Dies_to_Doom_Blade tried to sell altered foil cards that violate the rights of the copyright holders. He'll be back in a week.
Obviously, I'm not here to stir up trouble, but what is the current staff position on altered MTG artworks and what is the general user's position on altered MTG artwork? I don't recall reading anything regarding this in rianalnn's 2011 subforum thread or the Forum Rules.
What should the position be?
Selling altered-artwork cards is not a good idea, as part of the card's supposedly increased value comes from the fact that it is altered. However, is simply altering a card illegal under 17 U.S.C. 106 and the U.S. Copyright Act? Is there a provision via the fair use doctrine (which includes parodies)?
If altering cards is illegal, and to be consistent with the suspension of the user above and anyone who has suffered similarly, wouldn't an implication relevant to the forums be discussion of altered artworks is therefore prohibited?
Interesting catch. I know many users here alter cards for cash or trade, and others sell or trade already altered cards. I'd be curious to hear some more details on this; I'm sure it's an odd situation and that there's a good reason behind it.
Define "Altering" or "Alter" please. Before you do that this conversation will be pointless. I see people argue about this only to realize after a few days that one person is talking about hand painted alteration and someone else is talking about a basic island with a foil sticker of Tundra pasted on top... those are such different activities that it causes confusion.
Define "Altering" or "Alter" please. Before you do that this conversation will be pointless. I see people argue about this only to realize after a few days that one person is talking about hand painted alteration and someone else is talking about a basic island with a foil sticker of Tundra pasted on top... those are such different activities that it causes confusion.
Ah hah. I'm guessing this case was closer to the latter than the former?
Define "Altering" or "Alter" please. Before you do that this conversation will be pointless.
Are you insisting that I limit the scope of this discussion?
Would you care to try to define 'altering' and 'alter', please?
What test will you use to determine the significance of the alteration?
I see people argue about this only to realize after a few days that one person is talking about hand painted alteration and someone else is talking about a basic island with a foil sticker of Tundra pasted on top...
How ridiculous.
I remembered that you are an art capital-P professor (or simply a lecturer or something) at a university, so you must be aware of there being the law and art, as in, for instance, collages or altered artworks. In light of that, your opinion would be more substantial than the average lay user.
How very strange. I can't access the trade thread that Dies_to_Doom_Blade must have posted, so I don't know how he(/she) altered his(/her) cards. Did you delete this?
Are you insisting that I limit the scope of this discussion?
Would you care to try to define 'altering' and 'alter', please?
What test will you use to determine the significance of the alteration?
I remembered that you are an art capital-P professor (or simply a lecturer or something), so you must be aware of there being the law and art, as in, for instance, collages or altered artworks.
How very strange. I can't access the trade thread that Dies_to_Doom_Blade must have posted, so I don't know how he(/she) altered his(/her) cards. Did you delete this?
Absolutely I want to limit it. 20 people will have 20 different ideas about what "altered MTG cards" means and 8 of them will be legal, 8 illegal, and 4 will think you are secretly trying to sell them weed.
In this case the guy was selling some real cards that had foil stickers applied on top that were reproductions of copyrighted imagery.
Just saying in passing, as a comment: oh, those stickers, not these:
...
Well, selling cards altered in that manner might be considered misleading and deceptive. Fair do's.
However, what of cards with altered artwork, (actually) altered in other manners? It is these cards that pique an interest into an inconsistency in protecting the interests of the forum, or moderation.
Those stickers do not contain copyrighted material, so those would be fine.
Well, selling cards altered in that manner might be considered misleading and deceptive. Fair do's.
However, what of cards with altered artwork, (actually) altered in other manners? It is these cards that pique an interest into an inconsistency in protecting the interests of the forum, or moderation.
This part... I don't understand what any of this means. Can you rephrase that?
I really wasn't narrowing anything so much as making sure we could answer your question.
If I were to alter a card, but still used images I didn't own (like hand-drawing Chandra on a card), and then decided to sell it, that would be illegal, correct? Would I be able to use that card for my own use legally?
First off, thank you. In the immediate, for your overwhelming response to my copyright infringement thread, which finally got things moving. In alwaystime, thank you for being an amazing group of fun, smart, supportive people. I love Magic even more for the community than the game itself. And I'm right up there with the best of them, when it comes to spending way too much time playing.
There were some questions raised in the thread about alterations that I didn't get a chance to answer before trolls killed it. Legality, ethics, copyright. So here are my thoughts. Some objective, some opinion.
I've seen mixed feelings about the validity of an alterist as an artist. Just my personal opinion on them: I'm a fan. I buy their work. I think the alterist deserves credit as an artist, a craftsman, and most of all as a student of art. After all, they're honoring a piece of work they admire by attempting to extrapolate more onto it. I see it as an active form of study. The alterist is examining the unique way the original card artist approaches composition, texture, color scheme, etc. Then applying what they've learned. That's being an artist.
Should they sign their work? I think so. The part they altered is their work. And some alters are quite creative and skilled. I find it an appropriate courtesy to also leave the original artist's name, and a company's copyright info if applicable.
Can they sell their work? Now we get into the legal stuff.
Hand-painted alters. These, by most legal definitions, are usually kosher to create and sell. As the owner of the card, what happens to it is up to you. If you paint on it, it is now a canvas for your original work. And as a physical, original, and unique work of art, it actually falls under free speech. Which is protected, and (typically) not subject to copyright law. So while there are some things that'll still get you in trouble on that front, this is pretty open to whatever you want to do.
However, if you scan it, any reproductions would be subject to much sticky copyright law.
And to complicate things, even "reproducing" the art online, as in posting it, is a befuddled headache of grey area.
Printed alters of original work. These can be okay. But the big caveat is that it must be 100% your work. Not derived or modified from another artist's work. And nothing copyrighted or trademarked. So, your own character, drawn yourself, or by someone you contracted, bearing no copyrighted markings or logos, is probably okay. But download a Baneslayer Angel and giver her devil wings - that's derivative, and infringing on Wizard's property. Paint your very own Phage the Untouchable, print it out on a bunch of cards and throw it up on eBay, that's still a no-no. It's your work, but Wizard's character. (Fan art is not exempt from copyright. But it's a common misconception.) And you'd technically even be in trouble if they had a mana symbol tattooed on their head. Because those are registered trademarks.
Now, before we start arguing fair-use and parody: This is all just basic guidelines. Alters using copyrighted characters or trademarks could fall under fair-use and/or parody. But they're a little tricky in reality, and so you should either know the definitions and precedence well, or just stay on the safe side of things.
Hand-painted, then scanned and printed alters. Usually not okay. Unless you've literally used the card as a canvas, and covered everything with original work. Otherwise, what remains is still copyrighted.
Digitally altered and printed. I've kind of covered above. It's derivative, and therefore not kosher.
So there are some of my thoughts on altering cards. I encourage folks to try putting the brush to some cards for themselves. It's fun, it makes your deck more interesting and unique.
Those stickers do not contain copyrighted material, so those would be fine.
Um, well, obviously not.
This is the not the actual topic of discussion, you must realize.
This part... I don't understand what any of this means. Can you rephrase that?
I really wasn't narrowing anything so much as making sure we could answer your question.
Due respect, I do not appreciate this tried and trued approach and attitude that is part and parcel of MTGS. I see it in discussions and debates to which staff users and non-staff users alike are partisan.
The final line, "I really wasn't narrowing anything so much as making sure we could answer your question.", is telling. This isn't my question and it certainly isn't a personal thing; this is an issue that concerns the forum at large. Moreover, the choice of "answer" is interesting, as there is no simple answer with which to adequately respond to and dispense of this issue. In fact, "answer" suggests to me that this is something that is done not as a matter of fact but as a matter of form. The questions raised are to stimulate an honest dialogue and discussion, which might be rather refreshing, and not to seek answers.
That aside, the issues at hand are these:
What is the current policy and understanding of alters of staff and of other users?
What should be the policy and understanding of alters?
Alters or altered-artwork cards, in these questions, refer to cards that are altered (plain English definition, so that encompasses 'hand[-]painted alteration[s]').
The thread is of a multifarious nature. Though I do not agree with any user who attempts to deceive or has deceived another user and steals from Wizards and damages its properties, it nevertheless seems hypocritical and inconsistent to cast judgment upon users when the equally serious issue of altered arts has not been discussed or it has and it has been found, with whatever reasoning (up to this point not shown), that altered artwork is somehow acceptable. If the rationale can be laid out, fine; we're all much obliged.
If I were to alter a card, but still used images I didn't own (like hand-drawing Chandra on a card), and then decided to sell it, that would be illegal, correct? Would I be able to use that card for my own use legally?
The facts, it would seem, are this:
Wizards owns Chandra and its image.
You do not own Chandra and do have Wizards' express permission (e.g., a licence) to use the image of Chandra.
In consideration of these facts, it would be likely that you are in fact breaking the law, and fair use doctrine may not apply. (I have made no thorough study of the thousands of U.S. fair use cases; anyone who has done so, your input here would also be appreciated.)
The only thing saving your behind is the fact that no powers that be know of it and, if they do, they have not taken action.
That no one has been sued, however, is clearly not to suggest that it is permissible or even something good to be done once, much less time and again.
Typically, when something is hand rendered that is considered okay. Some guy named Steve Argyle posted here a while ago... whoever he is
I had to Google Steve Argyle, with quotation marks, so...
I think Steve's response is considered and well structured. However, there are parts where it leaves you wanting. The lines between his 'objective' and 'opinion' are blurry, but the main issue is that parts of the 'objective' are questionable. That Steve mentions both fair use and/or parody, though sometimes they are distinguished for appropriate reasons, suggests that one should take his opinion with a grain of salt and it may not be an entirely credible statement.
If Steve Argyle's response, which is not necessarily that of other illustrators, Wizards of the Coast, or what is right, is the position of the staff, would the staff's original opinion or an interpretation of Steve's statement be kindly produced as soon as feasible?
Brandon, you a doctoral student or have completed your doctorate. You yourself must be aware of some IP issues in writing your thesis or publishing your manuscripts. Even if you were to simply use a(n adapted or modified) figure as part of a chapter in your thesis, which may very well never see the light of day besides in the thesis itself, which is stored in libraries, you would ensure that you had the blessing of the figure's creators and did what was due of you to include it in your thesis, right?
Anyway, I thought to ask 'how goes it?' and I have lost my train of thought regarding this point. I think it was alterations are by and large inappropriate and, when they are, you have to jump through hoops. Here, the hoops may not have been jumped through.
The final line, "I really wasn't narrowing anything so much as making sure we could answer your question.", is telling. This isn't my question and it certainly isn't a personal thing; this is an issue that concerns the forum at large. Moreover, the choice of "answer" is interesting, as there is no simple answer with which to adequately respond to and dispense of this issue. In fact, "answer" suggests to me that this is something that is done not as a matter of fact but as a matter of form. The questions raised are to stimulate an honest dialogue and discussion, which might be rather refreshing, and not to seek answers.
Your post started with:
"Obviously, I'm not here to stir up trouble, but what is the current staff position on altered MTG artworks and what is the general user's position on altered MTG artwork?"
I assumed that was a question and I want to answer that for you if I can. But I need to make sure we are working with mutually understood definitions since this question comes up a lot and there are a lot of answers because of those varying definitions of the word "alter."
What is the current policy and understanding of alters of staff and of other users?
What should be the policy and understanding of alters?
Alters or altered-artwork cards, in these questions, refer to cards that are altered (plain English definition, so that encompasses 'hand[-]painted alteration[s]').
Okay, so the hand painted part is a huge part of this. Anything hand painted has been okay in the eyes of the MTGS staff and has even been featured on Wizards of the Coast's website. I have found no one in any position of authority or majority that feels like hand painted alterations are a legal, ethical, or moral problem for the MTG community as a whole.
You do not own Chandra and do have Wizards' express permission (e.g., a licence) to use the image of Chandra.
In consideration of these facts, it would be likely that you are in fact breaking the law, and fair use doctrine may not apply. (I have made no thorough study of the thousands of U.S. fair use cases; anyone who has, their input here would also be appreciated.)
The only thing saving your behind is the fact that no powers that be know of it and, if they do, they have not taken action.
That no one has been sued, however, is clearly not to suggest that it is permissible or even something good to be done once, much less time and again.
People have been sued for using Wizard's copyrighted material. The creator of the cards being sold in the post you refer to above was sued. Even Steve Argyle had to yank his Lili/Chandra stuff because....
o What projects are you working on right now, and can I get a sneak peek?
Many awesome things. But if I gave you a sneak peek, I would no longer get to work on awesome things. My corporate masters hoard their secrets as Lucifer’s children would hoard candy made of human souls.
Wizards protects their copyrights from what I've seen.
Your post started with:
"Obviously, I'm not here to stir up trouble, but what is the current staff position on altered MTG artworks and what is the general user's position on altered MTG artwork?"
I assumed that was a question and I want to answer that for you if I can. But I need to make sure we are working with mutually understood definitions since this question comes up a lot and there are a lot of answers because of those varying definitions of the word "alter."
Okay, so the hand painted part is a huge part of this. Anything hand painted has been okay in the eyes of the MTGS staff and has even been featured on Wizards of the Coast's website. I have found no one in any position of authority or majority that feels like hand painted alterations are a legal, ethical, or moral problem for the MTG community as a whole.
Ok.
FYI, I deliberately phrased it as a question to set up the thread in a discursive manner. If I should be more careful in the future, do advise me so I can set up a thread for discussion and a thread for Q&A differently.
I agree that being on the same page is probably important on working towards the solution to this.
People have been sued for using Wizard's copyrighted material. The creator of the cards being sold in the post you refer to above was sued. Even Steve Argyle had to yank his Lili/Chandra stuff because....
Wizards protects their copyrights from what I've seen.
Haha, even 'worse' (more serious) than I thought. So, the words to the wise here are don't appropriate what isn't yours or what you aren't permitted to use?
I think that even more of a catch all is: "If you appropriate imagery, do it by hand, and cite your sources. Do not scan/photograph someone else's work and then mechanically reproduce it."
I hate to intrude, but I feel that this is a case where if you are in doubt if its allowed, ask an appropriate staff member. The worst answer you can get there is a firm "We do not allow it on here."
Okay, so the hand painted part is a huge part of this. Anything hand painted has been okay in the eyes of the MTGS staff and has even been featured on Wizards of the Coast's website. I have found no one in any position of authority or majority that feels like hand painted alterations are a legal, ethical, or moral problem for the MTG community as a whole.
well, I am glad I stumbled across this thread. I gave up on trying to get a couple random cool looking hand painted cards years ago because of that one thread, and nothing really being in cement. Guess the dust needed to settle before I got an answer.
I think that even more of a catch all is: "If you appropriate imagery, do it by hand, and cite your sources. Do not scan/photograph someone else's work and then mechanically reproduce it."
You're either intentionally missing the point or not, eh.
Eh, no one is going to sue fan artists or alterists.
You're either intentionally missing the point or not, eh.
Eh, no one is going to sue fan artists or alterists.
What point am I missing? Again, you asked for the MTGS Staff stance on this and we do require that all hand altered cards posted here have proper citation if anything is appropriated for that card.
The odds of someone suing a card painter is pretty low it seems, but in life it's really a good idea to cite your sources when you lift someone else's ideas.
This is a few years old, but here is WotC itself discussing alters.
A few things of note
-They not only consider alters and counterfeit cards different, they assume that everyone is at that consensus
-On the subject of painting out a frame of an alter, this is, and I quote, "not a big deal." Kind of sums things up, doesn't it?
The big takeaway is, if you're painting on a real card, you are an upstanding member of the community. If you are playing with painted real cards, they should not interfere your opponent's ability, or a judge's ability, to tell what the card is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll be sad if people don't start calling The Chain Veil "Fleetwood Mac."
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Obviously, I'm not here to stir up trouble, but what is the current staff position on altered MTG artworks and what is the general user's position on altered MTG artwork? I don't recall reading anything regarding this in rianalnn's 2011 subforum thread or the Forum Rules.
What should the position be?
Selling altered-artwork cards is not a good idea, as part of the card's supposedly increased value comes from the fact that it is altered. However, is simply altering a card illegal under 17 U.S.C. 106 and the U.S. Copyright Act? Is there a provision via the fair use doctrine (which includes parodies)?
If altering cards is illegal, and to be consistent with the suspension of the user above and anyone who has suffered similarly, wouldn't an implication relevant to the forums be discussion of altered artworks is therefore prohibited?
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
Ah hah. I'm guessing this case was closer to the latter than the former?
Are you insisting that I limit the scope of this discussion?
Would you care to try to define 'altering' and 'alter', please?
What test will you use to determine the significance of the alteration?
How ridiculous.
I remembered that you are an art capital-P professor (or simply a lecturer or something) at a university, so you must be aware of there being the law and art, as in, for instance, collages or altered artworks. In light of that, your opinion would be more substantial than the average lay user.
How very strange. I can't access the trade thread that Dies_to_Doom_Blade must have posted, so I don't know how he(/she) altered his(/her) cards. Did you delete this?
So, yeah, these products are not legal to sell.
Absolutely I want to limit it. 20 people will have 20 different ideas about what "altered MTG cards" means and 8 of them will be legal, 8 illegal, and 4 will think you are secretly trying to sell them weed.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
Just saying in passing, as a comment: oh, those stickers, not these:
...
Well, selling cards altered in that manner might be considered misleading and deceptive. Fair do's.
However, what of cards with altered artwork, (actually) altered in other manners? It is these cards that pique an interest into an inconsistency in protecting the interests of the forum, or moderation.
I do not think that it is a bad idea to define the issue, but I do not believe that we should be overzealous and make the scope too narrow.
This part... I don't understand what any of this means. Can you rephrase that?
I really wasn't narrowing anything so much as making sure we could answer your question.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
This is the not the actual topic of discussion, you must realize.
Due respect, I do not appreciate this tried and trued approach and attitude that is part and parcel of MTGS. I see it in discussions and debates to which staff users and non-staff users alike are partisan.
The final line, "I really wasn't narrowing anything so much as making sure we could answer your question.", is telling. This isn't my question and it certainly isn't a personal thing; this is an issue that concerns the forum at large. Moreover, the choice of "answer" is interesting, as there is no simple answer with which to adequately respond to and dispense of this issue. In fact, "answer" suggests to me that this is something that is done not as a matter of fact but as a matter of form. The questions raised are to stimulate an honest dialogue and discussion, which might be rather refreshing, and not to seek answers.
That aside, the issues at hand are these:
The thread is of a multifarious nature. Though I do not agree with any user who attempts to deceive or has deceived another user and steals from Wizards and damages its properties, it nevertheless seems hypocritical and inconsistent to cast judgment upon users when the equally serious issue of altered arts has not been discussed or it has and it has been found, with whatever reasoning (up to this point not shown), that altered artwork is somehow acceptable. If the rationale can be laid out, fine; we're all much obliged.
The facts, it would seem, are this:
The only thing saving your behind is the fact that no powers that be know of it and, if they do, they have not taken action.
That no one has been sued, however, is clearly not to suggest that it is permissible or even something good to be done once, much less time and again.
I had to Google Steve Argyle, with quotation marks, so...
I think Steve's response is considered and well structured. However, there are parts where it leaves you wanting. The lines between his 'objective' and 'opinion' are blurry, but the main issue is that parts of the 'objective' are questionable. That Steve mentions both fair use and/or parody, though sometimes they are distinguished for appropriate reasons, suggests that one should take his opinion with a grain of salt and it may not be an entirely credible statement.
If Steve Argyle's response, which is not necessarily that of other illustrators, Wizards of the Coast, or what is right, is the position of the staff, would the staff's original opinion or an interpretation of Steve's statement be kindly produced as soon as feasible?
Brandon, you a doctoral student or have completed your doctorate. You yourself must be aware of some IP issues in writing your thesis or publishing your manuscripts. Even if you were to simply use a(n adapted or modified) figure as part of a chapter in your thesis, which may very well never see the light of day besides in the thesis itself, which is stored in libraries, you would ensure that you had the blessing of the figure's creators and did what was due of you to include it in your thesis, right?
Anyway, I thought to ask 'how goes it?' and I have lost my train of thought regarding this point. I think it was alterations are by and large inappropriate and, when they are, you have to jump through hoops. Here, the hoops may not have been jumped through.
Your post started with:
"Obviously, I'm not here to stir up trouble, but what is the current staff position on altered MTG artworks and what is the general user's position on altered MTG artwork?"
I assumed that was a question and I want to answer that for you if I can. But I need to make sure we are working with mutually understood definitions since this question comes up a lot and there are a lot of answers because of those varying definitions of the word "alter."
Okay, so the hand painted part is a huge part of this. Anything hand painted has been okay in the eyes of the MTGS staff and has even been featured on Wizards of the Coast's website. I have found no one in any position of authority or majority that feels like hand painted alterations are a legal, ethical, or moral problem for the MTG community as a whole.
People have been sued for using Wizard's copyrighted material. The creator of the cards being sold in the post you refer to above was sued. Even Steve Argyle had to yank his Lili/Chandra stuff because....
Wizards protects their copyrights from what I've seen.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
FYI, I deliberately phrased it as a question to set up the thread in a discursive manner. If I should be more careful in the future, do advise me so I can set up a thread for discussion and a thread for Q&A differently.
I agree that being on the same page is probably important on working towards the solution to this.
Haha, even 'worse' (more serious) than I thought. So, the words to the wise here are don't appropriate what isn't yours or what you aren't permitted to use?
If so, I concur.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
540 Peasant cube- Gold EditionSomething Spicywell, I am glad I stumbled across this thread. I gave up on trying to get a couple random cool looking hand painted cards years ago because of that one thread, and nothing really being in cement. Guess the dust needed to settle before I got an answer.
You're either intentionally missing the point or not, eh.
Eh, no one is going to sue fan artists or alterists.
What point am I missing? Again, you asked for the MTGS Staff stance on this and we do require that all hand altered cards posted here have proper citation if anything is appropriated for that card.
The odds of someone suing a card painter is pretty low it seems, but in life it's really a good idea to cite your sources when you lift someone else's ideas.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
This is a few years old, but here is WotC itself discussing alters.
A few things of note
-They not only consider alters and counterfeit cards different, they assume that everyone is at that consensus
-On the subject of painting out a frame of an alter, this is, and I quote, "not a big deal." Kind of sums things up, doesn't it?
The big takeaway is, if you're painting on a real card, you are an upstanding member of the community. If you are playing with painted real cards, they should not interfere your opponent's ability, or a judge's ability, to tell what the card is.