HOME | DD
Dhuaine β Verdure Tapestry
Published: 2009-01-20 21:44:20 +0000 UTC; Views: 4051; Favourites: 216; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Another generic landscape with another generic title...Edit
Okay, just a tiny explanation
It turns out I won't scrap this piece ^^ I wrote that because there was a problem with a stocker (contradictory terms of use), I got really annoyed and grew kinda bitter towards this image. If I couldn't use it in a way I wanted, what's the point of having it in my gallery?
But fortunately the stocker in question replied very fast to my e-mail and I have their permission to do what I intended 
Smashing. 
6 hours.
BG: ~anaRasha-stock
Details: Paul Morley [link] [link]
Brushes: ~spiritsighs-stock *redheadstock
.:: Featured in Best of weekly photomanip features #99
.:: Featured in Cinnamoncandy's Sunday Feature #32
This image may not be used in any form, commercial or not, without my explicit written permission.
Related content
Comments: 86
Very nice feel with the slightly muted daylight filtering through from the misty background. Really gives the image a warm, golden feeling.
Which, I daresay, is something of a rarity in your works. ;D
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you so much
Yeah, I should work more with warm and nice palettes xD
π: 0 β©: 0
I like it! The colors are a bit muted for my taste, but I absolutely love the soft glow coming between the trees!
π: 0 β©: 1
Muted? 
Thanks
π: 0 β©: 1
I dunno. I have an iMac. Colors are calibrated fine according to hellfirediva's black to white color thing...
But I will admit that colors look different on this computer than they do downstairs on my PC...
π: 0 β©: 1
Hm. Many tutorials calibrate your monitor to print, to match what you see with what would come out of your printer. However, it all depends on type of the printer and the ink, so... I don't pay too much attention to it. >.>; I print stuff via external company and I more or less know what would be different after they print an image... it's enough for now. ^^'
π: 0 β©: 0
Podoba mi siΔ atmosfera tajemniczoΕci i magii, do tego jeszcze cudne kolory.
π: 0 β©: 1
It looks so serene and peaceful. Again, wonderful job!
π: 0 β©: 1
Beautiful ~
I love the atmosphere of the picture...it makes me want to visit that spot xP
π: 0 β©: 1
I loooove Photomanipulations and seriously need to make more of them. This is a great example, good job!
π: 0 β©: 1
Beautiful as always. I would love to get lost in there!
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you!
π: 0 β©: 1
Hehe, i mean a nice lost. lol
π: 0 β©: 0
Really nice composition and good work on the light effect !
π: 0 β©: 1
Hello
this is a standard message to let you know you have been featured in the "Best of...weekly photomanips features" #99 news article [link] I'd appreciate it if you didn't reply here but posted a comment on the news article! Thanks for sharing such beautiful art with us and keep up the good work!
π: 0 β©: 0
Hello! 
You have been featured in my journal [link] and in this news article [link]
π: 0 β©: 0
Yeah, exactly xD I hate it when people release their stuff with CC licenses, one of sxc licenses etc, and post contradictory terms of use in their journals. Seriously, wtf? >.<
π: 0 β©: 1
Hey, you didn't know that being a graphic designer automatically forces you to have a degree in law?
π: 0 β©: 1
What? Are you serious? O.o Huh... so if someone graduates Academy of Fine Arts as graphic designer, they have to study law next? O_o It's... insane.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hey no! I was just kiddin'! But really you might think of it, because copyright and license themes are discussed everywhere. It's just yesterday that I participated on a discussion about that on another design-portal (www.grafiker.de). On the one hand, as an artist, you want to see your copyrights untouched. On the other hand one want to use stock material without concerns of complicated rules. I dunno, but I think do we all get a bit paranoid?
π: 0 β©: 1
Heh 
Yeah, there's a huge problem with stock rules. They shouldn't be written in this legal mumbo jumbo. 
π: 0 β©: 1
I think the print on demand issue concerns the unmanipulated photos. But you're right it's always difficult to be safe and one should rather not use this material at all. Maybe you should tell them ...
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm going to ask sxc.hu. Their FAQ and simple version indicate that that rule concerns only non-modified stuff, but it's still not clear.
π: 0 β©: 1
Try to get a written answer/permission. Just to be safe.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'll try.
π: 0 β©: 1
In general it's sufficiant to have some written lines, which say that you're allowed to use the material for your purposes. But if they're picky this can lead to huge licensing definitions which fill pages. In your case some e-mail with an agreement is totaly ok. Don't overrate the panic concerning licensing rules. If a stock provider lets you download pics for free, it's already an agreement that you can broadly use it. They just don't want you to compete with them as a copycat. So you have to alter the pics in a significant way, e.g. use it in a manip or composing etc.
Though I'm not a lawyer - but some common sense should be enough.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks for the info
I support common sense 
π: 0 β©: 1
I totally agree with you if everyone would be fair and honest, but there's one reason why so many stock artists restrict it within dA. It's a big temptation for professional advertisers to use these stocks for free and save lots of bucks, although they could afford stock from cost-intense agencies like Getty Images or Corbis (even our small agency pays 15k Euros to Getty a year for image licenses). And I think it would be just fair then, paying for the dA stock, too. But you can't rely on the fairness of advertising companies - sad but true.
So, I think, this protects the stock providers against the leechers of the pro scene. In fact it doesn't, but finally this is all you can do.
I believe that if you'd ask the 'stockers' if you can show your artwork outside of dA, most of them will agree. They just want to be asked.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's what "ask for commercial off-site use" is for. I can totally understand that for the reasons you've listed. Breaking this rule doesn't seem any harder than breaking "no off-site use".
I think the problem is that many dA users don't have other places in the internet where they would like to display or use their art. I've talked to some people and it seems all they have beside dA are message boards and a weblog.
The great problem with stockers is that they leave dA and cannot be reached via email. That happened a lot to me. 
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, finally dA is an amateur community with all the advantages and disadvantages. And I really was looking for some other cool places to promote my private stuff. But either you have those privatly driven forums and communities with zero traffic, or you have the big professional CG-sites which make me feel really really inferior 
IMHO if someone leaves dA and keeps up his stock I reckon that he does not care about what others do with the pics. What will he do? Hire a lawyer for a case of max. some ten bucks of value? Pffffff...
It's just a matter of politeness to ask for permission. Really, most of the stock images are of such poor quality that you should be payed for using it
π: 0 β©: 1
Well said 
- no rule change (aka: not answering questions because they, obviously, left)
- even moar restrictive rules! (no off-dA use, period)
I've seen only one abandoned stock account when the last journal lifted all restrictions from their stock.
And there's another matter I absolutely despise: changing the rules to more restrictive and threatening everyone to follow them even if their photomanips were created with old rules in mind. *headdesk*
It really looks like dA has no competition... I was looking for other places too and the results were the same as yours.
π: 0 β©: 1
Usually the license conditions can't be altered for old agreements. They just can change it for new users or if your artwork is against the law. The problem is to proof the first date of usage, so it's a good idea to comment the stock image with a short sentence like "I used your stock here ...". Then your comment has a time stamp and you can always point to that.
But as I mentioned before, most of the stock is awful and not worth of any restrictions (which the creators surely would deny
π: 0 β©: 0
Ohh so beautiful, I really want to find a place lite this 
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>