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

[bastion]

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?

In my opinion, crediting the artist is the bare minimum anyone should do when using art. That at least directs those who see it back to the artist, which will get the artist more views and potentially even clients.

As for how not crediting the artist affects the person using the art, most of the time it doesn't. It's the artist that's being hurt.
However, there are those who will get upset that the artist wasn't credited. It's not common, but it could result in losing out on roleplay opportunities.

In the end though, if the only reason motivating someone to credit an artist is because of the image it will have on theirself, then no amount of talk on this subject will make a difference. Crediting the artist is about showing respect to the artist as well as empathy.

 

[TerrorKitty]

Reading through all of this I see a lot of various intersections and viewpoints that come from a lot of different angles.
The ethics and morality of using art made by others for use in character creation are very wobbly. To dig into the philosophy of the practice I think an inquiry via the Socratic Method could be a good tool to find deliberation, but that's just in the vain of exploring what questions could be asked.

A lot of the issues come from the fact that most artists aren't aware of it in the first place.
Online Roleplay is a LOT of things and rather decentralized as a topic and activity, as well as being very obscure. A community and culture outside the general mainstream to the point that if you mention it to someone, they'll either have no idea what your talking about and you'll have to explain how it works in detail, or they'll assume it's similar to a form of "Roleplay" they're more familiar with which in the context of RPN, you'll probably have to explain it in detail anyway. (Like, DND RP, Discord RP, or Twitter RP, or even Video Game RP while similar and sometimes extremely so, are all disconnected and extremely varied. Though there's often a Dunning-Kreuger form of unwilling ignorance where to those who know of some form of RP are unaware of the other forms that exist and to what degree)

For players then using art for their characters, a degree of separation is often assumed. That separation makes it feel inconsequential to do such an act, similar to how Face Claims uses a real person's visage in a similar way (though Face-Claims tend to have their muse named and credited more often). It becomes a question of "If every artist (Commissioner of artwork, or real person) knew that their image was to be used to create a character by a stranger for either private or public use within a somewhat niche community, what could/should/would they decide to about it, if anything at all?"
When I buy commissions, I make sure to read the terms of service to make sure I can share or use my own characters private or publicly, or if I am required to keep them unaltered and or give credit when used. Not every artist has these stated clearly, and there are certainly no common terms for how to apply that with public/private RP, as most of of these conditions are for legal/monetary reasons. Since nothing is being sold or monetized at least in the case of RPN it's way way more muddy.

If every single artist got a ping anytime their art was used on RPN alone it would potentially be overwhelming.

None of this ^^^^ is an answer in any direction, simply ponderings of the discussion topic.
What is the solution?
What is the answer?
What is the question?
What is the compromise?

Absolutely no idea.
My personal stance on this is very convoluted, I use real people as FCs often now, specifically celebrities.
There was a point where I was looking to find if any of the ones I used so far had made statements against such use of their visage online (outside identity theft and unconsented monetization) and found little to nothing. I often feel really guilty at times, especially when I know an image was clearly taken by the paparazzi in a harassing and unwanted manner and I'll avoid using such images.

In regards to art I currently just use my own repertoire of bought commissioned characters but even I know my own commissions can and probably have been used by someone else, and I'm not sure how to feel about it. I could go either way.

The best I can personally do it give credit when I can, and try my best to avoid unethical views/uses such as objectification, depersonalization, and other harmful immoral inconsiderations. As well as avoiding content that promotes or is used in such malpractices.

In the end I think RP as an entire concept needs to be more recognized so such complexities can be known, considered, and resolved.

 

[Kobold]

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

This argument is honestly a bit silly.

I mean, if using the art belonging to a company or the image of a famous actor is okay because they make a lot of money, where do you draw the line?

There's plenty of artists online who make a fairly decent living thanks to patreon and such, does that mean I can use their art?

 

[TerrorKitty]

Just for input, one of my characters was $125 USD

 

[nerdy tangents]

Yeah I used to be in a dog show game where people would just draw dog art. And that alone was like 25 / 50 bucks. And they were not doing anything fancy. Just maybe doing a golden retriever with a Batman themed collar.

On that site you would get your account suspended if you stole someone else’s art. I literally got banned for using a graphic I paid for because the artist claimed I didn’t give proper credit. So they didn’t fuck around.

 

[bastion]

This argument is honestly a bit silly.

I mean, if using the art belonging to a company or the image of a famous actor is okay because they make a lot of money, where do you draw the line?

There's plenty of artists online who make a fairly decent living thanks to patreon and such, does that mean I can use their art?

No matter how successful an independent artist is, they will only ever make a tiny fraction of what a company makes. A successful independent artist typically makes enough to live comfortably in art alone, and that's about it. They aren't making millions.

 

[Kobold]

No matter how successful an independent artist is, they will only ever make a tiny fraction of what a company makes. A successful independent artist typically makes enough to live comfortably in art alone, and that's about it. They aren't making millions.

But that wasn't my question.

My question was, how much money does someone have to make before I can steal their art and/or pictures?

 

[nerdy tangents]

But that wasn't my question.

My question was, how much money does someone have to make before I can steal their art and/or pictures?

I mean if you are looking for an excuse to steal then that's probably something you should meditate on. But sure why not I got time.

I work in retail. I get paid the exact same amount regardless of how many items my store sells on any given day. So my livelihood is not at all based on how much product is sold at my specific location or any other branch of the retail company I work at.

However if I was a freelancer then I would paid per commission. So if I am unable to make art for whatever reason (I broke my hand, I have IRL issues) then I don't get any income during that time. If I am unable to sell the art I do make then I do not have an income.

So if we are talking about the outcome of stealing then yes there is a difference. If you walk into my retail store and steal something it doesn't affect me at all. It barely affects the retail company as a whole, as they calculate a certain amount of inventory just walking out the door.

Again if I am a freelancer and you steal my work then you are essentially taking a specific dollar amount out of my bank account. Because my livelihood is directly transactional. It's not a salary job where I get paid the same as long as I finish my shift. It is I get paid specifically for the product I produce.

Furthermore when it comes to crediting art no one is saying you don't have to credit something just because it's more popular. If you use Chris Evans as a faceclaim you can very well put "Faceclaim : Chris Evans" on your character sheet. It's easier honestly cuz you go into the roleplay knowing exactly who your face claim is. All anyone is asking is that you share the name. Cuz not everyone is going to be able to recognize an actor or a character on sight.

And if you want to use a more obscure bit of art or model then all we ask is you at bare minimum find a name. Whether it's the name of the model themselves or the name of the artist who made the work.

 

[Kobold]

I mean if you are looking for an excuse to steal then that's probably something you should meditate on.

I'm not. You made the claim that there was a moral difference between stealing from one artist and stealing from another and I'm just curious as to where you draw the line.

That said, I don't really get how freelance work ties into it. If I use an image made by someone on commission, that image was still paid for by the original commissioner. I don't really see how the artist would be losing money out of it.

Again, not trying to justify stealing art or whatever.

 

[bastion]

I'm not. You made the claim that there was a moral difference between stealing from one artist and stealing from another and I'm just curious as to where you draw the line.

That said, I don't really get how freelance work ties into it. If I use an image made by someone on commission, that image was still paid for by the original commissioner. I don't really see how the artist would be losing money out of it.

Again, not trying to justify stealing art or whatever.

Ya know, maybe there's an easier way to explain this. When you take an image from a movie or manga or such, you're not streaming from a person. You're staying from a corporation. Because the petite who profit from those are the corporations. The ones who drew that got paid, sure, but the profits go to the corporations who own the proprieties.

When you take art that isn't from published media, then you're stealing from a person. That's where it starts to cause harm in a meaningful way.

 

[Youpi]

Gotta credit the artists. Else they watermark their work or make some kind of wall to access them. It'll be a hassle if you'd need an account just to browse for quality art.

 

[Pokeking]

Years ago, I used Hero Machine. My usage was very basic when compared to the stuff that people made. It operated through Flash so I am not sure if it is a viable tool since Flash is extinct. bastion Thank you for these resource suggestions. I will look into them.

I don't use pictures in my character sheets and this concern is the primary reason why I don't use them.

 

[natsukashii]

I have been around the block a few times and this is a subject that always comes up and, in my experience, is a touchy subject for both sides. And I totally understand the side of "just don't use commissioned art" as well as the "I'm not using it for profit, so what's the big deal?" side. I have always opted for an often third side that not many like to entertain because it's a bit controversial, but it does solve a big point about how artists might be impacted.

This third side is always crediting the artist (if you can find them). If not, then it sucks, but it does happen. But whenever I use art that looks fancy enough to have a lot of effort put into it (commission or not), I always credit the artist if I can. I link them to whatever social media page I can find of theirs. It's a small thing especially since, one I'm not using it for monetary gain but, really if I like the art enough to use it for an OC, the very least I can do is reference the original artist in whatever way I can.

 

[nerdy tangents]

Ya know, maybe there's an easier way to explain this. When you take an image from a movie or manga or such, you're not streaming from a person. You're staying from a corporation. Because the petite who profit from those are the corporations. The ones who drew that got paid, sure, but the profits go to the corporations who own the proprieties.

When you take art that isn't from published media, then you're stealing from a person. That's where it starts to cause harm in a meaningful way.

Exactly. The corporation pays a salary rate or a commission (depending on what your stealing) but they also have already budgeted a certain amount for pirating.

In exactly the same way a retail chain expects a certain amount of their product to walk out of the store.

An individual person cannot make that same budgeting leeway. Because they are living hand to mouth (or at least their income from the thing your stealing is directly transactional).

So as you said Stealing from Marvel the Corporation is not the same as stealing from Maggie the person.

Maggie the person is going to need the income from current and future sales.

And if you are taking Maggie’s art for free then you are saying that she doesn’t deserve to make money for that art.

So yeah she might have gotten 100 bucks one time for the literal piece of art you stole.

But she isn’t going to get 100 dollars from someone else buying her art, because you have shown it has no value as a monetary item.

That’s the problem. It’s not a one and done deal. It’s about someone’s ability to have a consistent income stream over something that you have devalued.


(( bastion not talking about you specifically, talking about you in the general sense).

 

[Kobold]

But she isn’t going to get 100 dollars from someone else buying her art, because you have shown it has no value as a monetary item

In what way?

 

[nerdy tangents]

In what way?

Okay let's use a concrete example.

Susie buys a painting of her dog from Michael. She hangs it up in her house. Jan steals the painting and puts it up in her (Jan's) house. Barbara goes to Jan's house and asks after the painting. She likes the style and would love to get one made of her own dog. Well Jan can't very well say "Oh I stole this from my friend Susie I have no idea who made it." So she's vague "Oh I found it somewhere."

Jan has not only stolen Susie's property she has also prevented Michael from making money through another painting. As she is essentially making the painting appear to be a stock image. (ex. those photos that come inside picture frames or whatever when you buy them at the store.)

So therefore Barbara has no idea that the art is something she can indeed purchase nor does she know who she could purchase the art from.

Now you are obviously not going into someone's house and stealing a concrete item. But using a comissioned piece of art is indeed stealing someone else's property.

The original requester paid real money to have a piece of art made exactly to their specifications. They did not pay money so any random stranger on the internet could use the art for whatever they want to. Not only that the original artist created the art with the assumption that it would only be used by the person who paid them. That person not only gave them money directly but would likely be willing to recommend them to other people as well.

Using the above example. If Barbara had gone into Susie's house and seen the dog painting. Susie could tell her "oh I got it made by this artist named Michael." Thus Susie not only pays for the initial painting she can also contribute to Michael's income by pointing other people in the direction of Michael as well.

 

[bastion]

In what way?

To add on to what Nerdy said, in my original post I lost the ways reposting art without the artist's permission hurts the artist. One possibility is if you post the art in a public space (i.e a character sheet thread) it muddies the water on who the creator is. Employers who would like to hire that artist freelance see it posted by multiple people and decide that they don't trust the original artist is the artist anymore. This is a very real situation that has happened and cost artist's jobs.

Other ways it hurts the artist is of course the emotional impact of seeing their work being used without permission, especially when it's art depicting their OCs. It can lead artist's to withdraw from the public space entirely, and unless they already have loyal supporters financially, this means they lose any means of earning money through their art. For someone like me, who is unable to work due to disability, that would mean losing the only way to earn extra money.