"Anita Sarkeesian Stole my Artwork" Claims Blogger

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Always fun to take a shot at someone who rubs people the wrong way I guess. I feel this would have been a lot more legitimate if this complaint came up way back when that logo was first presented. It feels like she is attacking Anita so she gets noticed. This is also coming from someone one could not be described as a fan of Anita's... "work". I just don't know what is more annoying, her or the people who call her out on her videos. But meh, I say duel with pistols!

Oh well? I am sure it wasn't done maliciously.

Baresark:
I feel this would have been a lot more legitimate if this complaint came up way back when that logo was first presented. It feels like she is attacking Anita so she gets noticed. This is also coming from someone one could not be described as a fan of Anita's... "work".

Jesus, how did you figure this? Honest question: did you actually read the sources in the article at all?

Here, I'll just quote the important parts from the original post from the Blogger:

CowKitty.net:
I found myself surprised to be incidentally supporting and endorsing a campaign I had no prior knowledge about.

CowKitty.net:
Ok ok, benefit of the doubt. Copyright law can be complicated. Maybe you thought that any images on Google must be free to use however you want. Honest mistake, no harm no foul?

Except that I (and several of your supporters) have tried to contact you to nicely resolve this via your website, Twitter, and even Kickstarter. Unfortunately, there's been no response from you of any kind. I'd assume you were away from the computer, except you've still been actively engaging on social media during this time.

And as for jumping on an attention bandwagon, were it for that, the blogger more likely would have done it months or even years ago back when Anita Skarkesian was being mentioned in every other blog and gaming media website.

If you want to see even more of what she thinks about it, I'd suggest going onto the blog. The blogger did get a response - a lot of responses, actually, including one from Anita - and mentioned various motives and beliefs. I'm not going to say it's interesting, but at the very least it shows at least why she says she did it.

I'm sorry, but can Sarkeesian go crawl in a hole and die?

No, not the actual person, but the viral popularity she got with this whole Tropes vs. Women thing. It wasn't all that great, incited a whole lot more controversy and argument (and absolutely none of it productive or enlightening in the slightest) than actual discussion with the videos that were made, and simply looks more like a cash grab or even more like monetized trolling than an attempt to actually remedy the sexism that is in video games (or even address it in a way that doesn't come off as belittling everyone involved).

The end product was boring and more of a rehashing of what we've already heard, and some people are calling foul where she really is worth less of our time than the usual Fox News story that video games are the devil or some crap like that. She's boring - can we move on?

McIntosh's point is entirely valid, particularly in that the collage itself is a commentary on the characters which it borrows for the purpose.

As "Tammy" does not own copyright in the character of Daphne, her own use of the character enters the same "ethical and moral" territory, is exploitative of the original character, and frankly, IS a marginal use to begin with. Indeed, Sarkeesian's use is MORE legitimate, as it is clear-cut commentary, while "Tammy" simply created cheesecake art that says nothing new or unique about the character she exploits. Its Fair Use value, if any, is questionable at best.

TL;DR: pretty damn hypocritical.

So im beginning to wonder does ANYTHING she did wasnt stolen? the videos she use is ripped off other youtubers without sources, images used without permission. So did she actually do anything with the kickstarter money that people gave her? Becuase she certainly didint "Research more" since she still seems to have no clue about the games shes talking about.

Baresark:
It feels like she is attacking Anita so she gets noticed. This is also coming from someone one could not be described as a fan of Anita's... "work". I just don't know what is more annoying, her or the people who call her out on her videos. But meh, I say duel with pistols!

That is true. Violations of people artwork happens every day and people complain about it every day, except usually there are only two ways to solve it: the one who is richer wins or the one who gets more public outcry. Now for most of these cases public outcry is not really a choice since noone is going to get out of thier way to help some obsucre youtube channel with 10 subscribers, but in this case the topic is popular enough to get that outcry.

Imp Emissary:

MeChaNiZ3D:
snippity snip

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.

Actually it seems that Tammy's audience and Anita's audience were unaware of the use of the work for quite some time, as is often the case. The point is more one of principle. It is not at all difficult to credit an artist for their work, and it is downright dishonest not to. I think we can agree that a content creator should at the very least be credited for the content they create. In this instance, Tammy appears to be a pretty reasonable and lenient person, but if it were someone who for any reason had a problem with their work being used in that way, associated with that cause, or to make money, I would be on their side as well and it would be a larger problem. It's essentially courtesy, and in...'artist' circles, it's a very serious issue, because artists live on exposure and it costs the user nothing to mention them.

And this is why I like European-style copyright laws. Creator's copyright cannot be transferred, only lent, and the Creator always has the right to demand that a specific use of their work is not in their interest. It's simple, it's straightforward, it's honest, it forces people to TALK TO EACH OTHER.

The Tropes Vs Women Kickstarter was a couple of years ago and not exactly low profile. How on earth did it take there so long to notice, particularly as that images was splashed across every article in the gaming media and appeared in many in the mainstream media?

People should really look into the definition of the Ad Hominem fallacy; In short, a person's character (failings, ethics, etc...) has no bearing on the arguments that person is making. To Godwin it a little, Hitler himself could be arguing about, say, the scientific validity of phrenology, and claiming that his point is not valid because he is Hitler would be fallacious.

Ms. Sarkeesian's failings do not invalidate the arguments she puts forth in her videos, and those focusing on those (The Let'sPlay footage, the logo, her handling of the money) are, in essence, deviating the debate so as not to face her arguments head on.

A fallacy, for those not clear on the concept, is an argument that has no bearing to a specific debate.

As for the issue at hand, I can't really feel too sorry for Tammy. She made a fan art that very closely resembles the actual art style from a game she doesn't have a right to, and is surprised that, upon googling for images to use in a collage of videogame characters, someone actually thought the image was from the original game.

Of course I can't really know what is really going on, but, truth is, the Fair Use argument used by Ms.Sarkeesian is solid, and, to the very least, what she has done by taking the image is exactly as "bad" as Tammy's drawing of Princess Daphne without asking for permission to the copyright holders.

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?

Simple answer to that one: http://cowkitty.net/post/78808973663/you-stole-my-artwork-an-open-letter-to-anita

Another blog talking about the issue (same blog that brought up the whole "Anita steals Let's Play footage without credit" thing): http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2014/03/anitas-fanart-tomfoolery.html

vagabondwillsmile:
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.

Worth noting that in the place the original image came from, CowKitty acknowledged who the character was and what work they appeared in (but unfortunately not who owns the character). The only changes to the image from the original were to remove the background, remove the artists' signature, and place it in the collage.

Calbeck:
McIntosh's point is entirely valid, particularly in that the collage itself is a commentary on the characters which it borrows for the purpose.

As "Tammy" does not own copyright in the character of Daphne, her own use of the character enters the same "ethical and moral" territory, is exploitative of the original character, and frankly, IS a marginal use to begin with. Indeed, Sarkeesian's use is MORE legitimate, as it is clear-cut commentary, while "Tammy" simply created cheesecake art that says nothing new or unique about the character she exploits. Its Fair Use value, if any, is questionable at best.

TL;DR: pretty damn hypocritical.

So basically your argument is that because her art is simply a sexy girl and not something used to further women's rights, she owns no right to it? So if I draw an completely original laser gun, I own no right to it because I'm not using it to further gun control?

Your argument is the most insane one I've ever seen.

I don't see how after 4 pages of comments no one has pointed out a pretty clear indication that Anita is not in the wrong here. Yes, she directly used a copy of that image created by Tammy. She also directly used another 20 or so images from video games owned by gigantic corporations that really don't like people "stealing" their stuff.

So, why do we only see this complaint from Tammy? Because the use of all of those characters is a rock-solid example of a fair use. Those corporations already know there's no actual copyright infringement here.

If this isn't an example of fair use, then making her videos at all, or commenting on almost any subject, would become impossible. Is it really surprising that she would put a bunch of examples of tropes over the name of her show? That's about tropes in video games? You know, the thing she is commenting on?

Playing a video clip or showing a piece of artwork that you are then commenting on is fair use. In fact, it's basically the most common and highly protected form of fair use. If not, someone tell Movie Bob that he's been breaking the law in his movie reviews. TotalBiscuit should be banned from YouTube by now, given all the video game content he's "stolen".

As far as citing stuff, I've never been under the impression that her Youtube videos were "academic research". I'm pretty sure they are Youtube videos, not an academic paper. If her actual academic paper featured the same stuff, it should have been cited.

I cannot seriously believe that anyone would think that she made those images herself, or that she is passing them off "as her own", as implied by "stealing." I think, and I'd wager that in any legal fight she would argue, that she has a rather straightforward intent with the collage - I'll leave you to figure out what that might be when the collage is sub-lined with "Tropes vs. Women in Video Games."

As far as legality goes, I suspect this'll blow over quickly. All that'll be left is threads like this, documenting a bunch of whiners with their knickers in a twist, trying ever so hard to catch Sarkeesian in a misstep, however small and petty. It's like goddamn Gawker in here, these days.

Schadrach:

vagabondwillsmile:
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.

Worth noting that in the place the original image came from, CowKitty acknowledged who the character was and what work they appeared in (but unfortunately not who owns the character). The only changes to the image from the original were to remove the background, remove the artists' signature, and place it in the collage.

Yes, that is worth noting. Tammy/CowKitty is pretty much safe and on the up and up. Sarkeesian in this example, much less so. We can think of it this way - the further one gets from the creative process concerning adaptation of righted work, the greater risk they run of real infringement. This is a good example: Egoraptor has the "Awesome" series of videos that satirizes games, characters, and gaming culture. All of the characters and IP's belong to other parties, but his work is safe from an infringement claim, as it could be a textbook example of Parody. Tammy's work slightly less so (depending on what she would want to do with it), because the adaptation of the original material subject to right under the IP Dragon's Lair is essentially the same in spirit, simply recreated in Tammy's style. But she made an attempt (though not perfect, it was apparently in good faith) to give credit, aknowledge original rights, etc.; and - you're correct - that indeed counts for something, a lot in fact. Tammy's image - her work - is, certainly, subject to her right - she may not own the character, but she owns her work. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Sarkeesian is cut&pasting, removing a background and calling it a day. To even say her participation in any creative process is nominal, would be an overstatement. Cut&paste is about as far away as one can get. If this dispute was to be formally argued, the smart money is on Tammy. She made a post requesting advice on how to handle her artwork being appropriated this way. This would be my answer: make an appointment with a copyright attorney/firm with a decent record and good reputation that she is able to afford. Once she starts receiving legal advice from a professional, she should immediately stop any and all interaction with Sarkeesian's side and leave all the communication to her attorney. I'm of the opinion that the goal of having Sarkeesian's side remove the image in question would be relatively easy to accomplish without ever even stepping into a courtroom.

I sure am glad that miss Smith is on top of things and not issuing this warning over a year after the Kickstarter ended.... oh~

That said, a collage is indeed transformative even if she claims otherwise, or else Andy Warhol never would've gotten off the ground. Second, trying to make money and claim copyright on fanart, srsly?

Anita should credit her for making that part of the banner, absolutely, but by no means does miss Smith have any claim to financial compensation. Not to mention I doubt any money was hypothetically lost to begin with.

Oskuro:
People should really look into the definition of the Ad Hominem fallacy; In short, a person's character (failings, ethics, etc...) has no bearing on the arguments that person is making. To Godwin it a little, Hitler himself could be arguing about, say, the scientific validity of phrenology, and claiming that his point is not valid because he is Hitler would be fallacious.

Ms. Sarkeesian's failings do not invalidate the arguments she puts forth in her videos, and those focusing on those (The Let'sPlay footage, the logo, her handling of the money) are, in essence, deviating the debate so as not to face her arguments head on.

A fallacy, for those not clear on the concept, is an argument that has no bearing to a specific debate.

As for the issue at hand, I can't really feel too sorry for Tammy. She made a fan art that very closely resembles the actual art style from a game she doesn't have a right to, and is surprised that, upon googling for images to use in a collage of videogame characters, someone actually thought the image was from the original game.

Of course I can't really know what is really going on, but, truth is, the Fair Use argument used by Ms.Sarkeesian is solid, and, to the very least, what she has done by taking the image is exactly as "bad" as Tammy's drawing of Princess Daphne without asking for permission to the copyright holders.

Unless someone is trying to say that, because Anita has possibly committed copyright infringement, her points in Tropes vs Women are invalid, then they are not committing any fallacy in simply discussing the matter of the alleged infringement. The debate here is about whether or not Anita committed copyright infringement, and bringing up whether or not this impacts the validity of her points in her videos is itself a logical fallacy, as it is a red herring. You seem to be saying that any focus on these other topics is an attempt at shifting the debate away from the content of her videos, but bringing up the content of her videos seems like an attempt to shift away from the other, perfectly reasonable debates about her decisions surrounding the creation of those videos. In essence, you appear to be trying to do exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

What's more, Tammy does not in any way need permission to draw a copyrighted character, nor post that creation on the web. The character is copyrighted, but Tammy is protected under Fair Use as it is her own art, her own interpretation of the character. Now, had Tammy simply copied and pasted the character from art made by someone else and either implicitly or explicitly claimed it was her own creation, then she would be subject to a copyright infringement claim.

Anita on the other hand might also be protected under Fair Use if she has either altered Tammy's art enough that the alterations make the image her own creation (simply adding the character to a collage may or may not be sufficient for this criteria, I would guess not though) or if her criticisms in the video she made directly address Tammy's art. Anita can't simply say that because her video is criticism that the art she appropriated from Tammy is one of the things being criticized.

I am not offering my own opinion of whether Anita's appropriation of Tammy's art is or is not protected by Fair Use. A judge might rule either way given the circumstances and I am not a lawyer. However I do know that Tammy's art most certainly is and that those claiming that Anita's Fair Use claim is as robust as Tammy's seem to be misunderstanding some key aspects of Fair Use.

MeChaNiZ3D:

Imp Emissary:

MeChaNiZ3D:
snippity snip

Actually it seems that Tammy's audience and Anita's audience were unaware of the use of the work for quite some time, as is often the case. The point is more one of principle. It is not at all difficult to credit an artist for their work, and it is downright dishonest not to. I think we can agree that a content creator should at the very least be credited for the content they create. In this instance, Tammy appears to be a pretty reasonable and lenient person, but if it were someone who for any reason had a problem with their work being used in that way, associated with that cause, or to make money, I would be on their side as well and it would be a larger problem. It's essentially courtesy, and in...'artist' circles, it's a very serious issue, because artists live on exposure and it costs the user nothing to mention them.

I mean that after all the press coverage, and Tammy talking about it on her site that NOW people do know about it.

As I said before, it is perfectly reasonable for Tammy to ask for the work to be cited.

Again though, all she asked for so far is this.

"Since you state in interviews that the video series infringing on my copyrighted work is non-profit: do you also have valid proof of 501(c)3 status, or a transparent breakdown showing that the Kickstarter campaign's net earnings (including derivative opportunities such as paid speaking engagements & site donations) are not being used to benefit any private shareholder or individual."

Pedro The Hutt:
I sure am glad that miss Smith is on top of things and not issuing this warning over a year after the Kickstarter ended.... oh~

That said, a collage is indeed transformative even if she claims otherwise, or else Andy Warhol never would've gotten off the ground. Second, trying to make money and claim copyright on fanart, srsly?

Anita should credit her for making that part of the banner, absolutely, but by no means does miss Smith have any claim to financial compensation. Not to mention I doubt any money was hypothetically lost to begin with.

She hasn't asked for money though. All she's asked for is proof of non-profit status.
As for Anita citing the work, that would be a very reasonable request. However, she hasn't asked for that yet either.

It seems all that Tammy is missing out on is people knowing that it's her art that was used for part of the banner.
Which she would understandably want. After all, it's apparently appeared on an Anita TEDTALK, so that would be nice exposure for her work.

Pedro The Hutt:
I sure am glad that miss Smith is on top of things and not issuing this warning over a year after the Kickstarter ended.... oh~

That said, a collage is indeed transformative even if she claims otherwise, or else Andy Warhol never would've gotten off the ground. Second, trying to make money and claim copyright on fanart, srsly?

Anita should credit her for making that part of the banner, absolutely, but by no means does miss Smith have any claim to financial compensation. Not to mention I doubt any money was hypothetically lost to begin with.

It is quite possible and seems highly probable that Tammy had no idea that her work was being used this way. Whether or not it happened a week, month or year after the kickstarter has no bearing on Tammy's claim if she only recently discovered the infringement.

It should be noted that Tammy has not asked for financial compensation in any material that I've seen. Whether or not she might have lost money due to the infringement is a matter for lawyers and courts, but as Tammy pointed out, having her work linked to a movement or person that she did not endorse could indeed be argued to be damaging to her financially. Proving that might be mighty difficult, but again, it does not appear at this point that that's what she's even after.

I think it is rather telling that rather than actually address Cowkitty directly Anita's PR person is resorting to passive aggressive tweets about "remixing"

https://twitter.com/radicalbytes/status/441792844366245888

Actually, I don't see the problem here. I think most video hosts here use images not created by them and have never needed to worry about this stuff. So, I'll put this under fair use, unless there's a gigantic loophole somehow.

Imp Emissary:
Again though, all she asked for so far is this.

"Since you state in interviews that the video series infringing on my copyrighted work is non-profit: do you also have valid proof of 501(c)3 status, or a transparent breakdown showing that the Kickstarter campaign's net earnings (including derivative opportunities such as paid speaking engagements & site donations) are not being used to benefit any private shareholder or individual."

Yeah, all she's asking for is all the records and transactions made by someone as a result of the thousands of transactions made to an individual via an organization, Kickstarter, that is by nature non-profit to an organization that is also non-profit from the start, FeministFrequency, and has no obligation to disclose any sort of financial transactions, just to find if there is a possibility that a historically non-profit group could have possibly maybe transacted with someone so that a single image made by someone, that would most likely fall under fair use for both parties regardless, could potentially receive compensation.

Really, it's so simple! Just prove you're not a scam!

Sorry if I sound condescending, but that's usually how I feel whenever someone asks for any records regarding anything monetary with this stuff. Sarkeesian is under no obligation, nor is any other Kickstarter or other crowd-funded project for that matter, yet people seem to focus squarely on her as if she is some special case when it comes to funding and money being thrown at people.

There's a lot of fluff going on in this thread that I feel is really over complicating things in this discussion.

It does not matter that the original image was a fan image, it barely makes any difference with this whole situation. Sarkeesian never made a profit off of the logo in any way, her videos don't contain ads otherwise. The logo, and everything in it, were never assumed to belong to Sarkeesian; all of the other icons are easily understood to be there as a collage or basic representation of the concepts she's going for, easily covered under fair use. Sarkeesian doesn't have to cite where things came from necessarily, it is not an academic paper and shouldn't be judged by paper guidelines like some are doing, and plenty of other content creators do the same thing she did yet somehow it's different when the She-Devil Sarkeesian does it.

Would it have been nice to cite the work? Sure, probably would have been easier for CowKitty to make a blogpost without a vitriolic title like that, and considering Sarkeesiasn probably still deals with hundreds of threats some messages will fall through to the wayside. But yeah, would be kind of miffed if some of my work was taken and used without credit. Simple * sign on the bottom, and bam, everything's good. Really not as big of a deal as people are making.

None of this is me saying people can't criticize her, which people tend to assume whenever anyone defends Sarkeesian in the slightest (though I'd argue most criticisms of her have less to do with her actual arguments, and even the ones that do tend to misunderstand her points regardless), but it seems every news story about her gets blown so out of proportion by her opponents because people just really want to try and discredit a woman who had the gall to just want to make a few videos and got more attention than expected.

KisaiTenshi:

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.

Sorry was not clear
I was saying there are two separate things you lumped into one. Not that I know or care if she is a fraudster.

The lying to people dose have some weight behind it, because there are video's of her saying completely contradictory things.

I wonder what goes on inside Anita's brain. "The Objectification of women by men in media is causing a direct effect where women are being objectified in real life, and thus, we must find and eliminate these negative stereotypes. But ya know what is acceptable? Asking for thousands of dollars of research money (just because the venue was open, and, why not?), then, with the insane amount I made, just lazily steal other peoples ideas, sections of others videos without their consent, and other peoples art work, while decrying that it's 'fair use'."

The disgusting people who threatened her with violence, vile language, death threats, and other harassment have made it nearly impossible to have an open dialogue about just how shitty of a person she is. If you say anything negative about Anita, its hard to get your opinion stated without seeming like one of the disgusting trolls that acted so vitriolic towards her.

If you want to make a video about girls and games, fine. More power to her. If she wants to be hyper critical of males, its her right to be - she has the right to say things that aren't popular. If she wants to carry on about how Mario saving Peach reinforces sexist culture - you get my drift. If you want to ask for an absurd amount of money for a project almost any YouTuber could have done better, for free - great. But at least do your own work. Shes been caught so far taking other peoples gameplay, art, and basically copying other peoples videos. What was the point of throwing as much money at her if she was just going to plagiarize a good chunk of it?

Fair use applies ONLY to copyrighted materials - the fan art is not copyrighted. Anita still appropriated another persons work and used it for herself. A decent human doesn't steal other peoples work and pass it off as their own. A decent human doesn't try to weasel their way out of trouble. Even if you're making academia, you still have to attribute your sources.

Jumplion:

Imp Emissary:
Again though, all she asked for so far is this.

"Since you state in interviews that the video series infringing on my copyrighted work is non-profit: do you also have valid proof of 501(c)3 status, or a transparent breakdown showing that the Kickstarter campaign's net earnings (including derivative opportunities such as paid speaking engagements & site donations) are not being used to benefit any private shareholder or individual."

Yeah, all she's asking for is all the records and transactions made by someone as a result of the thousands of transactions made to an individual via an organization, Kickstarter, that is by nature non-profit to an organization that is also non-profit from the start, FeministFrequency, and has no obligation to disclose any sort of financial transactions, just to find if there is a possibility that a historically non-profit group could have possibly maybe transacted with someone so that a single image made by someone, that would most likely fall under fair use for both parties regardless, could potentially receive compensation.

Really, it's so simple! Just prove you're not a scam!

Hehehe. xD Well, when ya put it like that...

I see what ya mean, but I didn't mean it as, "Well, that's ALL she's got to do".

Though, I didn't know it would mean that much stuff to be done.

I agree it would be nice of Anita to cite the art's "origin", and this whole thing did get blow up quite a bit.
Anita isn't "immune to criticism, I know because I've seen SOME people actually criticizing her well, as I showed in an earlier post, but other people just seem interested in proving her to be some evil master mind.

Either way, a fair amount of people now know Tammy drew that video game lady, Anita will go on to make the rest of the videos, and the Escapist got some traffic.

:D Everyone wins! Except those that don't;)

Imp Emissary:

I agree it would be nice of Anita to cite the art's "origin", and this whole thing did get blow up quite a bit.
Anita isn't "immune to criticism, I know because I've seen SOME people actually criticizing her well, as I showed in an earlier post, but other people just seem interested in proving her to be some evil master mind.

This is the entire problem Anita is brought up. It's like listening to holocaust-deniers or 9/11 truthers have a fit. Look bad stuff happened, but people just plug their ears and believe what they've been told to believe by the lynch mob. Repeating heresay without even questioning it.

And that happened on BOTH sides. I'll agree that Anita isn't infallible and that a lot of what is IN the videos is stuff that people should already know. But it's meant to be educational (eg teaching feminism through it's representation in video games) it's okay and kinda boring on that account. There are however people who seem to completely miss this fact entirely and think that she's trying to demonize games, developers, writers, etc for being lazy (which is kinda true) and not risk taking (which IS true) rather than use it as a starting point for a conversation about WHY this stuff is like this.

It's like the entire Bechdel test thing.
http://amptoons.com/blog/the-mo-movie-measure/

a) It has to have at least two (named) women in it,
b) who talk to each other,
c) about something besides a man.

These are very low hurdles to jump over in film, but a significant number of box-office busts fail it. Does it not also apply to other forms of entertainment including comics and video games? Why do we keep recycling the same risk-free tropes to diminishing returns? Answer: Males writing in only what they want to see, and leaving everything else to a marketing checklist of tropes to include. Over-generalizing but that's the gist.

Anita has a list of what hardware she has:
http://anita.sarkeesian.usesthis.com/
2 D7000 Nikon DSLR's @ 1000$ ea, these were superceeded by Nikon last year. So this gear had to have been purchased before mid-2013
2 power supplies 60$ ea
1 370$ lens
1 430$ lens
1 330$ microphone
1 440$ DSLR Microphone mixer
1 380$ Lavelier microphone (the kind you pin to your clothes)

The above equipment alone is superior to what the Nostalgia Critic uses (who basically just yells into a single FHD Sony camcorder, with no mixing equipment)

2 780$ lights
1 700$ iPad teleprompter kit
1 Third Generation iPad (which means it was bought between March 2012 and the iPad Air at between 500 and 1000$
10$ app and 100$ remote to go with the teleprompter setup.
140$ tripod for the teleprompter setup
1300 to 2000$ per MacBook Pro
730$ to 1000$ External Hard drive setup (WD TB Duo RAID)
180$ Game capture device (this is not a professional piece of hardware btw, it's meant for streaming and is low quality)

I'm going to skip the console list because these machines (except the Wii U and XBone) could have been acquired at any time before the Kickstarter.
Same with the monitors/TV's used.

That's 10760$ before you even get to the editing software, game consoles and games themselves. Which gear did she have before, we know she replaced the lighting rig, but hasn't indicated what cameras were used before, if anything. (Could have used the facetime cameras in the mac. Since she uses FCP7, I'm presuming that she was using a Mac before.

A lot of the game footage she used was from out-of-print games, and it's not reasonable to acquire footage for every single game without breaking copyright laws and emulating the hardware (as in there is no legal mechanism for capturing video from Arcade games, you'd need a pirate copy of the game.) So a lot of rage whaargarble about what she spent the money on, is again, baseless. Should she have asked permission from more people, but you know when this kind of attitude towards her videos is present, it's probably better to just straight to fair use rather than be told no and look like a dick when you claim fair use later.

But hey, you know what, people wouldn't keep grinding that hate axe if they didn't want another swing.

KisaiTenshi:
Stuff

Wow, this is like a list of the worst possible purchases imaginable.

Did she buy a bunch of these as well?

Man, I'd be pissed if I had kick-started this, what an absolute waste of money.

She does know these videos are being uploaded to youtube, right?

KisaiTenshi:

Imp Emissary:

:/ I wonder what makes a lights worth almost $3,000. Besides the obvious of buying a lot, but I doubt that's the reason here.

I could probably google it and see some fancy lights myself, but I'm not that bored yet. ;p

Anyway, again, thanks for the info. Neat stuff.
I agree that people seem to be often reading more bad out of what Anita says in the videos than what really is there.


All that said.
The most troubling thing I see people say about this whole talk is that Anita and her supporters, or people "on her side", want to get rid of all the tropes.
The "goal" isn't to remove all tropes from existence (not possible anyway). Just to have more variety when it comes to characters, and stories.

Everyone wins.

The Lunatic:

KisaiTenshi:
Stuff

Wow, this is like a list of the worst possible purchases imaginable.

Did she buy a bunch of these as well?

Man, I'd be pissed if I had kick-started this, what an absolute waste of money.

She does know these videos are being uploaded to youtube, right?

:/ If you didn't give her money, why do you seem to still be so "pissed".

How's one to win at this anyway?

Ya don't buy very expensive stuff, people say ya aren't using enough of the money.

Ya buy the expensive stuff, people say you're wasting the money.

I'm glad I don't have to play that game. :D

Imp Emissary:
:/ If you didn't give her money, why do you seem to still be so "pissed".

How's one to win at this anyway?

Ya don't buy very expensive stuff, people say ya aren't using enough of the money.

Ya buy the expensive stuff, people say you're wasting the money.

I'm glad I don't have to play that game. :D

I'm not, you just perceive any mocking as somebody being annoyed at something.

I think it's hilarious, personally. It's hard to be pissed whilst finding such humour in something.

Anyway, basically, it's about spending money on the right things.

Say for example, spending so much money on a Game Capture software and equipment, then stealing Lets Play Footage from other people.

Or, spending a whole bunch of money on all this studio equipment, but absolutely none on unique artwork for your banner which you paste everywhere.

The Lunatic:

Imp Emissary:
:/ If you didn't give her money, why do you seem to still be so "pissed".

I'm not, you just perceive any mocking as somebody being annoyed at something.

I think it's hilarious, personally. It's hard to be pissed whilst finding such humour in something.

Anyway, basically, it's about spending money on the right things.

Say for example, spending so much money on a Game Capture software and equipment, then stealing Lets Play Footage from other people.

Or, spending a whole bunch of money on all this studio equipment, but absolutely none on unique artwork for your banner which you paste everywhere.

:D Hey now, I said ya seemed pissed. Not that you were. I can't read minds. You have to have one to do so, and all I have is a brain.

Don't rightly know what the disconnect is there.

As for the money spent, as it seems people were asking for higher quality videos, buying stuff to do that seems like an alright idea.

The use of the LP video didn't seem like a big deal either. Most of what she was showing was cutscenes, with no commentary from any LPers.
Also, as KisaiTenshi said, the game capture device($180) was meant for low quality streaming. Not pro. videos.

As for the picture. It's said to be in fair use, used on non-profit videos, and Tammy hasn't asked for much in the way of compensation. Rather recognition. Very understandable thing to want.

The funny thing I see here, is how this all is suppose to be such an issue.

Not so much funny "ha ha", as funny "Huh. Odd".

maninahat:

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?

You're asking about integrity. What is happening with this specifically is that if she isn't citing the Let's Plays, she's trying to pass these videos off as her own. She actually claims that she is doing that with a $179 game recorder based on her "rig" but everyone knows that she ripped off the cubex55 Let's Plays among other Youtubers. When someone is capable of plagiarization on that level, you're not dealing with an honest person.

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.

All well and good, but again, she took a year off of gaming, which was assumed for the capture of footage among other things. Would you want to discover that someone is ripping off your work and passing it off as their own? It's more ethics than anything else.

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).

She actually is being extremely unethical. Plagiarization is a serious offense and it's looked as such in the academic world where your reputation is a lot more important.

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?

I checked the list of California non-profits. She's not on it. Further, checking with the corporate list, I found that Feminist Frequency is enlisted as a non-stock corporation. While she doesn't have to be a non-profit organization, it diminishes her Fair Use claim in court and her behavior in claiming Fair Use when she's done so many other questionable things from Anita make this a highly suspect claim.

Que the douche bros using this to dismiss attempts to improve women's rights world-wide because they are obviously all full of thieves and therefore wrong.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with some users here. Anita was a pretty big name (infamous or not) for a full damn year now. And this is NOW that you noticed she was using your logo for her videos?

Also her videos are non profit. She got the Kickstarter yes, however she does not get PAID per video by clientele or other third party companies. Youtube giving away ad money doesn't count.

It's like Jim doing the Jimquisistion. For the most part it's free, and on his own time. The money he gets from it is akin to us hitting the paypal donation button.

Also...how exactly can you put a copyright on a character that doesn't even belong to you in the first place. At most she can call foul on not giving proper credit. But you honestly cannot claim copyright at all. The character wasn't yours (or Anita's) to begin with. This isn't like your original art or anything. This is fanart.

While Tammy probably does have a good leg to stand on in this case, considering how long Anita has been using this particular image, something tells me that she is doing it to get herself into the spotlight and gain a larger fanbase. Pretty sure that if Anita wasn't hated or at the very least infamous, then Tammy would be more than glad that someone was using her art and getting her some sort of exposure.

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?

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.

That question has been answered a billion times already. She made the kickstarter to make more videos, and sure enough she made more videos what more can you possibly do with that much money? Oh yeah sure you got some asshats saying that she spent it all on the makeup and clothes she now wears (even though it's the exact same get up she used long before her kickstarter) and others are calling her a scam artist.

The bottom line is she asked for $6k and her supporters gave her a fuckton more than that. That is not her being a scam artist in the slightest. If her supporters really only wanted to give the money she asked they would've of stopped at $6k. They didn't. They kept going until they hit the $100k part. And she delivered what she promised. She asked for money to make videos, her fans got videos. That is the end of the contractual deal. Whatever excess money she has is up to her to use and is nobody's fucking business. The only people who should worry about that are her backers. If you didn't put a dime into her kickstarter then you have no business to complain about her usage of the money.

On that note her videos are non profit. You don't have to pay to see it. And nobody pays her to make videos. It's the reason why backing games on kickstarter doesn't automatically mean you get the game for free. Broken Age is a for profit kickstarter. They got the money for the game, and you cannot play it unless you paid the upper $35.00 tier or you buy it off steam/Gog/ wherever you can buy their games.

As I've said earlier Anita is like Jimquisition. They both make videos on their own free time with no money flowing in as payment. Yes they both probably get a lot of ad revenue. But that is like the equivalent of us hitting the donate button. They aren't charging us to see their content. The website they are hosted on aren't charging us to view their content, and nobody is paying them to make specific videos. Jim makes whatever video he feels is relevant of the week.

Anita I believe had a list on her Kickstarter that marked down which topics she was going to discuss.

 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
Registered for a free account here