I am on half term this week (teacher) so wanted to spend a day or 2 working one one while I sit and watch the last series of breaking bad :p
y3mbailey wrote:Purplebullets
It is 6 main layers for each colour but then about 8 more small little stencils to do a few overlaps and overlays that would not have worked otherwise... the biggest issue tbh was lining up each individual stencil.
Many thanks for the kind words
I have sent you a PM you can choose a bullet pattern to work on for my next one
This is really cool I think my fave part about it is i didnt notice the faint second square the first time i looked at it but it adds an incredible layer of depth. Great Stuff604_degrees wrote:Cool artwork, man! If you don't mind, here is some of my stuff*...
...which is the shmup-inspired installation Danmappu: hand-crafted animation mapped with a projector onto 24x24 canvas:
https://vimeo.com/72599287
http://opacity.ru/danm-ppu
* which I didn't hava a chance to share anywere but in shmup-art related post.
Lol, true enough. But it never hurts to be careful.PurpBullets wrote:If this got taken to court it would be laughed the fuck out. They could not get y3mbailey on anything...
It is altered enough to not be criminal in any way. Even if it was, worst case scenario? They try to send a C&D?
Raizing is no more, but they were absorbed into Eighting, which still very much exists. I seriously doubt they would care in the slightest, but it is reasonable to assume that they may have inherited the copyright. Plus, technically speaking even non-profit work is violation. Fanart of any kind is a legal gray area, yet nobody takes action because it has proliferated to such an extent that it would be totally unreasonable to do so.PurpBullets wrote:Softdrink117, you are worried about nothing in your case. Although, your art profession is serious business, (so you taking those measures is wise) but you already answered your own question.
Non-profit, as simple as that. +raizing is no more, print yourself some shirts.
They're not really that different. I literally created the vectors by overlaying a pixel grid on screenshots from the games. Are they pixel-accurate to the originals? Not at all, that would look lame (believe me, I tried). But since it originated as essentially a trace, legal precedent suggests that it would be interpreted as an infringement on the original copyright. I do, however, plan to get them printed, at least for personal use so that I can include them in my portfolio. And wear them. When I do, I'll raise the issue with my design professors, and ask what they think. I know that there is some interest in the community in these designs, and I'd love to make them available if I can do so-- even if no money comes to my pocket for it.PurpBullets wrote:EDIT: Actually, looking at your photos softdrink... Yours is altered as well.
You could totally use that.
This is exactly the issue. I thought when he said stencil, he meant he made a stencil for each bullet type and laid them out individually to resemble that pattern. There's a difference between manually laying the picture out to closely resemble a danmaku pattern and simply copying it from a screenshot you found in a Google search. That's not 'inspired by' Zun, that's just a trace job with paint. Sure, it looks pretty, but that's mostly thanks to ZUN to begin with. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily think stuff like this where ZUN's characters sell merch without him likely seeing a cent is much better, but at least they do more interesting/original stuff with the designs in the fanworks.Softdrink 117 wrote:I think most of the discussion in this thread arose from the fact that you said you were only "inspired" by the patterns whereas this really is more of an outright copy.
Yeah, without properly attributing the original source, i.e. the screenshot you literally copied piece for piece. Basically, all you're doing is taking a picture and painting it in another medium without actually crediting the original picture. If you had actually cared about crediting the original 'inspiration' you would've posted at least posted the screenshot you used .I have taken a screen and copied it into a different medium.... that is kind of the point
You must be new to this whole literacy thing. This was posted near the top of the Facebook link on that page - the gallery apparently pulled all of his work pretty much immediately.& That had no resolution, that guy was able to legally vectorize those pictures, and nobody could do shit to him.
You have no insight about art or its complexity.BareknuckleRoo wrote:Sorry, but I think art is as much about the process of making it as it is the about the end result. It looks too much like it's been simply copied from the screenshot to be brushed off as 'inspired'.
PurpBullets wrote:You have no insight about art or its complexity.
y3mbailey clearly stated to everyone that it was from "Perfect Cherry Blossom"
Same.chum wrote:Personally I'm only bothered by the inclusion of the FPS counter, the timer, and the (blurred out) spellcard text.
This word you are all berating him for using? Does not actually mean what you think it means.in·spired
adjective
1.
aroused, animated, or imbued with the spirit to do something, by or as if by supernatural or divine influence: an inspired poet.
2.
resulting from such inspiration: an inspired poem; an inspired plan.
3.
inhaled: inspired air.
To that end, then, is Warhol's use OK because it's a mass marketed item with a recognizable appearance?
Warhol wasn't exactly running around screaming "it's a Campbell's can!" or "it's Marilyn Monroe".
Should the artist have posted the original photo with attribution?
If you grew up in the back woods somewhere without Campbell's or Marilyn Monroe, and were shown Andy Warhol's work in a book, should it always be paired up with what it was derived from or attributed?
I wish this were a simple question.
Obviously I'm not saying a screenshot is the same as professional photography, but this is still an issue of properly crediting your sources.Name the photographer that took the Marlyn Monroe photo he's famous for using in his prints. I'm a fine arts major and I didn't even know. Hell even googling it I found it hard to find the name of the photographer who took the original photo. As much as I'm sure photographers would love to say this is different, it's not. Gene Korman the photographer was never paid because of laws protecting contemporary artists. Here's a long boring law article about it skip to section 3.1.2 http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/ ... torsen.asp
