Sign in to follow this  
20s

Second Life ''Art''? Morphing/Stealing etc.

Recommended Posts

I feel like it's just me that's against most of the ''art'' in Second Life. 

After visiting some galleries and photography shops, it's clear that people consider themselves pro when they steal images from DeviantArt and sell them in their galleries for ridiculous prices, along with all the other art they didn't make.

Morphing, takes away from the real life model and photographer, and most of the time would be considered stealing, depending on the photograph.

I think it's just silly how people on Second Life have absolutely NO consideration for the real artists, who actually put in time and effort. It's degrading.

And what's worse is that there's nothing that can be done about it.

 

Thoughts? Opinions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get to know the artist here before you buy their work.  If you find someone selling art that you recognize from the exterior world, then notify the real artist yourself.  If they feel they should be entitled to revenue, or if they would like to stop the counterfeiter, they may follow-up.  Here is the link to file a report on mis-use of unique creations: DMCA: Digital Millenium Copyright Act

As for morphing or altering work to avoid detection, that process is subject to review if questioned.  Creators should maintain some history of their process if their work is "derivative" or if it is a "deviation" of existing work, because the process of deviation may or may not justify the finished work as unique. 

I've collected unique art here in SL from contemporary artists who share enough information about themselves to validate their work.  As for buying classics and masterpieces, it might be fair to pay a price that reflects the effort of the SL creator for the presentation, including frame and use of a script to provide internal lighting on the prim.  Personally, i think creators should include as much info as space allows to note the original artist and the name of gallery or museum where it is permanently installed.  In this sense, the reproductions here may encourage some to view art in the external world. 

However, i share your disappointment that anyone would rip off a living artist, or deviate their work into a prim for sale.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy art here on Second Life, I tend to make my own. There's so many people doing it, though, it would be quite hard to follow-up on it all. Maybe some of these people did get permission from the original artist, I don't know. It just seems unlikely for someone to allow another person to sell their art, for their own benefit. I thought morphing wouldn't be allowed at all, unless it was your own photo, or a stock image, and even with a stock image you usually have to credit the person who made it in the first place. Yet people use the bodies of well-known models and such. I just feel that Second Life should have more strict rules on what you can and cannot use. I just feel like I'm going around in circles with this whole idea of what people are doing. 

Anyway, it's nice to hear someone's thoughts. Much appreciated input. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not just you, I would be happy if most of the "morph" photos could wanish over night. Its not just ugly, some of them are scary! I've seen some amazing works, photographers that use stock photos for morphs and give credits but its so rare thats actually sad. The majority of so called morph artists just cut out the face of an avi and put it over some rl photo. Then sell for ridiculous price! No credits because they probably don't even remember where they found it. 

I use stock photos, brushes and all kinds of resources and I always try to credit the person who made it. 

The problem is that people who buy morphs are not aware they're buying a stolen work. Ok theres another problem, in liking that work, I have no idea how someone can like that! I guess its like that down lips trend, and I hope it will vanish soon:)

What can be doone is to say its ugly and move away. No discussion, no attention, just go away and focus on quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea I completely agree. It is quite ridiculous from what I can see, although maybe it's because I came here thinking the art would be genuine for the most part. Apparently not.

the photos that people morph on are also obviously a lot more realistic than a drawing from scratch. Which kind of puts me in a bad position as a person who's art is digital drawings.

Meh. I dunno. Maybe I'll figure something out to fit in a bit better as an artist :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of content in SL is flat out stolen. Most non-clothing mesh is. Some textures are stolen. Use of trademarked names, too (just search for any popular movie, book or game...) A lot of gestures can at best be called "derivative". I know of no DJ that pays royalties in SL. "Tribute Bands"... don't get me started.

It is what it is... sad, but apparently human nature, as disgusting and filthy as it is.

The issue as a consumer is that it's nearly impossible to figure out exactly what is stolen and what isn't. I've fallen for stolen content a few times. It's not fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate morphs. Like especially skin makers who morph a face of their model onto a real life model. God, that's SO tacky. But I dislike morphs because they take away from SL. So I see plenty of photographs on flickr of a face morphed (sometimes poorly) and then passed off as a SL photograph which I think...makes it no longer a photograph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a person agrees that copying, altering, making things your own is human nature, then how can those behaviours be in the same breath called disgusting and filthy?  In a larger sense, and I would like you to consider this morally not just legally, is it not absolutely none of our business to judge other people for doing whatever they want to do with pixels, words, sounds? If they do it well, congratulations, if badly - congratulations too!  It's better to do it badly than not at all!

 A lot of people who are reading these words right now might gasp and find that you agree, even if before you supported the impositions of copyright, since this great injustice of our time is always presented as though it was something progressive that "finally" gives artists their due consideration. Everyone knows that there ARE scary impositions, copyright being just a facet of the post-industrial attempt to privatize and capitalize the inner world of Man entirely, but since we're all-singing, all-dancing and everyone's getting paid, it's somehow alright to do it with no ecological or cultrual, root considerations.

We seem to be entering a worrying age of Copyright Puritanism, wherein the twisted, anti-natural and anti-human capitalistic morality of the select few is foist onto everybody indiscriminately, and then is violently enforced. Including with peer pressure and indoctrination. Questioning the underpinnings of the whole thing is clearly supposed to become culturally taboo very soon if it isn't already.

People are making crap!  So what!?

I feel that a good bit of advice would be to just ...Relax! Do your thing.  Don't be so insecure and feel so arty-farty entitled all the time, and above all,  just keep humping! 

Some of the greatest works of art in existence are anonymous, not because time erased the famous name, or a crazy genius forgot to sign his creation so his dull + demanding family could get the royalty cheque every month after he's gone; but rather because the highest forms of genius are intimately connected to God, Source - whatever you prefer to call this, and in that realm ALL creativity pours out anonymous, unlimited, and free. 

So you get a situation where the greater someone's ambition, the more intricate and powerful the work they do, the less inclined they are to ever put their pathetic "authorship name" onto it. Real artists don't need you to recognize their person, they need you to recognize the meaning, the power in their work. Does this make sense to some people?  It does to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be true, but from what I've seen, people have galleries full of art, made from various artists on DA, not just one, which is, obviously stolen. It's everywhere, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's reasonable to judge people for doing it when it comes to morphing and stealing art. As an artist who's art has been stolen on several occasions, it's quite hard not to judge these people. I don't think it's fair that people can just do whatever they wish without permission, especially when it belongs to someone else.

I agree about the last part you mentioned, but people these days make a living from their art, it's what they rely on to survive in some cases, so for some people it's important that they can get recognised in order to increase their income.

Thanks for the opinion, though.

 

(Apologies if I'm not making much sense, English is not my first language and sometimes confuses me)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if a persons name shows up when a person DMCA's someone? Also, can a persons IP address still be found via some inworld means? I do know that there was a big TOS change when the Red Zone thingy was around. So, not sure if people still can do it...but, these people may not be plaugurists but may  have beefs against the person.

IP Address might help with expoloits into thier PC, and obviously no need for any of that if a DMCA has the owners name and adress on it! They can find the person and continue harrasment.

I don't harrass people or spend my time reading up on hacks to hurt or theif ect. So...not sure. Just a paranoid thought, not saying anyone is. Though to say harrassment is non existing in the world...well, that is a stretch!

EDIT: oh, also. The morphs may look odd to some, but prim hair does look odd up close! I am not sure what images they use for those, but they can easily get images with those clip art collections and the only stipulatin is not to use the persons face and claim that person endorses something or whatever else...well, SOME have restrictions like that. If you replace the face with an avatar, no problems with using that image! No theft. Besides, some of the most famous images you have seen are manipulated! Even Ansel Adams was no stranger to the dark room and dodge and burn. Yes boys and girls, those tools are named after dark room techniques used back in the time before digital cameras.

For instance. NASA images! Those images we saw decades ago did NOT look like that when NASA 'shot' them, they where much duller and boring. They have artists do all that coloring and composing ect. before they are released, as far as I can remember. The milk in those cereal box adds....it's glue! I remember seeing this way back on TV lol. Now, you can easily select the milk and recolor it in image editing programs, but back then they didn't want to waste thier time recoloring so they fixed it right in the scene.

Uh...yeah, way to much info. TL;DR, right? lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading some of the post regarding The Sl morph pics and if it's considered stealing... Not to say that I don't understand some of your points of view. However I don't think I'd agree with what most of you consider stealing especially as it relates to morphs. In the case of Morph pics, the one thing that places value on a celebrity picture that's been used for a morph is the celebrity face itself. Magazine, gossip columns etc. Are not interested in Back grounds, Body's etc. they are interested in capturing the face of that famous celebrity, because that's what the general public is interested in when they see the photograph, this is why Magazine companies etc. are especially critical about who they allow to grace the cover of their Magazines. Wehn a Morph is done, most of the Sl photographers are simply utilizing the body shot or a particular background for their image...infact it's not much different from many of the Sl cloths prints that maby of you freely purchase without thought or regard to the actual clothes designers who's patterns you glady wear and purchase without regards to their real life work. Those Patterns and Logos are Copywritten works as well, not to mention all of the music that you listen to in SL... eventhough many of you enjoy listening to them in the Sl clubs and on your radios stations.. very few of the Dj's in SL who spin them or radio stations who play them, do not have a lisence which is something that is needed in order to have permission to play their music...Because by obtaining a lisence ACAP, BMI and other song composer associations are able to monitor and keep track of each artists music. And due to Licennse fees the artist is then able to be compensated for their Mechanical royalties... which is a Royalty paid to record companies and artist for any kind of air-play their song recieves. to give you another example, hip-hop music has always been one to reuse sampled music of songs that were already established and copywritten, and for many years noting was done or said because it was usually merged with other musical compositions which in many ways made it differ from it's original state., infact the only way they could actually sue in the case of a song is if, that song still has the original hook or some kind of original music line played in it's entirety...but if the song as been chopped and screwed , many times it's very difficult for artist to sue because the song strays so far from it's original state. Some of you may remember "Vanilla Ice" had this same problem when he was accused of stealing the music he used for "Ice-Ice Baby" , however because their was a slight difference in the Base line, of his song the law suit did not work... and trust me the difference was very subtle.

             Even if you notice todays movies, when they do remakes, they have to obtain permission and licenses to reproduce it, evnthough it may have subtle difference, how ever the chracters and some of the original lines in the scripts remain the same therefor entitling the Original fims directors, producers, writers etc. rights to royalties.. However...In the case a movie may have taken it's direction and concept from an exsisting movie, but has completely different characters and scripts...eventhough it's obvious it is a spin off of what ever the movie is they copied it from... it is legal because it's using different content.

In like Manner, the same can easily be said about the morphs... Many times the direction or the tone and concept of teh Morph pic may have been inspired and or used by the original photograph, but because the Face is completely altered and sometimes even certain aspects of the background such as lighting etc...this changes things  a bit, because the images being sold in tis case is not the original works from the photographer... it would have no value to that photographer or artist due to the fact the image itself has been completely altered.

 In short i guess what I am trying to say is... I'm all for artist recieving their just due especially if something is actually illegal.. however, it's like anything else, if you want respect for phtographers then the same needs to be said about Musical artist who's music is being used, and for allof the gestures that use copywritten samples etc. from movies and songs, as well as the many fashions made into Sl versions for Sl but are basically created from Rl fashion patterns , logos etc. And if you bann allof that, then you'll pretty much be stuck with a dry and dead SL, you might wanna think about that before you go stirring up trouble! that's just my oppinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my oppinion it's a matter of preference, I personally like alot of morphs I've seen, but soemthign can be said about some of the ugly Avis that get morphed if anything... because as you stated before all a morph is; Is a avatar face placed over top a Rl pic... So inactuallity whats' ugly would be the Avatar itself...lol I' just saying. And for the record, I've seen some really good morhp artist and photographers in here, and due to all of the Liquifying they do and painting etc. soem of them deserve a little more credit than you're giving them. But again I guess that's a matter of opinion. People like different things just as they do with hair styles and fashion in here and personally I don't see why people like yourself make such an issue of a Make believe world anyways, one of the things that make Sl , Sl is the fact you can look, be and do almost anything you want, it's supposed to be an escape from RL... So why do so many of you try to bring all of these RL polotics i here... SMH! I'm not arguing or fussing at you because you're entitled to your opinion just as I am, but it's just kinda annoying when people like you act like just because you don't like something it should be done away with... I am very sure you've got some clothes, Music or something  that others feel just as strong about, but they allow you to be you and enjoy what makes SL fun for you, I just think you ought to try doing the same. Again, not mad just basing my opinion on your comment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this