Testing OotS Avatar

All topics including role playing games, board games, etc., etc.
Post Reply
SaintNiddle
Ungern
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:00 am

Testing OotS Avatar

Post by SaintNiddle »

Just finished my first Order of the Stick-ish avatar using a paint program. Thoughts? I'm kinda happy for a first try. LoL.

User avatar
Jackal
Ulthal
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 7:00 am

Post by Jackal »

Looks like the real deal to me.

tex
Ungern
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:00 am

Post by tex »

Careful: Unless you're Rich Burlew, if you used one of his avatars as a starting point he'll be unreasonable about intellectual property:
http://www.giantitp.com/FAQ.html#faq22

He may not come after you if he never finds out though.

serleran
Mogrl
Posts: 13866
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am

Post by serleran »

Yeah, I thought I'd read something like that, that he's got a little Siembieda in him. Heh.

Harry Joy
Ulthal
Posts: 593
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:00 am

Post by Harry Joy »

Creating your own and not copying one of his is perfectly fine I believe.

SaintNiddle
Ungern
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:00 am

Int property

Post by SaintNiddle »

Yeah..I thought it was ok..this is completely from scratch. I just took his basic character shape. If anyone does find any legal issue, please tell me. I'm not out to piss anyone off..lol..just wanted something kinda cool and unique to me.

SaintNiddle
Ungern
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:00 am

Int property

Post by SaintNiddle »

"You may, however, draw a stick figure avatar of your own using any software you see fit, as long as you aren't using one of my images."

Straight from his site.
Thanks for making me aware, friends.

User avatar
Deogolf
Lore Drake
Posts: 1548
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:00 am

Post by Deogolf »

Stick figures are intellectual property? Now I've heard everything.
_________________
Eulaliaaa!!! Give those rapscallions blood and vinegar, wot?!

Be sure to check out Jim's artwork for sale:
http://jimhollowayart.com/id5.html

tex
Ungern
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:00 am

Post by tex »

Right, it's not that he'd have a legal leg to stand on, it's rather that he's being a jerk about it. It's why I stopped reading OotS actually. : P

User avatar
jaybird216
Lore Drake
Posts: 1229
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:00 am
Location: The Troll Cave
Contact:

Post by jaybird216 »

I don't think protecting your copyright and IP is "being a jerk". I assume that he's just trying to rein it in before we see knock-off window stickers of Belkar whizzing on a Chevy logo.

Then again, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
_________________
Jason Braun
Art Monkey for Hire
Three-Headed Troll Art Wurks

User avatar
gideon_thorne
Maukling
Posts: 6176
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Post by gideon_thorne »

jaybird216 wrote:
I don't think protecting your copyright and IP is "being a jerk". I assume that he's just trying to rein it in before we see knock-off window stickers of Belkar whizzing on a Chevy logo.

Then again, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Hear hear. Rich has a perfect right to protect the use of his creations. I don't see him doing anything unreasonable at all.

Rich is perfectly fine with people creating their own stick characters, he's just not wanting people to modify his.

Same way I don't want people scrubbing my signature off my artwork and putting their own on, then claiming they have a right to sell it.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach

User avatar
jaybird216
Lore Drake
Posts: 1229
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:00 am
Location: The Troll Cave
Contact:

Post by jaybird216 »

gideon_thorne wrote:
Same way I don't want people scrubbing my signature off my artwork and putting their own on, then claiming they have a right to sell it.

Sure... do that ONE TIME and you're branded for life
_________________
Jason Braun
Art Monkey for Hire
Three-Headed Troll Art Wurks

tex
Ungern
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:00 am

Post by tex »

Apparently it's Intellectual Property Argument Day on the fora. Hooray? : P
jaybird216 wrote:
I don't think protecting your copyright and IP is "being a jerk". I assume that he's just trying to rein it in before we see knock-off window stickers of Belkar whizzing on a Chevy logo.

Except that the two are fundamentally different matters. The literal copying of a work and selling it for a profit is absolutely an infringement. That's not what we're talking about though: Rich Burlew's position on his avatars completely neglects the notion of Fair Use.

Fair Use is a murky concept, but I'd say modifying one of his avatars and using it on his or any other web forum would be eligible. This is because we're talking about a use of a work that is transformed somewhat from the original, never is used to make money, never is published in any kind of real way, and doesn't harm the market for the original by replacement.

Check the evidence, yo:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_a ... index.html

Pretending Fair Use doesn't exist, and in fact claiming an erroneously broad right over one's creative works, does count as being a jerk as far as I'm concerned.
gideon_thorne wrote:
Hear hear. Rich has a perfect right to protect the use of his creations.

That's just it, though, copyright has never ever been intended to provide such a broad monopoly over one's work. In effect, the rights you believe Rich has are not garaunteed by law at all. He certainly has rights in this area, but they are not infinite.

Since we're arguing about this in another thread at the moment, I'd like to add that I don't believe the law should provide such broad protections. It's a matter of creative freedom of expression and speech, as I've said elsewhere.

User avatar
gideon_thorne
Maukling
Posts: 6176
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Post by gideon_thorne »

tex wrote:
Apparently it's Intellectual Property Argument Day on the fora. Hooray? : P


Except that the two are fundamentally different matters. The literal copying of a work and selling it for a profit is absolutely an infringement. That's not what we're talking about though: Rich Burlew's position on his avatars completely neglects the notion of Fair Use.

Fair Use is a murky concept, but I'd say modifying one of his avatars and using it on his or any other web forum would be eligible. This is because we're talking about a use of a work that is transformed somewhat from the original, never is used to make money, never is published in any kind of real way, and doesn't harm the market for the original by replacement.

Subjective matters. What constitutes harm?

The fact that someone, starting with someone else's work, is being lazy and not creating their own work, with their own tools, I think is seriously harmful on many subtle levels. ^_~`
Quote:
Check the evidence, yo:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_a ... index.html

Pretending Fair Use doesn't exist, and in fact claiming an erroneously broad right over one's creative works, does count as being a jerk as far as I'm concerned.

Fine, just so long as you don't mind someone taking your hard work and doing whatever they want with it.... turn about is fair wot? ^_~`
gideon_thorne wrote:
Hear hear. Rich has a perfect right to protect the use of his creations.
Quote:
That's just it, though, copyright has never ever been intended to provide such a broad monopoly over one's work. In effect, the rights you believe Rich has are not garaunteed by law at all. He certainly has rights in this area, but they are not infinite.

He's not asking for a monopoly, he's simply suggesting people ought not to be slackers and do their own work. If someone else wants to draw their own stick people, with their own look and designs, fine and dandy.

[qupte]Since we're arguing about this in another thread at the moment, I'd like to add that I don't believe the law should provide such broad protections. It's a matter of creative freedom of expression and speech, as I've said elsewhere.[/quote]

Fine, be creative all you want, with work done by your own hands, just don't expect to be entitled to someone else's hard work.

Thats the main issue right there. The idea that free speech and freedom make one entitled, automatically, to the hard work of others. Its just plain rude.
I think the law should keep its nose out, and let golden rule apply.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach

tex
Ungern
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:00 am

Post by tex »

gideon_thorne wrote:
I think the law should keep its nose out, and let golden rule apply.

Interestingly, that's what it was like originally. The world's first complete copyright law is considered to have been the Statute of Anne in the 1700s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

It's a pretty fascinating subject as a general rule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright

User avatar
seskis281
Lore Drake
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Manitowoc WI
Contact:

Post by seskis281 »

1st off - Hey Craig, I like the avatar - though Niddle has come a far way from our campaign.
These issues of fair use and other legalities can get quite sticky in the internet age, and the question is where the ethical lines should be drawn (not punning on art here I swear !) regardless of the legal ins and outs.

Avatars - should someone have permission to use art that they are basing or adapting from within this scope? That would shut down a lot.

I'd also pause to say that, as someone who's worked in theatre and film, actors consider their own face "intellectual and commercial property" and the law backs this up consistently when commercial use comes into play. If one extrapolates it out (just playing devil's advocate here Peter) - it could be said that one should not use an image of Orlando Bloom as Legolas or John Rhys-Davies as Gimli for there own use in a public forum without the consent of those actors.

I think, however, there is a big difference between someone using an image or art they love as an avatar or on a personal page versus the DISTRIBUTION of said property as part of a work, whether for money or for free, without proper permission and/or clearance. Certainly, what Peter describes in terms of someone scratching of his name and reselling is just downright wrong and illegal.

We see a lot of the "Simpsonized" characters for avatars, but guessing no one has written Matt Groening to ask for permission to use his style. For the most part such things on the internet are accepted as ok because they don't infringe on potential commerce, and because to regulate and enforce absolutely strict IPs on images across the web would be nearly impossible.

Just some thoughts here as this does seem to be the topic of the day.
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Dreamer of Ilshara
Lands of Ilshara: http://johnwright281.tripod.com

User avatar
gideon_thorne
Maukling
Posts: 6176
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Post by gideon_thorne »

seskis281 wrote:
I'd also pause to say that, as someone who's worked in theatre and film, actors consider their own face "intellectual and commercial property" and the law backs this up consistently when commercial use comes into play. If one extrapolates it out (just playing devil's advocate here Peter) - it could be said that one should not use an image of Orlando Bloom as Legolas or John Rhys-Davies as Gimli for there own use in a public forum without the consent of those actors.

*chuckles* One, not being used to make a product. Two, not claiming it as my own work. Three, its not derivative of anything, nor does it claim to be anything but what it is.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach

SaintNiddle
Ungern
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:00 am

Yep

Post by SaintNiddle »

Wow..lol..didn't intend this to be a big debate. Ultimately, though, in this instance, isn't it all a moot point since Rich has already stated on his website that he's fine with personal avatars that are NOT direct derivatives of his own characters?

And yes, John, Niddle has come a long way. As a PC he was retired into Sainthood shortly after becoming an epic character in Andre's game. Now he lives on in other people's games, mainly as a celestial intermediary.

SaintNiddle
Ungern
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:00 am

Forgot

Post by SaintNiddle »

I forgot to say something about your instance of the actors. Most actors completely give up the personal rights to say where and how their image is used. I'm sure it's different in every case, and I have no idea about big budget actors, but normally with their cut of the movie's/play's profits and merchandising, they don't have to give consent for their image to be used.

User avatar
jaybird216
Lore Drake
Posts: 1229
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:00 am
Location: The Troll Cave
Contact:

Post by jaybird216 »

Niddle, it was rude of me to hop in and opine without even addressing the OP. The avatar looks great. Good job. My only nitpick is that his left (our right) eye is larger than the other, even though it's farther away from the camera. But that could be personal choice of facial expression, so who am I to judge? Nice job. You pegged the OotS style to a tee.

tex, your arguments are very well researched, organized and empirical. I still maintain that not wanting people to modify his art doesn't make Rich a jerk, but that's the beauty of opinion. Yours is just as personally valid as mine.

I don't think that ATOM isn't a jerk because he lets me use his drawing of me as my avatar. How's that for confusion and poor sentence structure? Eh? Eh?
_________________
Jason Braun
Art Monkey for Hire
Three-Headed Troll Art Wurks

SaintNiddle
Ungern
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:00 am

Post by SaintNiddle »

Jay, no offense was taken. I was opening all this up for discussion for the very reasons of finding peoples ideas on the subject (and a little bit of constructive criticism).

Regarding the eyes. Take a look at most of Rich's comics. Almost all of the characters have eyes like you say they should, with the larger eye closer to the "camera." However, Roy, Roy's grandfather, and maybe a couple others (that I can't think of) are the exact opposite. I haven't figured out why he has made that choice for these characters, but I liked it because it made the character seem "special" or "odd" in a subtle way. Like there's something more we should notice about them. Thanks for noticing!

User avatar
jaybird216
Lore Drake
Posts: 1229
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:00 am
Location: The Troll Cave
Contact:

Post by jaybird216 »

Excellente!
_________________
Jason Braun
Art Monkey for Hire
Three-Headed Troll Art Wurks

User avatar
Jackal
Ulthal
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 7:00 am

Post by Jackal »

If SaintNiddle's avatar is a violation of copyright then most of us here are in trouble (look at my own avatar, Gideon's, etc).

Post Reply