DIY

acheron.org % discussions: General Art Discussion: DIY
By
Filth on Monday, January 11, 1999 - 07:08 pm:

incase ya don't know (or you don't read gutter)
DIY = DO IT YOURSELF

i have an idea of a conversation. do you guys think people should bother putting up a board (assuming that still happens) or do an emag, if they're just going to parasite off other ansi artists? i don't think so. i mean if you want to put up a board, or do an emag, you should do all the work yourself. i mean key the word "you" as in it's YOURS. i hate seeing people say "i wanna put my board up, but i don't have enough art" or "yeah i gave up on my mag, no one would contribute" maybe i'm just a crazy sob for thinking so, but still, if you can't take the heat...


By Dangermouse on Monday, January 11, 1999 - 08:27 pm:

I agree with you dude. If *YOU* want to start an emag or board, then you shouldn't expect everyone else to contribute everything to keep you afloat. I'm sure most of the successful emag producers, such as Inazone, Filth and Myself all agree that it takes most of your own time to do magazines dedicated to the art scene - and indeed this applies to any emag or magazine producer/editor.

Hey read *my* emag that I didn't do anything for but code it. <-- NOw that's a classic example :)


By Konami on Tuesday, January 12, 1999 - 06:52 am:

it's that people have this misconception that the ansi scene is all about sharing. i get 10 requests a day, people asking me to guest in their group, draw their infofile. what are they hoping to amount to if they can't do these things themselves? you must work for yourself. we've all known the kind of guys who give in, who decide they will give and give, and then whine that they don't get anything back.. and hey, look what happens to them... they don't have time to do what they like and become repeatitive.
so DIY, and do it for yourself, for your own good!


By Konami on Tuesday, January 12, 1999 - 06:54 am:

oh shit i've had too much caffeine today


By Eto on Tuesday, January 12, 1999 - 01:33 pm:

Interesting. Consider the scenario for almost all programmers (coders). I can't draw (ansi) worth a darn, but I can code. What am I supposed to do, just draw crappy drawings for my program? When I release it and people say it's crappy cuz the art sucks, or it isn't appealing to the eye then that is just dumb. (example - PabloDraw).

And, even though I DO have art done by other people in PabloDraw, it *IS* my program, because I made it. Drawings are just drawings. The program would be the SAME (functionally) without the art.

Though, having nice art makes it easier to LIKE the product. But, it doesn't MAKE the product. I see it as a team effort. Artists can say "the art in that program is mine". Programmers can say "That program is mine". The artists draw FOR the program. In LAW (in most places of the world), once the artist gives his work away(either by payment, or free), he gives the RIGHTS of that work away too. Unfortunately.


By Filth on Tuesday, January 12, 1999 - 03:13 pm:

well yeah, i didn't say there's anything wrong with coders needing art. :) especially a drawing program. cause nothing sucks worse than when you're using a drawing program, and the art sucks. but yeah, coders would be an exception. becuase well, they code, and don't draw. :) i mean i needed a coder to do gutter. and if no one woulda coded it for me, i wouldn't have put it out. :)


By Dangermouse on Tuesday, January 12, 1999 - 11:59 pm:

Eto, coders are exempt :)

I think we're talking more about the people who have the skills already but still expect others to do the work for them..


By Maestroni on Wednesday, January 13, 1999 - 04:30 am:

I agree with Eto on the team thing. If both parties have a skill that can work together then ROCK ON!

I've seen some people though that have NO SKILLS what so ever, yet still manage to wiesel their name into the credit list under some bogus title like "global sock drawer sorting coordinator". That's another thing I hate. If you're not physicaly making a contribution to the product (and no, offering the mag or art pack on irc doesn't count), then your name doesn't belong to be in the same list as all those who spent time designing the look and writing the text.


By Jack phlash on Wednesday, January 13, 1999 - 05:25 am:

to me coders fall in the same catagory as sysops, modders, and everyone else... because i'm all of them and i've been an art leech since i can remember. ;) it really blows not to be able to draw ansi even if you can code your ass off. I remember what it was like to run a board and have no art, at the same time though, i wasn't being a parasite because i was going to run a bbs whether i had any good art or not, i was in heaven when filth drew me my first good welcome screen... hah (remember that old ugly thing?) it's totally true that it sucks for a sysop or someone to expect to have all this art done for them but from my experiences no matter how bad you want art you're probably not going to get it if the artist doesn't want you to do it for you. shucks. *shrugs* i think the answer here is that you don't need art... remember those huge art boards people would get on back a few years ago (and today i guess if you really look..) decked out with awesome ansis, everything would have an ansi.. everything.. nice setups.. but that's what made them unique, that's what made them art boards, right? art is just a supplement to a good bbs or a good program... like eto said, a program still works no matter how ugly it is... a bbs is still a bbs even if it looks like ass vomit. anyways, my point is... from the viewpoint of non artists, it does suck to not be able to get art.. from the viewpoint of an artist.. sacrafice a little and get your priorities straight.

jp


By Mass Delusion on Wednesday, January 13, 1999 - 02:31 pm:

Just a side-note to Eto:
> The artists draw FOR the program. In LAW (in
> most places of the world), once the artist gives
> his work away(either by payment, or free), he
> gives the RIGHTS of that work away too.
> Unfortunately.

Actually, this isn't true at all. Only if a contract is signed stating that they give up ownership of the image do you indeed transfer copyrights. Just payment alone doesn't even guarantee ownership of the image, it must be explicitly stated in a contract. Copyright law is commonly misunderstood, but some careful research will show that just paying for something doesn't make it yours.

For example, you buy a picasso - you can't sell it saying YOU did it, even though you paid for it. =)

-Mass Delusion


By Eto on Wednesday, January 13, 1999 - 07:18 pm:

MassD: You have a point. I don't really know if a 'verbal' agreement would be considered a valid contract, though.

And no, I'm not saying that one could say they did it, but rather, that they OWN it.

In your example, if I bought a picasso - I would be able to say that I OWN it, which is kinda what I was trying to get across.. but sometimes I have a lacking with words.

(:


By Funbaby on Thursday, January 14, 1999 - 09:35 am:

You'd physically own the painting, but do you own the copyright? I believe a copyright is valid for the life of the creator, plus 50 years. Picasso died in 1973, so his family may still have the copyrights to his stuff for another 24 years.

But if you buy the painting, are you also buying ownership of the copyright?


By Root88 on Thursday, January 14, 1999 - 09:45 am:

Funbaby, not always. The mentality is often that the artist is being paid for a service rather than a good.

There are many ways a freelance artist could be paid for work. Sometimes there is a flat rate for an image, while the artist retains copyright. The company can reproduce it X number of times. If the product works out well, and the company wants to make posters, t-shirts, and coffee mugs with the image on it, the contract can be renegotiated. The artist can make even more money, and won't have to do any more work than signing their name on a new contract.


By Filth on Thursday, January 14, 1999 - 01:21 pm:

man, they screw you if/when you buy paintings by famous artists. if you happened to fall across a picasso, you'd be paying out the ass on taxes for some reason.


By Dangermouse on Thursday, January 14, 1999 - 01:40 pm:

If an artist is 'hired' to produce a piece of art work, under a contractual agreement, and then produces that piece of art, any number of things can happen, depending upon the contract.

Under most contract jobs, the artist owns the Intellectual Property on the artwork, whilst the person that bought it can use it freely without asking permission -- because they 'own' it (so to speak).

If the contract states that the company will also obtain IP on the end result, then that happens :)

As an example, lets look at something like ILM. If you produced some artwork for ILM, and you worked there full time, then most probably each of their full-time contracts states that any works produced whilst working full-time day at ILM will remain the sole property of ILM.


By Funbaby on Thursday, January 14, 1999 - 04:29 pm:

I remember when all those Marvel Comics artists left to form Image comics way back, the main reason most of them gave was because all the characters they created at Marvel then belonged to Marvel.

I always thought that when you created "work for hire" (as in this scenario), your employer owned EVERYTHING.

Maybe this was a special case, though.


By Anonymous on Friday, January 15, 1999 - 12:08 pm:

it probally was.. if marvel didn't want a their cartoons sold to kellogs, coca-cola and mcdonalds without them having any control and not gaining any money from it. the marvel artists probally writes contracts not to sell out their characters to others than marvel.


By Funbaby on Friday, January 15, 1999 - 01:07 pm:

I don't think that's it, because as I understand it, they never owned the characters in the first palce. They created new characters, used them in the comics they were drawing, and Marvel automatically owned them. They never sold the characters to Marvel.


By Dangermouse on Saturday, January 16, 1999 - 12:53 am:

Fun, exactly.. If you work for a company, say a comic company, usually anyhing you produce whilst within that work environment will become the property of that company. That's why they're *employing* the artist for in the first place.

Napalm works for Marvel, what actually does happen?


By Cthulu of Mistigris on Sunday, January 17, 1999 - 03:10 pm:

In a similar vein, I know it is standard practice for computer animation schools to make their students to sign a clause when they register for classes stating that anything they create on the school's super-expensive computers (Sun workstations et al) with the super-expensive computer animation software remains property of the school, not of the artist. They won't let you own anything you create on those while a student, only if you pay through the nose to use the equipment.

Frequently they have no choice. Overheard at the Vancouver Film School: "My computer cost me more than my house!"


By Cthulu of Mistigris on Sunday, January 17, 1999 - 03:20 pm:

Back to the original DIY discussion topic...
this is a common ethic in the punk and 'zine scene, or anything where self-publication is involved.

"I want to get my work out there, and if no magazine/record company will help me do it then I have to do it myself."

Of course, there are some projects which simply cannot be made with a single person - most games, demos or projects of any complexity fall under this category.

Artpacks, e-mags (with some exceptions) and BBSes also do.

What's my point?

Because I can't see my entire message in this lame-ass small-windowed online bulletin-board type software, I have forgotten.

But I shall attempt to whip one up anyway. It is unreasonable to expect people to succeed in mounting large, complex projects all by themselves. It will happen anyway from time to time (on behalf of all of us, thank you very much, Dangermouse) but it is unreasonable to expect it.

It is unreasonable to expect people who have no stake in your project to contribute it unless they are properly recompensed. People will still do it from time to time, but again; it is unreasonable to expect them to do it.

What is reasonable? A certain degree of altruism is always reasonable, along with a certain degree of need. Perhaps some sort of bulletin board should be set up listing people who require services au gratis in conjunction with another bulletin board listing projects which have specific requirements which the current organizers are unable to meet.


Add a Message


This is a public posting area. If you do not have an account, enter your full name into the "Username" box and leave the "Password" box empty. Your e-mail address is optional.
Username:  
Password:
E-mail:
Post as "Anonymous"