183 réponses à ce sujet

[Omega Torsk]

Raanz wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

mokponobi wrote...

Let's not speak for the artist, we don't know if he would be offended or not.

So lets say you're an artist and created a portrait of a character for a company who recently hired you, your artwork was criticized for having weird proportions and eyes, and ended up being photoshopped by some random fan. This fan posts his "work" on the forums of the company that you work for, and he takes credit for "fixing" your design when there's nothing to fix at all. A handfull of other fans come along and start making comments like, "oh thank you so much" and "now I can finally use this on my desktop", completely disregarding your original work. You wouldn't be offended? People these days...


-Polite

QFT.

Hmm you "touched up" someone else's work?  Sorry, I can't subscribe to that.  Critiquing is one thing, taking someone else's work and modifying it is another.  Then to say it was made "better" is too far.

http://t2.gstatic.co...YwdBxFqocEA&t=1

DaVinci should sue... =/

But in all honesty, it's not hurting anybody. The OP isn't claiming anything nor making any money off of it, finacially. If P.O. is confident enough in his work, he can just wave this off as a fan edit (which it is).

Besides, I don't think P.O. even cares. He is living his dream; finally being employed by the same company whose characters he's been doing fanart of for years.

People need to chillax...

[Raanz]

DJRackham wrote...

Fair use

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

[Giantdeathrobot]

''You do realize that Patryk's original piece took hours, maybe even days, to complete. And this guy made small modifications through photoshop within a few minutes.

-Polite''


And? Until the artist himself goes public on this, we have no idea of his reaction. The fact it offends you doesn't mean it does the same to him. If he says that this is travesty, violation of copyright or whatnot, then I will retract my words; until then, I have every right to voice my opinion, and my opinion is that the revised (butchered, stolen, modified without consent, whatever term suits your fancy) product is better.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Omega Torsk wrote...


http://t2.gstatic.co...YwdBxFqocEA&t=1

DaVinci should sue... =/

Judging by your statement it's fairly easy to draw the conclusion that you aren't educated in copyright laws. Nice try though.

-Polite

[Raanz]

Omega, it's not about chillin', it's about trying to show a little respect for an artist's work. If you don't like it, then you don't like it. Plain and simple. It should never be ok for folks to say "hey, I don't like this, I'm going to fix it. It's arrogant and not cool.

Just expressing my opinion, don't worry, I won't lose any sleep over it.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Giantdeathrobot wrote...

''You do realize that Patryk's original piece took hours, maybe even days, to complete. And this guy made small modifications through photoshop within a few minutes.

-Polite''


And? Until the artist himself goes public on this, we have no idea of his reaction. The fact it offends you doesn't mean it does the same to him. If he says that this is travesty, violation of copyright or whatnot, then I will retract my words; until then, I have every right to voice my opinion, and my opinion is that the revised (butchered, stolen, modified without consent, whatever term suits your fancy) product is better.

It doesn't offend me at all, it's not my artwork. However I am an artist, and if someone were to alter my work with for the purpose of "fixing" it, I wouldn't be happy. Another poster in this thread familiar with this even reiterated this. What gives you a right to "fix" someone's vision of how a piece of art should be composed? It's his personal style that he imprinted on the portrait, not yours. To say that it needs to be fix is implying that he doesn't know what he's doing, and judging by the man's portfolio you're completely wrong. So someone without any artistic ability outside of manipulating photos in photoshop can produce a "better product" than the original artist who started from scratch. :innocent: You've got quite the opinion of yourself there buddy.


-Polite

[Omega Torsk]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Judging by your statement it's fairly easy to draw the conclusion that you aren't educated in copyright laws. Nice try though.

-Polite

Thanks for the rudeness and the contradiction (really, you should modify your siggy a bit when you grind out statements like that). You don't know me, don't assume my education (besides, the image and statement was meant to be humorous). This isn't a matter of copyright violations, this is a matter of two maybe three people getting worked up over something that really isn't a big deal. The OP stated that if P.O. or Bioware has a problem with it, he'll take it down. That's fair enough to not cry out "THIEF!" If the artist has a problem with it, I'll redact my statements. But right now, I'm not seeing anything other than things getting blown out of proportion by people that frankly cannot speak for the artist.

[Clayless]

Polite thinks it's worse. That's his opinion. Polite thinks it's rude to do this. That's his opinion.

A simple "I disagree" is all it takes to settle him.

I like Patryk but I think this is a vast improvement on the original. Now she's not cross-eyed like before.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Omega Torsk wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Judging by your statement it's fairly easy to draw the conclusion that you aren't educated in copyright laws. Nice try though.

-Polite

Thanks for the rudeness and the contradiction (really, you should modify your siggy a bit when you grind out statements like that). You don't know me, don't assume my education (besides, the image and statement was meant to be humorous). This isn't a matter of copyright violations, this is a matter of two maybe three people getting worked up over something that really isn't a big deal. The OP stated that if P.O. or Bioware has a problem with it, he'll take it down. That's fair enough to not cry out "THIEF!" If the artist has a problem with it, I'll redact my statements. But right now, I'm not seeing anything other than things getting blown out of proportion by people that frankly cannot speak for the artist.

I never said what the OP did was a copyright violation. You brought up a modified version of the Mona Lisa and said that Leonardo DaVinci should sue. Copyright laws protect the artwork for the full life of the artist, plus 70 years. After that it's in the public domain. He would only be able to sue if he was alive, and someone was making a profit off of the derivative works. This is not the case for the OP because he isn't seeking to make a profit off of the alteration.


-Polite

[Raanz]

Omega Torsk wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Judging by your statement it's fairly easy to draw the conclusion that you aren't educated in copyright laws. Nice try though.

-Polite

Thanks for the rudeness and the contradiction (really, you should modify your siggy a bit when you grind out statements like that). You don't know me, don't assume my education (besides, the image and statement was meant to be humorous). This isn't a matter of copyright violations, this is a matter of two maybe three people getting worked up over something that really isn't a big deal. The OP stated that if P.O. or Bioware has a problem with it, he'll take it down. That's fair enough to not cry out "THIEF!" If the artist has a problem with it, I'll redact my statements. But right now, I'm not seeing anything other than things getting blown out of proportion by people that frankly cannot speak for the artist.

I'm going to assume that I am one of the folks you are talking about, although I am far from getting worked up about it, and calling someone a thief.
The simple, very simple point I am trying to make is what Polite already said very eloquently:  just because something doesn't match your vision or your criteria of what an idea or image should be, doesn't give you permission to "fix" another person's piece of art (painting, music, sculpture, whatever) to suite you, or a "handful" of other folks that might feel the way you do.
If you want to convey your interpretation of someone's artwork then repaint it, or recompose or whatever the medium is, then you have a right to call it your version of someone else's work.
In no way am I speaking for the artist.  For all I know, he could care less if someone takes liberties with his hard work.
I'll say it again: just expressing my opinion on this topic.  Not going to give props to someone for photoshoping someone else's stuff.  Whether it's good or bad is moot to me.

[Giantdeathrobot]

''To say that it needs to be fix is implying that he doesn't know what he's doing, and judging by the man's portfolio you're completely wrong''

So when I mod Fallout New Vegas (thereby ''fixing'' it far more than the OP did, and since the game is also an IP the comparison is relevant), a game I adore made by a developper I practically whorship, I am hereby proclaiming this company sucks and does ****ty things? You got a pretty narrow-minded view of that sort of things.

''You've got quite the opinion of yourself there buddy.'' and everything that comes before

And you should try to live up to your nickname a bit. As I see it, the guy made a slight modification, stated he would take it down if the people who made/inspired the image had a problem with it, and never claimed he had made it perfect or anything. Yet you are here, playing the offended virgin in the stead of the actual artist, blowing a small situation completely out of proportion, and generally e-bullying anyone that doesn't agree with you on the basis of your own values, which (surprise!) could or couldn't be shared by everybody. I am getting out of this thread before it becomes a ****-fest, but your attitude really needs some improving.

[Omega Torsk]

Raanz wrote...

The simple, very simple point I am trying to make is what Polite already said very eloquently:  just because something doesn't match your vision or your criteria of what an idea or image should be, doesn't give you permission to "fix" another person's piece of art (painting, music, sculpture, whatever) to suite you, or a "handful" of other folks that might feel the way you do.
If you want to convey your interpretation of someone's artwork then repaint it, or recompose or whatever the medium is, then you have a right to call it your version of someone else's work.
In no way am I speaking for the artist.  For all I know, he could care less if someone takes liberties with his hard work.
I'll say it again: just expressing my opinion on this topic.  Not going to give props to someone for photoshoping someone else's stuff.  Whether it's good or bad is moot to me.

Fair enough. I agree that the OP could've used a better word than "fix." He should've just stuck with "revised."

Modifié par Omega Torsk, 30 août 2011 - 07:32 .

[Naltair]

I won't lie I can't tell the difference.

[Mistiannyi]

I must admit that the way Patrik painted her face bugs me, because the anatomy of the face isn't quite right (that nose bugs me a lot to be fair). He's an amazing artist and I'd never say he did a bad job (especially as he's bound to have had a tight deadline).
So I'm partial to most of the changes the OP have done. As for this whole "it's not nice towards the artist" debate, I both agree and not. Within a fandom of these proportions there's bound to be "fan fixing" for all sorts of things and I would say that the OP have handled this fairly well and even stated he would remove it if it offended.
As an artist, sure, it would sting a bit to have my work modded. But then again if I as a professional artist didn't produce a product that fans were pleased with and they modded it to "look better" then all I could really do is learn from it and move on. Once a professional piece is done, it's done and published and all I can do is look at the response and try to do better next time.
It's really a different thing to be professional as opposed to "casual" when it comes to art. If someone "stole" my personal pieces and modded them I'd be outraged. If someone did the same on something commissioned it's basically no longer in my hands as it's a product that has gone into the pipeline.
And as I said, the OP seems to be a nice fellow who spotted a (all things considered) minor problem and polished it up a bit and when deciding to share also seems fine with taking it down if it offended the management.

Just my two cents on things. =)

[Reclusiarch]

Well said, Mistiannyi!

[Ohpus]

Where is the original promo image posted?

[Beerfish]

I would call these things changes not fixes because as with most art everyone has a different vision of how things should look.

[LGTX]

I think too many people are mistakenly assuming that the right eye (from your perspective) is looking at the viewer, and the left is therefore "off". No. I think that both of them are correctly facing towards an off-frame foe.

Good effort though, not criticizing or anything.

[Sesshomaru47]

Ah geez she's ugly.

[Ultramarinus]

As much as I want to say that Patryk did a good job, (except the face, the picture rocks though) the original had at the very least the DERP eyes, a serious problem. Unless MacShep was focusing on something that's like 15 cm away from her face, (then we'd see that object in the picture) that wasn't a normal stare at all. So I consider this a fix, no matter if artist likes it or not. It's not something like cubism so you can't pass some stuff as artist's own vision.

Now someone else will come along and change this to blonde hair & blue eyes, then it's gonna be desktop material. Until then, sticking to previous contest winner wallpaper.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Giantdeathrobot wrote...

''To say that it needs to be fix is implying that he doesn't know what he's doing, and judging by the man's portfolio you're completely wrong''

So when I mod Fallout New Vegas (thereby ''fixing'' it far more than the OP did, and since the game is also an IP the comparison is relevant), a game I adore made by a developper I practically whorship, I am hereby proclaiming this company sucks and does ****ty things? You got a pretty narrow-minded view of that sort of things.

"Fixing" a game you purchase and "fixing" a piece of art that you have no claim to are two entirely separate things. 
Keep trying though, you'll get it eventually. 

LGTX wrote...

I think too many people are mistakenly assuming that the right eye (from your perspective) is looking at the viewer, and the left is therefore "off". No. I think that both of them are correctly facing towards an off-frame foe.

Good effort though, not criticizing or anything.

Exactly. She's obviously looking up, and not at the viewer. 


-Polite

Modifié par PoliteAssasin, 30 août 2011 - 10:08 .

[Texhnolyze101]

I'm not seeing the difference at all. :\\

[habitat 67]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

She still looks retarded. No offense.

Now we're getting somewhere.