By that I mean I don't look at a photo of a place and try to replicate that scene. I just build my scenes how I want them to be and don't try to make it look exactly like, say, the Grand Canyon or Machu Picchu. Of course I use mental references.../div>
I would love this too! I fact it has happened with my work countless times. On the other hand, one of my prints may or may not be in the background of new "The Thing" remake. Regardless if you think that movie needs to be remade, the studio contacted me about it beforehand and asked that I sign a release. That's just how it's done. No, I didn't ask for any money. They bought a print they can do what they want with it./div>
No problem Husler. This is a fascinating debate. I guess the question is what can an artist use as reference. Yes, I know there is nothing new under the sun. In the old days artists huffed their easels up into the mountains to paint a mountain scene (and I'm sure some still do). Nowadays I would imagine it is a lot easier to hit up GIS.
As for myself, I don't use references at all in my work. Maybe it would qualify as "art" if I did. My "Song of the Sky" image was based on a time (around 1995) that I was driving in northern Michagan and saw the aurora for the first time. I rendered it in 2000 and while it may seem generic now, it was pretty well received given that "home rendering" software was still pretty crude.
It's one thing if someone copies a photo because anyone could conceivably go to that location and paint the same scene. I'm sure some landscape photographers would argue against that point. I don't know, I'm not a copyright lawyer.
It just feels wrong to me to take an original work that someone else did, paint my own copy of it (leaving the framing, lightning, and structure intact), and then sell it for huge royalty checks (I'm sure Mr. Cortes did not foresee the massive popularity of this self-published book). I'm certainly not saying he did that, but the images are similar enough (to my eye) that I felt it was a valid question.
I'm sure I would have never heard of the similarity if the book hadn't attained such popularity. I have two little boys but I don't ready that many kids books. As soon as people started reading the book I started getting emails from people asking that I look into it. Asking my fans is my way of looking into it./div>
If I were really the litigious type that folks here have made me out to be, then you would be reading about a lawsuit rather than a postulation I floated on the Internet. I get that you guys come here to read about copyright abuses every day but don't read more into it than there is.
If I'm going to sue someone (which I've never done by the way) I not going to be posting about it beforehand./div>
"Why do you think there is a big difference between being inspired by a picture of the northern lights or an original artwork (or the real thing for that matter)?"
Maybe there isn't. That's sort of the question I was asking by bringing this up in the first place./div>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ryan Bliss.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I never accused any one of stealing...
Deja Vu
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8086
Video in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfeLF6j1kWU
Thanks for the enlightening debate. Hope you all will stop by my gallery sometime./div>
Re: Re: Digital Blasphemy
Re: Re:
Re:
http://www.digitalblasphemy.com/picklejar.shtml?i=skysong2&mode=dir/div>
Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: I never accused any one of stealing...
As for myself, I don't use references at all in my work. Maybe it would qualify as "art" if I did. My "Song of the Sky" image was based on a time (around 1995) that I was driving in northern Michagan and saw the aurora for the first time. I rendered it in 2000 and while it may seem generic now, it was pretty well received given that "home rendering" software was still pretty crude.
It's one thing if someone copies a photo because anyone could conceivably go to that location and paint the same scene. I'm sure some landscape photographers would argue against that point. I don't know, I'm not a copyright lawyer.
It just feels wrong to me to take an original work that someone else did, paint my own copy of it (leaving the framing, lightning, and structure intact), and then sell it for huge royalty checks (I'm sure Mr. Cortes did not foresee the massive popularity of this self-published book). I'm certainly not saying he did that, but the images are similar enough (to my eye) that I felt it was a valid question.
I'm sure I would have never heard of the similarity if the book hadn't attained such popularity. I have two little boys but I don't ready that many kids books. As soon as people started reading the book I started getting emails from people asking that I look into it. Asking my fans is my way of looking into it./div>
Re:
If I'm going to sue someone (which I've never done by the way) I not going to be posting about it beforehand./div>
Re: Re: I never accused any one of stealing...
Maybe there isn't. That's sort of the question I was asking by bringing this up in the first place./div>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ryan Bliss.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt