"Anita Sarkeesian Stole my Artwork" Claims Blogger

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Are my eyes going backwards, or is there some hubub going on with the comments here? I didn't know you could quote people who have posted after you.

Anyways, OT: If FF is non-profit, does that mean she doesn't get say, ad revenue from youtube? does that mean that all of the KS money had to go towards funding the project, and could she prove one way or another that it did? (Let's hope she saved a lot of receipts if it boils down to that)

I'm not going to comment on the legality of the issue, or Ms. Sarkeesian's ethics at this point. The biggest question I have is... why? Why didn't she nip this entire issue in the bud when she was first contacted (which, according to cowkitty's blog, was attempted through twitter, Anita's website, and Kickstarter.) By just apologizing for not crediting the artist (even if it is fanart, it still does deserve proper crediting) and letting bygones be bygones? If Anita would have done anything at all, this probably wouldn't be making news anywhere right now.

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.

So basically she's as bad as every other internet content maker working today?

What a monster.

By just apologizing for not crediting the artist (even if it is fanart, it still does deserve proper crediting) and letting bygones be bygones?

Probably because she spends a good amount of every day getting bullcrap kvetching, which goes through a filter, and this probably didn't make it through her filter because it is only about 10% less bullcrap.

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

You don't need permission from the content creator to draw fan art, as long as you are not making money off the artwork, or claim that the character was an original creation.

If fans had to have permission to draw a character, Hasbro would have taken down every piece of Friendship is Magic fan art on Deviantart by now. But they don't. As a matter of fact, Hasbro actually has a binder full of fan art that they display at their corporate headquarters (this was said by the VP of the Entertainment Division at Hasbro).

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.

Based on what we have seen of her skills I think it is pretty fair to say that she is not the most competent of researchers or doesn't really qualify as a researcher at all. She is just another loudmouthed blogger on the internet. There is no actual research, effort, or accrediting of sources that goes on with her. She thinks an idea. She verbalizes it. She does a google search to find a picture that might dramatize whatever it is that she is spitting out of her mouth. It's not even like anything she says can be backed up with any actual data at all. It's no better researched than the drunk down the end of the bar who is railing against the CIA spying on his dental work. (actually said drunk probably actually has more credibility and a better research team these days.)

snowfi6916:

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

You don't need permission from the content creator to draw fan art, as long as you are not making money off the artwork, or claim that the character was an original creation.

If fans had to have permission to draw a character, Hasbro would have taken down every piece of Friendship is Magic fan art on Deviantart by now. But they don't. As a matter of fact, Hasbro actually has a binder full of fan art that they display at their corporate headquarters (this was said by the VP of the Entertainment Division at Hasbro).

I know. Well, not the specifics about Hasbro. Didn't know that. But BioWare has done the same, so i know of the practice.

My (snarklly expressed) point was that fanworks exist in a legal grey area. People doing them should be the last group to get anal about whether or not something is fair use and who owns what.

EDIT:

Has the magical timeshifting posts problems stayed on the other page or will it follow us to this one too?

Worgen:
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.

This aspect of copyright law is often misunderstood as these kinds of disputes are decided on a case by case basis and the rules of Fair use are applied according to circumstance, rather than a steadfast, invariable rule. But one can speculate on it.

Tammy's art would most likely be covered under the Parody exception of Fair Use. In general this element is interpreted loosely and depending on circumstance is up for debate. This allows you to draw Catwoman if you want and even post the picture in your online gallery or Tumblr, etc. This also allows you to create fan comics, and fan fic, etc. You don't own the rights to Catwoman, but you are allowed to draw her and even display the work you've done. You can even legally take a commission to draw whomever, even if you don't own the rights to the character (ex: An artist that works for Image has a booth the artists' alley at SDCC to do commissions for $50.00 and a spectator asks that artist to draw Super Man (a DC property) -- the Image artist can legally oblige the spectator and can aditionally legally exchange that work for the spectator's money). However, you wouldn't draw Catwoman and then post it in a shop to sell without expecting the owner of the IP to cry foul (ex. That same Image artist mentioned above would be ill-advised to take a stack of duplicates of that Super Man drawing he did for the spectator and sell them - DC could rightfully get angry). While Parody can give a LOT of slack in the area of fan work, Tammy certainly can't claim the that the character belongs to her. She ought to give notice of something like "Dragon's Lair, Princess Daphne, and all other intellectual property therein (c) xxxxx" / "This image (c) Tammy whomever". At any rate, the character belongs to someone else, yes. But the WORK belongs to Tammy, regardless (you don't need Marvel's permission to do Iron Man fan art). Tammy CAN seek council on the matter - it could possibly go in her favor (I think likely). Especially if it's cease and desist -- that she desires simply for Sarkeesian to remove her image from the collage.

One, however, absolutely can not legally take an existing image that someone else has created (even if another party owns the rights to the character in the image) and claim ownership of that image, or doctor it, or adopt it, or otherwise make use of it, without strictly adhering to Fair Use guidelines. There is far less leeway given in the example taking an image, than there is in creating one's own interpretation. Additionally, The status of her projects as non-profit is completely irrelevant. The value of a work is not strictly monetary.

On the point of the collage: a collage CAN be transformative in nature. Whether or not it IS, would be decided on a case by case basis. Here, I would argue not, as Tammy's image is placed prominantly in the collage and in full view (That's Alex Ahad's work from skullgirls in there too - official character art). Rather than transfromed in any meaningful way, it is simply included. Again, it's debatable - these kinds of disagreements are settled case by case, on intepretation, rather than on the strictly objective administration of inflexible truths set in stone - and could possibly go in Sarkeesian's favor, but I think this is far less likely). Sarkeesian's producer is in error as to how he has interpreted "transformative" as it would apply to Fair Use and copyright law. The parody of recreating a property, subject to right, in one's own interpretation is substantially more transformative than simply appropriating an existing image, subject to right, into a new work.

If Sarkesian wanted to use that character, she could have drawn her own version (giving proper credit to IP right holders of course), she could have asked the IP right holders' permission to use an official image, she could have had the character commissioned from someone else, or she could have asked permission from Tammy. All of these possible avenues were ignored because it was easier to just screen grab and cut&paste what suited her purpose. At best, Sarkesian was sloppy and lazy. At worst she did indeed infringe on Tammy's right - as odd as that may initially seem.

A lot of problems arise from a gap in the understanding of how the law actually works and how the general public believes it to work.

EyeReaper:
Are my eyes going backwards, or is there some hubub going on with the comments here? I didn't know you could quote people who have posted after you.

Anyways, OT: If FF is non-profit, does that mean she doesn't get say, ad revenue from youtube? does that mean that all of the KS money had to go towards funding the project, and could she prove one way or another that it did? (Let's hope she saved a lot of receipts if it boils down to that)

I'm not going to comment on the legality of the issue, or Ms. Sarkeesian's ethics at this point. The biggest question I have is... why? Why didn't she nip this entire issue in the bud when she was first contacted (which, according to cowkitty's blog, was attempted through twitter, Anita's website, and Kickstarter.) By just apologizing for not crediting the artist (even if it is fanart, it still does deserve proper crediting) and letting bygones be bygones? If Anita would have done anything at all, this probably wouldn't be making news anywhere right now.

Anita is utterly notorious for ignoring, removing and silencing any and all criticism and complaints aired to her through both public and private channels. I once posted on one of her YouTube videos saying "but my sister likes pink" after she rambled about pink LEGO and received a permanent ban from being able to post on all of her content.

That aside, who cares anymore? Her videos are receiving notably less views for each installment that she posts. The only people that take her seriously anymore are the people that already subscribe to her outdated view of feminism. And since it's related, here's a good summary on what impact any of this is going to have in video format:

Oh, and it's possible to edit a later post into a quote in a post that came before it. It just won't show a system message to the person that got quoted.

Weren't these videos intended to be used in classrooms? Or did I have some sort fever dream in which I dreamed that up? If so, wouldn't she get paid for that? Thus, for profit! If the other thing, why can't I fever dream good things that I actually care about?

I'm not too clear on the legal standing on this sort of thing. I'm not sure that the artist has the right to sell the image, even if she drew the image based on her imagination of the character. I'm pretty sure shirts of the various abridgers are based on their jokes, not the characters, hence why they can sell them. I'm thinking she can't sell the image, though.

However, even if the artist can't sell the work, her work should at least be acknowledged. It's not very polite to use a person's work and not even acknowledge them. Claiming that turning it into a collage somehow makes it a new work is a very weak argument. I'm not completely unsympathetic to the claim, but every person I know of who uses copyrighted works (like Nostalgia Critic, Little Kuriboh, and Angry Joe) all acknowledge the copyright and in some of those cases are actual reviews as opposed to comedy shows. Something which is lacking here.

Frankly, I know too little about the legal grounds of this to really have an opinion one way of the other. But, regardless of the legal issues, one should acknowledge other people's work, at the bare minimum.

Imp Emissary:

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.

That's what pretty much happens every time. Settle out of court. There is legal precedent for this and I linked it in the second post in this thread. http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c12C.html

Imp Emissary:

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?

Tammy would lose automatically because she doesn't own the character.

--
Orson Welles vs Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. et al
USCA 9th Cir (10-3-1962) 308 F.2d 810, 135 USPQ 116

The decision does concede that "if Mr. Welles had owned rights in the script-there was a sufficient taking to constitute more than fair use, [yet] appellant's case must fail because he had no such rights."
--

Orson Welles sued CBS for broadcasting War of the Worlds, Welles had produced, but didn't write or own it, it was a work-for-hire by CBS. This is a much clearer application of fair use not applying that nearly identical to fanart/fanfic/doujinshi/mashups are. This is also why you must be absolutely careful about work-for-hire contracts. When you do those contracts you never own what you create.

I never knew you could get famous based on being a kleptomaniac.

Also it's nice to see that she never learned to source the work of others or ask permission for anything at whatever college she followed the course about "How to make money from social justice morons".

Now it's back to just ignoring whatever happens in feminist land and tumblr for me.

Oh maybe I'll play some thief!

Imp Emissary:

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?

It's certainly a gray area which is what makes this topic so interesting.

Personally I don't think the banner falls within fair use as it is not being used for the purposes of critique etc. Having said that I also think Tammys claim that the banner is breaching her IP is invalid, though that depends on what her end goal in this situation is.

Saltyk:
Frankly, I know too little about the legal grounds of this to really have an opinion one way of the other. But, regardless of the legal issues, one should acknowledge other people's work, at the bare minimum.

As opposed to the many other images that are used everyday without direct credit.

Yes, it would have been nice, but no one was under the impression she made it, much less owned it, like the other images in her collage.

This isn't FOX screwing Jonathon Coultan out the money made from his song. Tammy wasn't owed anything, and now basically has all the credit she'll ever have.

Anyone expecting this turns into a fight is going to be wrong.

EyeReaper:
Are my eyes going backwards, or is there some hubub going on with the comments here? I didn't know you could quote people who have posted after you.

The secret is time travel.

Anyways, OT: If FF is non-profit, does that mean she doesn't get say, ad revenue from youtube?

The videos don't have ads. Nonprofit!

does that mean that all of the KS money had to go towards funding the project, and could she prove one way or another that it did? (Let's hope she saved a lot of receipts if it boils down to that)

The kickstarter's funding has been brought up and responded to over to over and over and over and over and... to the point that bringing it up leads to an assumption of bad faith. If you get any curt replies, that will be why.

There isn't a way to prove that she did or didn't use the money for something that people might disapprove of, but non-profits still pay their employees, even founding employees. See Komen for the cure(ie. breast cancer) for an example of this perhaps gone awry where large portions of the donations received are spent on advertising instead of actually curing breast cancer.

Additionally, it's not like this money was expected. She asked for 6000 and received over twentyfold that, and they are considered donations and not investment to my knowledge. She makes no recurring income and sells no product and therefore makes no profit, so why should her company be considered a for-profit institution?

I'm not going to comment on the legality of the issue, or Ms. Sarkeesian's ethics at this point. The biggest question I have is... why? Why didn't she nip this entire issue in the bud when she was first contacted (which, according to cowkitty's blog, was attempted through twitter, Anita's website, and Kickstarter.) By just apologizing for not crediting the artist (even if it is fanart, it still does deserve proper crediting) and letting bygones be bygones? If Anita would have done anything at all, this probably wouldn't be making news anywhere right now.

This would have been news no matter the details, though I agree that avoiding a legal defence and simply crediting the creator might have been preferable, as it would have been for the LPers "stolen" footage of the games. It's Anita Sarkeesian. She's like a variation of Hastur; say her name three times these days and you will spawn a news story and a hive of assholes beneath it voicing their deepest fears and their paranoia.

Also, as an aside, keep in mind that this art was used before anyone donated her a penny on the first post of the kickstarter. She had no money to create a better banner, so google searches it was. While this might seem poor now, given how big the project has become, at the time it certainly makes sense to have more relaxed standards, especially given an expectation that it would be a small project meant for a much smaller audience.

Supdupadog:

Saltyk:
Frankly, I know too little about the legal grounds of this to really have an opinion one way of the other. But, regardless of the legal issues, one should acknowledge other people's work, at the bare minimum.

As opposed to the many other images that are used everyday without direct credit.

Yes, it would have been nice, but no one was under the impression she made it, much less owned it, like the other images in her collage.

This isn't FOX screwing Jonathon Coultan out the money made from his song. Tammy wasn't owed anything, and now basically has all the credit she'll ever have.

Anyone expecting this turns into a fight is going to be wrong.

If you're talking about when companies, musicians, or professional artists use such things, then yes they are credited. If they aren't, that is legal grounds for a lawsuit.

Anyway, I never said that Tammy had any legal right or was owed anything. I even stated that I doubt she has the right to sell the image. At the end of the day, all I said is that Anita should have acknowledged her work at the bare minimum. And left the rest to those with more knowledge with this sort of thing.

And she is apparently claiming that she made it. Hence the whole putting it into a collage changes the work claim. No one thinks that Linkara made the comics, video or music clips, or anything else he uses in his videos. He still cites the owners of those works. Team Four Star starts every video off with a disclaimer.

Whether people are expected to know that you don't own or create something is irrelevant to what I said. And if some people misbehave that is not an excuse for others to do so.

It's not a question of legality I brought up. It's a question of respecting others work and honesty. It's not hard to site in the video's description or the credits.

She had no money to create a better banner, so google searches it was.

Why does she need a better banner anyway?

Do we really want to hear how she spent 1000 bucks on some avant-garde piece to appear for the bit before any of her videos?

Is the complaining she apparently hasn't spent enough better replaced with her spending extravagantly?

She's probably not much of a drawing artist (As indicated by the "in an afternoon" collage) and therefore probably doesn't care to commission something when she doesn't have a larger artistic vision for a simple banner. Especially when there is scripts and editing that actually make up the video.

I mean, god damn, the banner? Really? We actually give a damn now?

Saltyk:
It's not a question of legality I brought up. It's a question of respecting others work and honesty. It's not hard to site in the video's description or the credits.

You're right, it's not hard.

But that also means it's not a damning display of character or credibility. At worst it's a common oversight.

A note about the title of the news article.

"Claim" is incorrect.

She did.

As to if that's okay or not, is the matter of subjectivity. Not if the art was stolen or not. We know that already.

She used art she did not have the permission for, there's no denying of that.

Oh an internet person took the work of some other internet person and used it without letting it know first,or crediting.
Why am I not surprised ?

Scrumpmonkey:

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.

What the heck? Now it's doing it to your posts too.
odd.

Anyway. Wish you said this before.

Taking issue with the videos quality of production is perfectly fine. Just like in games, if it's too low, or not set right in certain places, then the game can fail to do what it sets out to do.
For a presentation like Anita's, this can mean that the message is incorrectly, or fail completely.

That said, I'd say Anita's videos are of a fine enough quality to do what they need to. As for the question of how much was put into them to improve. While I don't know the figures, it probably wasn't 150K.
That said, while it isn't mind blowing, the videos she's put out have been of better quality than the ones she's had before from a production perspective.
To those disappointed with the improvements, I'd have to ask what they were expecting.
I mean, how much can you improve a lecture show with video, in terms of production.

I don't think it's bad to not like the show due to it's quality, but if someone says that it removes all weight to the points, I have to disagree.

As for disagreeing with said points. As long as ya explain your point of view, and explain why ya disagree.
I'd like to hear about theses outmoded feminist ideas you say Anita has, and how they are flawed.
You're half way to that by mentioning them.

As for the money, true, Anita did get a substantial amount of money from kickstarter. However, nothing from that was criminal, and the link to it with Tammy's picture isn't very substantial. Also, as someone else mentioned, Tammy doesn't seem, so far, to be asking for money, nor any compensation yet.
She is using the money to make the show, so I don't see how one could call it a scam.

As for if she is spending ENOUGH of the money on the project so far. Since I don't have any data on the cost of it, I can't really comment.
If you do, please share.

KisaiTenshi:

Imp Emissary:

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.

That's what pretty much happens every time. Settle out of court. There is legal precedent for this and I linked it in the second post in this thread. http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c12C.html

Imp Emissary:

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?

Tammy would lose automatically because she doesn't own the character.

--
Orson Welles vs Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. et al
USCA 9th Cir (10-3-1962) 308 F.2d 810, 135 USPQ 116

The decision does concede that "if Mr. Welles had owned rights in the script-there was a sufficient taking to constitute more than fair use, [yet] appellant's case must fail because he had no such rights."
--

Orson Welles sued CBS for broadcasting War of the Worlds, Welles had produced, but didn't write or own it, it was a work-for-hire by CBS. This is a much clearer application of fair use not applying that nearly identical to fanart/fanfic/doujinshi/mashups are. This is also why you must be absolutely careful about work-for-hire contracts. When you do those contracts you never own what you create.

Wow. :D Neat stuff. Thanks for the info.

Although, I wasn't the one to say the first thing in the quote. That was Rednog.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/7.844291.20793548

I still appreciate the information you gave though. Again, thank you. :)

wulf3n:

Imp Emissary:

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?

It's certainly a gray area which is what makes this topic so interesting.

Personally I don't think the banner falls within fair use as it is not being used for the purposes of critique etc. Having said that I also think Tammys claim that the banner is breaching her IP is invalid, though that depends on what her end goal in this situation is.

True. If Tammy want's money, which I don't think is the case, I don't think she'd do well going after it.

And if she just want's recognition, while it would be polite of Anita to comply, I question the necessity.
Especially now that most who have kept up with Anita's show, or who are fans of Tammy probably know the story now.

It just seems odd, but I'm not an artist, so how should I know how one could react to such a situation?

I guess we'll find out eventually. Like with most things.

Why is it so hard for people to just ask, "Hey, can I use your art for a project?" I mean, the buys at BioShock Infinite did it, and even ended up paying the guy. If someone asked to use my art, I'd be thrilled. Instead, people go around preaching about stuff, and then do stuff like this so that their message gets completely undercut.

Supdupadog:

She had no money to create a better banner, so google searches it was.

Why does she need a better banner anyway?

Do we really want to hear how she spent 1000 bucks on some avant-garde piece to appear for the bit before any of her videos?

Is the complaining she apparently hasn't spent enough better replaced with her spending extravagantly?

She's probably not much of a drawing artist (As indicated by the "in an afternoon" collage) and therefore probably doesn't care to commission something when she doesn't have a larger artistic vision for a simple banner. Especially when there is scripts and editing that actually make up the video.

I mean, god damn, the banner? Really? We actually give a damn now?

I totally agree with you. All I'm saying is that even within the view that the banner somehow matters and the money should be spent on every aspect of the project, there isn't any way for that money to have been spent here. Other people on this thread have stated that she should be more professional with her citations when this ultimately was used at a time when the product wasn't at all expected to be professional.

Also, when you quote people like that instead of using the quote button, they don't get a message stating that you quoted them, so they are unlikely to respond.

AntiChri5:

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.

Looking at the artist's latest update, it appears that she'd just be happy with an apology and some proper credit, which is fair enough, really. I think she was bringing up all the legalese before just to get the point across.

OT: While the subject of fan art and fair use is something of a grey issue for many, it is worth pointing out that just because the artist doesn't actually own the character they're drawing, that does not mean they forfeit all their rights to the picture they produce.

For example, I draw and paint bespoke film poster designs, sometimes just for fun, sometimes on commission. Most of the stuff I'm commissioned to draw, though, is from copyrighted material (i.e. Dredd 3D, Batman: Arkham Asylum, etc.). Now, if I find somebody on cafe press has just lifted one of my poster designs and stuck it on a T-shirt to sell without my permission, I am within my rights to demand the person remove the items from his store because, while I don't own the rights to the character of Judge Dredd or Karl Urban's likeness, I do own the composition that they've stolen. I have the transformative clause in my favour on that one.

Now, there are two elements that complicate this matter. One is Anita's claim that Fem Freq is a non-profit organisation. Now, whether that is or isn't true is irrelevant to us. However, if this matter becomes an official "thing", then Anita will need to prove that she has not made a penny out of these materials. But then this leads on to another factor in the fair use law, in that Anita could make the argument that she has not gone into any direct competition with the artist's market. Basically, the artist will need to demonstrate that she has lost money as a direct result of Anita using the image.

It's worth checking out this video from Comic Con a couple of years ago. It's deviantART's in-house lawyer explaining some of the ins-and-outs of fan art and copyright law;

http://youtu.be/xKBsTUjd910

(sorry, the skill of embedding videos in these forums still eludes me)

Whether or not Anita knowingly took the image from the artist, it does at least demonstrate a somewhat cavalier approach to collecting her material. You really need to do some due diligence if you are going to grab images off Google for your promotional material; you track down the source of the image you're using and if it's come from a third party source then (at the very least) you should try getting in contact with them to ask their permission and credit them when you use their work. If you can't get in contact with the source, you drop the image and find another. Doesn't matter what the subject matter of the image is, doesn't matter that it's fan art, it's just common and professional courtesy.

Now, admittedly, given my background, I am probably predisposed to fall on the artist's side on this matter. Though, as is the common theme on this thread, this isn't really a black-and-white matter. True, within the strict letter of the law, there is a reasonable argument to be made in Anita's favour. However, on purely ethical ground, I'm more inclined to agree that Anita is in the wrong on this one.

I will say this, though; if you think the anti-Anita trolls are vicious, you really have not seen what happens in the deviantART community when somebody fires off the "Art Thief" flare gun...

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.

That would require her to actually spend some of the money her Kickstarter raised rather than pocketing it. *drum rimshot* :P

Seriously though, and as CriticalMiss pointed out as well, this really isn't anything new. She's had accusations of "you stole my (fill in the blank)" for a long time now, particularly when it comes to gameplay footage, which leads to further accusations that she's not even a gamer to begin with since she apparently can't be arsed to play the games she complains about herself. This leads to further accusations that she's just a sensationalist cunningly poking at a demographic she really has no business messing around with in the first place. Which ultimately leads us back to the issue of the Kickstarter controversy in the first place: she's just doing all this to make money.

Personally I really don't care about her, though I do admit I like watching the maelstrom of controversy that surrounds her. Kinda how I like the controversy around Rush Limbaugh. If you don't like Anita, don't watch her videos and you won't be subjugated to her opinion. It's that simple. Same thing with Rush: just don't listen to his radio show. Yet people who hate Anita and Rush keep on going back to them for reasons that are beyond me. And if you already don't listen/watch them, then you either don't really know enough about them to be complaining or you shouldn't have anything to complain about in the first place since they're not affecting you in any way.

Sniper Team 4:
Why is it so hard for people to just ask, "Hey, can I use your art for a project?" I mean, the buys at BioShock Infinite did it, and even ended up paying the guy. If someone asked to use my art, I'd be thrilled. Instead, people go around preaching about stuff, and then do stuff like this so that their message gets completely undercut.

Simple: there's always the chance that the person they're asking could say "no". Or demand some form of compensation for the use of their work. It's much easier to simply rip stuff off and hope that no one notices.

The problem is that someone always notices, especially when you're a "celebrity" (and I use that in the loosest possible meaning) such as Anita.

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.

Not everyone actually follows Anita Sarkeesian. Being hip to gaming doesn't mean you've watched Tropes vs Women or even care.

Granted, you'd be forgiven for not knowing that, given the way people respond and these topics explode.

Scrumpmonkey:
"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?

Wait, so you don't know where the money is (or you haven't proved it that I've seen), but you're claiming the campaign is clearly commercial? How does that work?

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.

She hasn't been rendered immune to criticism, but the fact that everybody and their momma would rather attack her personally certainly hasn't helped the issue at all. But are you really doing anything different here? You went after her, rather than her "outdated second wave feminism soap-boxing."

Imp Emissary:

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?

There's legal precedent for use of a licensed property as grounds for a suit or action. People often forget that fanworks aren't so much legal as they are unlikely to be pursued. There's a possible parallel to Let's Plays here, thouugh LPs are an even murkier area that haven't been legally tested to my knowledge.

Companies tend not to pursue action against non-commercial works but they have in the past. And won.

It's not like Anita is the first person to not cite every picture in a video.

But that's the crux of the matter: it's different when Anita does it.

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.

I don't know for sure what they're doing, but they could be completely above-board. There are public domain images, and there are sites they can license this material which doesn't necessarily require credit to be listed. News programs, shows like The Daily Show, and so on do this all the time. The problem, of course, is we don't know.

Granted, you did touch on something here: nobody bothers to ask when it comes to other folks doing it. But then, it's different when Anita does it.

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

Actually, that's trademark law working just as you'd expect trademark law to work. Though it is an admittedly hilarious scenario.

Anita is very likely protected by the cited transformative argument, BTW, but I'm not a lawyer and not a judge. I didn't even stay the night in a Holiday Inn Express. Still, this seems pretty much in line. The problem is people seem to work backwards from "I don't like what she has to say" or "I don't like her" and try and engineer a problem.

The Lunatic:

She used art she did not have the permission for, there's no denying of that.

That doesn't automatically translate to "theft," however, so the headline is appropriate.

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.

They said they tried to contact and them but was ignored.

VanQ:

Anita is utterly notorious for ignoring, removing and silencing any and all criticism and complaints aired to her through both public and private channels.

Right, right, she is silencing criticisms and complaints. That is why all the threads on her here are shut down immediately. And how there exists no videos on youtube criticizing her works. That makes loads of sense and isn't total inane bullshit.

That aside, who cares anymore? Her videos are receiving notably less views for each installment that she posts. The only people that take her seriously anymore are the people that already subscribe to her outdated view of feminism.

What about her expressed views is outdated, mayhaps? And lets stick to what she has actually said for her views, please, with actual quotes, not what you imagine her to have said or read on a forum that she said one time.

Zachary Amaranth:

Actually, that's trademark law working just as you'd expect trademark law to work. Though it is an admittedly hilarious scenario.

Anita is very likely protected by the cited transformative argument, BTW, but I'm not a lawyer and not a judge. I didn't even stay the night in a Holiday Inn Express. Still, this seems pretty much in line. The problem is people seem to work backwards from "I don't like what she has to say" or "I don't like her" and try and engineer a problem.

Hehehe. Really? :D That kind of makes it funnier.
Good jokes from you too, by the way.

The real odd thing about how much this has blown up is that Tammy doesn't seem to be asking anything of Anita, other than to respond to her questions.
And she has the most reason to be agitated in all this, and still not too agitated at that.

Though, with all the copyright halabaloo recently, it does bring up some interesting questions.

Thanks for answering some of mine.

Zachary Amaranth:

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.

I don't know for sure what they're doing, but they could be completely above-board. There are public domain images, and there are sites they can license this material which doesn't necessarily require credit to be listed. News programs, shows like The Daily Show, and so on do this all the time. The problem, of course, is we don't know.

In the case of Extra Credits, and the Daily Show, the daily show is a comedy show and can sit on the parody fair use claim so long as they aren't asserting something is true by being sincere about it. Pretty much everything on that show can be seen as parody, and even "real news" places forget that the Daily Show is not a news program, it's an entertainment program (like Fox news) and can run all the opinion pieces they want. Extra Credits can pretty much replace every piece of art (same with Moviebob and Jim Sterling) with something else, because a lot of the art used isn't critical to use -that- specific piece of art, just what it represents, and is still fair use for criticism and comment.

In a court of law (remember case-by-case basis) fair use will not apply if the resulting work is a derivative of the original and ultimately relies on the original to exist (see Archie vs Ken Penders), but sometimes someone screws up the work-for-hire contract and by doing so gives implied rights to the use of that content, credited or not, if there is no way to prove otherwise. This is why when you post something on the internet, you post your license conditions with that content, otherwise you've implied anyone can use it. There is no automatic "don't make money from this, I don't own it" right implied in fanart.

I don't see where 'claims' comes into it. It's true and abhorrent. She used artwork, basically unaltered, and won't even engage in a civil discussion with a very patient and lenient content creator to give them the credit they deserve. Whatever you think of her content, Sarkeesian has no scruples about using the content of others.

Imp Emissary:

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?

The person through whom the image was possible in the first place? I don't see how you are so conflicted over who has more claim to the use of an artwork between the person who went into a program, spent a while composing the image with lines with their hands and colouring it and whatnot, and the person who took that image and used it wholesale with a fraction of the time and effort, and can't even lay claim to the composition and linework, even if the character is not original. When I draw something - Sonic for example (not a Sonic fan but bear with me), I may not be the inventor of Sonic, and I may not be the only one with the skillset to draw Sonic in the way that I did, but I am the decision maker and enabler behind every aspect of that image. That's got to count for something. Arguably more than the character design itself, and definitely more than even the most meticulous cropping and pasting of that image into something else (which is, by the way, well short of the 'remix' that act was described as).

So?

She stole the gameplay footage... its not actualy surprising that shes stealing someone elses work without crediting them too.

What you think she is actually doing some "work" of her own for the buttload of kickstarter cash she got? Oh please.

And why is her Male producer answering for her? Isnt that a patriarchic thing to do? Wont he allow Arnita to talk for herself?

This whole Arnita stick was a farse from the very beginning and only falls more apart the more time passes and the more details come to light.

Gamings most dangerous women my behind.

BreakfastMan:

Right, right, she is silencing criticisms and complaints. That is why all the threads on her here are shut down immediately. And how there exists no videos on youtube criticizing her works. That makes loads of sense and isn't total inane bullshit.
.

Nice strawman there. Anita is censoring and banning people where she can do it and where her own viewership mostly frequents, her blogs and youtube videos wich she admitted herselfe she never lets go unmodded. That is if she even allows comments.. like say her kickstarter video wich she strangely left unmodded... i wonder why?

If Anita could moderate the escapist forums she would. The only reason she doesnt is because she cant because she doesnt have the rights to do so.

However she and her Team (because i doubt its only herself) is VERY quick to shut down any critical voices by simply muting and banning them on her own videos and blogs, we cant have any discent in the choir of rightfull justice warriors now can we?

Dont have to explain how this makes her even more hypocritical?

Putting the legal issues aside (which frankly are a bit grey. Honestly I'm not sure who has the high ground here). I am STUNNED that she didn't even consider crediting the original creator of the artwork. I mean this is some BASIC SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 101 stuff, and for someone who sees herself as a lecturer and an academiac, this kind of behavior is just baffling.

I have a miniscule, microscopic Youtube channel where I do gaming videos. I use plenty of footage from Youtube because I don't have the equipment to capture it all myself. And I always, ALWAYS credit
a) The company behind the game
b) The company behind the game and the uploader
and add the link to the original video into my description. It's basic manners and ethics in my opinion, and for someone not being able to grasp that is just disappointing to me.

If you use someone else's work in what you intend to be an academic piece of work, you credit the source, period. I don't care if you're Mother Theresa, that's just something you do. I mean, sure, if you nab something off the internet, chances are mostly people won't care, but sometimes they do, so some basic courtesy is in order. We shouldn't be extending "hero insurance" in reality.

And that's what I have to say on the matter. Last piece of info I have is the matter got resolved eventually; so it's not all bad. Maybe next time she'll credit her sources to avoid this kind of inconvenience, and not like it takes much effort to do so.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here