Wizards has censored his art work, taken down or forced him to take down his art. They have done this cause they are perhaps homophobic or just strong arming a free lancer into doing as they want or loosing his lively hood.
they have no right to do this. He has a right under FAIR USE to do the work he is doing.
Please do not lock this, we need to stand by him, this is an important issuie. this is censorship!
They aren't homophobic. In fact, their article in regards to Comic Con had a shout out to their homosexual players.
They just don't want something like that to possibly ruin the view we have on both of those characters, perhaps?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I alter cards! I take commissions; easiest place to catch me is twitter. @NycheAtNight
fair use bro! you don't know what you are talking about
Fair use only goes so far. And keep in mind the key word here is "fair" use. If they(WOTC) don't consider shipping ChandraXLiliana to be "fair use" of their copyright, then it isn't protected.
Personally I ship JaceXGarruk
Couples in Magic would be an interesting idea actually.
Well, they've already initially set them up to some degree, ChandraXGideon, JaceXLilana(in a very weird sort of way), I'm sure if Wizards actually bothers to develop their characters, we'll see more of it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The difference between MTG and science is that one has people dressed up in silly clothes, using words you can't understand and doing potentially quite dangerous stuff while the other has people dressed up in silly clothes, using words you can't understand and doing potentially quite dangerous stuff while playing cards."
My Decks: WAnglesW WUBRGThe BroodGRBUW WUGAllymillGUW
Fair use has nothing to do with it. Just because he could legally have the picture up doesn't mean it was a good idea for him to do so. His employers are absolutely free to make requests of him, including taking art down that has to do with characters they created.
If a disney animator made some naked pics of disney princesses, and put them up on his personal blog, would you be surprised when he immediately got fired?
Companies have enormous stake in their brands, and often can't risk having those close to them taking liberties with those images.
Fair use is a grey area and it's pretty much up to the courts to decide the matter but considering he wasn't aiming to profit off the image then I doubt anything would happen but if both parties want to continue having a mutually beneficial relationship then a compromise involving the removal of the image was most likely made.
@MakoEyesX How does fair use have nothing to do with it? Steve made a piece of fanart for his fans and Wizards stepped in and now the image and others are taken down. Your example isn't even related at all to what Steve did. He didn't draw Chandra or Liliana naked. It might not have been the smartest business decision for him to make the image but this is about his rights as an artist and censorship.
Nothing in this game is degenerate or completely dominant. They haven't banned anything in standard in a long, long time. Hell they should have banned affinity right away, but they didn't until boxed sales collapsed too. Hasbro had to come in and fire people.
I'll enjoy watching all the whiners eat crow monday.
I sort of knew this was coming as soon as I saw that picture of Liliana and Chandra, but it's still kind of upsetting. Steve Argyle is easily one of my favorite artists.
The problem with defining this format by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
As a parent, I am firmly on the side of WotC on this one because it is logical. If I have to screen a game for sexual content, my children aren't going to play it. Argyle showed extremely bad judgment by using M:tG branding characters in this way.
I am also concerned about how people are thinking this gets a pass BECAUSE it is a homosexual depiction; ignoring the question about whether or not it is OK, but are there seriously people that believe that it is MORE OK than heterosexual sensual depictions, especially on a product marketed to minors?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Guns just make them move really, really fast.
As a parent, I am firmly on the side of WotC on this one because it is logical. If I have to screen a game for sexual content, my children aren't going to play it. Argyle showed extremely bad judgment by using M:tG branding characters in this way.
I am also concerned about how people are thinking this gets a pass BECAUSE it is a homosexual depiction; ignoring the question about whether or not it is OK, but are there seriously people that believe that it is MORE OK than heterosexual sensual depictions, especially on a product marketed to minors?
Your second point is interesting. I believe that heterosexual and homosexual depictions are equal; I don't preach differently for either one simply because of the genders.
Yeah I'm not about to wield a torch and pitchfork and go knocking down the doors of WotC. I apreciate art and it's a big reason why I play the game, but the company was well within its rights to ask him to take the images down, I'm sure Steve had no problem doing it because he put in the comments that he had posted these while under the influence of alchohol and was joking around a lot that they werent lilly and chandra because that would violate copyrights and such, while also mentioning that he hopes it didn't cost him his job.
So it's no big deal really to him I'm assuming, and I'm just glad its my desktop background and that I have a high res copy of it saved.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge.
Currently playing
Competitive. Modern:UWRSplinter TwinUWR
EDH: URMelek, Izzet ParagonUR BWGGhave, Guuru of sporesBWG
I am also concerned about how people are thinking this gets a pass BECAUSE it is a homosexual depiction; ignoring the question about whether or not it is OK, but are there seriously people that believe that it is MORE OK than heterosexual sensual depictions, especially on a product marketed to minors?
The Innistrad block would like to have a word with you, first of all. That's just not a product marketed towards minors at all. In fact, minors are just that; a minority in the consumer base so far as I understand.
Secondly, it's not on any product; regardless of whether or not Argyle does work for WotC, this is fan art outside WotC's realm, pure and simple. Every fandom has fan art along these lines (not to mention mostly in even poorer taste). Are you going to give the Mario franchise a thumbs down because of tasteless PeachxBowser pictures on google images? I certainly hope not.
I'm not saying your views are unjustified, but some of the things you said didn't make sense to me, regardless how I feel about the issue. (In case your wondering, I'm fairly ambivalent about the subject, but I do agree Argyle shouldn't have posted it on the internet, purely for the sake of professionalism.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sigpic by me, 'Angel of Despair' by Todd Lockwood, 'Kaalia of the Vast' by Michael Komarck, 'Defiler of Souls' by Paul Bonner
I don't get what the issue is. Wizard payed him to do Magic art to create an image of these characters, and he went and pissed on it. Of course they won't be happy about it.
I don't know why everyone thinks Hasbro and Wizards are "big face-less meanies". Have you even looked at their company numbers? They are a relatively small company.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you don't wear your seatbelt, the police will shoot you in the head."
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
Everyone knows that good luck and good game are such insincere terms that any man who does not connect his right hook with the offender's jaw on the very utterance of such a phrase is no man I would consider as such.
The hypocritical part of this is that WoTC uses artwork on it's cards that sexualize women all the time. Practically every woman portrayed in a modern MTG set has a comically narrow waistline and big boobs.
So apparently in WoTC's eyes, sexually enticing imagery used to sell cards = OK, sexual imagery we're not profiting from = no no.
As a parent, I am firmly on the side of WotC on this one because it is logical. If I have to screen a game for sexual content, my children aren't going to play it. Argyle showed extremely bad judgment by using M:tG branding characters in this way.
Pick a response for yourself:
This was not part of the game, how did you have to screen anything for it?
or
Your kids will see more sexually explicit things on normal cable television.
The hypocritical part of this is that WoTC uses artwork in it's card that sexualizes women all the time. Practically every woman portrayed in a modern MTG set has a comically narrow waistline and huge boobs.
So apparently in WoTC's eyes, sexually enticing imagery used to sell cards = OK, sexual imagery we're not profiting from = no no.
Also a good point and a natural extension of one that I said earlier that Liliana is more covered up than she has been before.
Nothing in this game is degenerate or completely dominant. They haven't banned anything in standard in a long, long time. Hell they should have banned affinity right away, but they didn't until boxed sales collapsed too. Hasbro had to come in and fire people.
I'll enjoy watching all the whiners eat crow monday.
Everyone knows that good luck and good game are such insincere terms that any man who does not connect his right hook with the offender's jaw on the very utterance of such a phrase is no man I would consider as such.
I love these 'legal' threads; they're always full of frothing teenagers who think they have a grasp of what is legal and fair and what's not, all based on their parents' house rules for when to do the dishes and take out the trash. Please, wait 5 years before posting on matters these - until you've been out in a real job with a real company and signed a real contract. "Free Steve Argyle"? Really?
I love these 'legal' threads; they're always full of frothing teenagers who think they have a grasp of what is legal and fair and what's not, all based on their parents' house rules for when to do the dishes and take out the trash. Please, wait 5 years before posting on matters these - until you've been out in a real job with a real company and signed a real contract.
The only way I side with WoTC here is if the artist signed an agreement not to portray WoTC characters in non WoTC commissioned pieces. In that case, the artist was probably paid a decent amount of $$ to sign that agreement and should abide by it. I have no idea if such an agreement exists in this case though, and if WoTC would have enforced it had the piece not have been what it was.
I fully understand WOTC's legal right and responsibility to defend their works (the characters after all, are theirs) and as Steve Argyle is, as someone mentioned a few pages back, actually on their payroll - I'd assume he's being paid decently with the stipulation of them having complete rights over the characters.
But it still doesn't stop me from wanting a playmat of this
"He plays in a walk in humidor so keep his foils from bending. He once kept an all land hand just to know what it felt like to be mana flooded. He uses power nine for ante. He is the most interesting magic playing in the world." Old man, "I don't always tap basic lands for mana, but when i do, I tap Gurus."
Whoa, whoa. It's not nearly as big of a deal as all that. I wasn't ordered to take anything down.
I chatted with some folks at Wizards, (just bouncing ideas around about my upcoming assignments, there was no fire and brimstone,) it came up that they'd noticed it, and they were a little nervous about the impact stuff like this may have on their future plans for the storyline.
Basically, if a current Magic artist starts putting out unofficial stuff that has a narrative, it's potentially seen as quasi-canon. And I'd just put forth a fairly dramatic statement about two of their biggest characters.
You're right, I should have known better.
So, since it hadn't been up all that long in the first place, I just thought I'd quietly retract it. I don't want to make somebody else's job harder.
I'm surprised, and more than a little flattered, that people even noticed or cared that it disappeared.
You guys rock.
-------
Now, the card alterations coming down is completely separate. It happened at the same time, but that's just because I was already cleaning house. I'd been meaning to tidy up there for a bit.
Here's the thing. As acrylic paint on a piece of card-stock, they're original works, and protected under free speech. Doesn't even need to be satire. So the card itself can depict Mickey Mouse eating babies, and while it might piss people off, it's legal.
But, as posted images, not so much. Any copy, printed or digital, is subject to copyright law. They've been getting enough attention that, even though I've been posting them purely for the enjoyment of the players, they could potentially be seen as a form of guerrilla marketing. Those same pieces, as an advertising ploy for my site, services, or artwork, would be infringing on copyright.
(You'll notice that it wasn't Magic stuff that came down, it was Star Wars, Marvel, DC Comics, etc. that I took down.)
While "fan-art" legality is mostly ignored, as a working artist, I've got to be a bit more careful.
So I'm just covering my own fuzzy buttocks there.
Again, thank you all for supporting my art. It means the world to me that I'm more than a tiny bit of print at the bottom left of your cards.
Thank you, Mr. Argyle, for coming on here and explaining the situation. It shows a degree of professionalism that is sorely lacking in gaming industries these days.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Guns just make them move really, really fast.
Basically, if a current Magic artist starts putting out unofficial stuff that has a narrative, it's potentially seen as quasi-canon. And I'd just put forth a fairly dramatic statement about two of their biggest characters.
They aren't homophobic. In fact, their article in regards to Comic Con had a shout out to their homosexual players.
They just don't want something like that to possibly ruin the view we have on both of those characters, perhaps?
I like this view
There is a large version, but not anything that would work really.
Fair use only goes so far. And keep in mind the key word here is "fair" use. If they(WOTC) don't consider shipping ChandraXLiliana to be "fair use" of their copyright, then it isn't protected.
Well, they've already initially set them up to some degree, ChandraXGideon, JaceXLilana(in a very weird sort of way), I'm sure if Wizards actually bothers to develop their characters, we'll see more of it.
WAnglesW
WUBRGThe BroodGRBUW
WUGAllymillGUW
If a disney animator made some naked pics of disney princesses, and put them up on his personal blog, would you be surprised when he immediately got fired?
Companies have enormous stake in their brands, and often can't risk having those close to them taking liberties with those images.
Everyone should chill until someone actually knows something.
RRR Buy some of my art! Prints! RRR
@MakoEyesX How does fair use have nothing to do with it? Steve made a piece of fanart for his fans and Wizards stepped in and now the image and others are taken down. Your example isn't even related at all to what Steve did. He didn't draw Chandra or Liliana naked. It might not have been the smartest business decision for him to make the image but this is about his rights as an artist and censorship.
Who's eating crow?
I am also concerned about how people are thinking this gets a pass BECAUSE it is a homosexual depiction; ignoring the question about whether or not it is OK, but are there seriously people that believe that it is MORE OK than heterosexual sensual depictions, especially on a product marketed to minors?
Your second point is interesting. I believe that heterosexual and homosexual depictions are equal; I don't preach differently for either one simply because of the genders.
1st place GPT Seattle
1st place GPT Anaheim
So it's no big deal really to him I'm assuming, and I'm just glad its my desktop background and that I have a high res copy of it saved.
Currently playing
Modern:UWRSplinter TwinUWR
EDH:
URMelek, Izzet ParagonUR
BWGGhave, Guuru of sporesBWG
Good thing I have book burning.
The Innistrad block would like to have a word with you, first of all. That's just not a product marketed towards minors at all. In fact, minors are just that; a minority in the consumer base so far as I understand.
Secondly, it's not on any product; regardless of whether or not Argyle does work for WotC, this is fan art outside WotC's realm, pure and simple. Every fandom has fan art along these lines (not to mention mostly in even poorer taste). Are you going to give the Mario franchise a thumbs down because of tasteless PeachxBowser pictures on google images? I certainly hope not.
I'm not saying your views are unjustified, but some of the things you said didn't make sense to me, regardless how I feel about the issue. (In case your wondering, I'm fairly ambivalent about the subject, but I do agree Argyle shouldn't have posted it on the internet, purely for the sake of professionalism.)
Sigpic by me, 'Angel of Despair' by Todd Lockwood, 'Kaalia of the Vast' by Michael Komarck, 'Defiler of Souls' by Paul Bonner
Should Blue Be Banned?
- U/W/r Control
MODERN
- N/A
LEGACY
- LED-less Dredge
I collect Phyrexian Ragers! (currently 41 nonfoils, 0 foils)
I don't know why everyone thinks Hasbro and Wizards are "big face-less meanies". Have you even looked at their company numbers? They are a relatively small company.
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
So apparently in WoTC's eyes, sexually enticing imagery used to sell cards = OK, sexual imagery we're not profiting from = no no.
Pick a response for yourself:
This was not part of the game, how did you have to screen anything for it?
or
Your kids will see more sexually explicit things on normal cable television.
Also a good point and a natural extension of one that I said earlier that Liliana is more covered up than she has been before.
Who's eating crow?
Yeah, it wasn't until I heard about this that I really wanted pics of PW's... doing things...
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
The only way I side with WoTC here is if the artist signed an agreement not to portray WoTC characters in non WoTC commissioned pieces. In that case, the artist was probably paid a decent amount of $$ to sign that agreement and should abide by it. I have no idea if such an agreement exists in this case though, and if WoTC would have enforced it had the piece not have been what it was.
But it still doesn't stop me from wanting a playmat of this
I chatted with some folks at Wizards, (just bouncing ideas around about my upcoming assignments, there was no fire and brimstone,) it came up that they'd noticed it, and they were a little nervous about the impact stuff like this may have on their future plans for the storyline.
Basically, if a current Magic artist starts putting out unofficial stuff that has a narrative, it's potentially seen as quasi-canon. And I'd just put forth a fairly dramatic statement about two of their biggest characters.
You're right, I should have known better.
So, since it hadn't been up all that long in the first place, I just thought I'd quietly retract it. I don't want to make somebody else's job harder.
I'm surprised, and more than a little flattered, that people even noticed or cared that it disappeared.
You guys rock.
-------
Now, the card alterations coming down is completely separate. It happened at the same time, but that's just because I was already cleaning house. I'd been meaning to tidy up there for a bit.
Here's the thing. As acrylic paint on a piece of card-stock, they're original works, and protected under free speech. Doesn't even need to be satire. So the card itself can depict Mickey Mouse eating babies, and while it might piss people off, it's legal.
But, as posted images, not so much. Any copy, printed or digital, is subject to copyright law. They've been getting enough attention that, even though I've been posting them purely for the enjoyment of the players, they could potentially be seen as a form of guerrilla marketing. Those same pieces, as an advertising ploy for my site, services, or artwork, would be infringing on copyright.
(You'll notice that it wasn't Magic stuff that came down, it was Star Wars, Marvel, DC Comics, etc. that I took down.)
While "fan-art" legality is mostly ignored, as a working artist, I've got to be a bit more careful.
So I'm just covering my own fuzzy buttocks there.
Again, thank you all for supporting my art. It means the world to me that I'm more than a tiny bit of print at the bottom left of your cards.
http://steveargyle.deviantart.com/
http://steveargyle.tumblr.com/ (fanservice)
Thanks heaps for clearing this up for us Steve!