What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
83 Comments
- dpstudios, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24I can say that things between Pyzam.com and I are settled...they have responded, agreed to remove my art and its all said and done. Im in no way excusing what was done but its an attempt to fix things and I hope that it doesn't happen again.
- thelastknowngod, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20"16. Copyright in Your Content
deviantART does not claim ownership rights in Your Content. For the sole purpose of enabling us to make your Content available through the Service, you grant to deviantART a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, distribute, re-format, store, prepare derivative works based on, and publicly display and perform Your Content. Please note that when you upload Content, you allow third parties to copy, distribute and display your Content."
hate to say it but if the artist would have taken the time to read the eula then he would either have known to watermark his own work or not use deviantart... this section is pretty black and white if you ask me. - pYzam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Just to clarify so no one gets the wrong impression:
pYzam has decided NOT to use content without artist consent even in the vast majority of situations where it is legal.
The argument above is between an artist (dpstudios) that contacted us regarding this matter and has 'gotten his way' some time ago and an individual (nepawoods) who is in no way affiliated with pYzam.
Please do not be misled.
pYzam - phantom42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14also from dA's TOS:
19. Conduct
[...] Content provided to you by others, or made available through websites, magazines, books and other sources, are protected by copyright and should not be uploaded, downloaded, or otherwise copied, distributed or displayed without the consent of the copyright owner or as otherwise permitted by law.
meaning that although it is on deviantart, normal copyright laws still apply, and they may not be copied, distributed or displayed without that artist/authors consent. - artHOUNDer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Obviously you didn't even read the whole thing Andross01. Right after quoting a piece of their ToS they say, "we realize we were grievously mistaken." And yet you took the time to comment on it... sad.
- sunzfan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Seems like a legitimate attempt at fixing things...people need to digg this as much as that other one so people can at least see there response...IMHO
- dpstudios, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"You can't put your work on a site where anyone can download it without being told there's a copyright. If you do, you've given it away to the world at large."
Look right under the art...you see that little © right next to the artist name?....exactly what do you think that means? Maybe da needs to spell it out in real big letters so people like yourself can understand it, under each deviation.
wow, would have saved yourself a lot of typing if you had done better homework instead of picking through the TOS to get out what you needed. I didn't even have to go to the TOS to see that....I just went to a deviation, the same as anyone else would. :) I understand there will always be people out there just like yourself that will in every way possible try to make it "ok" to take something from someone else and then try to justify it. Thats kinda like me coming to your house and ripping something off from your yard....and then saying hey...its cool ....I didn't see a big ass sign that said his property was protected by law. I didn't know...I thought it was ok because I didn't see a TOS ...come one...get real. You think that will hold up in court? I agree that to be able to download something from da you should have to agree to the TOS. Its been mentioned several times. and seems to be the only valid point you have made. But it doesn't change the fact that there is indeed is a TOS. Im not even sure what your smart ass comment about the RIAA has to do with anything...if you have anger towards them, then please feel free to let them now...it has no bearing on this what so ever.
The TOS, when read in its entirety and not selectively quoted from, is not a 'free-for-all' contract for thieves and brigands. Thank you. - bias, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15jeez you ***** people stop pretending that you care about copyright, you hate record companies who protect their music, your open source copy/clone every damn softwares out there. and now you guys are all righteous and teaching us about copyright laws? stfu
- dpstudios, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11first off, when someone makes a copy of your work, they take NOTHING from you. No matter how much you want to pretend otherwise, you have nothing less after they've made the copy, and done whatever they will with it, than before.
that wasn't the case in hand here....you jump in here half witted and try to defend something that you have no idea about. The art wasn't simply copied...it was taken, altered and had the site name put it on it.
From Creative Commons
No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
"Please note that when you upload Content, you allow third parties to copy, distribute and display your Content."
That line is there to make certain that people are aware that others may download, view, display and use their art for personal uses. Not to upload it on a site , alter it, remove watermarks, (which was not done on mine but has been done by this site on others work) add their logo and upload it on a site that has adds that pay them money when visitors to their site click on them while viewing MY art.
Now go back and read 19. ...finish reading it instead of picking it apart again.
you keep telling yourself its ok to rip peoples art and we will keep fighting against it. Obviously you have a problem in this area as you have brought up the RIAA. It was wrong to take the art and alter it without my permission. no matter how much you pretend otherwise. ..end of story. - pYzam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9And also in response to: http://digg.com/design/More_art_stolen_from_deviantART
- Mootabolife, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9So it really boils down to one thing.. Is the watermark a sign of ownership, or is it more of an ID of origin.
I know I wouldn't want my artwork being credited to a company I didn't allow. - pYzam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8This is in response to: http://www.digg.com/design/Artists_work_stolen_and_sold_on_Pyzam
- LuciferSam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The way I see it, deviantART is in the wrong here. I used to be an active member there until Jark was forcibly removed, then things changed. I hate to say it, but it's not about the art or the protection of the artist at that site anymore. It's more about commercialism than artistic morals.
- insomuchas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The pirate bay doesnt provide DVDs or music downloads.
Only links to the downloads are provided.
If some other person isn't uploading the links are useless. - dpstudios, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6have you taken a look at the two pieces in question there? lol And Sylverin..the real artist has been contacted about this. Please waste your time somewhere constructive. As I stated above and I say again.... I can say that things between Pyzam.com and I are settled...they have responded, agreed to remove my art and its all said and done. Im in no way excusing what was done but its an attempt to fix things and I hope that it doesn't happen again.
Pyzam was professional in this matter once I was contacted back and its been settled between us. I even dugg the article..but people want to keep coming in here stirring it up...lol im done..I have handled things on my end with Sylverin. Pyzam and I are on good terms as it stands.
Have a great night.
Steve - catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Everyone always comes on here and complains that we should be able to freely copy and distribute music, but now that doesn't apply to visual art? I'm confused. Why the hell do I, as a musician, have people freely distributing my art without my permission while you guys protect visual artists?
This is no different than music labels trying to stop people from putting their music on myspace pages...In fact, it is the EXACT same situation, just replace music with art. You guys are a bunch of hypocrites. - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4They watermark it to try and lay claim to and kudos for the work plain and simple.
If they wanted to "prevent hotlinking" like they claim, they could do it very simply using htaccess
It's alot like the Zune adding DRM to tracks licenced under creative commons. It's a breach of copyright to modify the image at all IMHO. Especially when it's adding branding like that... (imagine cocacola "watermarking" picasso's) - notfred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4> first off, when someone makes a copy of your work, they take NOTHING from you. No matter how much you want to pretend otherwise, you have nothing less after they've made the copy, and done whatever they will with it, than before.
Incredibly and completely wrong - control over the _context_ of the work has been taken from you.
According to your argument, it's fine to download music and DVDs off Pirate Bay, because "nothing has been taken."
Oh, wait .... never mind. - capiCrimm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@canti32
FTA "There will now be an artist’s username or real name directly on all artwork created by them in addition to our pYzam branding." - JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Respect to pYzam for acting in such a nice way and caring about the opinion of the community.
- m3th0dm4n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's not stealing; it's called copyright infringement.
- catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The pirate bay also makes money on ads by having other's work put up on it, regardless of where it comes from.
"you keep telling yourself its ok to rip peoples art and we will keep fighting against it."
Unless your art happens to be music, in which case diggers don't give a sh*t. So he put a watermark on it. No different than a release group tagging an album or discography. - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2First, #19 is to prevent people from uploading material to deviantArt that they get from other sources.
Second, and more importantly, from http://about.deviantart.com/policy/service/
"By using our Service, you agree to be bound by Section I of these Terms ("General Terms"), which contains provisions applicable to all users of our Service, including visitors to the deviantART website (the "Site"). If you choose to register as a member of our Service or purchase products from the deviantART Shop, you will be asked to check a box indicating that you have read, and agree to be bound by, the additional terms set forth in Section II of these Terms ("Additional Terms")."
A visitor, who may download any image from deviantArt, is bound by section I. Only registered users (which you must be to upload), are bound by sections I and II. Items number 16 and 19 are part of section II.
Although it's difficult to see how visitors can be bound by any agreement when they aren't asked to read it or agree to it. - dpstudios, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4HAHA I haven't removed the artwork, smart ass... I removed the print...the art work is still in my gallery until I get contacted back about the piece of work..I will not benefit from this piece if this mans thinks mine is to close to his.
- Remmy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8nepawoods, you have absolutely no concept of art obviously. Artists like for their work to be seen, used, and enjoyed. However, they simply ask that whoever should do so, should seek permission beforehand. I'm sure you would not like to see 50 hours of work being used in something you personally object to. It's yours. You created it, you have the right to say what should be done with it. Sharing it with the world is not a free pass to derive. It's not a ticket to steal.
Comparing him to the RIAA is simply asinine. The RIAA, first and foremost, are not artists. They are labels, record companies. Most artists have no problem with their work being downloaded, but just like in this case, they don't want to see it just used for anything. Unfortunately for them, they have little say over their creative pieces due to the lack of control. - cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Approval has nothing to do with being bound by them.
- dpstudios, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4whether I approve of them or not doesn't give me the right to break them.
- insomniac8400, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2DeviantART is stupid. Thier TOS clearly gives the right to take any picture off that site and do with it what you want. If you don't like it, don't upload pictures to deviantART.
- jholdrid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Regardless of their agreement, what is the difference between this and other file sharing methods (Bit-Torrent, etc.)? Art is art be it music, video or images. Why the big uproar now when other artistic outlets are blatantly stolen or "copied," and people brag about it?
- BornGhost, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well, at least they confessed and removed the art. Now if only the other 20,000 sites with artwork stolen from dA would do the same.
- Vlatro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What's the big deal? I've seen the art they supply and it has limited uses. If the artist's intent is to make money off of their creations, then I understand how this may hurt them. However, If they are posting to DeviantART, it's accessible to anyone. What control did they expect to have over it's use? Credit should be given to the artist, but painters sign their paintings, sculptors carve their initials, why wouldn't they watermark their own art if receiving credit is their primary concern. Offer a low res submission to DeviantArt and link back to your own site where a high res image can be found. At least then you can remain in control of your intellectual property.
I would gladly concede any credit and/or profits from my work if it went to a site that ripped off those stupid MySpace users anyway. - insomuchas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Looks like Deviant Art is in need of an actual lawyer to write their TOS. As it is written anyone who uploads content to the site is giving full permission for anyone to use their work. Section 19 does not quantify that but only requires the uploader to hold the copyright, has no restrictions on downloaders.
- cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@thelastknowngod - Yes, they allow THEIR WORK to be redistributed freely. They do not allow it to be claimed as other's work.
- catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@knightmare01
They weren't selling it, they were giving it away for free and making money off ads. No different from a music sharing site where the music has been tagged by a release group. I don't give people permission to tag my music with their logo. There aren't enough hairs for you to split to justify protecting one form of digital art but not another. - cr3ative, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5nepawoods: I don't think you'll like this "internet" thing, we tend to block people like you. :)
- Klowner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@catalysis
It's not quite the same, people seem to be much more consistent in keeping the artist and track title in an mp3 compared to how graphic art just gets copied and pasted around the internet with no reference to the creator. I don't approve of music piracy by any means, but this argument is sorta like comparing apples to pears. Plus Pyzam sells things, for money, you don't see people trying to charge visitors to listen to stolen music on their myspace page. - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3It boils down to the fact that people think it's OK to steal from a large corporation, but not from an individual. Not that that belief stands up to scrutiny, but that's what it is.
- slipdisc2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1they didnt steal *****. quit your ***** whining already.
DA terms are very clear. - oddneighbor, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1all i got when i clicked this link was a spammy page of crap, and a bunch of pop-up ads. i'd say plagiarism is the least of your worries.
thumbs down. you people stink. - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Allow:
1. Make it possible through a specific action or lack of action for something to happen
2. Consent to, give permission
Pyzam is saying they thought "allow" in the DeviantArt terms of service meant definition 2, and not just definition 1. - Satanael, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Furthermore, if you would like for us to distribute your work in this way, please send us a link to your deviantART page, or website via layouts@pyzam.com ."
I LOVE how deviantART is directly mentioned as their method for obtaining your art. - FrankieB078, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1pYzam
I applaud your efforts to make sure you get permission and what not from artists. If permission is granted, then I love what you have done with the layout, putting the artists link in the top.
The only defense I have to this, is if I am a guy that knows a little bit of HTML but not enough to design my own layout (not my case), then if I want I can simply remove the links. That just makes all of your precautions useless.
I still applaud the effort. Honesty does not run rampant on the tubes sometimes. - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@knightmare01
"i'm not even gonna ***** say anything, ..."
people like you never do - canti32, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@capicrimm
Yeah, I realized that after thinking about for a couple of minutes, but by then it was already too late. - acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Funny how this 'art' has been "stolen" but most digital music gets "shared".
- Avychan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1DeviantArt recently released a Hot Topic post about that Number 16 in the Terms of Service Agreement. What pYzam failed to read was Number 19, in which it specifically disallows any third party from reposting the artwork if they do not have the right to do so. Basically, Number 16 in the ToS allows a third party to download a piece of artwork for private use, like as a screen saver, but does not allow them to repost it or anything like that.
- Travelsonic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Why the big uproar now when other artistic outlets are blatantly stolen or "copied," and people brag about it? "
The stolen should be in quotes, and the copied should be left alone... other than that I agree 100%. - skankin231, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think the issue here was taking the art and not attributing it to the original author.
There is also an issue with pYzam making money off of the original artist's work. While the license allows people to copy and distribute your work, it does not grant them the right to SELL your work. While they are not directly selling the artwork (without attribution), they do make money from the ads, which is where this gets fuzzy. But I think it is still unethical. At least they're trying to set things right. - acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@nepawoods: For what it's worth, I've been digging you up - I agree with you. It's a shame so many people are digging your comments down, because you're largely right and I'd hoped people on this site would be smart enough to recognize that.
@catalysis: You're in the same boat as nepawoods. Good for you!
@cr3ative: You tend to block people that disagree with you? You must be an awfully boring person, what with those massive blinders you've put on. - Travelsonic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Notfred,
"control over the _context_ of the work has been taken from you."
You mean the control that allows you to go after people infringing on your copyright?
Seems like to me you still have rights, sitting and not using them is not losing them by any stretch of the imagination. -
Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is