2.png)
Freax
category: general [glöplog]
I'm surprised that nobody mentionned it so far, but Demovibes is a great rip collection too.
OMG willbe !!!!
now you mention it... I'm sooooo disappointed...
maybe I'll post a new thread about it soon...
now you mention it... I'm sooooo disappointed...
maybe I'll post a new thread about it soon...
guradian: no, they dont. they use other peoples sounds to show off their interface. it aint preserving anything, the tracks are already well documented and abundant "in the wild"
willbe: i remember unreal telling me on irc on how lame you were for just using raiden (or was it scorpik..) track and just sending him an email telling him you had used it instead of asking permission for using it. that it was both lame and illegal of your part. i replyed who gives a fuck, its a soundtrack to a public demo anyways, anyone can rip it and make the cdr out of that, and willbe aint getting money for it. he replyed that was not the point, that you still had no permission to put your thing available before asking.
its a very shady subject. i think i prefer all art beeing free for everyone to reuse. people can make their own mind if they like the outcome or not. as long as people dont claim things were made by them when they werent i guess it's alright..
willbe: i remember unreal telling me on irc on how lame you were for just using raiden (or was it scorpik..) track and just sending him an email telling him you had used it instead of asking permission for using it. that it was both lame and illegal of your part. i replyed who gives a fuck, its a soundtrack to a public demo anyways, anyone can rip it and make the cdr out of that, and willbe aint getting money for it. he replyed that was not the point, that you still had no permission to put your thing available before asking.
its a very shady subject. i think i prefer all art beeing free for everyone to reuse. people can make their own mind if they like the outcome or not. as long as people dont claim things were made by them when they werent i guess it's alright..
ps> yeah right, or they just want to be in. and also where did i write that freax was killing the demoscene ? :)
Actually, when I've released Demovibes 1, I told myself that it would be cool to notify each artist that a piece of their art would be featured in Demovibes 2. Raiden was indeed very upset with this, I can understand it, althought my opinion keeps the same : i'm doing it anyway.
I sent emails again for Demovibes 3 and 4, then I gave up.
I don't tell that it is good, but it's done and i'm keeping doing it.
The 7th edition of Demovibes will popup at Numerica.
I sent emails again for Demovibes 3 and 4, then I gave up.
I don't tell that it is good, but it's done and i'm keeping doing it.
The 7th edition of Demovibes will popup at Numerica.
guardian: where did i write that you wrote that freax was killing the demoscene? :)
touché!
What I learnt about copyright this summer while working with copyrighted material in the music industry:
- When you create an original artwork, a song, a paint, a book or whatever, by law you are directly the father of it and you can say it is copyrighted by you. But if you do not register it in the intellectual property registry, it will be considered public domain. This means, that any person could duplicate and even sell you artwork without any problem, what would be ilegal would be to other person to say your artwork is copyrighted by other person not being you. In that case you could sue that person, but it would be a difficult court since you will have to demostrate the artwork was originally yours.
- If you register your artwork in the intellectual property register, then people will be forced to ask you before using it (unless you say the opposite). Also, if anybody is using your artwork wihtout your permission, you will be able to sue that.
- If you are a part of an autors society, then there are different rules for different societies. It is common that while you are in a society you have to register in the intellectual property all of you works, not only new works but also your prior ones. Then, you let all to them and they search for any unauthorized use of any of them, and the do all the legal things against that for you. Also, they get paid for the permission of using your artwork, latter paying you a percent of that. By one hand, this is the easier way for an artist to get paid and feel "secure", by other, it is something like selling your soul to the devil (IMHO).
---
Well, about demoscene artworks, the most are public domain or ilegal copies of not public domain artworks (boris vallejo copies, for example). I suppose it is as ilegal to print without permission a Boris Vallejo copy as to print directly one of his artworks. But, printing public domain graphics without permission is perfectly legal always the author is cited.
Anyway, there is the common rule of asking an artwork author permission before using it, even if it is public domain. It is an etiquette rule and widely accepted. One big problem is when you are doing a big book for example, like Freax. Not all the authors are easily to track, and since the amount of images it would be really hard to do it. By the way Tomcat did it is very correct, and not ilegal.
- When you create an original artwork, a song, a paint, a book or whatever, by law you are directly the father of it and you can say it is copyrighted by you. But if you do not register it in the intellectual property registry, it will be considered public domain. This means, that any person could duplicate and even sell you artwork without any problem, what would be ilegal would be to other person to say your artwork is copyrighted by other person not being you. In that case you could sue that person, but it would be a difficult court since you will have to demostrate the artwork was originally yours.
- If you register your artwork in the intellectual property register, then people will be forced to ask you before using it (unless you say the opposite). Also, if anybody is using your artwork wihtout your permission, you will be able to sue that.
- If you are a part of an autors society, then there are different rules for different societies. It is common that while you are in a society you have to register in the intellectual property all of you works, not only new works but also your prior ones. Then, you let all to them and they search for any unauthorized use of any of them, and the do all the legal things against that for you. Also, they get paid for the permission of using your artwork, latter paying you a percent of that. By one hand, this is the easier way for an artist to get paid and feel "secure", by other, it is something like selling your soul to the devil (IMHO).
---
Well, about demoscene artworks, the most are public domain or ilegal copies of not public domain artworks (boris vallejo copies, for example). I suppose it is as ilegal to print without permission a Boris Vallejo copy as to print directly one of his artworks. But, printing public domain graphics without permission is perfectly legal always the author is cited.
Anyway, there is the common rule of asking an artwork author permission before using it, even if it is public domain. It is an etiquette rule and widely accepted. One big problem is when you are doing a big book for example, like Freax. Not all the authors are easily to track, and since the amount of images it would be really hard to do it. By the way Tomcat did it is very correct, and not ilegal.
Texel, what country are you talking about? It's important (and is the reason for all that mess actually)
- Public domain does not even exist in a practical way in any european country. (it's only relevant for works from authors whose death has passed since 75 years, and even then, when it is available, it's usually in a newly copyrighted form: a new recording, some translation etc .. anything that required recent work and is actually a derived work from the original, hence, not public domain and newly copyrighted)
- Since the berne convention was adopted by most countries, anything you create is by default copyrighted to you (or you + anyone you derived your work from) and people have to ask you before taking copies of it. In some places this right is tranferrable (copyright) in some other only certain limited rights are transferrable to other parties (mechanical copying for example)
- Registering your work is not mandatory, (it is already copyrighted by default) .. It is just the most practical way to prove anteriority. Otherwise you get into problems with being able to ask assembly for proof your mod was entered back then in 1995 by yourself. It's even worse when the work was never distributed, in which case you can't prove it.
There's still the old method of sending yourself your own work via a special envelope, not opening it or ideally giving it to a third-party.
Not registering does not make your work Public Domain, it just make it harder to prove you came up with it.
- One thing about rights collection companies: they basically ask you to transfer your mechanical copying right to them. In a sense you exchanged part of your full copyright for their protection. Which in effect removes your right to manage who can get this or that copy made.
For example most artists who sign with GEMA/SACEM/... don't even have the right to distribute their own works under Creative Commons. Unless they asked for special exemptions.
Demoscene works as you call them are not Public Domain and will not be until well a hundred of years are passed. And even then, your most likely way to experience them will be through a form of recording or compilation which will have been a derived work of the original, hence copyrighted.
- Public domain does not even exist in a practical way in any european country. (it's only relevant for works from authors whose death has passed since 75 years, and even then, when it is available, it's usually in a newly copyrighted form: a new recording, some translation etc .. anything that required recent work and is actually a derived work from the original, hence, not public domain and newly copyrighted)
- Since the berne convention was adopted by most countries, anything you create is by default copyrighted to you (or you + anyone you derived your work from) and people have to ask you before taking copies of it. In some places this right is tranferrable (copyright) in some other only certain limited rights are transferrable to other parties (mechanical copying for example)
- Registering your work is not mandatory, (it is already copyrighted by default) .. It is just the most practical way to prove anteriority. Otherwise you get into problems with being able to ask assembly for proof your mod was entered back then in 1995 by yourself. It's even worse when the work was never distributed, in which case you can't prove it.
There's still the old method of sending yourself your own work via a special envelope, not opening it or ideally giving it to a third-party.
Not registering does not make your work Public Domain, it just make it harder to prove you came up with it.
- One thing about rights collection companies: they basically ask you to transfer your mechanical copying right to them. In a sense you exchanged part of your full copyright for their protection. Which in effect removes your right to manage who can get this or that copy made.
For example most artists who sign with GEMA/SACEM/... don't even have the right to distribute their own works under Creative Commons. Unless they asked for special exemptions.
Demoscene works as you call them are not Public Domain and will not be until well a hundred of years are passed. And even then, your most likely way to experience them will be through a form of recording or compilation which will have been a derived work of the original, hence copyrighted.
[quote]nutman: why on earth would scene graphics be public domain? unwritten rule of the scene?[quote]
ps: Well, then what is it?
All I'm saying is if there's no law protecting the works of scene graphics artists, other than the unwritten ones, I find it perfectly fine that the artists is being credited and given a free book.
ps: Well, then what is it?
All I'm saying is if there's no law protecting the works of scene graphics artists, other than the unwritten ones, I find it perfectly fine that the artists is being credited and given a free book.
Except there is the law, and it's the same for everyone. We have unwritten additional rules though. But that does mean we can't break the scene rule and use the full extent of law as it was written. (or we may actually not be able to ignore it, if our work is a derivative)
Quote:
thats called humour, i believe you might be familiar with it..
i wasn't laughing..
Well, at least in Finland the law is pretty clear on it. There's really no need for copyright texts or whatever since the creator of the work has the sole ownership to the creation.
It's actually so clear, that on copyright infringement cases (which involve just a blatant misuse of a picture without the permission of the author) there's really no need to go to court since it's already 10-0 score for the original author. It's just a matter of settling how much money the work is worth in that case, which is alot since the offender is basically standing pants down at that point.
I think it's common sense to ask for permission especially since the original author has very little control on the issue. For one thing, I don't think Freax represents the artists as well as it should, which you can see from the poor quality of the print. Then again, the print run is probably so small and the whole book is more of a fringe product (Most people I've shown it have usually asked if these are oil or acryl works :D) so that there's not that much to worry about.
The right thing to do would've to ask authors and not print stuff where permission wasn't granted. Other communities usually put up a project for these kinds of art book collections where people hunt down and ask permissions. They then obtain proper versions and so forth. I think this would've worked even better for the demoscene because of the vast network of contacts in-between active and inactive sceners. But the way of the whole Freax project seems to be "don't ask/research".
There's already loads of misconceptions about copyright and I've seen loads of misuse of someone's art for commercial purposes. Whatever's available in Google has to be free, right? :)
There is a law protecting scene graphics artists which is the same as any other artist, be it photographer or an oil painter. The law is pretty similar across europe with small differences in US, but the bottomline is: ask permission. This is what Assembly does with it's Content Donation Contract and after submitting an entry, you could expect your work to pop up in advertising, DVDs, whatever. But you still retain the right to the work.
It's actually so clear, that on copyright infringement cases (which involve just a blatant misuse of a picture without the permission of the author) there's really no need to go to court since it's already 10-0 score for the original author. It's just a matter of settling how much money the work is worth in that case, which is alot since the offender is basically standing pants down at that point.
I think it's common sense to ask for permission especially since the original author has very little control on the issue. For one thing, I don't think Freax represents the artists as well as it should, which you can see from the poor quality of the print. Then again, the print run is probably so small and the whole book is more of a fringe product (Most people I've shown it have usually asked if these are oil or acryl works :D) so that there's not that much to worry about.
The right thing to do would've to ask authors and not print stuff where permission wasn't granted. Other communities usually put up a project for these kinds of art book collections where people hunt down and ask permissions. They then obtain proper versions and so forth. I think this would've worked even better for the demoscene because of the vast network of contacts in-between active and inactive sceners. But the way of the whole Freax project seems to be "don't ask/research".
Quote:
"All I'm saying is if there's no law protecting the works of scene graphics artists, other than the unwritten ones, I find it perfectly fine that the artists is being credited and given a free book."
There's already loads of misconceptions about copyright and I've seen loads of misuse of someone's art for commercial purposes. Whatever's available in Google has to be free, right? :)
There is a law protecting scene graphics artists which is the same as any other artist, be it photographer or an oil painter. The law is pretty similar across europe with small differences in US, but the bottomline is: ask permission. This is what Assembly does with it's Content Donation Contract and after submitting an entry, you could expect your work to pop up in advertising, DVDs, whatever. But you still retain the right to the work.
Quote:
The right thing to do would've to ask authors and not print stuff where permission wasn't granted
Exactly. It's only common courtesy.
*wank* *wank* *wank*
reko so did that certain cafe just do the 'if its on google it must be free' thing with that one photo of yours?:-)
pretty much. That comment caught me a bit off guard, but what can you expect? People don't really have a clue :)
ger: oh. in that case: humour, meet ger, ger, meet humour. there :)
tracking down all authors would be:
a) insane ammount of extra work
b) probably reduce the quality of the book
c) introduce exponential time delays to its release
it's the lawful thing to do, but it's not logically savy if you want to get the damn thing printed in this lifetime in the way you want it.
lets face it, copyrights are evil and courtesy will always serve as a restriction that most people cant afford to deal with. i see it's point on both sides, and they're both wrong, plus there is no fair middle term, but there are lots of ways to annoy everyone else.
a) insane ammount of extra work
b) probably reduce the quality of the book
c) introduce exponential time delays to its release
it's the lawful thing to do, but it's not logically savy if you want to get the damn thing printed in this lifetime in the way you want it.
lets face it, copyrights are evil and courtesy will always serve as a restriction that most people cant afford to deal with. i see it's point on both sides, and they're both wrong, plus there is no fair middle term, but there are lots of ways to annoy everyone else.
i sent a mail and even im'ed with the authors of all the songs we played with Ultrasound to a) ask for permission and b) discuss how the songs could be played live. i had interesting chats with little bitchard, for instance.
still, didn't get a reply from radix or purple motion - i did from skaven once! - which means that once they find out, will they be pissed off? also, playing a cover of a song is consider ripping?
still, didn't get a reply from radix or purple motion - i did from skaven once! - which means that once they find out, will they be pissed off? also, playing a cover of a song is consider ripping?
Ps, the funny thing is, as evil as we might want to call rights collection companies, they actually play that role for you: if we had one, we could negotiate the inclusion of works through the company instead of having to track authors one by one.
knos: the author would still not be aware that their works were used nor see a dime but now the collection company was getting paid for it. hooray for legality.
jeenio: i sent radix a video of unreal superhero beeing covered, he seemed to like it :)
jeenio: BUT YOU'RE STILL KILLING THE SCENE WITH YOUR COPYRIGHT INFRIGMENT AND SHALL BURN IN HELL!!!!
ps yes he would you dimwit