Palette

[xhunterko]

"Is this really how you see what you're doing?"

I see that this has gotten nowhere.

Why fight against something that you see as wrong is already the pre-established authority?

Apologies to any who may have been offended by this discussion.

@jad: Perhaps I was thinking of something else entirely. I can see why the lack of instances may be taken as lack of proof. That was poor judgement and misconception on my part. I was thinking of cavestory at the time. So maybe I was thinking of those related threads instead. My bad.

"A real artist is humble enough to acknowledge his sources. Is not all art a re-combining of already existing elements anyway?"
One more point. Conversly, the artist who sees that his work has created inspiration, should be humble enough not to demand acknowledgement.

[Ai]

Furthermore, I have  a simple question to pose.

Did arne put a copyright on his palette when he created it?

In most countries, in most situations, copyright is automatic. Formally 'copyrighting' something is really about establishing a stronger standard of proof that you created the artefact you are claiming copyright to.

the artist who sees that his work has created inspiration, should be humble enough not to demand acknowledgement.

Why *should* they be humble enough not to demand acknowledgement? Acknowledgement is generally a social good, not only for the source but the user, and it's their choice what terms creators release their work under; the morality of that choice is contextual like most things, not universal.
The only situation in which crediting your sources would reasonably be considered onerous is if you have dozens of them (this is very unusual, for a single artwork)

It seems to me you are arguing that you should be allowed to behave irresponsibly with other people's creations (as opposed to what you seem to think that you are arguing for, which in my observation is, to do your own thing and create your own art without being harrassed about sources and crediting. Which is a very ordinary thing and happens on pixelation constantly,)

[tetsuya_shino]

@xhunterko: Dude. I normally don't even come here,.. but when you post this topic here and at the other forum, I have to say something.
 Can someone own a palette? Sure. Does that mean he owns the colors? No, not really. But by having a collection of hand selected colors, something tangible is created. It's kinda like pixel art in a way. No one owns a single dot. But if someone were to put them in a pattern, their own pixel art is created from those dots. If you are going to use someone's palette, what's the harm in shooting that guy an email frist? Because either way, people in the know would know.

[Larwick]

It seems to me to be less an issue of who owns what, and more an issue of honesty. By not even acknowledging that you used someone elses palette you make people assume you created it yourself, which is downright decieving - to yourself as an artist and to others as your critics. There must have been a reason you used that specific palette, rather than to create your own. If you create your own, and it seems to others very similar to something someone else also created, you can honestly state that you didn't know, and no harm is done. You could talk to the person who created the similar palette on their own, and discuss which is better or how either could be improved.

The idea that you should be able to use other people's palettes is held by all here as acceptable, but the fact is you should be aware to yourself and make it aware to others that you didn't put the effort into creating it.

[tetsuya_shino]

Nah, sorry. While the issue of honesty is a vaild one (and I agree with you), ownership of a palette was the point  xhunterko was trying to make. 

[Larwick]

Nah, sorry. While the issue of honesty is a vaild one (and I agree with you), ownership of a palette was the point  xhunterko was trying to make. 

What i'm trying to say is that the issue with ownership of a palette is redundant when you consider simply being modest and truthful.

[tetsuya_shino]

Hey, I'm just trying to stay on topic, boss.

[Kcilc]

What i'm trying to say is that the issue with ownership of a palette is redundant when you consider simply being modest and truthful.

I wouldn't say that it's redundant, because you must assume that you can indeed own palettes for it to be an act of dishonesty not to cite them. I'd consider your argument more of an expansion of Tetsuya's, listing the reasons why we acknowledge where we get the palettes we don't create, not just that we do. It becomes a grounded viewpoint, not just a "because I said so" one.

[Gil]

To me, it's about tradition. Pixelation's goal might change, but the roots won't.

Rule #1 has always been: don't be an ass
Rule #2 has always been: be honest, mention influences and references to help the critique process

Our whole community has been built over many years on these values. It's what Pixelation is about. To come in as a very new member and go against the grain is just not going to work.

Are you ever going to get sued for stealing a palette? No
Is there even legal grounds here? No, palettes don't have legal or copyright value

Is it acceptable here on Pixelation to just go and rip other people's palettes without acknowledging it? NO, and it will never be

[xhunterko]

Rules #1: So, no one can never make a black and white avatar without crediting you first? Since black and white is your palette?
Rule #2: So from now on, for every piece of pixel art ever made. Your going to take an eyedropper and make sure that no one's palette ownership is being infringed upon?