Viewpoint Why is using art without permission a problem? It's time we talk about this.

[nerdy tangents]

Cosmo i am sorry I think that’s a disingenuous argument.

1. Chris Evans and Hasboro (they own Pokémon IP right?) are not in any way negatively affected by their images being used. Especially since most people can recognize them on site so it’s obvious who your faceclaim is. Pokémon has a distinct art style and Chris Evans is an A-List Actor.

2. Acting like someone who makes at best 5-20 dollars for a piece of art is on the same level as a massive entertainment company and a famous actor is just straight horseshit.

And as someone who lives paycheck to paycheck I can assure you 5-20 dollars is not something to just throw away.

Even if it’s not their only source of income you have no right to cut into their profits.

So if you want to take your face claims from famous anime or cartoons then knock yourself out. Your a thousand percent right in that no one cares.

You want to use actors or models (as long as you give their name) then go for it. But don’t act like it’s okay to take some small artists work just because Pokémon is big enough to not notice the difference

 

[Luscinioide]

Just curious so please don't bite me for asking, but would you feel differently about art of others being used if the person using it wasn't trying to pass it off as their own or was giving the original artist credit?

Asking the permission of an artist is a completely different story than using it without permission. Myself and some other artists are fine with people asking to use pictures we've done of fandom characters (ie pokemon) - we just don't like it when they take art of OCs or if they take it without asking. Tbh, just asking nicely works a lot more than you think it would. I have friends who have had great success with getting art for their fandom characters this way.

 

[Jannah]

Asking the permission of an artist is a completely different story than using it without permission. Myself and other artists are fine with people asking to use pictures we've done of fandom characters (ie pokemon) - we just don't like it when they take art of OCs or if they take it without asking. Tbh, just asking nicely works a lot more than you think it would. I have friends who have had great success with getting art for their fandom characters this way.

Ah okay. Thank you. Again, it's typically a non-issue for me since I use realistic face claims, but this is good to know for if I ever end up in a situation where drawn faces are required (I don't do a lot of RP's based on animated fandoms).

 

[Cosmo]

nerdy tangents I don't get to break into my neighbors house and take their TV just because they make more money then I do and so are less likely to be as bothered by it. Using the picture that someone made that 4-6 random people on the internet in the RP with me are going to see isn't going to negatively effect them either on any measurable scale.

You are attempting to say the rules don't apply for some people but they do for others. That isn't how it works. The reason companies don't go after people writing Fanfiction or Roleplaying Fandoms isn't because they don't notice or care, it's because it isn't worth the effort to do so. Same reason the Music Company has mostly given up stopping people from downloading music illegally.

You don't get to apply the law because you like one more then the other or because it hurts you more then it does someone else.

 

[Luscinioide]

Ah okay. Thank you. Again, it's typically a non-issue for me since I use realistic face claims, but this is good to know for if I ever end up in a situation where drawn faces are required (I don't do a lot of RP's based on animated fandoms).

Yeah, I mean, if it's not a commission and it's not a personal character, it doesn't hurt to ask. For me personally, if I drew a Zoroark or whatever and someone wants to use it, they just need to ask me for my permission so I can watermark it properly and instruct them on how to credit. Same goes for many fandom artists, but you should always ask first. Most of the time we'd be very happy for the free advertising - which we don't get if someone takes it without crediting us. Chances are if we're drawing fandom characters, we're perfectly aware that someone is going to end up yoinking it one way or another...and if they're going to do that, I'd rather they tell me first. >_>

 

[EldridSmith]

See I get where you're coming from, but for one (more often than not) it's not worth the effort to track down the original artist. Now it may sound lazy to you, but hear me out. When I first started RPing, I would spend HOURS finding the perfect picture (and to be honest I still do sometimes). However when I was new to RPing I always tried tracking down the original artist, when the name was on the photo it was easy, but when I found pinterest (where I get most of my art) it was nigh impossible as it's been shared and copied so many times. Sure you can cite laziness but most people don't legitimately have the time to spend tracking down a piece of art. I'm in college right now and I don't have the free time I had in high school or middle school, and I'm roleplaying to de-stress. I don't want to stress out trying to find the original artist when it's been shared more times than I can count.

 

[bastion]

It falls into that grey area just like everything else does. I find it no worse then using the faces of models and celebrities without their consent or stealing intellectual properties (IPs) to use as roleplays without the permission of the creators.

Most of the comparisons you make aren't really equal. I don't have the energy to get into all of it, so I'll focus on the art comparisons.

Using art from large media doesn't hurt the creators. It doesn't cost them jobs. It likely doesn't leave them feeling violated, because a project like that has become something shared rather than an intensely personal experience.

When you use art from small time artists you are hurting them. I've already gone over the ways it hurts the artists in the original post.

I don't believe Artbreeder would be a good idea to add as a resource for free images. There's a lot of complications that goes into AI and fusing [2] images that does not belong to you still, to me, reads as using someone else's work without permission.

I do agree that Artbreeder can be a bit iffy, but I put it as a resource because what I've seen of people using it typically bends it far from the original. It's also good for taking images of real people and translating them into art and then manipulating them. I will update my original post though to include that it should be used responsibly to create something unique and checking that the art used of it is by looking at it's "genetic history".

I don't get to break into my neighbors house and take their TV just because they make more money then I do and so are less likely to be as bothered by it. Using the picture that someone made that 4-6 random people on the internet in the RP with me are going to see isn't going to negatively effect them either on any measurable scale.

Once again your comparison isn't accurate. Using official artwork from a large IP is equivalent to stealing a pen from Walmart, if that. No one's getting hurt or actually suffering a loss.

Also, if you posted that picture in a public space (so outside DMs) then it is going to negatively impact the artist because it adds to the duplicates floating around of the art. Artists have lost job opportunities because potential clients saw reposts of their art and decided they didn't trust the art belonged to the artist.

it's not worth the effort to track down the original artist

The solution to this is to use resources for creating character portraits such as picrew, finding artist's offering requests instead of spending your time scrolling through Pinterest, or searching for free to use art. I'm currently trying to collect links for the last one, since there are artists that make character portraits that they offer as free for people to reuse. Unfortunately I'm only finding clipart and fantasy stuff so far, but I'm gonna keep looking for other stuff as well.

 

[Cosmo]

Most of the comparisons you make aren't really equal. I don't have the energy to get into all of it, so I'll focus on the art comparisons.

Using art from large media doesn't hurt the creators. It doesn't cost them jobs. It likely doesn't leave them feeling violated, because a project like that has become something shared rather than an intensely personal experience.

When you use art from small time artists you are hurting them. I've already gone over the ways it hurts the artists in the original post.


I do agree that Artbreeder can be a bit iffy, but I put it as a resource because what I've seen of prior using it typically bends it far from the original. It's also good for taking images of real people and translating them into art and then manipulating them. I will update my original post though to include that it should be used responsibly to create something unique and checking that the art used of it is by looking at it's "genetic history".



Once again your comparison isn't accurate. Using official artwork from a large IP is equivalent to stealing a pen from Walmart, of that. No one's getting hurt or actually suffering a loss.

Also, if you posted that picture in a public space (so outside DMs) then it is going to negatively impact the artist because it adds to the duplicates floating around of the art. Artists have lost job opportunities because potential clients saw reposts of their art and decided they didn't trust the art belonged to the artist.


The solution to this is to use resources for creating character portraits such as picrew, finding artist's offering requests instead of spending your time scrolling through Pinterest, or searching for free to use art. I'm currently trying to collect links for the last one, since there are artists that make character portraits that they offer as free for people to reuse. Unfortunately I'm only finding clipart and fantasy stuff so far, but I'm gonna keep looking for other stuff as well.

The comparison is accurate. There are only two actual reasons you do not believe so, Personal Bias and Cognitive Dissonance. Personal Bias in favor of the 'indie artist' because either you are one, know one and are friends with one or are simply more likely to be attached to a single being rather then a group and cognitive dissonance. It is wrong to steal the work of others. Full stop. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 dollars. You understand this. I understand this. I pray everyone who reads this thread understands that simple core value that helps society function. However, you want to use their work. You want to take their creations, redraw them and slap your label on them. You want to roleplay in their worlds and so create reasons for why it is okay. 'It doesn't really hurt them', 'It's okay, they can afford it, like what's the big deal?', 'It isn't like I am hurting someone, just a faceless corporation!'.

When someone makes Rule 34 art of pokemon, they are hurting Gamefreak who have done their best to appear as family friendly as possible. If you seriously think parents stumbling over.. specific art of Lopunny doesn't make people at Gamefreak roll their eyes, then I have a bridge to sell you. You don't get to play it off as 'it's okay, because the damage done there is tiny'. If you are going to discuss the moral reasons for why something is okay or not, you need to actually debate the moral reasons, not play moral relativism because you don't think one is a big deal.

You are running through mental gymnastics to justify why stealing from one person is not okay, but stealing from another is okay. It's fine, I talked about this in my very first post, people do things they know are wrong but justify it for whatever reason they want, but all the reasons can really be boiled down to convenience and desire.

 

[nerdy tangents]

nerdy tangents I don't get to break into my neighbors house and take their TV just because they make more money then I do and so are less likely to be as bothered by it. Using the picture that someone made that 4-6 random people on the internet in the RP with me are going to see isn't going to negatively effect them either on any measurable scale.

You are attempting to say the rules don't apply for some people but they do for others. That isn't how it works. The reason companies don't go after people writing Fanfiction or Roleplaying Fandoms isn't because they don't notice or care, it's because it isn't worth the effort to do so. Same reason the Music Company has mostly given up stopping people from downloading music illegally.

You don't get to apply the law because you like one more then the other or because it hurts you more then it does someone else.

My point is transformative works are designed with mainstream content in mind.

You used fanfiction. You don’t write fanfiction of the self-published book you found on Amazon.

Because the way income stream works do in fact matter.

1. Most mainstream Authors have in fact been asked “hey do you mind if people make fanfic of your work” directly in interviews or whatever. There is an actual website where you can see “Hey does JKR care if I write fanfic of Harry Potter?” (To help you out the answer is no as long as you give credit to her.)

There are also some famous Authors who do not want fanfic of their work (the one I remember off the top of my head was Laurel K Hamilton who by all accounts is a piece of work from the top down).

Now given the nature of fanfiction Laurel K Hamilton could not sue if someone did make fanfiction of her work. She could if they just wrote a story in her universe without credit at all.

That is part of transformative works. It’s not just “oh I am not making money off this so I can take whatever I want from wherever I want it.”

You have to credit your work in a very specific way and that include artwork.

So if you insist on taking art even though someone has copyrighted it to be non-distributed without permission at bare minimum you need to link back to the original art source.

Ideally you need to find art that is open source or under a distribution license (I can’t remember the specific licensing names off the top of my head but you can Google it).

2. If you are genuinely attempting to make the argument that the single riches author in the world (JKR) or even a particularly prolific author (Dan Brown) are somehow on equal ground to a self published author with only a single book published on Amazon then you are wildly naive.

Because the law most definitely works differently for them both. And it’s no good acting insulted when I point that out. I mean granted JKR has (as I mentioned) already given permission to use her world in transformative works anyway so it’s a moot point. But even assuming the self published author has some kind of website that you can find and puts in big text “Feel free to make fanfiction of this world just please link back to this website”.

That still doesn’t give you the right to just take paragraphs from the text itself with no crediting whatsoever. Which is a large part of the issue with Face Claims.

Chris Evans doesn’t require credit because you already know who he is. Joe Schmo Stock Image you got from Pinterest should at least get linked back to his source material. Because unless he is an actual model or actor you just took a random persons picture from the internet which is creepy.

Same thing with art. At bare minimum at least try to find the source image and link it.

Because despite what a lot of people seem to think there are actual art licensing that allows you to use works for distribution. Much in the same way there are some authors who are perfectly happy to allow you to write stories in their universe. So if you go to the original art/photo sources you can often find out the difference.

Actors are a little tricky (I don’t know as anyone has ever directly asked Chris Evans about roleplay) but I tend to take that in line with transformative works if you link the source. So if you are using a gif from tumblr of his character in Knives Out just say so. Or link the tumblr post directly.

Legally couldn’t say if that is kosher (I don’t know copyright law at that high level) but it’s at least doing your best to get in the habit of proper credit. Which will help you out a lot going forward.

 

[Cosmo]

My point is transformative works are designed with mainstream content in mind.

You used fanfiction. You don’t write fanfiction of the self-published book you found on Amazon.

Because the way income stream works do in fact matter.

1. Most mainstream Authors have in fact been asked “hey do you mind if people make fanfic of your work” directly in interviews or whatever. There is an actual website where you can see “Hey does JKR care if I write fanfic of Harry Potter?” (To help you out the wonder is no as long as you give credit to her.)

There are also some famous Authors who do not want fanfic of their work (the one I remember off the top of my head was Laurel K Hamilton who by all accounts is a piece of work from the top down).

Now given the nature of fanfiction Laurel K Hamilton could not sue if someone did make fanfiction of her work. She could if they just wrote a story in her universe without credit at all.

That is part of transformative works. It’s not just “oh I am not making money off this so I can take whatever I want from wherever I want it.”

You have to credit your work in a very specific way and that include artwork.

So if you insist on taking art even though someone has copyrighted it to be non-distributed without permission at bare minimum you need to link back to the original art source.

Ideally you need to find art that is open source or under a distribution license (I can’t remember the specific licensing names off the top of my head but you can Google it).

2. If you are genuinely attempting to make the argument that the single riches author in the world (JKR) or even a particularly prolific author (Dan Brown) are somehow on equal ground to a self published author with only a single book published on Amazon then you are wildly naive.

Because the law most definitely works differently for them both. And it’s no good acting insulted when I point that out. I mean granted JKR has (as I mentioned) already given permission to use her world in transformative works anyway so it’s a moot point. But even assuming the self published author has some kind of website that you can find and puts in big text “Feel free to make fanfiction of this world just please link back to this website”.

That still doesn’t give you the right to just take paragraphs from the text itself with no crediting whatsoever. Which is a large part of the issue with Face Claims.

Chris Evans doesn’t require credit because you already know who he is. Joe Schmo Stock Image you got from Pinterest should at least get linked back to his source material. Because unless he is an actual model or actor you just took a random persons picture from the internet which is creepy.

Same thing with art. At bare minimum at least try to find the source image and link it.

Because despite what a lot of people seem to think there are actual art licensing that allows you to use works for distribution. Much in the same way there are some authors who are perfectly happy to allow you to write stories in their universe. So if you go to the original art/photo sources you can often find out the difference.

Actors are a little tricky (I don’t know as anyone has ever directly asked Chris Evans about roleplay) but I tend to take that in line with transformative works if you link the source. So if you are using a gif from tumblr of his character in Knives Out just say so. Or link the tumblr post directly.

Legally couldn’t say if that is kosher (I don’t know copyright law at that high level) but it’s at least doing your best to get in the habit of proper credit. Which will help you out a lot going forward.

Transformative works do not start and end with popularity. Something being popular, or not, is not the sign that you are now free to steal from them.

You do not get to claim it's okay to steal from them because they have money but not okay to steal from someone else because they have less money. That isn't how it works. That is never how it has worked.

My point is you are on a site where most of the works here are 'stolen', via using IPs without their knowledge or permission, and yet are claiming that it's okay to do that but not okay to steal this thing because you care more about this particular thing. If you cannot see the amusing hypocrisy in that, you should take a hard look at yourself.

When you sign into a roleplay site, you are, for the most part, going in with an unspoken agreement that you are about to participate in some IPs that you do not have permission to use for personal use as a hobby. That's just how it is. So when someone brings this up, it always makes me chuckle because its moral relativity and cognitive dissonance at it's finest.

Now, understand this, I draw the line at malicious intent. If someone steals someone's work, in an attempt to pass that off as their own, regardless of what that is, yes, I have an issue with that. If they are using someone's art and they know, for a fact, that they didn't want it to be used? Yeah, that is what is known as a 'Dick Move'. But, again, I assume that things done on RPN are not done with malicious intent, so I truly, deeply, do not care as I am not going to pretend to be better then someone else because they only steal from X instead of Y because that, somehow, makes them better people [It doesn't].

If you are switching the argument from 'always get permission' to 'Try to credit the source at all times because that way their work can be found by those looking and is just a nice thing to do' then, yes, I agree, that is a very civil thing to do and is only right... But also not really going to fret if it isn't done [Hell, I'm often forgetting to do it]. However, 'Think of the Children Struggling Indie Artist! Steal Only From These People Who I Say Its Okay To Steal From' is never a line of argument that is going to work with me.

 

[bastion]

Okay everyone, Cosmo has made it clear what their view is. Let's stop trying to change their mind. It's just going to take this from a friendly discussion into bickering, which is not the point of this.

 

[Cosmo]

bastion What an odd way to say that. Is this some odd appeal to popularity where 'Everyone' agrees with you and I am some mad outlander who is raving lunacy? Cause... That feels very shady.

Now, I respect your opinions, and I respect you as a person, but that was an odd way to say that.

Either way, I wish you well in your endeavors.

 

[nerdy tangents]

Apologies my point was actually to explain the nuance of transformative works and attribution. I had to study it for my job years ago (so a thing to note is that my info might be a decade out of date.)

But my work involved sharing information and exactly to what degree something fell under fair use and how attribution worked.

For instance literally copying pages from a book and giving it away as a prize is not okay. Even if you aren’t actually making money.

But copying pages from a book for research or cuz you want a reference is fine.


Art is of course different to print anyway so that is where attribution comes in. Artwork has individual licenses that run the gamut from public domain (anyone can use it for any purpose without having to credit) to copyrighted (no taking without direct permission from the creator).

I think a big part of the roleplay problem is that this is a fun hobby most of us got into as children or young teens. At a stage when we would have no reason to know about attribution or even the actual details of fair use.

We learn by copying the styles of others. So going back to fanfiction for a long time there was a disclaimer out on the top of every single fanfiction saying something to the effect of “Thus works belongs to the creator I am only borrowing.”

Believe it or not that is acceptable crediting (although it is not perhaps the most formalized version of it). If you read current fanfic though that trend has ended because we have sort of got to a point in society where the “this isn’t mine I’m borrowing” is assumed.

But if you are a new fanfic writer who has not had reason to research fair use then you don’t know what the purpose behind a disclaimer is. You would put one up in the early days purely because that’s how everyone else did it

So it would be just a basic matter of formatting, the same way you would write in complete sentences or use certain tropes.

However if are newer to fanfic you wouldn’t write a disclaimer because few other people do.


There are actual roleplay sites that require art attribution (a fair number of them actually).

There are individuals who properly attribute their art because that is how they were taught or because they know enough about attribution / fair use to know that credit must always be given. The disclaimers of old where how fair use works not just making a fanfic and assuming your audience knows fair use from inference.

So I think part of it is just bad habits and people assuming knowledge. In that way it’s the same problem as the use of “literate” “ghosting” or any other specialized terms.

I think ultimately the only true solutoon is the Staff themselves getting involved in giving some kind of clear statement on the matter.

But for those who are young or new enough not to know what attribution or fair use is (those who don’t know why people ask for credit in others words) here is the answer ;

Art is all produced under a license. Some of those licenses allow for that art to be distributed by people other than the creator.

The simplest license is public domain which means that anyone can use it for anything.

The strictest is copyright which means you can’t use it without the creators permission

When you go to the original source of the image chances are you will find the exact license involved.

That can be tricky if you aren’t familiar with sourcing items on your own. If you are a casual hobbyist the easiest solution is to use sources like Picrew OR Unsplash.

Sources where the art is specifically being made for distribution.

If you are using an actor or model at minimum credit them properly

Ex Faceclaim : Chris Evans from (link source).

It might not necessarily be correct under licensing but it gets you in the habit of crediting your sources. And that is going to be a habit that helps you immensely across the board.

 

[nerdy tangents]

A good example of inference is a former partner of mine had a image they found by a “famous” Twitter artist.

I asked them “hey can you link where you found this?”

And they said it’s okay there is a watermark and this person is really popular.

I to this day have no idea who they were talking about. The person did incidentally have a lot of cool art designs when they finally linked their sources.

But if I had no put my foot down and said “No I want to know where you found this.”

They would have assumed that the credit was inferred.

So never assume your partner lives in your head and can make the same connections you do. Linking sources is a good way to help boost the people you are using.

Cuz hey you never know I might have some extra money and want a piece of art for myself.

You might end up making that person a little extra money by taking a minute to link them.

So if nothing else politeness isn’t always about “hey your doing this bad thing” sometimes it’s about “hey you made this persons day a little better”.

 

[GojiBean]

I am definitely not the best person to initiate this discussion. I have anxiety and far from the most eloquent, but this is a long overdue discussion. I can only hope to get the ball rolling so that the roleplay community can start learning and growing.

For the last decade that I have been a part of the roleplay community, and likely since it originated, it has been the norm to find random art online to use as the face of our characters. I did it when I first started out, as did most people I know in the community. Many still do. Being a roleplayer and an artist isn't necessarily common, and even when someone is both, using someone else's art has an appeal when everyone else is using art of a higher skill level or style for their face claims.

Just because it's been normalized, doesn't mean it's okay. Everyone might be doing it, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem with it. That doesn't mean there isn't harm.

Art doesn't come from nowhere. Someone created it, with a purpose.

Many artists are uncomfortable having their artwork used as the face for someone else's character. Art is something personal, that takes hours to create, years of skill, and plenty of emotion for each piece. It hurts to see their art used without their permission. It can feel violating, especially when that art features their personal character.

Worse yet, reposting art publicly can be harmful for artists. Artists have lost out on job opportunity's because their art was reposted. Artists have been forced to go private over their art being reposted.

There are places where there are strict restrictions on fanart, to the point an artist can get in trouble if their fanart spreads to far, so even using fanart without permission can be a problem.

It's time we stop taking art without the artist's permission. Stop browsing random images and start looking for free art instead. There are artists who create character portraits for the express purpose of people using them. There are also artists who take requests, although you should never approach a random artist asking if they do. Look through art forums for threads from artists inviting people to request art from them. You can also check art trade forums for artists willing to trade for non-art, such as writing.

There are also resources for creating free art. Here are just a few I could find with a quick search:

• Picrew｜つくってあそべる画像メーカー: anime and cartoon portraits for the most part
• Artbreeder: fuse art to create new stuff, the portrait mode is pretty fantastic once you get the hang of it
  • Note: Make sure you're using this to create something unique. Check the "genetic history" of any art you use from the sure to ensure it's far removed from the original source. Also this sure can translate photos of real people into art, which you can then manipulate, so it works well if you've got a real life face claim that's close but needs some tweaking.
• This Person Does Not Exist: photorealistic images of fake people, all randomly generated though
• Hero Forge Custom Miniatures: create fantasy miniatures
• https://eldritch-foundry.com/: same thing as Hero Forge

If you can't find free art and none of those options for creating character references works for you, what should you do? Well, there's two options:

• Commission an artist. Pay for custom art to your specifications.
• Learn to draw. It may sound difficult, but once you start studying, you will find you improve incredibly quickly. Most people can go from stick figures to something satisfying within a months, even if it's not the most impressive.

Alright, I'll leave it here for now. If you want to argue, honestly, I'll probably just let you talk to yourself. I am too anxious and stressed to try and convince someone not to steal art (yes, it's stealing as long as you don't have permission to repost and use the art.)

Hopefully, others will engage in this conversation though, and the roleplay community can start moving away from using art without permission.

While I, as a novice artist, most certainly appreciate the sentiment here, it's important to recognize that the non-profit use of an image that's been posted and shared freely online, and in the context of role-playing where an entire life is being applied to the work which did not originally exist, falls under the protections of Fair Use.

The artwork is being used in a transformative environment where an entire character and life is being applied to it that did not previously exist, as stated previously. And the original artwork, 99% of the time, isn't 100% accurate to the final look of the character the Player wants to use, nor is the character shaped to the image in most cases. There are almost always differences and changes the Player wants to make clear. As a result further descriptions are often applied to "change" the artwork in the metaphysical sense and help fill in the gaps as to what's different from the Player's true vision for what their character looks like such as saying "but they have elf ears" or "there's no scar on the face." Though it may be metaphysical and abstract, it does meant that less of the original image is actually being "used" in a legal sense which further helps protect our right to use it under the protections of Fair Use.

As such, the use of art in this manner is not something to be shunned or attacked as "theft" or "unlawful reproduction" as it does not fall into either category, neither legally or metaphorically.

So, again, while I appreciate the sentiment as an amateur artist myself I cannot in good conscience condone the attitude that accusing all role-players who use images found and shared freely online is in any way theft or worthy of scorn and suddenly and arbitrarily brought to an end because someone else is being sensitive about it. Not to hurt your feelings, but your feelings literally do not matter or factor into the debate as to whether or not what role-players are doing is "right" or "wrong." You need to have some substantial ground to stand on when making such an argument other than "I think this is theft," because it's not.

As well, your argument that it "harms" the artist is not entirely true. The argument that it harms the artist is entirely dependent upon whether or not the artist intends to use the artwork for personal gain and/or profit. If they're just posting it online to Deviantart, Instagram, or other Social Media or publicly accessible art sharing websites without any intent for profit and are just sharing it to share it, then their art is fair game. Sharing their art when this is their intent does not harm them in any way.

When artists do want to share their art for profit or personal gain and to expand their presence and portfolio online, there are a number of ways they can protect themselves and their artworks such as adding watermarks, using any available site features/tools to disable right clicking (to stop right-click + "save image as"), listing publicly on the site where the art is presented that they intend for their artwork to be commercial and state openly their intent to protect their copyrights and their work from unlawful distribution (whether for profit or not), etc.

In such cases as where we can clearly see the artwork is being protected by the artist, and/or they've made open requests for the artwork not to be shared without their consent, then I would agree that defying their wish and intent to profit from their work does in fact harm them and should never be done.

But again, the artist has the tools to protect themselves and their art freely available to them at all times. If they don't use those tools, or don't intend to "protect" anything, then their art is fair game.

So, with all due respect to you and your desire to protect us artists, I humbly request that you shift focus a little bit. Instead of trying to blanket everyone's use of freely acquired images online as theft or something that needs to stop, start making more of a case for responsible use of those images rather than just being a check and grab effort.

It would most certainly make sense for all of us to be responsible and make sure that the artwork we're using is not for profit or coming from an artist who wants to protect their work and who's using their art with the intent to expand their presence online. As a bit of a failsafe, you could make the case we should always credit the original artist with a little note either above or below the image so everyone knows who and where it comes from so that all attention for the art is directed to them. When it comes to personal responsibility and accountability with images, a simple lookup of the image via Google's image lookup reverse feature is a great place to start to find out where it originated. If the artwork comes from a place where the artist makes it clear they are trying to profit from their work, we should leave the work alone and try finding another similar image without such requests or protections from the artist in place.

However, telling us simply to stop taking images we find online is not only a violation of our rights under Fair Use, but also personally irresponsible of you for not having done your due diligence and understanding what our rights are, and that there are still ways we can use the artwork responsibly while protecting ourselves and giving credit where it's due for the artists in question.

Cheers!

 

[BakaTheIdiot]

When in doubt, you can always use the best character creator tool in the universe...

Dark Souls.

 

[Metty]

Personally, if somebody say, used commissioned art of my character as a face claim, I'd be pretty upset about it. It's my character, not anybody else's. You didn't pay for the art, hence you shouldn't be using it.

 

[bastion]

The artwork is being used in a transformative environment where an entire character and life is being applied to it that did not previously exist, as stated previously.

I did a bit of research into this since I honestly don't know much about the legality of it. What I found was posting an image unedited does not fall under transformative. Unless you have altered the image, it is not transformative. If you have altered the image, then it depends on the degree it's been altered.

Also, the reason I'm saying to stop using art without the artist's permission, first and foremost, is because of the impact on the artist. So regardless of whether you can legally repost it, showing consideration for the person who created the art should come first. Using their art will have an impact on them in various ways, ranging from emotional damage to loss of potential job opportunity.

 

[Luscinioide]

Personally, if somebody say, used commissioned art of my character as a face claim, I'd be pretty upset about it. It's my character, not anybody else's. You didn't pay for the art, hence you shouldn't be using it.

This is a big part of it for me. (: My commissions can easily go into the $100+ range, and that's really not uncommon for other artists, too. Some of the more advanced artists will have their prices go well into several hundred dollars. That's definitely not pocket change. I always tell people that if someone came into your room and stole your $300 TV, you'd be really mad - now imagine how people who had their $300 piece of art stolen feel! The furry community is a big example of this. If someone started using their $3500 OC without permission, there'd be an absolute goddamn bloodbath LMAO.

 

[Cosmo]

I did a bit of research into this since I honestly don't know much about the legality of it. What I found was posting an image unedited does not fall under transformative. Unless you have altered the image, it is not transformative. If you have altered the image, then it depends on the degree it's been altered.

Also, the reason I'm saying to stop using art without the artist's permission, first and foremost, is because of the impact on the artist. So regardless of whether you can legally repost it, showing consideration for the person who created the art should come first. Using their art will have an impact on them in various ways, ranging from emotional damage to loss of potential job opportunity.

That's not what transformative means. Transformative doesn't mean you throw a Microsoft Paint mustache onto something and now it's something 'new'. It's not using artblender and meshing them together.

When you take an artwork you found online and apply it to a character, you are transforming it's nature. You are giving it new meaning or expression via applying it to a 'Character' and creating a story.

 

[bastion]

That's not what transformative means. Transformative doesn't mean you throw a Microsoft Paint mustache onto something and now it's something 'new'. It's not using artblender and meshing them together.

When you take an artwork you found online and apply it to a character, you are transforming it's nature. You are giving it new meaning or expression via applying it to a 'Character' and creating a story.

Once again, I want to reiterate I am not the most informed on this. This is just what I'm finding by looking into it right now. However, based on this article, transformative is actually transforming the image, not about how it's used.

Either way, the legality of it isn't as as the respect and consideration you show to the artist, in my opinion. It shouldn't be about whether or not it's a crime. What's important is that you at least show enough consideration for the effort and skill put into creating the artwork to track down the artist and ask if they are comfortable with you using their art.

 

[Cosmo]

Once again, I want to reiterate I am not the most informed on this. This is just what I'm finding by looking into it right now. However, based on this article, transformative is actually transforming the image, not about how it's used.

Either way, the legality of it isn't as as the respect and consideration you show to the artist, in my opinion. It shouldn't be about whether or not it's a crime. What's important is that you at least show enough consideration for the effort and skill put into creating the artwork to track down the artist and ask if they are comfortable with you using their art.

That is incorrect.

For instance, there was a case where they used an image that was previously used for a magazine for a novel. The publisher [the one who actually had the rights to it] did not give permission and sued. They won the case for using it on the novel because it was using it in a transformative way [different meaning].

In another case, an artist took pictures without permission or credit and used them to make a collage [Note, many of the pictures were not altered or changed, in fact, he used the entire pictures], but because he was using them to 'make something new', IE, changing its meaning, it was deemed transformative.

I've already spoken, in my previous post, how it was covered under transformative and you were attempting to discuss the morality, which is why I said I always laugh because people say how it's morally wrong to do this but turn a blind eye to the stealing of other works.

 

[Malphaestus]

The word "transformative" is malleable, and it's use intentionally vague. This means it is not applied equally, in any fashion, to all things. One judge does not decree alike another. That being said, to discuss the correct appliance of words is akin to comparing two dictionaries, and amounts to nothing.

In the end, however you pursue others' works on the internet, it will cause no effect, for we are but one. And therefore, whichever method you choose to pursue, is therefore pursued for your sake. To feel morally right, or to view it as senseless frivolities. That will remain the case until a governing force chooses otherwise. Arguing which path is right, is arguing moral relativism with a moral absolutist. But for now, it is anarchy which reigns.

That being said, to credit artists, is not a bad thing to do. And to argue against pursuing such customs is to scream against the sky. One should not be forced to choose between excrement, the ability to decide on something better than the worst should be pursued for those who care for it. And on that note, there are degrees to any pursuit: wrongness included. It is less wrong to steal, than it is to kill, and so too, is it less wrong to choose to support those needing support than it is to fuel vast machines in no need of individual support.

We are only individuals, yet all our power lie in collectives, devoid of our own sovereignty. It is in our power to choose how best to apply ourselves, for the causes we support. And the moral dubiousness of an activity does not make the lowest degree of it's employ comparable to the worst it may offer; Robin Hood is seldom touted as the criminal he is as decreed by law.

An individual is not comparable to corporate edifices, and there is no need to treat them equally, for no person is equal; all people should be held to an esteem which they, uniquely, fit. It is wrong to force people into molds they never desired, and so, too, is it wrong to make unjust comparison between two absolutes.

Though the words I've spoken now may not correlate well with the ebbs and flow of the discourse here at present, I speak them more for myself, than for anyone else. I hold no power to force others to pursue the teachings which I believe to be right, but amidst the wronged the ones who steal with morals are held higher than those who hold banners decrying meaninglessness. They, at least, tried. That is more than you can say for most others. Intent matters most.

 

[Pretty Little Creature]

Oh my gosh I love love love this thread! Thank you for providing resources. Yeah, I am one hundred percent guilty of using random art when I was a kid in role playing. I didn't really understand the gravity of it until I started maturing and getting older. That, and making friends who actually made a living on their art. Its very very very difficult to get that started. I've also dated artists and cartoonists in the past . Sometimes they worked for a company and the other they freelanced.

Most artists who are passionate about their career can be in school upwards of ten years. Once they get out of school there is obviously a massive amount of student debt that needs to be paid off. Also its a competitive market out there!

I one hundred percent feel uncomfortable using random art so I often gravitate towards sites where artists are paid to send in the graphics your are using. I also, use famous movie or television show celerity faces. I figure they make enough money and none of my role plays are that shocking to be considered me being embarrassed if that actor/actress found out I was using their face. I mean, I would feel the sort of embarrassment that maybe a kid feels having their twilight fantasies stories read in their journal. I just think that their faces are used so frequently I feel a little less guilty.

Getting back to the point. I feel like our society has become a lot more educated and aware because of the easy and quick social media connection. It's easier to see how it impacts artists. Artists can communicate how they feel quickly and reach people using their art without permission or paying much faster than the past. There is also many things protecting artists today that were not available in the past. There are a lot of laws and regulations now that people should be abiding to or may even be breaking and not even realizing it.

I think it just boils down to education and growth. I just truly appreciate this post thank you!

added: I really liked the point made of face claims even ever being needed. I have always felt face claims is why people skim posts. *waggles brows* Without them players have to pay attention to more detail. It gives me an idea of not using face claims at all in my next role play. DUN DUN DUN. I just wonder how that will go...

 

[yutohase]

Question. While I agree that using these images is not the best way to go about this, what difference does it make for the individual using the images to specifically state that it is not their art? Does it make any difference at all? What about giving credit to the original artist?