the paragraph right after that part you just quoted from me.
Though you did highlight a different problem that exists for us when it comes to copyrights in the US. It actually is rather hard for us as individuals to protect art or other copyrights (but especially art). Stealing content and editing it or even just using it and labeling it as a "parody" or otherwise is generally enough to legally justify the circumvention of license laws on art.
And honestly....it bothers me a lot.
My point on this however was that yes, CIG is responsible for what happened. However, there is nothing that getting up in arms about this does. The "punishment" that can be legally enacted is at worst a lawsuit that the art holder can only expect to gain whatever would be reasonable to claim as lost profit (which with the way licensing the images works, only amounts to the cost of the image). Most of the "punishment" then simply becomes an internal affair for CIG in dealing with the artist, which there is absolutely nothing anyone but CIG has say over.
EDIT: I would care to clarify that this is not me defending CIG or damning them. More so I am trying to clarify the nature of the issue and that the 'consequences' are already effectively decided (and of negligible impact to CIG).
Though, that might be a reason for some to complain right there...
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You are wrong. I work in a Art Agency. If someone steals our art to sell product we sue for everything profit they make from our art plus damages. If they sold products for 100,000 euro we get all of it and we get damages for all possible sale they could make in 1-3 year. Judge may vary on years but minimum 1 year. So if they sold 100,000 euro in 1 month we get 1,200,000 - 3,600,000 total.
This is reality in business work not some child fantasy. Sorry i mean no disrespect to you but you are very wrong!
I look and she is head of marketing, right? So you say that head of marketing "doesn't know every detail of how business operates"? Wow, this makes me scared! Why is she getting paid high management salary when she has no experience? Maybe because she is boss wife, i think!
I don't know if i can believe what you say!
So late now, i have to work. Guys at work will go crazy if i tell them. I go sleep now.