3 minutes ago, bsmith23 said:

Lurking the thread, but...

You had me at Barqs Red Creme Soda.

Do they still make it in Diet?

No idea. I can’t get it where I currently live, but had a work trip in November to someplace I knew it’s sold. Co-worker and I walked about a mile to each buy me a 12-pack on our expense money and bring home. I’ve still got a full 12-pack thanks to my rationing. 😁

Stan Fresh

do you work for Sony? you seem to get fair use as well as they do

but yes its fair use in fact he has made some of the ONLY art out there for some star wars ships that are talked about in books

1 hour ago, Stan Fresh said:

Yes, the design.

I think you're mixing two things here. Allowing fans to cross a boundary doesn't mean that fans aren't crossing that boundary.

Actually, yes, it does. Fan artists have Lucasfilm’s written permission and active support (through, among other things, sponsored contests) to make their fan art so long as they don’t try and sell it. Thus, there is no legal boundary being crossed.

44 minutes ago, Oldmike1 said:

you seem to get fair use as well as they do

*tangential rant*

Holy crap, Sony is the absolute worst for having to deal with fair use! In doing the Video Nasty Project , I've had studios lay claim to my monetization through copyright claims despite my show being a 100% fair use slam dunk. That sucks, but I can live with it (plus my show is small enough that I might make 2 or 3 cents - if I'm lucky). Some studios - Arrow Video, Shout Factory - are pretty good about "Whoops, that's clearly an error! We'll release the claim right away!"

Sony, on the other hand are onerous mutherfers. They blocked the video for Happy Birthday to Me nearly world wide - the only studio to do that. Fine, pillage my money, I don't really care about that - the VNP is strictly a hobby for me. But blocking the video on every continent other than like Guam and Antarctica? That's BS.

I've not had to deal with them, but I understand that Lionsgate is also a stone cold bee-atch to regards to fair use.

1 hour ago, Desslok said:

Video Nasty Project ,

I just subscribed to your channel and watched the Hills Have Eyes episode. Fun stuff!

1 hour ago, RLogue177 said:

I just subscribed to your channel and watched the Hills Have Eyes episode. Fun stuff!

If you go back and watch the early episodes, be gentle. We were still getting used to this whole "podcasting" thing, so they're a little a lot rough. We're much better now!

10 hours ago, Oldmike1 said:

Stan Fresh

do you work for Sony? you seem to get fair use as well as they do

How much are you paid to spread disinformation?

10 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Actually, yes, it does. Fan artists have Lucasfilm’s written permission and active support (through, among other things, sponsored contests) to make their fan art so long as they don’t try and sell it. Thus, there is no legal boundary being crossed.

If you follow the conversation, you'll see that the exchange was about whether the fan artist was using someone else's work as basis for their own art. THAT is the boundary being crossed.

7 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

If you follow the conversation, you'll see that the exchange was about whether the fan artist was using someone else's work as basis for their own art. THAT is the boundary being crossed.

I hate to break the news to you but every artist does that. Whether they use a model, to model a person. or someone 3d render, or whatever. In order to meet the deadlines they have they are going to take short cuts. Some of them are more egregious than others. I mean copying entire comic frames is insane. drawing over a 3d render of a vehicle to put into a composition is not so bad.

10 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

I hate to break the news to you but every artist does that. Whether they use a model, to model a person. or someone 3d render, or whatever. In order to meet the deadlines they have they are going to take short cuts. Some of them are more egregious than others. I mean copying entire comic frames is insane. drawing over a 3d render of a vehicle to put into a composition is not so bad.

I'm aware. I wasn't suggesting that they don't?

9 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

If you follow the conversation, you'll see that the exchange was about whether the fan artist was using someone else's work as basis for their own art. THAT is the boundary being crossed.

That’s not a boundary, and certainly a legal nor ethical one. The legal and ethical boundary is profiting from it or causing the loss of profit by the IP owner through your work through copyright infringement. If the IP holder allows artists to produce their works and display them (at no profit, or for profit under license) no boundary is being crossed.

28 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That’s not a boundary, and certainly a legal nor ethical one. The legal and ethical boundary is profiting from it or causing the loss of profit by the IP owner through your work through copyright infringement. If the IP holder allows artists to produce their works and display them (at no profit, or for profit under license) no boundary is being crossed.

I'm not gonna debate you on what a conversation I was having with someone else was about.

21 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

I'm not gonna debate you on what a conversation I was having with someone else was about.

What if that other person wasn’t having the same conversation you thought you were having, either?

(Sorry...had to use the little Zabrak’s room. I’m gonna head back out to the veranda now.)

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

What if that other person wasn’t having the same conversation you thought you were having, either?

That's being generous, calling it a conversation when the rebuttal generally consist of "Nuhuh!"

(Sorry, needed to top off the ice in my Manhattan. I'll close the door behind me.)

30 minutes ago, Desslok said:

That's being generous, calling it a conversation when the rebuttal generally consist of "Nuhuh!"

(Sorry, needed to top off the ice in my Manhattan. I'll close the door behind me.)

Oh hey, lies. Cool cool cool.

53 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Oh hey, lies. Cool cool cool.

Oh hey, skipping the legitimate point about the participants not really discussing the same thing. Cooler cooler cooler.

(Forgot my towel for the hot tub.)

3 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Oh hey, skipping the legitimate point about the participants not really discussing the same thing. Cooler cooler cooler.

(Forgot my towel for the hot tub.)

After you threw a hissyfit and declared the conversation over for you, you're not owed a response anymore.

I responded to the other comment because it's an outright lie about me.

You know, "leaving the conversation" works better when you don't keep coming back...

25 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

After you threw a hissyfit and declared the conversation over for you, you're not owed a response anymore.

I responded to the other comment because it's an outright lie about me.

Considering we now know that we weren’t having the same conversation after all....

16 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

You know, "leaving the conversation" works better when you don't keep coming back...

True enough.

(Closing the door from outside so the sound from inside doesn’t distract anymore. Say, @Desslok , we need a freezer out here so we don’t have to keep going inside to get ice cream. I feel like having a Creme soda float.)

I'm not a copyright expert or pretend to know everything. However, the entire aspect of it seems dicey from both sides. Sure, maybe the artist did use the fan made content as reference for their art?...but it's of something that already exists within the Star Wars universe, should the fan really be recreating that and claiming they own the art?

I actually despise how in the video (and I am not going to hide that I have a problem with Ecks negativity in general, one of the reasons I unsubbed from him ages back) Eck says "Oh, this was taken from Attack of The clones, that's okay." Oh..so THAT'S okay is it? So cutting corners is okay so long as its done a particular way.

I don't doubt both sides of this is messed up, but right now neither side are also getting no sympathy from me.

Professional commercial artist/designer who has worked with businesses both big and small here:

1. From a legal perspective, you're rolling the dice with fan art. American copyright law is grossly weighted to benefit the financial bottom line of corporate America. That said, 99.9% of businesses don't care if you make unlicensed art because they view it as free advertising. But if you want to sell it for money, you'll have to do it under the table or else a lawyer will probably bust you. My friends who have tried to sell Harry Potter handkerchiefs (or whatever) on Etsy always end up with C&D orders.
2. Judges view these on a case-by-case basis. Just because one artist won a judgement doesn't mean another judge won't rule in the favor of a faceless corporation. Even a SCOTUS case precedent can be ignored by clever lawyers.
3. Fine artists get away with using corporate IPs because they're commenting on what the intellectual property represents. Andy Warhol didn't paint soup cans because he was a big fan of Campbell's soup. If you wanted to sell a painting of a child's bedroom with Star Wars figures on the floor, that's totally fine, because the theme of the painting isn't Star Wars, it's childhood.
4. As an example of how litigious this stuff can get, my current employer won't allow any of its design team to use free Internet resources, like music clips made in Garage Band, because it could open the company up to a usage lawsuit. Only licensed stock images/videos/audio from vendors are allowed.

I personally feel that American IP laws are disgusting, stifle both creativity and culture, and should be changed as they only benefit people who don't need more money. Corporations like Disney keep pressuring Congress to extend copyright protections way past the original expiration dates. Walt Disney has been dead for decades and doesn't have a reasonable cause to continue collecting on his work. But that's the world we live in.

Is it scummy to steal fan art? Yes. But that's the risk you're taking as a fan artist. That's a big reason why I encourage people to push their creativity and make something new *OR* work to become a preferred hire for the IP holder.

Apparently, The Art of The Rise of Skywalker includes concept art for Sith Destroyers that are also FractalSponge ISD models, with red stripes added to the outer edges. He's said that he's aware his models have been used internally at LFL for concept art before, and he's fine with that...it's all internal, and they're grabbing a model that they found and doctoring it for an early idea during the creative process...no biggie. This time, though, it's been included in a published book without even credit to him for composing the model; if any credit was given, it was to the LFL artist who added the stripes.

Just wondering, does he credit the designers of all the vehicles and logos and other bits of SW design language he uses in his images?

Because when I look at this artstation and his personal page, I don't see any credits to the original designers on there.