Pixelation
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: mitch30 on February 14, 2015, 01:20:15 am
-
GAME GRAPHICS VOLUME -1: PIXEL ART TECHNIQUES
A book on how to make pixel art, for beginners and advanced pixel artists
"Ever wondered how to make pixel art? Wonder no more! This book shows you the very basics of pixel art. Step-by step instructions to help guide you in making effective art with pixels. Easy-to-follow and lots of pictures to help you along the way. This book aims to teach the difference between art made with pixels and pixel art."
Hi i'm Mitchell, I created a small book (64 pages) on how to make pixel art. It covers basic and advanced techniques and has lots of tutorials. I have been creating pixel art for several years and compiled all of my knowledge into this book.
Check out the book here: payhip.com/b/JBK7 (http://payhip.com/b/JBK7)
Brief look at the contents:
- Basic and advanced pixel art techniques
- Using Photoshop for pixel art
- Neo Geo Pocket tutorial
- Sprite tutorials
- Character portrait tutorial
- An in depth look at graphical projection for video games
- Setting up Photoshop for pixel art
- Common mistakes associated with pixel art
- Organising colours
PREVIEW
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/171f/3ew6tx79bewiiirzg.jpg)
-edit-
Cyangmou reviewed the material in this book and found it to have content very similar to tutorials from various users in the community, here is his post on pixeljoint where this book was also presented.
Mitch,
I downloaded your book, not for learning, but for checking out where you got your knowledge from.
You took the tutorials provided by autors like: Cure, Helm, Kiwinuptuo, Pix3m and myself as well as others who posted small tuts in the noobtorials section of Pixeljoint and posted at Pixelation.
We provided that knowledge to enhance the medium, some of us even together, but you presented all of that as your completely own work without giving credit to the sources.
You also haven't asked any of us if you may use that content, but you take money for it.
The art in the book (except the screenshots - where you added sources) is yours, but nonetheless it's plagiarism of already free content, just sorted and presented in a book.
You definitely ripped off the design of certain charts and layouts and as well as the content of various tutorialy and I can easily proove that just with side by side comparison for a big part of your book.
I will inform all others who provided tutorials which look strangely similar as in your book and will inform them that you try to make profit from our achievements.
That's illegal.
And what's even worse is that you advertise your product on the site and for the community you took from and aren't a part of -at least you neither have a gallery here nor have you contributed anything to the comm so far.
For all others I personally would recommend to use the free tutorials already available, because what you get for your money in the book is very little new content compared with what is already there.
-
Very interesting...looks like a good book...bought it and ready to check it out.
-
Looks nice! There should be a small cast shadow on the ha
dt though ;)
-
Thanks :)
Looks nice! There should be a small cast shadow on the hadt though ;)
Yes you are right, but that part is focusing on shading correctly, I figured it wasn't necessary.
-
Well I guess this was inevitable, at some point. Still, it's not the spirit I would like to see ideas propagate and be discussed, but this happens time and time again, somebody distills (often ham-fistedly, I can't speak for this book because I didn't and will not buy it) years of free communal work by other people to make a buck. I don't think it's illegal, it's just capitalism.
-
I have been creating pixel art for several years and compiled all of my knowledge into this book.
Can you show some examples of your work from those several years of experience?
"My" knowledge? To my eyes that reads a bit... pretentious and like you are claiming to have been the originator of that knowledge. The screenshot of the page you posted contains terminology that you obviously did not invent (since you are only 21 years old (says so on your homepage) and some of the terminology has been around longer than that), so you might wish to rephrase that into "compiled everything I have learned from freely available online resources and experience into this book".
Is there any original content in your book, any tricks you invented yourself, any conclusions you drew on your own from your several years of pixelling experience? Going by the list of contents in your opening post it seems it does not cover anything one can not learn for free by reading all the well known and established online resources on the topic of pixel art (e.g. this board).
Yes you are right, but that part is focusing on shading correctly, I figured it wasn't necessary.
If that part is about shading correctly... should it not then be... well... shaded correctly?
Disclaimer: I am not saying you are being intentionally dishonest and you deserve credit for doing the work of compiling all the knowledge and formatting/bundleing it up for convenience but I do not think anyone who wants to learn about pixel art needs to buy or read your book. All the information is already out (t)here, for free and it would not seem right if you were to profit from it while letting others think it is "your" knowledge or the result of "your" experience/research/observation.
On the topic of capitalism: The buggy thing about it is, it is tough(maybe even impossible) to avoid having to sell ones lifetime for money in some way, if one wants to survive as a "functioning" member of society. However... taking free stuff and putting a price tag on it to make a profit seems like a bad thing to do if one cares about reputation.
-
Well I guess this was inevitable, at some point. Still, it's not the spirit I would like to see ideas propagate and be discussed, but this happens time and time again, somebody distills (often ham-fistedly, I can't speak for this book because I didn't and will not buy it) years of free communal work by other people to make a buck. I don't think it's illegal, it's just capitalism.
It's a sticky situation. These ideas have been developed on public forum for all to see. I actually don't mind the idea of a pixel art book. even one that costs money. This guy at least put the work in to compile the information in book format using his own art ( I sincerely hope)
I think the stuff in here ( what I see in the post) is pretty fundamental stuff that a lot of people have come to over the years. If there is a section about attractive pixel clusters as we know it now I think that is crossing the line, as it's certainly something that you have put a lot of personal effort in bringing to the community and discovering.
Why don't we make a pixel art book and sell it, using the funds for upkeep of this forum and giving back to those authors who contributed?
-
If there is a section about attractive pixel clusters as we know it now I think that is crossing the line, as it's certainly something that you have put a lot of personal effort in bringing to the community and discovering.
Why don't we make a pixel art book and sell it, using the funds for upkeep of this forum and giving back to those authors who contributed?
The image on the page linked to in the opening post contains a view of the back from the book and in the tiny contents box on that, it reads "clusters" and "banding". I might be mistaken but I think those terms, as used in discussing pixel art, originated on this board (not sure about it though, maybe Helm knows better).
Maybe the book has a credits section where sources of knowledge are properly credited? Can not know that though unless the pixel art community is given a chance to review the book.
I like the idea of compiling the knowledge of the community into a single resource. A good way to go about it would be to set up a Wiki (but then again, there is already this board and there are already overview threads which contain links to relevant topics). Not sure if trying to generate money from it would ever work out in a way that everyone agrees with. To keep the board running, if it should ever become an issue of finance, monthly member fees could be introduced if necessary or annual fundraisers (I recall there has been a donation campaign in the past).
-
Please don't misunderstand this: I don't care about retaining some 'intellectual copyright' of cluster theory and so on. When Cure took some of my ramby ideas and put them more succinctly and clearly for everybody out there I think he did a great service and I explicitly asked him to remove 'quotes from Helm' from his original draft. Pixelation wrote the ramblethread, in essence. I don't care about being the face of anything, feel free to spread the ideas and tailor them to your needs.
It kind of irks me that there's a for-pay e-book out there when Pixelation and Pixeljoint have these ideas and a lot of deliberation and discussion around them (super important) for free, completely, and with an invitation to get involved in the dialogue. That's the annoying part, for me. But as I said, I don't think there's a legal point to stand on and all I can do is to reiterate: this information is already out there for free just like Cyangmu did on the news item on pixeljoint.
btw: though the term 'banding' might have been mine (I don't remember), the concept of banding was presented to me as 'vertical breaking' by old Pixelation head mod Peppermint Pig. Just a bit of history.
Come to think of it actually the most subversive idea would be to buy the book and then post it for free whereever this person is trying to sell it. That *would* be illegal, keep in mind, but ethically satisfying.
-
A better win for ethics would be if the author person would understand why it is wrong and would give back the money to those who already bought the book and then release it for free and publicly apologize for this behavior AND give credit in the book where credit is due (just now read what Cyangmou said in the PJ news item on this (edit - the part about it containing obvious plagiarism of existing free tutorials by other community members - end of edit)).
Otherwise it will only be remembered by the community as a very bad first impression. The internet does not forget these kinds of things and it will most definitely hang like a smelly cloud of shame over the authors reputation forever and a day.
Well... what happens now is up to the author, unless anyone actually cares to get a lawyer and wants to go through the hassle of wasting any more time on this.
-
Ah I see, that is a bit suspect. Obviously the description of touching pixels as clusters is an easy one to come to, but I never saw it so well compiled and explored before Helm.
I think a wiki fails because it does not have the classic academic flavor that a book has. Wikis are not sequential, they don't ramp up from basic fundamental skills to complex concepts. ( of course one can choose to read in such an order, but there is power in forcing someone to turn page after page by the nature of the medium; with the only alternate being skipping ahead and the risk of being lost)
Monthly member fees is just about the quickest way I could think of to kill this place, or 90% of forums in general. annual fundraisers is ok, but I would think of the book as sort of a patreon thing as a donation, only people get something out of it ( people expect forums to be free, so that doesn't "count" even though the usefulness and value of this community is obvious)
To mitch30: I don't know how many people you will grab to get this book here, as a lot of the information is here for free on the forums. At best we wonder how a newcomer ( perhaps lurker) has successfully compiled all that information without the help of this community, at worst we might believe there is some plagiarism happening.
Don't mean to put you on a stake though! if all of this is your own material, and completely your own thoughts and ideas with only light referencing of other artists and authors ( as to be expected with any work) then putting a cohesive and helpful book together of any size is impressive.
-
Wow, some morally bankrupt shit right there. I guess there'll always be bottom feeders :watev:
-
Ah, come on, no point to be so vindictive.
-
Just now read cyangmou's post. This is no good.
-
OK, TIME TO PLAY DEVILS ADVOCATE WITH TOCKY
this new comes in, and tells us he is excited to write a book! good for him! but we tell him: do not write the book.
writing books is thankless work, we tell him.
good ideas are for those who have earned them, we tell him.
we are wrong. hey, guy, write a book, enjoy it
FUCK YOU GUYS AND ALL OF YOUR GATE KEEPING BULLSHIT TO BE HONEST
gnosis is free. knowledge is for everyone. writing books is hard. helm, its time you either write your own damn book or let other people write books for you. ryu, you dont even have any skin in the game.
-
Someone took the time and effort to write a book/summary on a topic you hold dear, and the problem is?... seriously, think about it, specifiy it and spell it out. I'll bet you're gonna feel pretty foolish once you break it down.
-
Someone took the time and effort to write a book/summary on a topic you hold dear, and the problem is?... seriously, think about it, specifiy it and spell it out. I'll bet you're gonna feel pretty foolish once you break it down.
there is no problem with writing books.
There is just a problem with crediting.
(in this case not crediting leads like in any other case to mental theft / plagiarism - not only of single artists who provided ressources for free, a whole communities knowledge was gathered and presented as one's own achievement)
that's why there is a bibliography/list of references in every publication.
Even in everyones diploma work or whatever a bibliography is needed.
and by not handling that like it, it's both - from a moral and a law standpoint not correct.
failed?
Edit:
plus there is the necessity to ask to use content for your product, which was made by someone else, even for free publications - before you make it public - which hasn't happened here.
That's just how our civilization works.
And reaching out to people is easier than anytime before. We have the web.
-
gnosis is free. knowledge is for everyone.
that's the point...
Someone took the time and effort to write a book/summary on a topic you hold dear, and the problem is?... seriously, think about it, specifiy it and spell it out. I'll bet you're gonna feel pretty foolish once you break it down.
The problem is the information in this book was thought up and compiled by the community, to be freely distributed to anyone interested in our artform. Someone repackages it and wants to sell it back to us, but what is the benefit of this? Other than the benefit to his own wallet? It doesn't seem to serve the community, they can learn these things for free from the original sources.
-
No interest in writing a book about pixel art - much interest in pixel knowledge being free and accessible.
-
books actually make knowledge more free. i think this dude would be willing to credit helm and the people on the wayofthepixel forum for all of their fine work. and then we get more newbs
but more importantly, all of this pixel gnosis is out there; it's in the air. they guy could get it from bitmap brothers as surely as he could get it from helm
in any case we would have a new heresy. heresies are healthy so long as they do not destroy us
-
i think this dude would be willing to credit helm and the people on the wayofthepixel forum for all of their fine work. and then we get more newbs
Woho highfive tocky - that's how it should work.
and don't forget to add the "asking beforehand"
-
Check yourself - 5 bucks for a book, to new people (esp. younger folks which is when we all started) is much more of a gate than disgruntled old has-beens on some forum trying to enforce their credit line. I'd advocate for the opposite, for this dude to make his book download-for-free and proudly saying "I CAME UP WITH ALL THIS SHIT" in the front page in 40 point font.
-
One "problem", aside from everything that has already been mentioned, is the book is not as high quality as it could be if it would have gone through a peer review process. There are problems with the shading and with the AA in the example pages. Of course that is easy to correct in a digital medium and the author might want to do so too but given the bigger problem of plagiarism/theft that hangs in the air, there probably is not much point to do that anymore.
Now that we seem to be also discussing books/knowledge in general and not just this book/knowledge in particular, one thing about books (granted, this is less of a problem with digital distribution) is that the information in them once written remains pretty static and immutable for long periods of time (until revised copies are released) while the medium and the community is constantly changing and evolving.
I think there is more to learn from an active community with "fresh" information, interaction and by actually doing stuff than by merely reading books because of the one-directional nature of information flow between author and reader.
So well, the plagiarism thing aside, ... forums, websites and free tutorials are doing a better job at teaching the art than that book and because of being free are also more welcoming to newbies who want to learn about it.
-
OK, TIME TO PLAY DEVILS ADVOCATE WITH TOCKY
this new comes in, and tells us he is excited to write a book! good for him! but we tell him: do not write the book.
writing books is thankless work, we tell him.
good ideas are for those who have earned them, we tell him.
we are wrong. hey, guy, write a book, enjoy it
FUCK YOU GUYS AND ALL OF YOUR GATE KEEPING BULLSHIT TO BE HONEST
gnosis is free. knowledge is for everyone. writing books is hard. helm, its time you either write your own damn book or let other people write books for you. ryu, you dont even have any skin in the game.
Holy hell tocky, wow. Just to clarify my feeling on it. I don't feel all that strong about it tbh, just think it's bad taste to take what others have made to benefit everyone and commercialize it. It's a slap in the face to what the original creators intended.
Ah, come on, no point to be so vindictive.
Gut reaction. I agree.
-
Mitch,
I downloaded your book, not for learning, but for checking out where you got your knowledge from.
You took the tutorials provided by autors like: Cure, Helm, Kiwinuptuo, Pix3m and myself as well as others who posted small tuts in the noobtorials section of Pixeljoint and posted at Pixelation.
We provided that knowledge to enhance the medium, some of us even together, but you presented all of that as your completely own work without giving credit to the sources.
You also haven't asked any of us if you may use that content, but you take money for it.
The art in the book (except the screenshots - where you added sources) is yours, but nonetheless it's plagiarism of already free content, just sorted and presented in a book.
You definitely ripped off the design of certain charts and layouts and as well as the content of various tutorialy and I can easily proove that just with side by side comparison for a big part of your book.
I will inform all others who provided tutorials which look strangely similar as in your book and will inform them that you try to make profit from our achievements.
That's illegal.
And what's even worse is that you advertise your product on the site and for the community you took from and aren't a part of -at least you neither have a gallery here nor have you contributed anything to the comm so far.
For all others I personally would recommend to use the free tutorials already available, because what you get for your money in the book is very little new content compared with what is already there.
original post from pixeljoint, would be cool if someone could place that in one of the earlier posts, just to have it at the top of the discussion (ryu, yao, dennis or helm)
-
I'd advocate for the opposite, for this dude to make his book download-for-free and proudly saying "I CAME UP WITH ALL THIS SHIT" in the front page in 40 point font.
I'm ok with this. I composed my own tutorial (based on ideas that are not my own) because I wanted there to be an easy and free resource for learning about pixel art, not because I wanted credit for the ideas or to see my name in print.
the book is not as high quality as it could be if it would have gone through a peer review process. There are problems with the shading and with the AA in the example pages.
. . .
I think there is more to learn from an active community with "fresh" information, interaction and by actually doing stuff than by merely reading books because of the one-directional nature of information flow between author and reader.
these are both good points.
-
Cool. Anyway, it's a moot point if the OP doesn't come back to face the cacophony. We'll just have to live with it.
-
download for free would be an approporiate solution.
Resending the money to people who paid for it would be appropriate too.
another solution would be to immediately remove all the plagiarized stuff out of the work to sell it.
I don't think that anyone of us would allow the persone to use our stuff, even after asking, after how poorly it was handled.
We can contact a lawyer - together or every autor on it's own - it doesn't matter how much is plagiarized, there just needs to be plagiarism that's it. And that's given in that case.
We could contact the selling portal to take down the work, because it contains plagiarized material.
If it comes to a lawsuit the outcome is already pretty clear, I don't think we have to go to extremes and I am sure we can find an appropriate solution.
-
Check yourself - 5 bucks for a book, to new people (esp. younger folks which is when we all started) is much more of a gate than disgruntled old has-beens on some forum trying to enforce their credit line. I'd advocate for the opposite, for this dude to make his book download-for-free and proudly saying "I CAME UP WITH ALL THIS SHIT" in the front page in 40 point font.
books are free these days. i have written a bunch of d&d books, theyre free on my d&d blog. evil baboons
-
Helm is too fast!
So are we going to make our own book ::)
Check yourself - 5 bucks for a book, to new people (esp. younger folks which is when we all started) is much more of a gate than disgruntled old has-beens on some forum trying to enforce their credit line. I'd advocate for the opposite, for this dude to make his book download-for-free and proudly saying "I CAME UP WITH ALL THIS SHIT" in the front page in 40 point font.
books are free these days
Tell that to my university T.T
-
Mitch,
I downloaded your book, not for learning, but for checking out where you got your knowledge from.
You took the tutorials provided by autors like: Cure, Helm, Kiwinuptuo, Pix3m and myself as well as others who posted small tuts in the noobtorials section of Pixeljoint and posted at Pixelation.
We provided that knowledge to enhance the medium, some of us even together, but you presented all of that as your completely own work without giving credit to the sources.
You also haven't asked any of us if you may use that content, but you take money for it.
The art in the book (except the screenshots - where you added sources) is yours, but nonetheless it's plagiarism of already free content, just sorted and presented in a book.
You definitely ripped off the design of certain charts and layouts and as well as the content of various tutorialy and I can easily proove that just with side by side comparison for a big part of your book.
I will inform all others who provided tutorials which look strangely similar as in your book and will inform them that you try to make profit from our achievements.
That's illegal.
And what's even worse is that you advertise your product on the site and for the community you took from and aren't a part of -at least you neither have a gallery here nor have you contributed anything to the comm so far.
For all others I personally would recommend to use the free tutorials already available, because what you get for your money in the book is very little new content compared with what is already there.
original post from pixeljoint, would be cool if someone could place that in one of the earlier posts, just to have it at the top of the discussion (ryu, yao, dennis or helm)
Done. Thought it was worth putting in the OP.
-
But this particular book isn't free and doesn't want to be free and we can't set it free, Tocky.
-
i can set anything freee so long as i get away with it
-
This is a shame.
We can contact a lawyer - together or every autor on it's own - it doesn't matter how much is plagiarized, there just needs to be plagiarism that's it. And that's given in that case.
We could contact the selling portal to take down the work, because it contains plagiarized material.
If it comes to a lawsuit the outcome is already pretty clear, I don't think we have to go to extremes and I am sure we can find an appropriate solution.
This is a common misunderstanding of copyright law and strictly speaking I don't believe legally there is any fault here. Plagiarism is unfortunately not really protected by copyright. I would have to read the book to be sure but unless you can clearly show that he's directly taken the work of someone else and modified it this would be considered non-infringing by my understanding.
-
unless you can clearly show that he's directly taken the work of someone else and modified it
Well luckily we can show this directly for a good third of the book, so there is no problem there.
In fact some text statments are 1:1 the same as in tutorials provided.
Even some artistical mistakes are the same as in the online sources just to take the AA example, but there are a few more)
some charts are clearly taken from sources which weren't mentioned.
That already proves that it's more than merely a coincidence.
Copyright law and law in general also depends on the country - at least for details.
In this case however one doesn't even need to look closely, because it's obvious. A quick glance over the source tutorials and the book does the job.
chapter 2, 3 and 4 off the book are clearly plagiarised from online sources - if you take all sources in account 95% of what's written in those chapters was already there. (28 sites filled with content)
practically chapter 1 (introduction) and 5 (closing tutorials) (those are 25 sites filled with content
the rest of the 67 sites are book cover/table of content etc.
Some stuff in chapter 1 and 5 would definitely count as "derivated work" or it would need a proove, if you are looking at it just from the law side, that it's plagiarized.
There are some notes in the overview below.
Just from the rough numbers more than half of the actual content of the book is plagiarized.
All the basic art knowledge which isn't related to software and is contained in the book is plagiarized.
since the books is about fundamentals and clearly advertises the fundamentals of the art the problem from the law-side is quite obvious.
For example for chapter 2/3/4:
I made a tut on game perspectives and brought examples from games plus some further links to a chart from facet with more examples and a tut by pix3m showing perspectives simplified.
In the book there are my words, words from pix3m and the same games/examples as I took for my tut and facet took for his chart.
THe actual work done was just cutting together the sources and maybe adding a line here and there - and this covers already 9 sites of the book.
Kiwis tuts are also rearranged, also mixed up with some stuff I talked about with him back then and this covers 13 more sites.
Then there is a part with Helms dithercharts which cover 2 sites more.
---
original content in the book
12 sites for the book cover, the table of content, chapter header sites etc. (can't be counted as content sites)
3 sites introduction / what is pixel art
7 sites - chapter 1 - choosing software /setting up ps for pixel-art (imo there is even a tutorial for that around) your first pixel artwork (albeit obviously inspired by my 5 tips for the beginner artist - at least structural and pix3ms what the heck is pixel art) -
11 sites - chapter 5 (which includes 2 original tutorials by the autor - one of those reminds me strongly of a car topic we had in pixelation)
1 site index (which can't really be counted as "original" content)
3 sites photoshop shortcuts (which can't really be counted as "original" content)
End of the Review.
-
we should not be ashamed to be pirates, or privateers or whateve. we must meet the pirates if we are to defeat them. they are accelerationists. everyone in hollywood pirates movies. everyone in music pirates music. we should pirate games and old art books. i will even tell you which ones to get. if we do not we will be defeated by those that will. pay for things if you must, but you have to meet these pirates
its hypocritical to be a pirate and then to turn and say, my stuff is not pirateable though
its bad for games also. but we are good at references on here. if you dont like it write your own book about how this guys book sucks, but do not tell him not to write it
-
-snip-
That sounds far worse than I had imagined. The first step if mitch does not take it down himself would be to contact the publisher and inform them that there has been a violation, no threats of legal action, just a notice and some evidence. If they're smart they'll pull it down without having to go through a lawyer. Of course all of you original content creators should agree whether this is the course of action to take.
To mitch30:
You warrant to us that you have the full power and authority to enter into and perform your obligations under these terms and conditions, and further that Your Digital Content does not infringe the intellectual property rights of any third party. If you discover that Your Digital Content is infringing on the intellectual property rights of any third party, you should immediately delete the file from your dashboard so that no further infringement takes place.
-
-snap-
This is beyond piracy though. This is me pirating a game and modifying it slighty and reselling it (or several games and bundling them up).
-
Ok, let every person who claims to own the copyright and/or intellectual property to a specific piece of information/knowledge step forward; with real name and contact information, and specify the contested information and provide indisputable proof that he or she is the ORIGINAL author and sole lawful proprietor of said information.
If you can't do that... you might wanna keep the legal threats at a minimum!
(I'm dying to see who among you will claim ownership of different pixelart techniques...)
-
Ok, let every person who claims to own the copyright and/or intellectual property to a specific piece of information/knowledge step forward
Very few people literally no one is making legal threats, I don't think that's the most important issue here. Let's return to your first comment- why should those of us who see the book as problematic feel "foolish?"
-
It might be useful for Cyangmou to post some comparison images to prove that he's violated copyright. Legally speaking the issue is not that people are claiming ownership of the techniques but that he's stolen and modified the specific expression of people's interpretation of those techniques. Of course people seem more annoyed about the stolen ideas but in law sometimes you have to look elsewhere for justice. I will leave the discussion on the ethics of all this to others though.
-
-snap-
This is beyond piracy though. This is me pirating a game and modifying it slighty and reselling it (or several games and bundling them up).
yeah. thats cloning. but still legal through referencing, or anonymisation. the thing is if the pirates can do it legally so can we all.
referencing and anonymization are both important skills, that i can teach anyone, through the parable of moore. MOORES LAW I GUS i am the rundler.
-
Ok, let every person who claims to own the copyright and/or intellectual property to a specific piece of information/knowledge step forward; with real name and contact information, and specify the contested information and provide indisputable proof that he or she is the ORIGINAL author and sole lawful proprietor of said information.
If you can't do that... you might wanna keep the legal threats at a minimum!
(I'm dying to see who among you will claim ownership of different pixelart techniques...)
information as information is free to everyone. Art techniques are, letters are.
"Charts" crafted by persons aren't.
Sentences written to charts by persons aren't.
Lawful threats aren't spoken so far.
Just naming the possibilities doesn't imply anything.
Naming stuff doesn't mean to actually handling it like that.
Example:
Given that one would take a palette - one you put work in first and released for free - and would advertise it then on pixeljoint for hard money how would you act?
I can't imagine that you are completely ok with that, if that person also states how much experience work and effort was put in said palette, that youself made originally for the same community but for free.
It might be useful for Cyangmou to post some comparison images to prove that he's violated copyright. Legally speaking the issue is not that people are claiming ownership of the techniques but that he's stolen and modified the specific expression of people's interpretation of those techniques. Of course people seem more annoyed about the stolen ideas but in law sometimes you have to look elsewhere for justice. I will leave the discussion on the ethics of all this to others though.
If I would post here I would distribute the work which won' tbe alright.
Everyone may buy the production (or maybe priate it yarr) and look it up.
If it'd be just me I'd love to do a visual overview, sure.
The information I provided here can be counted as review.
-
Little snippets should be fine under fair use for criticism and review. Though fair use laws vary wildly by country. Of course if you're not comfortable with it then its fine, just so long as the people concerned can agree that it has happened.
-
Well if the Opener of the topic agrees to it, I can nail down my written arguments with visuals.
Unless this happens I won't do it.
Even if there are disagreements, I highly value to respect someone and his rights.
Currently the discussion is very one sided, I just bought the book myself looked the stuff up and informed everyone who I think has soemthing to do with the content.
SInce some people said they won't buy the book I provided a more detailled overview.
There isn't more I could do at the moment without a clear statement from the autor/opener.
-
I am terribly sorry for any trouble I have caused. I made this book for a college assignment and someone suggested I sell it. The book will remain on the payhip link for free.
ALL MONEY HAS BEEN REFUNDED FOR THE 12 COPIES I SOLD
-
@Cyangmou:
I'm leading you where you need to go. You now realize none of you have any legal claims on concepts or specific information. It's just down to presentation or specific imagery, correct? Was your material ripped or just mimicked to some degree? Does it exceed potential quotation rights? Are your images so original that convey more than common knowledge and information in the public domain?
Credits are nice, and not referencing your sources is bad form. It's annoying but not illegal.
Let's keep information free, advance science and rejoice in the proliferation of pixelart-knowledge.
But yeah, credits where credits' due.
-
@mitch30:
Sorry about calling you a bottom feeder earlier and good to see you've stopped charging for it.
-
mitch30, good going.
-
mitch, thanks for sharing you work with us duder, sorry about the mess
new activity: if someone asks you to make unpaid art, and you do make it, also send it to me, i'll put it up on the goblinwars tumblr
mitch, you cna have a freee ad if you want one
noone follows that blog yet but they still might
its gonna be a good source of free art and no bullshit about the exposure
-
Well done.
-
excuse accepted.
Well done.
-
-snap-
This is beyond piracy though. This is me pirating a game and modifying it slighty and reselling it (or several games and bundling them up).
yeah. thats cloning. but still legal through referencing, or anonymisation. the thing is if the pirates can do it legally so can we all.
referencing and anonymization are both important skills, that i can teach anyone, through the parable of moore. MOORES LAW I GUS i am the rundler.
what is a rundler
-
im matt rundle. thats my name, im very sorry. if i were a batman i would be the riddler
-
im matt rundle. thats my name, im very sorry. if i were a batman i would be the riddler
Wouldn't you be the Wayner?
Back on topic. Regardless of this being damage control or not, I'm glad things got resolved efficiently.
-
I downloaded the book and found the section that was 'borrowed' from one of the things I made, which was borrowed from this thing: http://pix3m.deviantart.com/art/Ref-Game-perspectives-366577828
This book borrowed from a simple list of game perspectives that I made because I was working with people who weren't that sure of what they were doing. We were throwing terms around for game perspectives, but none of us knew what we were talking about. Some perspectives are named after games because we only have so many terms to throw around. I made a list of perspectives, made cubes to get the point across, and made short pro and cons because some people I was working with, have NEVER EVER DONE GAME TILES BEFORE. Squares are easy. Foreshortened, rotated squares need some basic drawing skills but is still easy. Parallelograms and trapezoids are harder.
I have to say, it is odd to see some of the simplicity of that list being jammed into a commercialized book which if you ask me personally, could have been done much more skillfully
-
im matt rundle. thats my name, im very sorry. if i were a batman i would be the riddler
Wouldn't you be the Wayner?
Back on topic. Regardless of this being damage control or not, I'm glad things got resolved efficiently.
you really fucking threw me there. but i see your joke. no. Pix3M i like this reference a lot.