I'm not a fan of Ed, nor have I ever been. I am however, a fan of Altered Art cards. I'm wondering, how does reselling an altered card, that he's already been paid for, impact him? My guess: it doesn't. He hasn't been hired since Rav block, this seems like an old man without work trying to do something just to do something. However, he's going about this the wrong way...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Amazing Avy & Sig by mchief111 @ Rising Studios [4/22/11]
It is rather ironic that the artist that brought this up is NOT a really popular one (Aleksi Briclot, Guay, and personal favorite Daarken come to mind). Unless Mr. Beard can get some major names to his sides, I really do not see how WotC would bother listening to him. However, this is a borderline thing, like sharing music and such. Regardless, this is the reason I just removed all my Psychatogs and Mind's Eyes from the decks packing. I get bothered my events like this. as well, as IN MY OPINION that Mr. Beard is attempting to either restrict how players that had supported him enjoy the game he could associate his name to, or to get some extra revenue from altered cards.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-C.S. Lewis
It is rather ironic that the artist that brought this up is NOT a really popular one (Aleksi Briclot, Guay, and personal favorite Daarken come to mind). Unless Mr. Beard can get some major names to his sides, I really do not see how WotC would bother listening to him. However, this is a borderline thing, like sharing music and such. Regardless, this is the reason I just removed all my Psychatogs and Mind's Eyes from the decks packing. I get bothered my events like this. as well, as IN MY OPINION that Mr. Beard is attempting to either restrict how players that had supported him enjoy the game he could associate his name to, or to get some extra revenue from altered cards.
The popularity of the artist is irrelevant in court though. If a violation is occurring then he has just as much standing as anyone else.
The popularity of the artist is irrelevant in court though. If a violation is occurring then he has just as much standing as anyone else.
True, but his popularity is politically relevant. He is trying to get WOTC to take his side in this debate, and a popular artist can exert much more pressure on WOTC than an unpopular artist could.
I think this is my first post here...
My boss has a degree in law and was a practicing lawyer in California for a while
He and I discussed slander at one point.
A claim has to be made stating that someone has STRONGLY defamed your character and hurt your business before you have any real reason to file suit. It doesn't seem like this is a case for a lawsuit, more like hurt feelings and a timeout.
Directly to Mr. Beard - I've seen your portfolio and it ain't no water toucher. You've got some good pieces, some on good cards, some not. Congrats on having 120 cards, that's a good number, almost a full expansion's worth.
I'm a musician aside from my career in the computer business. I've been producing albums for 12 years, since my teens. I've written several songs in several genres. Some good, some bad. People say my stuff sucks, people say my stuff is awesome, I don't whine like Fred Durst (sorry MTGS if you get an email from Durst's lawyer about this), but it does hurt my feelings even if I know a majority of what I do is quality. Also, the fact that I'm so worried has prevented me from releasing a full length that I recorded last summer, since I don't want negative responses from a concept album.
Now, after drawing those two parallels and loosely tying them together, I want to say this.
Altered art is like remixing a song. If someone took one of my songs and remixed, changed it, chopped it, looped it, whatever, that'd be fine by me, ONLY if people had some way of knowing it was me to begin with. Now, nobody is doing that, but maybe only 3000-5000 people know who I am musically and that is absolutely nothing since maybe 1000 of them have actually taken the time to listen to some of the songs.
Mr Beard, your art is recognizable (who else could make Darwin look so good on a red card?) and people are able to figure out who did the original (any magic player), what cards get altered? HEAVILY PLAYED ONES... nobody remixes songs from nobodies, nobody alters art from nobodies... what makes you a somebody? not having good art, but having good cards that your art is on...
I guess my point is: accept that people are going to modify cards and be happy if they modify yours!
The popularity of the artist is irrelevant in court though. If a violation is occurring then he has just as much standing as anyone else.
My point is that WotC would pay more attention and support his cause more if he were of more importance to the company. Do not get me wrong, I am sure that they appreciate Mr. Beard's work (did not expect THOSE last three words on this forum) for the company in the past, but WotC has other issues that they are prioritizing higher than retired artist's financial and political issues. If this becomes a problem, they will likely try to reach a middle-ground to stay neutral while a legal line can be drawn.
Regardless, I vote against restricting altered arts. It really does not affect the artist, and I cannot imagine how an artist can control the market of cards when it is sale/resale he is concerned with. What would be next? Against the law to sign cards that are mine? What I mean is that, assuming the alterer is not taking credit for the original work, it should not affect the artist. Read one of my previous posts, I described it like a house addition.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-C.S. Lewis
I don't know where I'd find the exact answer, but shouldn't this be the situation questioned?
Aren't the alterations done specifically to the card? I understand that the art is featured on the card, and that the credit for supplying the art is given, but since the art now has a Magic:The Gathering card frame over the original art doesn't that mean that the card is owned by WOTC in full and NOT the original artist?
Meaning, as a breakdown:
Edward Beard Jr has rights to his art. He has donated his art to be used on Magic:The Gathering cards by WOTC, and is given proper credit for his contributions. He may or may not have been payments for these contributions.
That, as far as I'm concerned, is where Edward Beard Jr's involvement ends.
WOTC holds the right to the cards and anything printed on them. Since they have openly stated that they allow the cards to be altered, only placing restrictions for use in their tournaments, that means that any alterations done to the cards is already pre-approved.
I could understand his concern (or complaining, depending on your point of view) if and only if the alterations were done to officially licensed art owned and distributed by him, such as an Artist proof sold by the artist at a PTQ or Worlds event.
Some ... people even go so far as to gather together on forums and groups to convince themselves that riding the coat tails of another person's success from creating derivative works or modifying one's art is perfectly acceptable. Further than this they actually defame and slander anyone who resists allowing them to continue this thievery and don't let them get away with it.
Pathetic. I've never liked Ed Beard's work (it is in my opinion, subpar on many levels), but now I can honestly say I don't like Ed Beard as a person. The guy's just an angry has-been with no understanding of the Magic fanbase or the law.
He was lucky enough to have illustrated a handful of highly playable cards that are altered repeatedly for that reason. I doubt many people are altering them because they love the art. Look at how many Poole and Vignali Birds get altered vs. how many Beard Birds. Or how easily Psychatog is turned into ridiculous, cartoonish images because of the poorly conceptualized forms in the original image.
This guy's claiming that his image, his name, and his reputation are being tarnished by comments from this site - what he fails to realize is that he and his lawyer are the ones tarnishing his image. When this witch hunt inevitably fades away without the results he's looking for, he's going to be the only person who's lost something or been damaged in some way.
From: [email]legal@edbeardjr.com[/email]
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:35:27 -0400
Subject: Confirming receipt of legal notice
To: MTG Salvation
Dear Registrant, owner, operator,
This notice it to verify the receipt of e-mail sent dated September 16, 2009 to the Registrant of www.mtgsalvation.com regarding defamatory and threatening posts that have been allowed to continue and are present on your forum directed at Art of Ed Beard / Edward P. Beard Jr. as itemized in e-mail provided earlier.
We request confirmation of receipt of notice and immediate action to be initiated in removal of said posts.
If you have not received the aforementioned notice please advise and we will re-send.
Copies of all notices have been forwarded to Wizards of the Coast as it pertains to the www.mtgsalvation.com promoting, distribution and permitting of unauthorized or un-licensed derivative works offered and promoted for sale by it's members
If you choose to ignore this notice you will be included in any legal action taken involving either individuals or corporate entities that will be served notice for the alleged derivative and copyright infringement.
If it were illegal to sell or even alter they would never have put up the article condoning altered cards in the first place. They would sue. WOTC members read MTGS all the time - it's how they managed to sue Rancored_elf and got Hydrokinesis's info.
*facepalm* it's one thing to request removal of altered art cards, which IMO, he has no right to but at least some relevance in. It's entirely idiotic to think that people shouldn't speak up if they don't like his work.
I'm sorry if that hurts your reputation, but if you're working for a company whose end result is sales, and your work turns players away, thus costing sales, they have a right to hear how we feel.
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
I don't know how old Beard is, but if I had to guess based on this thread, I would imagine over 50 because that is the only demographic I can fathom that would be able to read, write and paint, but not know what the Internet is and how it works.
Inflammatory and threatening? Who the hell threatened him? And inflammatory? What are you four? Every member of this forum, and probably every forum on the Internet has probably had negativity spoken of them. No solid guess on the number of lawsuits, but it's probably less than 1.
And the more important issue: copyright infringement? On altered cards? Doesn't Wizards get the copyright when they commission the piece? How is it yours anymore other than being given credit at the bottom? If Wizards doesn't care, who cares if you do?
Ed Beard: if the music industry and RIAA can't get 1% of their dues for copyright infringement with regard to mp3s and file-sharing, you don't have a hope in hell of your hissy fit being heard or cared about by anyone, myself included.
There's maybe a dozen or two dozen more, but I can't be bothered...
Oh wow. The guy would have an absolute heart attack if 4Chan ever deemed him worthy of their attention. This huffing and puffing they're doing really is cute.
Isnt MTG a CCG? is it wrong got customize your customizable card game?
Apparently so.
By extension it's illegal to buy a car then make any alterations to it. Even putting stickers on the bumper or keying it on purpose is considered a violation of the creative rights held by the manufacturer.
Other things you may not do according to Lil' Eddie's perspective of the law:
-Rip cards you own in half. This is inflammatory towards the artist as is the freedom to say you don't enjoy their work (see rest of thread.)
-Scratch cards within their art frame.
-Customize the wallpaper on your PC or Mac.
-Photoshop any image you don't own. Ever.
-Modify clothing. By tearing sleeves off of old shirts or patching up old pants you are violating the copyright of the fashion designer.
My question is: The artists already get paid for the cards they make art for through WOTC, they get no money from the cards being sold over a secondary market. Shouldn't the same thing apply for altered arts?
Mr. Beard's attorney: Free speech. I'd like you to read about it. I'm afraid anyone on these boards can say whatever they want about Ed Beard Jr...negative or positive.
Sadly these boards are not in America, or anywhere at all. They're privately owned by Hannes, and the rules (not laws) are set by him. So while there is "free speech" on these boards, its not protected by the USA, or any other country.
Sadly these boards are not in America, or anywhere at all. They're privately owned by Hannes, and the rules (not laws) are set by him. So while there is "free speech" on these boards, its not protected by the USA, or any other country.
So what would happen if we dared utter the slightest piece of critique against lil' eddie
I don't know, but I shudder to think about it. The talentless moron would probably sue us. WHOOPS.
No, but seriously, I enjoy his art. I have no visual artistic talent and thus, I envy his gift. I do not, however, envy his severe mental disabilities.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-C.S. Lewis
EDH
Obzedat - Still Alive
Retired - Nicol Bolas
The popularity of the artist is irrelevant in court though. If a violation is occurring then he has just as much standing as anyone else.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
I think this is my first post here...
My boss has a degree in law and was a practicing lawyer in California for a while
He and I discussed slander at one point.
A claim has to be made stating that someone has STRONGLY defamed your character and hurt your business before you have any real reason to file suit. It doesn't seem like this is a case for a lawsuit, more like hurt feelings and a timeout.
Directly to Mr. Beard - I've seen your portfolio and it ain't no water toucher. You've got some good pieces, some on good cards, some not. Congrats on having 120 cards, that's a good number, almost a full expansion's worth.
I'm a musician aside from my career in the computer business. I've been producing albums for 12 years, since my teens. I've written several songs in several genres. Some good, some bad. People say my stuff sucks, people say my stuff is awesome, I don't whine like Fred Durst (sorry MTGS if you get an email from Durst's lawyer about this), but it does hurt my feelings even if I know a majority of what I do is quality. Also, the fact that I'm so worried has prevented me from releasing a full length that I recorded last summer, since I don't want negative responses from a concept album.
Now, after drawing those two parallels and loosely tying them together, I want to say this.
Altered art is like remixing a song. If someone took one of my songs and remixed, changed it, chopped it, looped it, whatever, that'd be fine by me, ONLY if people had some way of knowing it was me to begin with. Now, nobody is doing that, but maybe only 3000-5000 people know who I am musically and that is absolutely nothing since maybe 1000 of them have actually taken the time to listen to some of the songs.
Mr Beard, your art is recognizable (who else could make Darwin look so good on a red card?) and people are able to figure out who did the original (any magic player), what cards get altered? HEAVILY PLAYED ONES... nobody remixes songs from nobodies, nobody alters art from nobodies... what makes you a somebody? not having good art, but having good cards that your art is on...
I guess my point is: accept that people are going to modify cards and be happy if they modify yours!
My point is that WotC would pay more attention and support his cause more if he were of more importance to the company. Do not get me wrong, I am sure that they appreciate Mr. Beard's work (did not expect THOSE last three words on this forum) for the company in the past, but WotC has other issues that they are prioritizing higher than retired artist's financial and political issues. If this becomes a problem, they will likely try to reach a middle-ground to stay neutral while a legal line can be drawn.
Regardless, I vote against restricting altered arts. It really does not affect the artist, and I cannot imagine how an artist can control the market of cards when it is sale/resale he is concerned with. What would be next? Against the law to sign cards that are mine? What I mean is that, assuming the alterer is not taking credit for the original work, it should not affect the artist. Read one of my previous posts, I described it like a house addition.
-C.S. Lewis
EDH
Obzedat - Still Alive
Retired - Nicol Bolas
Aren't the alterations done specifically to the card? I understand that the art is featured on the card, and that the credit for supplying the art is given, but since the art now has a Magic:The Gathering card frame over the original art doesn't that mean that the card is owned by WOTC in full and NOT the original artist?
Meaning, as a breakdown:
Edward Beard Jr has rights to his art. He has donated his art to be used on Magic:The Gathering cards by WOTC, and is given proper credit for his contributions. He may or may not have been payments for these contributions.
That, as far as I'm concerned, is where Edward Beard Jr's involvement ends.
WOTC holds the right to the cards and anything printed on them. Since they have openly stated that they allow the cards to be altered, only placing restrictions for use in their tournaments, that means that any alterations done to the cards is already pre-approved.
I could understand his concern (or complaining, depending on your point of view) if and only if the alterations were done to officially licensed art owned and distributed by him, such as an Artist proof sold by the artist at a PTQ or Worlds event.
Pathetic. I've never liked Ed Beard's work (it is in my opinion, subpar on many levels), but now I can honestly say I don't like Ed Beard as a person. The guy's just an angry has-been with no understanding of the Magic fanbase or the law.
He was lucky enough to have illustrated a handful of highly playable cards that are altered repeatedly for that reason. I doubt many people are altering them because they love the art. Look at how many Poole and Vignali Birds get altered vs. how many Beard Birds. Or how easily Psychatog is turned into ridiculous, cartoonish images because of the poorly conceptualized forms in the original image.
This guy's claiming that his image, his name, and his reputation are being tarnished by comments from this site - what he fails to realize is that he and his lawyer are the ones tarnishing his image. When this witch hunt inevitably fades away without the results he's looking for, he's going to be the only person who's lost something or been damaged in some way.
RRR Buy some of my art! Prints! RRR
More threats in my inbox!
Modern: URStormUR|BRGW Jund BRGW|GWUB Gifts GWUB
Commander:XKarnX
Cubes: Level 1: Pauper
I'm sorry if that hurts your reputation, but if you're working for a company whose end result is sales, and your work turns players away, thus costing sales, they have a right to hear how we feel.
WAnglesW
WUBRGThe BroodGRBUW
WUGAllymillGUW
Yes, let me compile a list:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=4316764#post4316764
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=4317159&postcount=12452
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=4317317&postcount=12455
There's maybe a dozen or two dozen more, but I can't be bothered...
Inflammatory and threatening? Who the hell threatened him? And inflammatory? What are you four? Every member of this forum, and probably every forum on the Internet has probably had negativity spoken of them. No solid guess on the number of lawsuits, but it's probably less than 1.
And the more important issue: copyright infringement? On altered cards? Doesn't Wizards get the copyright when they commission the piece? How is it yours anymore other than being given credit at the bottom? If Wizards doesn't care, who cares if you do?
Ed Beard: if the music industry and RIAA can't get 1% of their dues for copyright infringement with regard to mp3s and file-sharing, you don't have a hope in hell of your hissy fit being heard or cared about by anyone, myself included.
Oh wow. The guy would have an absolute heart attack if 4Chan ever deemed him worthy of their attention. This huffing and puffing they're doing really is cute.
Oh God. What threats. I hope Mr. Beard's family has police protection.
What an idiot. In fact, I hereby request that in lieu of his maturity, we stop referring to him as anything except "Lil' Eddie."
Careful. His lawyer might take that as a threat!
Haves/Wants
Collection
Apparently so.
By extension it's illegal to buy a car then make any alterations to it. Even putting stickers on the bumper or keying it on purpose is considered a violation of the creative rights held by the manufacturer.
Other things you may not do according to Lil' Eddie's perspective of the law:
-Rip cards you own in half. This is inflammatory towards the artist as is the freedom to say you don't enjoy their work (see rest of thread.)
-Scratch cards within their art frame.
-Customize the wallpaper on your PC or Mac.
-Photoshop any image you don't own. Ever.
-Modify clothing. By tearing sleeves off of old shirts or patching up old pants you are violating the copyright of the fashion designer.
Sadly these boards are not in America, or anywhere at all. They're privately owned by Hannes, and the rules (not laws) are set by him. So while there is "free speech" on these boards, its not protected by the USA, or any other country.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
This makes zero sense.
I don't know, but I shudder to think about it. The talentless moron would probably sue us. WHOOPS.
No, but seriously, I enjoy his art. I have no visual artistic talent and thus, I envy his gift. I do not, however, envy his severe mental disabilities.