"Anita Sarkeesian Stole my Artwork" Claims Blogger

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

"Anita Sarkeesian Stole my Artwork" Claims Blogger

tropes vs women in games stolen artwork

Blogger "Tammy" claims Sarkeesian stole her image of Princess Daphne to use in her Tropes vs. Women Kickstarter logo.

By now, I'm pretty sure I don't need to tell you guys who Anita Sarkeesian is. But, just for a quick recap, she started the Tropes vs Women in Videogames Kickstarter, which aimed to explore sexism in videogames, raised a boatload of money, and then made some videos that some backers strongly disagreed with, crying "scam". Well, now she's back in the controversy spotlight, as Blogger "Tammy" from CowKitty.net is claiming Sarkeesian stole her image of Princess Daphne to use in her Tropes vs. Women Kickstarter logo.

"Long Story Short: You stole my art, used it for commercial purposes, and won't even respond to my polite inquiries," claimed Tammy in a blog post entitled "You Stole My Artwork: An Open Letter to Anita Sarkeesian." If you'll look to the right, you'll see the image in question, making it very obvious that it is indeed Tammy's picture being used in the Tropes vs. Women logo.

Copywright law is kind of a gray area in this case, as Tammy obviously doesn't own the rights to Princess Daphne (a character from Dragon's Lair) as her image is just fan-art. Sarkeesian, and later, her Feminist Frequency producer Jonathan McIntosh did eventually respond to Tammy's letter, but claimed that a "remixed collage is transformative in nature and as such constitutes a fair use of any copyrighted material as provided for under section 107 of the US Copyright law." Sarkeesian also claimed that all Feminist Frequency projects are non-profit.

Tammy responded noting, "Even if this was a legal example of Fair Use (It's not), it wouldn't mean that the theft was ethical or moral. It's exploitative and unfortunately marginalizes content creators", and kindly asked again for valid proof of non-profit status.

This is a messy situation, and at this point it doesn't look like it will resolve itself peacefully.

Source: CowKitty.net

Permalink

Anyone experiencing Deja vu?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.844256-Poll-Anita-Sarkeesians-Done-It-Again?page=1

Original accusation
http://cowkitty.net/post/78808973663/you-stole-my-artwork-an-open-letter-to-anita

Follow up:
http://cowkitty.net/post/78869649107/update-official-response-you-stole-my-art-an-open

"[V]arious purposes for fair use: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." (Fact sheet FL102 http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html )

"There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission." (Fact sheet FL102 http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html )

Legal precedents for fair use:
http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c12C.html

Whelp this is par for the course. Whatever side you believe on the subject at hand, it's becoming increasingly clear that Sarkesian is not the most ethical researcher.

Alright, be honest, were you just reading the forums and decided this was apparently news worthy?

Really, Anita Sarkeesian drama is the celebrity gossip of the gaming world. It doesn't actually effect anything whatsoever, it's at best incredibly tangentially related to gaming and everyone gets up in arms over it for no real reason.

Well I'm guessing she also doesn't have permission to use any of the other images in the collage, does she? And given how much money she raised I don't see why she didn't comission an original logo to be made with original artwork of existing characters. Laziness I guess considering she couldn't be bothered to capture her own footage or credit the people whose videos she used.

I had hoped the world had forgotten her but I guess she's back for now...

If this has been the logo for almost a year now, why has the artist just now noticed? I would assume if they do video game related fanart, they'd be hip to the gaming world and would have at least heard of Sarkeesian. Why wait all this time to bring this up? Idk that's just my question.

But yeah either Sarkeesian isn't aware that Google image searches are still subject to copyright law or she's just not smart about the laws in the first place. The government really ought to have better resources about that stuff. I've looked and it's really confusing to figure out. It'd stop stuff like this happening 9 times out of 10.

Its kind of a weird situation, someone else did the art work but its based on something that is owned by another party and I doubt they got permission to draw it.

th3dark3rsh33p:
Whelp this is par for the course. Whatever side you believe on the subject at hand, it's becoming increasingly clear that Sarkesian is not the most ethical researcher.

This doesn't have anything to do with her ethics as a researcher. This is about her ethics as a presenter. Making an unethical judgment as one doesn't prove she makes unethical judgments as the other.

That said, Sarkeesian really has done wrong here. Even if she does technically have the legal right to use that artwork as a derived-work fair-use mumbo-jumbo thing, basic ethics require her to cite the source. And while I think 99% of the anti-Sarkeesian criticism I've seen on the internet has been knee-jerk mindless garble-garble, there's no excuse for what she's done here. The upper levels of academia she resides in have very strong rules about using other people's stuff in your stuff. We drill constantly into our students' heads that they have to give credit when they use someone else's stuff. She should know better.

CriticalMiss:
Well I'm guessing she also doesn't have permission to use any of the other images in the collage, does she? And given how much money she raised I don't see why she didn't comission an original logo to be made with original artwork of existing characters. Laziness I guess considering she couldn't be bothered to capture her own footage or credit the people whose videos she used.

I had hoped the world had forgotten her but I guess she's back for now...

It's been a while, so my memory is a bit fuzzy, but didn't she have that banner at the start when she was asking for the $6,000?

<_< Hold on a sec *checks YouTube*.................... YES!

Anyway, as I said in the other thread, she says it is in fair use, Tammy says "no it's not", and Anita says the videos are non-profit, so she isn't making money off it.

Unless someone can prove otherwise, I don't see the issue here, other than it's Anita, and we must look at EVERYTHING involving Anita. ;p

Her already questionable reputation is diminishing even more. If you wish to change how a population thinks, you shouldn't do something that upsets that population. It is basic politics. The ignorance of this woman knows no bounds.

rasputin0009:

FalloutJack:
I predict that this will get ugly, remain ugly, go to court, and one gets sunk while the other gets their rep blown away.

Any takers?

Nope. It's not worth it to even consult a lawyer. That small piece of artwork is making money for nobody and lawyers aren't cheap. The blogger is just trying to get some attention from Anita's infamy.

A possible safe bet, but I say attention-grabbers will escalate. Let's see how it turns out.

yup still classed as fair use although she still should of credited her for the use of the image.
im also not ashamed to admit its also the sort of thing i would do by accident as well

cursedseishi:

AntiChri5:
Did the artist get permission to draw the character?

Fair use buddy, pay attention sometimes and you might find your answer was in the article to begin with. As long as an individual does not make money of off the image or claims the character is their own original creation and pay the original creator recognition, it's fair game. Anita did not pay the creator of the drawing used respect in recognizing the drawing itself was hers and credit her as such. It's not that big a shock considering game play she claims to have "captured" for her videos was stolen from Let's Play videos other people have made, examples of which are easily found.

She got more money than she needed, in major part due to idiots, and refuses to even give credit where credit is due. I won't say anything of her videos, but her personal ethnics are clearly... Lacking in some regard with the way she treats and uses the content of others as if it's her own. I'd love to see someone who can provide strong discussion AND not be thieving bugger of other peoples work at the same time.

Fair use does not extend to monetizing other peoples IP's, buddy. That's the point i was making. Pay attention and sometimes you might be able to understand the point someone else was making.

The artist does not own the character they drew. As with most fanwork, they won't even have gotten permission to do so. Because if people actually had to that would be tedious as fuck. Claiming that Anita using it without compensating the artist is theft implies that the artist owns it and has a right to monetize it. They do not.

Anita should probably add some obscure as fuck footnote somewhere identifying the artist as the one who drew the image. But let's be honest here, Anita has that character there because of who the character is, not because the art is skilled or impressive. She could probably just swap it out for another generic image of the same character.

Fanart and fanfic producers should really be the last ones to get grumpy about lines regarding fair use laws being crossed. They live in that legal grey area.

Okay, what the fuck.

Why is my response to the person who quoted me above not only his post, but my initial one as well? Anyone else seeing this? Have i gone insane?

I predict that this will get ugly, remain ugly, go to court, and one gets sunk while the other gets their rep blown away.

Any takers?

Still personally feel she raises some important points of discussion, but this sort of thing repeatedly coming up raises eyebrows to say the least.

Did the artist get permission to draw the character?

Imp Emissary:

Heck have ya ever seen an episode of Extra Credits? While they have artiests to make most of their images, they've used hundreds of pictures they didn't make over the years. I don't think they've sourced them, and no one seems to be complaining about them. And they definitely make money on their videos.

It's possible all the outsourced pictures they use are Public Domain. A similar response was brought up in the previous thread regarding Yahtzee and Zero Punctuation, however Yahtzee has said before [though I can't find the source :|] that he only uses images in the public domain, so it's likely EC do the same.

OT:

Does anyone know exactly what "CowKitty" actually want's I.E. Money? a public apology? or just the picture removed from the logo?

Imp Emissary:

Anyway, as I said in the other thread, she says it is in fair use, Tammy says "no it's not", and Anita says the videos are non-profit, so she isn't making money off it.

Unless someone can prove otherwise...

You mean the several paid interviews/events where she used that as an image and/or logo? While the videos themselves are non profit, the results of the video have led her to profitable events. She is making money through these other venues while using that image "as her own".

FalloutJack:
I predict that this will get ugly, remain ugly, go to court, and one gets sunk while the other gets their rep blown away.

Any takers?

I predict that it will get to the step right before "we're actually taking you to court" and one party will just drop the image from the logo when that one party gets sound legal advice.

wulf3n:

Imp Emissary:

Heck have ya ever seen an episode of Extra Credits? While they have artiests to make most of their images, they've used hundreds of pictures they didn't make over the years. I don't think they've sourced them, and no one seems to be complaining about them. And they definitely make money on their videos.

It's possible all the outsourced pictures they use are Public Domain. A similar response was brought up in the previous thread regarding Yahtzee and Zero Punctuation, however Yahtzee has said before [though I can't find the source :|] that he only uses images in the public domain, so it's likely EC do the same.

OT:

Does anyone know exactly what "CowKitty" actually want's I.E. Money? a public apology? or just the picture removed from the logo?

This is an excellent question, actually. Id like to know myself.

Anita's side cites a specific part of copyright law to show they aren't using the image illegally.

Tammy responds with a decisive "nu-uh"

Real compelling legal drama we got going on here.

Scrumpmonkey:
"Sarkeesian also claimed that all Feminist Frequency projects are non-profit."

image

Oh that's fucking precious.

And? You have evidence to prove otherwise?

I don't believe kickstarter money is counted as profit. Then again, I guess it could. Money is odd.

Scrumpmonkey:

The whole abuse controversy has made Saint Sarkeesian immune to criticism. Nevermind that gaming press at large lacks the tools, knowledge and balls to really rip in to her outdated second wave feminism soap-boxing.

No. Anita is not immune to criticism. People just keep giving crap "criticism" that focuses on her character, rather than the things she says in her videos.

If ya want to criticize Anita, please do.

Until then, if ya just want to call her an evil scammer, please remember,

And they only think two things about this cat.

1. :D That is so cute! I WANT IT!

2. I don't believe the information this cat has given is very credible.

Phrozenflame500:
Really, Anita Sarkeesian drama is the celebrity gossip of the gaming world. It doesn't actually effect anything whatsoever, it's at best incredibly tangentially related to gaming and everyone gets up in arms over it for no real reason.

Let's be honest here though: her blatantly stealing someone's artwork is a more legitimate reason to bitch about her than people usually have. I mean it is a case of legitimate theft after all.

FalloutJack:
I predict that this will get ugly, remain ugly, go to court, and one gets sunk while the other gets their rep blown away.

Any takers?

Nope. It's not worth it to even consult a lawyer. That small piece of artwork is making money for nobody and lawyers aren't cheap. The blogger is just trying to get some attention from Anita's infamy.

Imp Emissary:

Scrumpmonkey:
"Sarkeesian also claimed that all Feminist Frequency projects are non-profit."

image

Oh that's fucking precious.

And? You have evidence to prove otherwise?

I don't believe kickstarter money is counted as profit. Then again, I guess it could. Money is odd.

Scrumpmonkey:

The whole abuse controversy has made Saint Sarkeesian immune to criticism. Nevermind that gaming press at large lacks the tools, knowledge and balls to really rip in to her outdated second wave feminism soap-boxing.

No. Anita is not immune to criticism. People just keep giving crap "criticism" that focuses on her character, rather than the things she says in her videos.

If ya want to criticize Anita, please do.

Until then, if ya just want to call her an evil scammer, please remember,

And they only think two things about this cat.

1. :D That is so cute! I WANT IT!

2. I don't believe the information this cat has given is very credible.

???
How is this post before the post you're quoting?
If you were editing a post, they aren't going to see it. You might want to fix that.

Edit: and now I'm above the post that I'm saying that you're quoting before you're quoting it. So very confused.

AntiChri5:
Did the artist get permission to draw the character?

Fair use buddy, pay attention sometimes and you might find your answer was in the article to begin with. As long as an individual does not make money of off the image or claims the character is their own original creation and pay the original creator recognition, it's fair game. Anita did not pay the creator of the drawing used respect in recognizing the drawing itself was hers and credit her as such. It's not that big a shock considering game play she claims to have "captured" for her videos was stolen from Let's Play videos other people have made, examples of which are easily found.

She got more money than she needed, in major part due to idiots, and refuses to even give credit where credit is due. I won't say anything of her videos, but her personal ethnics are clearly... Lacking in some regard with the way she treats and uses the content of others as if it's her own. I'd love to see someone who can provide strong discussion AND not be thieving bugger of other peoples work at the same time.

wulf3n:

Imp Emissary:

Heck have ya ever seen an episode of Extra Credits? While they have artiests to make most of their images, they've used hundreds of pictures they didn't make over the years. I don't think they've sourced them, and no one seems to be complaining about them. And they definitely make money on their videos.

It's possible all the outsourced pictures they use are Public Domain. A similar response was brought up in the previous thread regarding Yahtzee and Zero Punctuation, however Yahtzee has said before [though I can't find the source :|] that he only uses images in the public domain, so it's likely EC do the same.

OT:

Does anyone know exactly what "CowKitty" actually want's I.E. Money? a public apology? or just the picture removed from the logo?

Fair enough. Though, until the whole issue of the non-profit status is changed, or if it is proven that this isn't in fair use, I still don't see the issue.

Your question brings up another reason why. Tammy, at least from what I read, hasn't asked for anything in your question's list.

So I don't see what the deal with it is.
If it's just the issue of people not knowing she made that one pic of that character, and wanting to have people know it was drawn by her.
Mission accomplished?

Madmonk12345:

Imp Emissary:

Scrumpmonkey:
"Sarkeesian also claimed that all Feminist Frequency projects are non-profit."

image

Oh that's fucking precious.

And? You have evidence to prove otherwise?

I don't believe kickstarter money is counted as profit. Then again, I guess it could. Money is odd.

Scrumpmonkey:

The whole abuse controversy has made Saint Sarkeesian immune to criticism. Nevermind that gaming press at large lacks the tools, knowledge and balls to really rip in to her outdated second wave feminism soap-boxing.

No. Anita is not immune to criticism. People just keep giving crap "criticism" that focuses on her character, rather than the things she says in her videos.

If ya want to criticize Anita, please do.

Until then, if ya just want to call her an evil scammer, please remember,

And they only think two things about this cat.

1. :D That is so cute! I WANT IT!

2. I don't believe the information this cat has given is very credible.

???
How is this post before the post you're quoting?
If you were editing a post, they aren't going to see it. You might want to fix that.

<.< Um...... I kind of don't know how that happened....

This is more awkward than a double post. I'll do what I can.

Thanks by the way!

It seems she probably just googled an image for the character and added it to her logo without realising that it was an original artwork of an existing character. I wouldn't say she went out of her way to blatantly steal someone's work for profit, but she has shown ignorance about copyright laws for sure. It's terrible that she hasn't confronted the issue.

No doubt people will add this to their personal list of how Sarkessian is the devil, based on the knee-jerk reactions previously. You are allowed to disagree with her, but insulting her appearance, personality and what-have-you is becoming stupid. Leaping on any opportunity to throw metaphorical dirt at her is a bit much.

Imp Emissary:

Madmonk12345:

Imp Emissary:

And? You have evidence to prove otherwise?

I don't believe kickstarter money is counted as profit. Then again, I guess it could. Money is odd.

No. Anita is not immune to criticism. People just keep giving crap "criticism" that focuses on her character, rather than the things she says in her videos.

If ya want to criticize Anita, please do.

Until then, if ya just want to call her an evil scammer, please remember,

And they only think two things about this cat.

1. :D That is so cute! I WANT IT!

2. I don't believe the information this cat has given is very credible.

???
How is this post before the post you're quoting?
If you were editing a post, they aren't going to see it. You might want to fix that.

<.< Um...... I kind of don't know how that happened....

This is more awkward than a double post. I'll do what I can.

Thanks by the way!

You're welcome, but I don't think it's your fault.

This current post that you just posted itself, as is mine, is before the post in question. Escapist forums, you done messed up.

norashepard:
If this has been the logo for almost a year now, why has the artist just now noticed? I would assume if they do video game related fanart, they'd be hip to the gaming world and would have at least heard of Sarkeesian. Why wait all this time to bring this up? Idk that's just my question.

If you read the article, it says that the artist has tried contacting Anita in the past and was ignored; hence why it's an open letter this time, to garner public attention to the matter. Also, the artist may not have known about the whole Tropes vs Gaming thing right away, or if she did, she might not have seen the banner right away. Or any other number of reasons that really don't do much to change the legitimacy of the artist's claims.

Madmonk12345:

Imp Emissary:

Madmonk12345:

???
How is this post before the post you're quoting?
If you were editing a post, they aren't going to see it. You might want to fix that.

<.< Um...... I kind of don't know how that happened....

This is more awkward than a double post. I'll do what I can.

Thanks by the way!

You're welcome, but I don't think it's your fault.

This current post that you just posted itself, as is mine, is before the post in question. Escapist forums, you done messed up.

:D Wow. This is trippy. Perhaps the Escapist is getting bored with these threads, so it wants to mix things up.

Literally.

"Sarkeesian also claimed that all Feminist Frequency projects are non-profit."

image

Oh that's fucking precious.

This is why the original questioned asked of Sarkeesian are still valid; Where is she using all the kick-stater money? Why has the quality of her content remained 100% unchanged? Why does she still behave like a basic rookie and not clear images for her clearly commercial campaign?

The whole abuse controversy has made Saint Sarkeesian immune to criticism in the eyes of many. Nevermind that gaming press at large lacks the tools, knowledge and balls to really rip in to her outdated second wave feminism soap-boxing.

Imp Emissary:

Scrumpmonkey:

The whole abuse controversy has made Saint Sarkeesian immune to criticism. Nevermind that gaming press at large lacks the tools, knowledge and balls to really rip in to her outdated second wave feminism soap-boxing.

No. Anita is not immune to criticism. People just keep giving crap "criticism" that focuses on her character, rather than the things she says in her videos.

There have been many smart rebuttals of her ideas not based on her character. But her public persona is such that it does in it's self attract a degree of more reasonable dislike that does not take the form of the abhorrent abuse we saw in the past.

You are right, attacks based on a personal level are killing this debate. Anyone taking issue with her production methods and actual content get lumped into personal attackers, like you are doing with me. I don't think criticism of the way her content is funded, it's production quality and questions hanging over her level of research fall under a personal attack. There are plenty of issues both within and outside of her actual points to object to without being a screaming bigot.

What i am referring to is her work's basis in some outmoded feminist ideas. If the gaming press press had a better working knowledge of women's issues they might be able better able to critique it accurately without fear of being shouted down as 'abusers'. Even on a feminist level to many third wave feminists her approuch would seem frustrating, adversarial and counterproductive to progress.

But yes, i think she has made plenty of profit from this and acting like a charity is simply misleading. Shes isn't doing this out of the goodness of her heart, she has made this her job. As such she gets an unknown amount going into her pocket. Anita runs feminist frequency, her own small blog. All the 'non profit' money goes to her.

Rednog:

Imp Emissary:

Anyway, as I said in the other thread, she says it is in fair use, Tammy says "no it's not", and Anita says the videos are non-profit, so she isn't making money off it.

Unless someone can prove otherwise...

You mean the several paid interviews/events where she used that as an image and/or logo? While the videos themselves are non profit, the results of the video have led her to profitable events. She is making money through these other venues while using that image "as her own".

Well, that is a better argument. Granted, the bar it had to get over was pretty darn low, but still.

However, I doubt she's calaimed the picture, "as her own". Actually, can Tammy even say the picture is COMPLETELY, "her own"?

While I still say this is pretty much a non-issue, and really doubt it will ever go to court. Tammy herself hasn't mentioned anything about Anita going to any events, so my guess is it's all about the videos.

It does bring up some neat questions about copy right laws.

If someone makes their own art of an already existing character, and someone else uses said art of that character in a piece of their own, who has "the right of way" in such a situation?

I mean, if Tammy could take action on Anita for having the picture in the video, can the creators of Princess Daphne take action on Tammy and Anita too?

In the end though, even with the point you brought up, the whole thing just sounds a bit petty.

Nothing wrong with getting a bit bummed about someone using your work, even if it's just a picture added to the title, and not mentioning it was made by you.
That said, people acting like Anita is committing some unforgivable sin against all human kind, are overreacting quite a bit. It's not like Anita is the first person to not cite every picture in a video.

Heck have ya ever seen an episode of Extra Credits? While they have artiests to make most of their images, they've used hundreds of pictures they didn't make over the years. I don't think they've sourced them, and no one seems to be complaining about them. And they definitely make money on their videos.

This all reminds me of the Chubby Checker copyright lawsuit.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/judge-says-chubby-checker-can-pursue-lawsuit-against-hp-over-penis-measuring-app/

I guess if Chubby can win that one, who knows what can happen with copyright issues. ;p

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 54301)