"Anita Sarkeesian Stole my Artwork" Claims Blogger

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

cursedseishi:

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.

Actually, tha's not how Fair Use works.

You can absolutely use someone elsse's characters withou their permission commercially. For example, a parody movie might use characters from a work it parodies. A remix song can be sold commercially. A novel might quote other novels for a few lines.

Fair Use is determined by four attributes:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Fair Use is determined by the combination of the four, with #2 determining how relevant each of the others can be in the specific case.

For example, the fact that she collected money on Kickstarter, is a strike against #1. The fact that the videos were freely released for educational purposes, is a strike in favor of it. The artwork in question being fully reproduced, is a strike against #3, on the other hand, it being transformatively used in a collage rather than just repeated, is a strike in favor of it. Also, according to #2, copying a whole artwork may have different standards than, say, copying a whole movie, since "the whole" is inherently a smaller piece.

The whole artwork being a non-profit hobbyist thingy is a very strong strike in favor of #4.

All of this could have been avoided if the stupid hag had credited the freaking image like, you know, it's the standard in any academic work. Is that too much to ask?

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.

Indeed. I don't actually think Anita is really liable for anything on legal grounds (the artist can't exactly make a copyright claim for something that they don't even own the rights to, no? Least of all something that can clearly claim fair-use) but at the very least I do think it is kind of crummy of Sarkeesian to not ask the artist's permission, all the same. Even if I had no legal leg to stand on, I would be miffed if someone were to use my stuff without being asked.

Has Sarkeesian ever been in a English class, collage and/or worked on an academic paper before? If so you learn that you must fucking credit all of your sources. It's a very easy concept to grasp.
Ethics aside, It's easier to get permission and credit the art you use; then it is to deal with a situation like this.

I don't personally have a option of Sarkeesian on one way or the other but she seems a bit scummy or ignorant of the whole concept of crediting ones sources.

While Cowkitty doesn't own the IP rights for the character she certainly holds the copyright for her image, no W by the way, and TVW's use is most certainly not transformative, as you can see in the image that they have reproduced Cowkitty's work perfectly, without changing a line.
You don't get to just appropriate images for your own use, commercial or not, without paying for them.

Alma Mare:
All of this could have been avoided if the stupid hag had credited the freaking image like, you know, it's the standard in any academic work. Is that too much to ask?

She could have credited Cowkitty's work up and down the block, it's still copyright infringement without CK's granted permission to use the work.

Voulan:
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.

Actually, she removed the trademark on the photo. So this is blatant plagiarization.

And she brought up her appearance in her Ms Male Character video which is a contradiction from her portrayal of Zelda and Peach which is more sexist than what Nintendo came up with in Karane and Impa.

SecondPrize:
While Cowkitty doesn't own the IP rights for the character she certainly holds the copyright for her image, no W by the way, and TVW's use is most certainly not transformative, as you can see in the image that they have reproduced Cowkitty's work perfectly, without changing a pixel.

This is funny because the simple act of resizing the image to fit her banner actually changed most (if not all) of the pixels.

(I know what you meant, but that's what you said. :P)

JediMB:

SecondPrize:
While Cowkitty doesn't own the IP rights for the character she certainly holds the copyright for her image, no W by the way, and TVW's use is most certainly not transformative, as you can see in the image that they have reproduced Cowkitty's work perfectly, without changing a pixel.

This is funny because the simple act of resizing the image to fit her banner actually changed most (if not all) of the pixels.

(I know what you meant, but that's what you said. :P)

Thanks, you're right of course. I've picked more than enough nits to not be able to dispute that with a straight face.

Reincarnatedwolfgod:
Has Sarkeesian ever been in a English class, collage and/or worked on an academic paper before? If so you learn that you must fucking credit your sources.
Ethics aside, It's easier to get permission and credit the art you use; then it is to deal with a situation like this.

I don't personally have a option of Sarkeesian on one way or the other but she seems a bit scummy or ignorant of the whole concept of crediting ones sources.

You don't want to read her thesis... She basically plagiarized Wikipedia and TVTropes for characters she knew nothing about to say they were sexist.

Oh, and she cribbed Nostalgia Chick for her ideas from NC's review of Mulan.

It's almost as if she defines herself by opportunistically "remixing" ideas from other people.

maninahat:

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.

Indeed. I don't actually think Anita is really liable for anything on legal grounds (the artist can't exactly make a copyright claim for something that they don't even own the rights to, no? Least of all something that can clearly claim fair-use) but at the very least I do think it is kind of crummy of Sarkeesian to not ask the artist's permission, all the same. Even if I had no legal leg to stand on, I would be miffed if someone were to use my stuff without being asked.

She created the artwork. She doesn't have to own the character. And if Anita wants to claim fair use, she should have had a non-profit organization to back up that claim. Sadly, she doesn't. So it adds onto the list of questionable things from Anita.

All Anita had to do was credit the artwork. That, and credit the Let's Players if she got footage from them. The basics of academics is credit, credit, and credit some more. She hasn't really done that sadly.

SecondPrize:
While Cowkitty doesn't own the IP rights for the character she certainly holds the copyright for her image, no W by the way, and TVW's use is most certainly not transformative, as you can see in the image that they have reproduced Cowkitty's work perfectly, without changing a line.
You don't get to just appropriate images for your own use, commercial or not, without paying for them.

Alma Mare:
All of this could have been avoided if the stupid hag had credited the freaking image like, you know, it's the standard in any academic work. Is that too much to ask?

She could have credited Cowkitty's work up and down the block, it's still copyright infringement without CK's granted permission to use the work.

I don't know exactly how copyright laws and fair use apply on this instance. It depends on what grounds the original work is copyrighted and wether it can be qualified as fair use or not. I'm pretty sure 95% of the people with an opinion on this are unqualified to do so and are bound to make asses of themselves in the process.

What I do know is that regardless of all that, if you publish a work with material from other sources, you credit those sources. There's no if and buts and no 3rd way about it. Anita's position would feel a lot more solid if she had shown that basic consideration for the work in cause.

I thought the gameplay video that Anita Sarkeesian using on YouTube doesn't actually credits the original user. Hell, I don't think she even bother of even appreciating other people's work, so why bother listening and watching an ignorant person?

Zachary Amaranth:

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.

Theft is a legal definition.

That's not the case.

Steal is defined as the following.

1. Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

2. Dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as one's own.

And several other definitions.

However, as Anita has committed both of those, there is no doubt to the word "Stealing".

As to if it is "Theft" is different.

Alma Mare:
All of this could have been avoided if the stupid hag had credited the freaking image like, you know, it's the standard in any academic work. Is that too much to ask?

Given Anita's track record regarding sources and citations, I think it's safe to say that she doesn't really care all that much for academic standards.

I'll re-post this from the locked duplicate non-official thread on the same topic.

The problem most people can't vocalize is that Anita Sarkeesian's ideas are based on the more intellectualized tenants of second wave feminism in regards to media. Ideas that are in themselves sometimes infuriating and very open to question, especially by more modern feminists. She is part of a wider field and a specific interpretation, her views do not speak for all women or all feminists.

I think what most people take issue with is the assumption that disconnected and out of context elements in games from different eras come together to create an over-aching anti-woman issue in gaming. Within her field these make sense because her outdated version of female studies tries to see female oppression in everything and everything as a function of a society that oppresses women.

To her 'tropes' are inherently bad, she does not need to provide context because of her philosophical viewpoint; that anything that COULD be interpreted as sexist, no matter how out of context, must be a symptom of of the systematic sidelining of women. This is the "Fun wrecking feminism" many people like to worry about; the kind of feminism that cares about gender neutral language at all times and objects to you holding the door open for them. A feminism based in ultra politically correct and self-important far left ideas of the 60s and 70s that would later fracture under the weight of it's own pomp and ridiculousness in the 1980s because they couldn't agree about sex, porn or militant lesbianism (really, look it up)

She is part of an array of controversial online feminist bloggers and should be seen in the context of their specific, very petty, brand of feminism.

Just a gold digger, nothing to see here...

Seriously though, if the fan artist profited off of the image, she'd be violating copyright.

Scrumpmonkey:
I'll re-post this from the locked duplicate non-official thread on the same topic.

The problem most people can't vocalize is that Anita Sarkeesian's ideas are based on the more intellectualized tenants of second wave feminism in regards to media. Ideas that are in themselves sometimes infuriating and very open to question, especially by more modern feminists. She is part of a wider field and a specific interpretation, her views do not speak for all women or all feminists.

Right, she is part of the second wave... So tell me, exactly how does she compare to Andrea Dworkin, again?

I think what most people take issue with is the assumption that disconnected and out of context elements in games from different eras come together to create an over-aching anti-woman issue in gaming. Within her field these make sense because her outdated version of female studies tries to see female oppression in everything and everything as a function of a society that oppresses women.

Right, because reoccurring plot elements tell us nothing about the culture they are created in and don't actually mean anything. They just exists in a vacuum, and creators are not in any way influenced by their culture.

To her 'tropes' are inherently bad, she does not need to provide context because of her philosophical viewpoint; that anything that COULD be interpreted as sexist, no matter how out of context, must be a symptom of of the systematic sidelining of women. This is the "Fun wrecking feminism" many people like to worry about; the kind of feminism that cares about gender neutral language at all times and objects to you holding the door open for them. A feminism based in ultra politically correct and self-important far left ideas of the 60s and 70s that would later fracture under the weight of it's own pomp and ridiculousness in the 1980s because they couldn't agree about sex, porn or militant lesbianism (really, look it up)

Where did she say that the tropes are inherently bad? What context does she need to provide that proves everything is not sexist? And when the fuck did 3rd wave feminism stop criticizing sexist stereotypes in culture and media?

This despicable woman's immoral acts know no bounds.

MeChaNiZ3D:
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?

That's where I am conflicted, and where this all doesn't sound so simple. Who is that person?

Is it Tammy, or the person who originally created Princess Daphne?

That said,

MeChaNiZ3D:

Imp Emissary:

You read it already!

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).

I agree that even if it's not your "original" creation, that you made the image still should count for something.
Tammy wanting people to know that she made it, and that it's not just some "ordinary" picture is understandable.

That said, she's got that mission accomplished, and the only other thing is she's asking Anita for proof that the videos are non-profit. Anita has also contacted Tammy already. Apparently even before that other thread about this topic, and from what I read was pretty civil.

So what's the issue anymore?

Tammy's getting what she wants, slowly, but eventually. And so far, Anita's grandest "crime" seems to be not siting a picture said to be in fair use, and used for a non-profit video. While it would be nice to cite it's drawer, I question the necessity, especially now that everyone who follows both Tammy and Anita likely know the story by now.

Crazy question? Everyone keeps talking about Ms. Sarkeesian and / or the Feminist Frequency as "Not For Profit". Was this indicated in the Kickstarter? and if so are these in fact incorporated as a Not For Profit and approved as such under IRS guidelines? Just curious, there seems to have been a lot of money in, very little visibly out. Which is kind of a red flag. I mean at a minimum it seems that she may have found a workaround for Kickstarters ban on "funding my life". Is she an employee of Feminist Frequency? Did the kickstarter roll to her as salary? If she claimed it was all a not for profit, then is there anything actually backing those claims?

KisaiTenshi:
Anyone experiencing Deja vu?

According to the staff here, things posted in The News Room don't count as the forum posts, so there's often several threads before an "official" post has been made.

I know, I don't get it either.

Vegosiux:
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.

Pretty much my thoughts on the matter. I will add that it's becoming increasingly obvious how little ethical considerations Ms. Sarkeesian makes when doing her "research". Even to those who've vehemently defended her in the past.

On a side note, I find it hilarious how far some in this thread are going in their apologetics of the situation and Ms. Sarkeesian. This is made even more hilarious[1] when these apologetics are being levied by posters who commonly accuse other posters of irrationally excusing certain other prolific personalities or companies.

Get over it, people. You're in the right race but you've backed the wrong horse.

Throw away the ticket, make a new pick, and move on. Otherwise, you're never going to get to the finish line.

[1] Perhaps I should say hypocritical?

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.

Yep. Not even remotely surprised here.

First there was the... questionable way she handled the harassment she got for a while... which did feel a bit... engineered or at least... milked for all it was worth... considering that her standard policy seems to be to not allow comments on anything she puts on the internet if she can help it.

And then there's the fact that she almost never does any citation for anything she says... she'll put up a half-assed citation for someone she's quoting (or, as is usually the case, partially quoting), but she'll only ever tell who said it, not when, or where, or in what work... just the quote and a name attached to it.

You know, to make it a little trickier to fact-check her material.

And in every video, she phrases her opinions as fact without anything to back it up except her own opinion... and on the whole, her videos give the impression that she came to a conclusion a long time ago, and just sifts through whatever she can find to support that conclusion.

Which is just NOT how you're supposed to do research... at all.

Hence, why I am not in the slightest bit surprised by this spot of gray-area possible copyright infringement... wait... can you copyright fan-art? hmm... still, its a real asshole move to just if its true.

Point is, because of all of that, I'm not the least bit surprised if this turns out to be true.

Hazy:

KisaiTenshi:
Anyone experiencing Deja vu?

According to the staff here, things posted in The News Room don't count as the forum posts, so there's often several threads before an "official" post has been made.

I know, I don't get it either.

I wanted to quickly reference the previous thread and that the dispute was already "updated" before the original thread and even the news post went up, as having admin'd forums before, people quickly start repeating themselves when there are more than one thread on the same topic.

As for repeated arguments found in this thread, re Anita:
a) Anita is a fraud - No, and no proof has ever surfaced for this
b) Anita just plagiarizes Wikipedia, tvtropes, whatever - No proof of that has surfaced either, and given how these sources are NOT sources to begin with, you have to dig further and find out if she plagiarized the source that wikipedia used, or the reverse is true and she or someone who read the same thing put it there. You did see how much wikipedia vandalism showed up minutes after the punch-anita game showed up right?
c) Anita is not a victim - No, just because you disagree with the concept or the amount of money made, doesn't mean the amount of crap thrown at her from Anons and Redditors didn't happen.
d) Anita is a thief - Fair use, and until contested in a court, nothing changes that.

Regarding CowKitty(Tammy)
a) CowKitty doesn't own Dragon's Lair - therefor she has no rights to control derivative works of it, including those she made herself
b) Fanart is not perfectly legal - Has never been. From a purely legal standpoint Fanart is copyright infringement. As any Law Enforcement Officer or Lawyer will tell you, there are Criminal laws you must absolutely uphold (ones that result in jailtime) and then there is Business Law (Commercial law), which only results in fines at worst, and nothing at best. If there is significant economic damage (which 80% of fanart isn't) it's worth persuing, but going to every convention and pulling down all the Batman (WB is extremely litigant) fanart isn't going to win the PR battle. They're going to go after everything that is misrepresented as authentic first, but they'll probably ignore the batman wearing a tutu fanart because we know that can't possibly be confused for the real batman licensed stuff. But then again it depends if someone had a bad day.
c) 24 hour notice to respond - Only applies to DMCA takedowns, and would have only applied in this case if Anita was using just the image itself. The test for this is if there is something transformative to the image in question which there is. So it likely would stand a fair use test.
d) It doesn't matter if that is a commercial, non-profit, or whatever. Fair use doesn't "only apply" to not making money off it.

This is NOT a checklist
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

These are points to consider. Let's use this as a test:
What is the purpose and character of the use: This is used as part of a logo in a non-commercial nature
What is the nature of the copyrighted work: It is a piece of fanart by an artist who does not own the character in question
The nature of the copyrighted work: Fanart, Likeness is easily traced back to Dragons Lair, art designed by Don Bluth
The amount and Substantiality: 100% of the the foreground, 0% of the background. composited to take up less than 10% of the logo.
The effect of the use upon the potential market for it: None, as it doesn't devalue the game, and the fanart is not being sold, nor would selling it prevent someone from buying the game.

Assuming someone was willing to waste the money to take this to court, CowKitty doesn't own the IP, so it's an auto-lose, regardless of any other fact. If she had the rights to the IP, it would still pass fair use, as the artwork in question does not devalue the Dragons Lair video game. Nobody is going to take that screenshot over buying the game, nor confuse Anita's website as the Dragon's Lair game itself.

As I said a few times already, it doesn't matter if Anita's Feminist Frequency stuff is non-profit or commercial. It entirely misses the point that CowKitty doesn't own the IP.

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.

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.

There's always a delay before people "notice" this sort of thing. Like that guy who claimed his idea of accessing ancestors memories using some device/technology was stolen by Ubisoft for Assassins Creed. Of course, he only noticed until 6 (main) games had been released in the series, because he could then pretend he's owed a lot more money than he would if he'd came straight out as soon as we found out what AC1 was about. I wonder if that guy ever got his money.

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?

Well she is putting the videos up on YouTube where they clearly are monetized due to being on her channel. And as far as I know her channel is not listed as non-profit.

Therefore yes, she's making a profit off of the videos, with her banner serving as the logo for the monetized videos.

OP: She could have sent and e-mail or a tweet to the artist. That takes literally minutes to do.

KisaiTenshi:

a) Anita is a fraud - No, and no proof has ever surfaced for this

The argument is that she lied, of which there is proof of.

The fraud is strictly related to the kick starter money and what it was used for, because there is no diffents in video quality,& frequency before and after the kick starter.

KisaiTenshi:

b) Anita just plagiarizes Wikipedia, tvtropes, whatever

This is in relation to her thesis paper, I haven't read it so I am not going to coment on it

KisaiTenshi:

c) Anita is not a victim - No, just because you disagree with the concept or the amount of money made, doesn't mean the amount of crap thrown at her from Anons and Redditors didn't happen.

She is a victim of abuse, but that is irrelevant to valid criticisms

KisaiTenshi:

d) Anita is a thief - Fair use, and until contested in a court, nothing changes that.

she has already used commercial video content from outer people and calmed it as her own.
She was a thief or at least a plagiarist before this current kerfuffle.

Voulan:
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.

Do you have ANY idea how irresponsible that is? People have been expelled from universities for less. The expectations don't just evaporate once you leave a purely academic environment. Googling anything and slapping it on ANY public project without asking permission or giving credit is unacceptable in nearly every sphere of life.

AzrealMaximillion:

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?

Well she is putting the videos up on YouTube where they clearly are monetized due to being on her channel. And as far as I know her channel is not listed as non-profit.

Therefore yes, she's making a profit off of the videos, with her banner serving as the logo for the monetized videos.

OP: She could have sent and e-mail or a tweet to the artist. That takes literally minutes to do.

I've been on youtube often, but I don't know much about what goes on behind the curtain.

Is there a way to see what videos are monetized, and what ones aren't? Or is that something only the people who run Youtube can do?

Though, I guess if there was a way to check, Tammy would just do that rather than ask Anita for the proof.

Do4600:

Voulan:
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.

Do you have ANY idea how irresponsible that is? People have been expelled from universities for less. The expectations don't just evaporate once you leave a purely academic environment. Googling anything and slapping it on ANY public project without asking permission or giving credit is unacceptable in nearly every sphere of life.

Of course I do, that's why I said she's shown complete ignorance over the matter and that its terrible she hasn't acknowledged the artist (although her producer has now).

Gindil:

maninahat:

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.

Indeed. I don't actually think Anita is really liable for anything on legal grounds (the artist can't exactly make a copyright claim for something that they don't even own the rights to, no? Least of all something that can clearly claim fair-use) but at the very least I do think it is kind of crummy of Sarkeesian to not ask the artist's permission, all the same. Even if I had no legal leg to stand on, I would be miffed if someone were to use my stuff without being asked.

She created the artwork. She doesn't have to own the character. And if Anita wants to claim fair use, she should have had a non-profit organization to back up that claim. Sadly, she doesn't. So it adds onto the list of questionable things from Anita.

All Anita had to do was credit the artwork. That, and credit the Let's Players if she got footage from them. The basics of academics is credit, credit, and credit some more. She hasn't really done that sadly.

I don't know, that seems a bit shaky. Shouldn't she only be required to reference the game itself (which she does) and not the let's players? I understand she is using the footage which they have gone to the trouble to create, but they don't actually have custody over the game content they are displaying; they own the footage, but not the content of the footage, so attributing the let's players might count as false attribution. It's all well and good claiming that giving credit is all important in academia, but academia historically hasn't had to deal with the bibliographic implications of let's players. Personally, I still think at least referencing them would have been the classy thing to do, but I doubt she is breaking any code (academic or legal).

Also, you don't have to be a non-profit organisation for the purposes of fair-use. If you are using content for the purposes of things like satire or education, then you are covered by fair-use. That said, I am curious though on what grounds you are saying FF isn't a non-profit organisation? According to her website:

"All contributions help sustain Feminist Frequency projects and keep all videos advertisement free."

AzrealMaximillion:

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?

Well she is putting the videos up on YouTube where they clearly are monetized due to being on her channel. And as far as I know her channel is not listed as non-profit.

Therefore yes, she's making a profit off of the videos, with her banner serving as the logo for the monetized videos.

OP: She could have sent and e-mail or a tweet to the artist. That takes literally minutes to do.

The videos have no ads, so they are not monetized. Go to one right now if you wish, check the others if you're feeling skeptical, get a tin foil hat if you think that she changed it recently to match her position as a nonprofit(Which would itself mean that she responds to criticism and is closely watching these discussions, though in a way that makes her look terrible).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjImnqH_KwM

In general, if you have to add clearly to a claim, it's not very clear, and in this case, blatantly false, and has always been so; see:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games

Each video will be between 10 and 20 minutes long and available online for free for everyone and anyone to watch, share and use.

Beware of sharing/using Anita's content though. Even though she's said it's free for everyone, either she could bite back OR you could end up using copyrighted material that she stole and end up in a sticky situation.

direkiller:

KisaiTenshi:

a) Anita is a fraud - No, and no proof has ever surfaced for this

The argument is that she lied, of which there is proof of.

The fraud is strictly related to the kick starter money and what it was used for, because there is no diffents in video quality,& frequency before and after the kick starter.

Please, come up with proof before you repeat baseless arguments. There is a quality difference, no it's not spectacular. Fraud requires there to be some intent to deceive, which she has shown none.

I have a partially completed video somewhere on my hard drive where I basically took apart the entire debacle and found all the origins of most of the stupid arguments people are using. It's all baseless conjecture.

In a nutshell, the person responsible for the punch-anita game was responsible for all of it, and every argument you hear about Anita in the game (including the "fraud" one) originated from the same person at the same point in time.

There is absolutely nothing fraudulent about asking for 6000$ and getting more than it. There's nothing fraudulent about being late. You want to see fraud, look at http://www.betakit.com/montreal-kickstarter-project-shutters-after-fraud-allegations/ , then there is this http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/james-campbell-kickstarter-scam/ where the guy who made the kickstarter torched the books that were supposed to go to the backers.

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.

Um... as an actual scientist that's subject to standards of rigor and review and so on, I would like to point out that she's not actually a researcher at all. She's colloquially doing "research", but her methods have no analytical validity whatsoever and her results are a straight-up op-ed column.

And in all fairness, I think she's claiming to be a journalist (i.e. someone that churns out mostly-worthless content based on low-grade insights for a living) not a researcher, so while her claims merit a bit of eye-rolling dismissal it's still a bit weird that people are so... ANGRY about it. Sturgeon's law, man, her work being crap isn't really the exception out here on the internets.

 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