Forums » Art & Creativity » Art Theft & You

[Redacted by request of user]

I'm not at home and I tried to read through most of the posts, but if I missed something I apologize.

@Ben: I don't think we're on the same page regarding my post. The people I wrote did NOT offer the art freely for others to take. They in fact had copyrights and disclaimers on there without fair use licenses. Some cases also had commissions (someone else's character) or personal OC art that was used to make an RPR profile with. I still received the "I don't care" messages on this art. I am not talking about artists who purposely share their art with others at all.

The reason why I am so passionate about artists taking up this responsbility is because nobody but the artist has any right to demand art to be taken down. I've seen a lot of "THIS IS THEFT" statements flying by in this topic, but we are not the ones to decide that. That is why it is SO important for artists to be proactive about ensuring there are consequences for art theft. That is why I believe artists being dismissive about people wrongfully using their art is an act that affects all artists in the long run. They contribute to the "it's just art" attitude that is partially the reason so much art theft is happening.

I wrote to a LOT of artists and it's really shocking to see just how many of them don't want the person using their things without their permission to face any consequences. I don't think people will really get this until they've tried it themselves. It sounds ridiculous, but there is a large number of artists like this. I don't think it's fair to dismiss the importance of the role they play in here.

Regarding "how to educate", it can be as simple as just saying "Hey, do you have permission to use this art?" And wait for a response. If they say they didn't, or they don't get back to you, kindly let them know how it works -- without accusing them, calling what they do creepy or anything like that. Just inform them it is damaging to artists by using art without permission and provide them with some reasonable alternatives. I've had a very high succes rate with this approach. It is crucial not to make them feel hunted down or you'll just end up in arguments with nothing gained though. (That is probably more important than anything else. A defensive mind is not open to listening and cooperating by instinct.)

Officially, RPR can create a thoroughly detailed article about this with tips on how to acquire legal art and references. There have already been news articles on this in the past. It can be linked to from certain places like the gallery, FAQ and the official rules page where people are likely to spot it. The community has also proven super helpful with linking to the help database, so it would be easy to give someone a "heads up" with accurate info.

And of course the community itself can encourage artists to write to Kim on admin@rprepository.com of there is stolen art to have it taken down, so that people know the creators won't stand for this.

Ben was faster than me in answering the policy question, so I'll just say he's absolutely correct. This is for the time being an educational discussion, and the mod team is using it to take the temperature of the range of understanding and opinions on this topic to help know how to be helpful in future.


This is an interesting point! Did you know that you can modify Google Images to only show you images that it's TOTALLY LEGAL for you to take? It's not 100% reliable all of the time, but it's pretty good, and it's dramatically better than just using unrestricted google images search. Go to google image search, click "Advanced search tools", and then set the options for "Usage Rights"

I asked Google to only show me images that were labeled for non-commercial reuse (meaning it'd be fair game to put them on a RP profile,) typed in "Hot norwegian male model," and immediately got results like this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Freeballer_board_shorts_01.jpg

You get all the convenience of your favorite image searching tool, the moral high ground, and the peace of mind a mod isn't going to have to come knocking at your door saying you broke a law and now we have to enforce it. And you'll never have to worry that we'll have to do that multiple times, because if we have to talk to you about breaking the law using us as the medium too many times, we kinda have to close your account to prevent ourselves from becoming legally liable as well.

If you're okay with shouldering that risk, I guess that's your decision, but it sure makes me squirm. I friggin' hate closing accounts.

From the RPR's standpoint, this doesn't actually help your (or our) legal situation: If you can't also say you have permission to use it, this is just an admission of guilt.

Aha, data! This I can speak to with gusto.

At the time I'm typing this, there are 35571 characters on the site, with an average of 2.93 characters per user if we do not include accounts with no characters. 22758 of those characters have icons, and there are 71126 character gallery images currently uploaded on the site -- this does not include user icons, group icons, group banner images, and group galleries, which inflates the number again dramatically.

Moderators process (as in, directly look at and review for correct maturity tags) an average of 200 - 300 character gallery images and icons per day.

Back in the early days of the site I actually did, personally, do reverse image searches and try to contact artists to find out if they minded if their art was being used when I wasn't sure, but that was back in the day when we were handling an average of 10 - 20 images. Quickly, it became impractical and impossible to double check every image and still get anything else done on the site. Sanne took that over briefly as a personal crusade back when she worked as a mod, and was similarly rapidly overwhelmed. As the number of images added to the site every day climbs, we are forced to rely on our membership's desire to understand and do the right thing, and help protect themselves and us from lawsuits.

For the most part, I'm very impressed by our community members' high level of commitment to being excellent in all kinds of ways, including copyright. Not everyone understands copyright, or even why it might be important, so occasional news posts and discussions like this one are critical to getting the word out about what's black and white, and hashing through some of the tough stuff that's still in more of a grey area.

It's definitely time for us to do another one of these!

That sounds like a grand idea! I love that.

We appreciate this discussion and input because it is an issue close to the hearts of a number of our members, and as we think about the policy moving forward, it's very helpful to have discussions like this to draw from.

Apart from that, more than one person has, as a direct result of this thread, learned more about the issue and taken steps to remove copyrighted content from their galleries of their own volition. I call that a very positive outcome.

This discussion has been anything but futile, and the fact that people have gotten a little fiery about is proof that it's an issue that bears further investigation by us.

On that note, I respectfully request that anyone else who thinks that this discussion is futile and useless just refrain from posting altogether, instead of continuing to add further frustration themselves to a thread that a number of members have found enlightening and useful.

@Sanne:

Thank you for the clarification of your position! That does actually make a good deal of sense to me, now.

I want to add that the word "theft" is not what's going on here.

Theft is defined in criminal law as, "the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession."

These are cases of potential misuse. In no way can anyone deprive an artist of their original digital artwork, because there's nothing tangible to be stolen (other than their hard drive, perhaps).

The title of the topic and much of the context has been misleading in this fashion.

Furthermore, artists need to realise they are not automatically protected in a way that is always going to stand up to scrutiny in a court of law; this goes back to what I was saying before. While it is true that pieces of art receive an "automatic" copyright on their publication, that is not comparable to registering each piece -- or at the very least, including a copyright notice with each one.

As the USCO states (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf), this notice takes the form of:

1. The symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word “Copyright,” or the abbreviation “Copr.”; and

2. The year of first publication of the work. In the case of compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculp­tural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful article; and

3. The name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner.

Example: © 2011 John Doe

As is further specified (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register), "You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work."

You cannot receive damages or compensation from the legal system, if you do not register your art.

It's also worth adding that a screenshot (or an animated GIF) of something like a movie or a TV show will likely fall under fair use, and people who continually make it out as if you need permission for each of these (including "face claims") are only looking at one out of four aspects of how fair use works.

So long as the use is non-commercial and transformative enough (as in going from being an animated whole to either a single image or series of images) -- not to mention edited at all -- it will likely qualify in a courtroom. Past cases have bore this out, including using a small part of a whole image.

This is not as cut and dry as people are making it out to be, legally speaking. So you don't all need to rush over to strip your RPR profile down of any artwork that isn't an original piece.

I do second Rubix's opinion that I would have preferred a topic like this to have been headed by a mod, or at least in collaboration with the mod team not to discredit Tate or anything of the nature.

I wasn't going to respond to this either, but since it has become a community discussion I might as well.

I too back in the day used to steal art, I belonged to a different Rp community then, but I had never heard of commissioning an artist to create art of your character. It carried over when I came here originally, and soon I started doing my own art and I became friends with artists and have since poured loads of money into supporting artists mostly here in the RPR community but elsewhere as well. I've since removed all stolen art from my profiles and so on. People work way too hard on it for someone to just snatch it up.

On the topic of face claims, I dunno.. I use them heavily. But I have never been about saying my character looks exactly like this person, it's usually only a reference, a diving board. I throw tons of energy into making a unique person and when I get art of the character later (or do it myself) it more reflects what they truly look like. This is not uncommon in creative works to imagine someone famous at the time and in turn, make them into something new, especially in writing and art. I'm not questioning the legality of it since I am sure it has been covered by now, though I would think it would have fallen under transformative, since you are using the image in a new context. I'm not a lawyer and I doubt anyone here is either, but that is neither here nor there.

I do think if a policy change does happen, and face claims are no longer allowed it might trigger an unwanted domino effect, if face claims ever do become against policy, then it would only be fair to bar the use of songs in peoples profiles. Or Icons of pokemon, disney, MLP etc. The use of gifs and so on. Not to mention the countless established universe role plays, which some people love to do. Would they not all fall under the same grey area?

I do firmly disagree with one thing, I do not think we should tell anyone who thinks this is futile not to respond to this thread as long as they are being civil about it. This is a debate and thinking this is futile is just another side of this debate. If they are frustrated by this, they will be rather they comment or not they have a right to their point of view, and for their opinion to be heard, no matter if this post has enlightened anyone or not.

In relation to Nicolette's post, here is a very good video about fair use:

https://youtu.be/S521VcjhvMA?t=1s

Please notice that in the lawyer's description of fair use, commercial vs non-commercial does not decide the question of fair use. It is sometimes taken into account, if monetization is seen to impede on a copyright holder's proven markets.

In my understanding, turning a video into a gif, or taking a still, does not represent a transformation of meaning. That's the thing about transformative, it's not about the medium, it's about meaning. Unless you're making a parody gif that's changing the meaning of the snippet it's taken from, the question of fair use is quite dubious. It's still not that safe.

I removed all of the art on my profiles, because none were mine. I have to find art that I know for certain is liable. But is it just me or does this sound harder than hard. Of you find art on the internet, and you track down the artist, they might not have a description saying yes or no, in this circumstance, the only things left to do, is either draw, or play a dolldivine game (which also has to state we can use it.) which also means, I'm down to nothing now, so I am assuming we do without correct?

OK, so, point 1:

Face claims (without permission) have always been against the policy as written. This has been explained, as unless you have permission to use them, they aren't covered under fair use barring a very significant change in meaning of the actual image its self. There is no policy change here... That's just how the policy applies. As we've said, we're not going to go around removing people's face claims, or requiring people to mass delete them from their profiles. But they can be claimed by the copyright holders and if that happens we need to take them down.

And point 2:

We consistently ask people to remain on topic and not to derail threads. Posting "this discussion is pointless" is a pretty severe form of derailing a thread.

regarding the role artists play in prevention:

i think it's important to consider how unpleasant these interactions can potentially be for an artist, if the person is not willing to take the art down or understand their position. such confrontations can deter artists from wanting to take action in future; finding it not worth the stress and anxiety to pursue. this attitude does indeed make the situation worse, i agree, but i'm honestly not surprised at all at how many artists may appear nonchalant about theft, because it's a complacent mentality that has developed from fear and futility. (i know quite a few people who explicitly tell their watchers not to inform them about theft because they'd rather not have to deal with knowing that out there someone is using their characters/etc.) in my opinion, the only proactive way to remedy this is to tackle the root issue, which is the people who mistakenly (remedied with education)/purposefully (prevented with policy) use things that don't belong to them, so that artists won't feel like it's a losing battle to try and defend themselves.

Opposing opinion is invalidated by circumstantial response pertaining to a single instance? None of you are copyright lawyers. Everyone has a right to free speech and expression. That wasn't at all the point I was making. Just as the crying girl has a right to cry (I didn't watch it. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that she's sad.) I have a right to say how I feel, too. It's not self indulgent. Not on HER behalf.

The majority of stock models put themselves out there presumably for traditional artworks, not for writing and fiction. I put out my pictures so people could be inspired by them and implicate them into digital and traditional works. I didn't put my face out there to become a lizard (tiny arms, itchy gizzard..it's so hard to be a lizard.) The debate videos I made, I certainly didn't put out there with that in mind. But my image was used in a transformative way..and it didn't break my heart. That's what this boils down to.

THAT GIRL is not representative of the totality of human existence. She is ONE GIRL. I'm sorry that happened to her, and that she had a bad experience but she does not speak for everyone and those tears are valid.. IN HER SITUATION. Please don't lump ALL PEOPLE who have been used as FC into that. I wasn't asked permission, but I was flattered. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been.

And I do feel that my process is being stifled, so to invalidate me there is silly. Especially when the mods have said repeatedly that the goal of this thread is to gather opinions from all sides. If this is supposed to be a safe space in which to foster and nurture creativity and to boost imagination, it's not cool to tell people the way they imagine is wrong. I'm not going to pay to rp.

I never said that there's anything wrong with having art. To each their own. I never said anyone is less because they have art, or because their writing style is different than mine. It is an oft perpetuated stereotype that those who play canons or use FC are not seasoned writers. That's all I was saying. Skill level has nothing to do with possessions, on either side of the spectrum. I just wanna play!

It's my birthday, and I'm going to go eat some crunchberry cupcakes.

Edit: Nicegirl mittens

Not at all! There's tons of easy resources out there, for free, legal drawings and photographs.

You can actually use Google Image search to find images that are legal for you to re-use on RP profiles, just by changing a few quick options. Here's some info: https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/29508?hl=en

And here's all the resources that were mentioned in the first post (I've tried to clip out ones that aren't free, but as you can see, there's oodles):

Some members have also recommended the use of http://www.morphthing.com/ which lets you combine two photos of faces in ways that probably alter them enough to get you within the fair use guidelines.

I can understand that kind of frustration for sure. I think artists need to know who to turn to - I think asking an offender personally is a courtesy, not a necessity. In RPR's case, I always tell artists to get directly in touch with Kim, not the member, because Kim is ultimately responsible for what is on RPR when she is made aware of the issue. There is also the record keeping which does not necessarily happen if an artist takes care of it themselves. Kim does keep meticulous records, which allows her to deal with repeat offenders more efficiently.

Ultimately a site owner has a ton more power and legal interest in dealing with art theft than an artist does. The consequences from a site owner can also be much more severe to an offender because they risk losing their account(s) versus... well, an upset message from a random artist without the resources for a legal battle.

There is no guarantee of course, but I think that if artists get in touch with the right people and prove they have legal ownership over an image, they will run into rejection less frequently, in turn becoming less discouraged to tackle the problem.

Your interpretation is unfortunately incorrect.

See here: http://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html This is based on the actual law in question (17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use). Note these parts:


As Wikipedia also states about transformation:

You're missing that using still images for a "face claim" -- that is, to represent a new and different character -- IS a change of the original meaning from a movie or TV show, and is transformative.

That's before you get into how much of something is used, or if its use is non-commercial.

Photographs of actual people would obviously be be far more questionable than full published works.

I just wanna say none of my posts are being argumentative or even heated, this is the internet and tone can be confused.

I was going off what you said here Ben.

Nothing about the site rules and policies are changing. Nothing about how we enforce them is changing, until we've had a chance to have an official discussion about it with all of you. Our approach to this matter may change in the future, but it will not happen without a moderator lead consultation, and plenty of warning. We won't, and you don't need to, purge your galleries right this moment.

I understand no one is removing anything by force now, I was meaning in the future if this discussion actually led to that. You said people don't have to purge their galleries right at this moment. Which leads me to think that it could be possible I might have to be forced to purge my galleries in the future. Which if that was the case I would probably do it, I might even do it on my own anyway before hand, I don't actually need face claims. I was mainly bringing up the fact of icons and music in profiles in relation to face claims, in music in particular they link to YouTube videos that have copy-written music on them. While Icons are more likely to have copy-written art or photos or gifs than anything. Maybe those examples are off topic of face claims themselves but they are not off topic for art theft in relation to this site. I was just wondering why were weren't discussing those forms of art theft.

I understand your point of view in keeping the discussion on topic, maybe it just didn't sit well with me telling people not to reply here over their feelings of the futility of this thread. I'm not going to debate on that, there is little point and it's discussion leads to derailment on it's on. I myself don't find this thread pointless. Though I still support someones right to feel that way. This is the last I'll speak of it.

There are documented cases of people being litigated (either legitimately or illegitimately, it still happens) over using content in a different context without changing the content its self.

The codes you're referencing use words like more likely, less likely. Yes, those things are taken into account. As you'll note from the video, the professional lawyers who's jobs it is are to interpret these codes, state that the most important part of the definition is the first: whether or not the content is in fact transformative. They do disclaim that the video is not to be taken as legal advice, but they do provide their professional opinions. They state very clearly that although non-profit uses are taken into consideration, they are not a one-way ticket to immunity from copyright law.

The problem is we're getting into complex legal arguments that happen in a courtroom. It is a stretch at best to argue that using an image on RPR profile is transformative fair use, especially because the most leniency in cases of fair use are given to works of parody and criticism, which RP profiles are not. It would be an uphill battle. A battle that RPR does not have the resources to fight.

Hey Dingoz,

Thanks for clarifying your position, and I'm sorry if you felt like I jumped down your throat a little there!

I definitely see where you're coming from. I didn't mean to suggest that it would happen in the future. I just can't outright say that things won't change in some way, you know? It is very unlikely, that anyone, ever, is going to be forced by the mod team to purge their galleries. We just don't have the resources to enforce something like that fairly, and as has been mentioned, this is a place for creativity, openness, and trust.

You do make some good points about the quagmire we get into when it comes to copyrighted content on profiles. That's why we generally stick to a 'if it gets reported we look at it' policy, and really are very unlikely to change that.

I do also hear you, and the people who are frustrated with the thread. I'm very sorry it's been frustrating. But it's also frustrating for me to see people knocking on a thread that has proven useful for a number of other community members.

No, it's not a stretch at all. There are four legal aspects of fair use when we condense it down:

1. Purpose and character of using the original work.
2. The nature of the original work; i.e. if it is creative or not.
3. How much of the original work is used, and what sort of quality.
4. Effect of the use upon the potential market of the original work.

So yes, I am going to argue against you on this.

Using say, a still image from a TV show to represent an entirely new character is a) non-commercial, b) transformative, c) not using more than a fraction of the original work (and not a portion that could be considered "the heart" of the work), and d) not negatively affecting the market of the original work.

There's only one case where this would be a stretch, and that's in playing canon characters who are just like the original -- the use is not transformative in that instance, it's a carbon copy.

Note this part of what I previously linked you on copyright.gov:

"Additionally, 'transformative' uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character..."

So "transformative" can be distilled into, "is the work being used to add something new?"

The matter of transformative uses are heavily documented to be the most important aspect of determining fair use. The thing is, RPR profiles are not: education, critique, or parody. Those uses enjoy the most leniency under fair use. While you technically CAN argue that an RP profile is transformative, it will not be as widely protected because it is none of those things.

It is a much, much harder case to make. You're right. You can argue with me about this. But it's not a strong case to build, and if RPR gets a DMCA notice we have no other option than to honour it, because RPR profiles are not clearly protected cases of fair use and have no specific precedent. As far as we know. It would be very interesting to find a lawyer who can chime in about this very issue.

Let's look at a few relevant cases too (http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/):

Fair use. The painter, Richard Prince, created a collage using — in one collage — 35 images from a photographer’s book. The artist also used 28 of the photos in 29 additional paintings. In some instances the full photograph was used while in others, only the main subject of the photo was used. Important Factors. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that to qualify as a transformative use, Prince’s work did not have to comment on the original photographer’s work (or on popular culture). The Court of Appeals concluded that twenty-five of Prince’s artworks qualified as fair use and remanded the case to determine the status of the remaining five artworks. Cariou v. Prince, No. 11-1197 (2d Cir. 2013)

Fair Use. An author created a parody of the surfer-thriller, Point Break. The court found the work to be sufficiently transformative to justify fair use of the underlying movie materials. At issue in this case was the more novel issue of whether the resulting parody could itself be protected under copyright. The Second Circuit held that if the author of the unauthorized work provide sufficient original material and is otherwise qualified under fair use rules, the resulting work will be protected under copyright. Keeling v. Hars, No. 13-694 (2d Cir. 2015).

There's more that you can read, but suffice to say my interpretation would seem to be correct.

Something original must be added to make using a work transformative, and there is no good reason for RPR to crack down on original characters. What you should be looking at is using images of a character to play that character. It's the same reason fan fiction has been of questionable legality, because it is using established characters instead of original ones (derivative more than transformative).

That's not to say that RPR shouldn't enforce DMCA claims, but RPR should primarily concern itself with non-transformative (as in unoriginal) use of copyrighted material otherwise.