rudecherub In reply to superspazkiki [2012-04-30 05:51:23 +0000 UTC]

Go ahead. Do your worst.

No offence was intended. These are all copyrighted characters in any event, it's pretty hard to claim ownership of a very generic idea / pose when you are using someone else's property in the first place.

Looking for reasons to be offended is a dangerous business. For example your nick' superspazkiki, well Kiki, I assume it's Kiki, let me break that down for you super spaz Kiki, well spaz is an offensive pejorative to many, a diminutive of spastic, which refers to a medical condition - especially cerebal palsy and spastic diplegia. So I would ask you to consider adopting a less offensive name lest someone less tolerant than me complains to administration.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

superspazkiki In reply to rudecherub [2012-04-30 07:09:05 +0000 UTC]

Do my worst? That's cute.

Just because you didn't intend to offend doesn't mean you didn't offend. Yes they are copyrighted characters but you don't seem to understand the drawing itself is the intellectual property of the artist. You didn't just use a 'generic' pose. You used her exact drawing, mirrored the image, and dropped different colors onto it. That's very different than just referencing the image.

I'm not looking for reasons to be offended. Although art theft tends to offend me.

By the way, you really shouldn't assume. You do know what they say about people that assume correct? Also. If you're going to talk about the 'spaz' portion of my username you should probably get the definition right. Here. I'll get the dictionary definition for you.

spaz- noun
1. an awkward, clumsy, or eccentric person.

Damn. What do you know. Not your definition. So go ahead. Complain about a username I've had for -years- as there is nothing wrong with it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

furbelows In reply to superspazkiki [2012-04-30 11:00:06 +0000 UTC]

Excuse me for jumping in here but I spoke to the artist lady condom via tumblr...and she was extremely gracious about the whole thing. She took no offense but we and the artist here has acknowledged it is her piece and seeing others are offended on her behalf and to avoid this kind of confrontation...it is taken down because rudecherub never meant to offend anyone. And in terms of copyright, can I add those classic iconic images are all over deviantart from the Klimt's The Kiss, Mona Lisa to VE Day and that is a bit unfair to threaten on them.Hell Jim Lee's and Adam Hughes art is often used as well as reference and original images used inversion to ship characters. So we need to get some perspective and balance here too.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

superspazkiki In reply to furbelows [2012-04-30 19:19:29 +0000 UTC]

Abby is always nice. Even when she's upset with someone she doesn't tend to voice her displeasure except on her Tumblr.

Also. Just because these same works are on this site doesn't make it okay for others to put them up here. Really they should all be taken down unless it's on Adam Hughes' DA. Yeah? Cause really. That's like saying because some people break the law it's okay for everyone to break the law. See where that kind of logic is flawed?

Referencing an image is different than using and altering an image the 'artist' has no rights to.

Under Section 4 of the ToS:
"Individuals who have posted works to deviantART are either the copyright owners of the component parts of that work or are posting the work under license from a copyright owner or his or her agent or otherwise as permitted by law. You may not reproduce, distribute, publicly display or perform, or prepare derivative works based on any of the Content including any such works without the express, written consent of deviantART or the appropriate owner of copyright in such works. "

The paint overs and shoddily edited comic scans violate this portion of the ToS.

I would also like to make it clear that I -never- threatened this artist. I simple made a suggestion that unauthorized works be removed because I've seen many people banned over the years for doing the same thing.

This is the last comment I will make about this topic to you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

rudecherub In reply to superspazkiki [2012-04-30 07:50:50 +0000 UTC]

I didn't mean to offend. And I've taken the image down, ( even though I haven't heard from the original artist )

There's nothing new in a quick and simple adpation in art, look at Andy Wharhol's work which took Marilyn's picture ( and others ) and recoloured them, then the countless copies / adaptation of that idea out there - is that all art theft?

As for your user name Spaz is an offensive term for many people hence the full quote from the online dictionary "spaz or spazz (spz) Offensive Slang
n. pl. spazz·es
One who is considered clumsy or inept.
intr.v. spazzed, spazz·ing, spazz·es
To be clumsy or inept."

Just because you've used it for a long time, and didn't intend "spaz" to be offensive doesn't mean that it isn't.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

superspazkiki In reply to rudecherub [2012-04-30 19:39:59 +0000 UTC]

I'm glad you've taken the image down. That was one of my favorites from Abby and seeing it essentially mutilated because you prefer WW be with someone else was shocking and upsetting. For an artist, having your work violated like that... it's not a good thing.

No. The Warhol isn't art theft. He painted that oversaturated image from a photo reference. He also used silk screening to reproduce works he had already done. Copying a technique is also not art theft, however, you did not copy a technique. You altered the original picture. Abby's original lines were still clearly visible.

At this point, your attempt to find offense in my username is just laughable. So I won't comment further.

Actually. Consider this done from my side.

Good bye and good day. Try not to violate the rights of other artists. It's not nice and makes people get upset.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

rudecherub In reply to superspazkiki [2012-05-01 08:06:31 +0000 UTC]

This isn't an attempt on my part to take offence at your username. And no Spaz isn't laughable. The fact of the matter is Spaz is an offensive term to many people, you may not like being told that, but that's the case.

My point was about looking for offence - which you did - *you* were upset, wow. You took it upon yourself to be both aggressive and threatening.

Frankly I can do without the drama. Because the picture was just a quick manipulation of an existing image it was easier to take it down.

What I do find objectionable is the way you've gone about this.

Abbey wasn't offended as best I can tell, she didn't contact me. I did however contact her and apologised for not trying to find her and give her due credit. Which is a fair criticism. She said she was okay.

I can't believe you're saying altering an original picture isn't a valid form of expression, My point about Warhol wasn't just about his over-painting existing images, but that countless people have copied what he did manipulating existing images. By your standard that's also Art theft.

Yes some of Abbey's lines appear to persist, but I actually traced over the image again in it's entirety, while added the New 52 costume details. It was certainly more than just throwing colours at an existing picture.

In conclusion it's not your role to assume offence on other peoples behalf, to threaten and bully. And you should consider again your use of word that is used to abuse the disabled.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0