Neither of those articles specifically address what we are discussing, though. The second one in particular contains almost no actual legal information, merely advice to artists concerning cost versus benefit of prosecuting copyright infringement. The first one, as far as I can tell, just confirms the fact that Wizards holds the copyright.
Yes, it is in fact Wizards who, in the event of infringement, would be prosecuting. That doesn't mean that they will, even if card alters turn out to be illegal. However, the article everybody refers to never says anything about the SALE of altered cards. No, they probably don't care, but I would like to know whether or not profiting off of altering their product is technically legal.
I saw the bit you are quoting, but didn't think to apply it that way. I am not entirely sure that you can; it can definitely be argued, though.
Also, I think the cards are considered a reproduction, and 106A(c)(3) says that the stuff about mutilation and so forth do not apply to reproductions. I am not sure if the illustrators of Magic cards have any rights with respect to the cards themselves, since Wizards owns the copyrights to the images, I believe. They still have certain rights regarding the original works, but Wizards has the right to create "derivative works" (106(2)). Whether or not our alterations to the copies we own is infringing their right to create those works, I am not sure. In any case, I am almost certain that it is Wizards who would be getting wronged, legally speaking, not the illustrators.
So I've been doing a bit of reading on this matter. (As a quick disclaimer, I have no legal background of any sort.) I started with the most obvious place, the U.S. Copyright Office's website, but it is incredibly difficult to find anything useful there. The most I can say that there appears to be nothing preventing the modification of a legally produced copy.
The most relevant document I have found is this, which discusses various court cases dealing with whether or not alterations of legitimately owned copies of works constitute infringing derivative works. The long and the short of it appears to be that prior to the Copyright Act of 1976, courts would fairly consistently rule that purchasing a work, making alterations to it, then re-selling the work would not constitute an infringement on the copyright holder's rights. However, post-1976 courts have given conflicting rulings on the subject, sometimes on the same sort of modification.
Keep in mind, though, that this particular document is from 2005.
In any event, the issue is not how the illustrator feels, or how we feel, or how Wizards feels, it is what the law says regarding the issue. And currently it seems that that is very difficult information to come by.
On a side note, I know this is a futile request, but it would be nice if people could refrain from personal attacks while discussing this topic. A lot of people, on all sides, have gotten offended and said unpleasant things, and really those sorts of comments only serve to upset people and distract them from the issue.
Kinda disappointed in that one; I was very happy with the lines, but I found that covering large areas with gouache is a pain. Also, the clothes were added digitally to keep it from being offensive.
I'm working on this card and am coming in on that "close, but needs tweaking" stage. Any help would be appreciated since my vision is no longer objective. Thanks!
The lowest point on the hour glass is wrong, and I can fix that. Is there anything else I am missing? Also, the client wants it to be "detailed" but I don't want to take away the focal point of the piece. Any ideas on that? I don't want to add stuff, but implied texture and background lighting effects are a possibility.
It's really tough to see at this size so suggesting fixes is hard.
However, I think the rod type thing on the left would be better off in front of the glass (I believe it technically should be next to the glass, like it is up near the top, but that's not gonna work with the way things are right now). Actually, if you really want to mess around with it, it might be better to trim the glass on the left of the bottom so there is some space between it and the rod.
You could also make the bottom of the glass some kind of wrought iron dealie, and have some bits extending out to the left to fill that space. That would fill the "detail" needs without introducing new objects.
I'm sorry if I'm not being very clear; it's rather late and I should be sleeping. If you like, I can do a quick paint-over tomorrow to (hopefully) show what I'm babbling about.
PMing nudity isn't acceptable here either. We simply don't have an effective way of moderating private messages because we don't believe in breaking into our members' inboxes to check for nudity. PMing nude pictures can result in anything from a suspension up to automatic permanent banning.
I find this a little bit odd on account of the second post here.
And Galspanic, I agree on the strict moderation aspect of things. One of the things I like about MTGS is that the roaring seas of the internet are kept mostly at bay by the moderators here. And, as I said in my initial post, I am not "looking" for nudity, because most of the internet is obscenity. I like seeing people's work, and the fact that some of it contains nudity does not bother me. I do dislike the fact, though, that apparently people immediately jump from nudity to pornography, but I understand that it would be a fine line to walk from a moderation standpoint.
However, I also understand that MTGS tries to be "family friendly", and that is a respectable stance. It just seemed to me that links would be more convenient for all involved than PMs. But as brought up, the only reason PMs aren't policed are ones to do with privacy, so it's not a case of why links aren't allowed when PMs are so much as why PMs are allowed when links aren't.
In any case, consider my curiosity appeased. I don't know if the mods would rather have this thread locked now or leave it open for anyone else who might want to comment, but I feel I've gotten my answer.
This is a work-safe site, it's right in our Forums Rules.Clearly nudity, even creepy cartoon nudity, is not work-safe. Additionally, the rules clearly state that linking to material deemed inappropriate for our forums is just as inappropriate.
I realize this, because I did in fact read the rules. I was just wondering why it was acceptable to PM nudity around but not link it, when in theory a link should not be a "risk" to those who don't want to see anything. An image behind a link does absolutely nothing without a user clicking it, and assuming a link is appropriately labeled, the only ones clicking it should be those who would request a PM.
Again, I understand what the rules are, and I am not just out and out demanding change. If there is no reason beyond that's the way it is and is going to be, I'm all right with that. Just wanted to put the topic out there.
Um, hi. Feels kind of weird to be speaking to a forum at large.
I've been wondering about the rules involving nudity, mainly that it can't be linked but can be included in PMs if requested (I did a quick search for this topic, but saw nothing; I apologize if I missed it somewhere). Some of the altered cards posted have been moderator'd away because they contained nudity, and now they are gone forever unless I take the time to actually PM the artists (and I am lazy and don't care enough to do so).
Now, I am not advocating nudity for nudity's sake, because let's face it, this is the internet and everything is a Ctrl-T away. I do like seeing people's work, however, and many of the contributors do not seem to have a dedicated website to house their alterations.
Spoiler tags are obviously not enough since they still cache the image (at least on most forums). However, other forums that I have been on allowed nudity to be linked, as long as any links containing "not safe for work" material were clearly labeled as such. This way, the browser will not load the image until the user clicks the link, which they will not do unless they wish to see something containing nudity. The way I see it, a user clicking a link is the same as them requesting a PM, except with an automatic response.
So basically I am wondering why people can't link their work that contains nudity.
Any thoughts? Counterpoints? Righteous denunciations from Heaven on high?
Been busy with my first "real" commission! (The Numot was for a friend, so he doesn't count.) These'll be getting shipped out later today. I am excited! The scanner makes light colors look really unfavorable, so I may need to pull another page from Yawg07's book and start taking pictures instead (p.s. don't forget about us just because you have money, Yawg, I like seeing your work).
The Sphinx was a tough one because the whole bottom half of the card needed to be something new without taking the focus off of the sphinx. I have about four mockups in Gimp, and this was the best one. Looks horrible on here, the clouds are less disgusting in person.
Disclaimer: I am not an expert, but this is how I believe stuff would work here.
Putting a copy of a spell on the stack (Storm) doesn't trigger stuff that checks for spells being played. Playing a copy (Scepter) does. However, Eye of the Storm specifically asks for a card, so it won't trigger off a copy (either played or copied). With that out of the way:
You play the copy of Vision Charm. I don't think it particularly matters what order the following happens in, but I know there are rules governing who gets to do what when.
Eye of the Storm will not trigger, since you are playing a copy.
Dovescape triggers, and will counter the copy and give you the tokens when it resolves.
Hive Mind triggers and will force each other player to copy that spell when it resolves. These copies will not trigger Eye of the Storm, Hive Mind, or Dovescape (they are not cards, nor are they being played; just copied).
In the end, everyone else gets a copy of your spell to resolve, and you get yours countered and some tokens.
If anybody with more rules knowledge would like to help out, feel free. This is just the best I can make of it.
Edit: If someone were to play an actual spell, all of the above would happen, except Eye of the Storm would also trigger for the original card being cast. Then each copy that player chooses to play from under Eye of the Storm would cause Dovescape and Hive Mind to trigger.
More edit: I am not sure if Hive Mind's trigger will fizzle if Dovescape's trigger resolves first. Your spell is gone once it is countered, but I don't know if that will prevent Hive Mind from making copies of it. If it DOES prevent it, then the order in which the triggers go on the stack will determine if Hive Mind will produce copies or not.
That looks pretty sweet. I've always been a fan of your avatar (which I assume you made); the style you've got going on is rather nice.
I think you should revert the water back to the previous color if you're trying to make it a swamp, especially a Magic style swamp. The blue suggests the water is clear and deep, whereas a swamp should be shallow and murky. Or, if you want to take it a different direction, the color is great, but because it seems like very clean water, perhaps you could show some of the submerged bits of the stuff in the water.
I also feel like it needs more "sharp" bits. The lower right feels far too blurry, and while the upper left is getting there, it could possibly use some sharpening. I actually like the leaves on the right in the second image more than the latest, since they are higher contrast there. I'm guessing you went over a lot of it with a large brush to get the light effects, but maybe going over some of the edges of the objects in the foreground with a very small brush and a darker color would help them "pop" more. Of course, you aren't done, and maybe that's something you were planning on doing anyway.
But maybe you weren't asking for any input, in which case I apologize. The only art forum I occasionally visit is based around providing critiques, so it's kind of my default mode.
I really like where this is going, though. Love the colors and the brush strokes you use in the stumps and leaves.
edit: Looking at the thumbnails, I think the color scheme works better overall in the second image, but the streams of light in the latest are really cool, too. Maybe reconcile the two somehow?
Ffff you're right. I overlaid Aleksi's original over it, and the kneecap thing is just a tad too low. Now that's going to bug me forever; I may have to change that.
And I like to think of Lash Out as having Scry 1 instead of clash. In fact, that's how I view most clash cards.
Yes, it is in fact Wizards who, in the event of infringement, would be prosecuting. That doesn't mean that they will, even if card alters turn out to be illegal. However, the article everybody refers to never says anything about the SALE of altered cards. No, they probably don't care, but I would like to know whether or not profiting off of altering their product is technically legal.
Also, I think the cards are considered a reproduction, and 106A(c)(3) says that the stuff about mutilation and so forth do not apply to reproductions. I am not sure if the illustrators of Magic cards have any rights with respect to the cards themselves, since Wizards owns the copyrights to the images, I believe. They still have certain rights regarding the original works, but Wizards has the right to create "derivative works" (106(2)). Whether or not our alterations to the copies we own is infringing their right to create those works, I am not sure. In any case, I am almost certain that it is Wizards who would be getting wronged, legally speaking, not the illustrators.
The most relevant document I have found is this, which discusses various court cases dealing with whether or not alterations of legitimately owned copies of works constitute infringing derivative works. The long and the short of it appears to be that prior to the Copyright Act of 1976, courts would fairly consistently rule that purchasing a work, making alterations to it, then re-selling the work would not constitute an infringement on the copyright holder's rights. However, post-1976 courts have given conflicting rulings on the subject, sometimes on the same sort of modification.
Keep in mind, though, that this particular document is from 2005.
In any event, the issue is not how the illustrator feels, or how we feel, or how Wizards feels, it is what the law says regarding the issue. And currently it seems that that is very difficult information to come by.
On a side note, I know this is a futile request, but it would be nice if people could refrain from personal attacks while discussing this topic. A lot of people, on all sides, have gotten offended and said unpleasant things, and really those sorts of comments only serve to upset people and distract them from the issue.
Pestermite
Another Synod Sanctum
Bottle Gnomes
Edit: Confound it!
It's really tough to see at this size so suggesting fixes is hard.
However, I think the rod type thing on the left would be better off in front of the glass (I believe it technically should be next to the glass, like it is up near the top, but that's not gonna work with the way things are right now). Actually, if you really want to mess around with it, it might be better to trim the glass on the left of the bottom so there is some space between it and the rod.
You could also make the bottom of the glass some kind of wrought iron dealie, and have some bits extending out to the left to fill that space. That would fill the "detail" needs without introducing new objects.
I'm sorry if I'm not being very clear; it's rather late and I should be sleeping. If you like, I can do a quick paint-over tomorrow to (hopefully) show what I'm babbling about.
I find this a little bit odd on account of the second post here.
And Galspanic, I agree on the strict moderation aspect of things. One of the things I like about MTGS is that the roaring seas of the internet are kept mostly at bay by the moderators here. And, as I said in my initial post, I am not "looking" for nudity, because most of the internet is obscenity. I like seeing people's work, and the fact that some of it contains nudity does not bother me. I do dislike the fact, though, that apparently people immediately jump from nudity to pornography, but I understand that it would be a fine line to walk from a moderation standpoint.
However, I also understand that MTGS tries to be "family friendly", and that is a respectable stance. It just seemed to me that links would be more convenient for all involved than PMs. But as brought up, the only reason PMs aren't policed are ones to do with privacy, so it's not a case of why links aren't allowed when PMs are so much as why PMs are allowed when links aren't.
In any case, consider my curiosity appeased. I don't know if the mods would rather have this thread locked now or leave it open for anyone else who might want to comment, but I feel I've gotten my answer.
P.S. gnosisedge knows what is up.
I realize this, because I did in fact read the rules. I was just wondering why it was acceptable to PM nudity around but not link it, when in theory a link should not be a "risk" to those who don't want to see anything. An image behind a link does absolutely nothing without a user clicking it, and assuming a link is appropriately labeled, the only ones clicking it should be those who would request a PM.
Again, I understand what the rules are, and I am not just out and out demanding change. If there is no reason beyond that's the way it is and is going to be, I'm all right with that. Just wanted to put the topic out there.
I've been wondering about the rules involving nudity, mainly that it can't be linked but can be included in PMs if requested (I did a quick search for this topic, but saw nothing; I apologize if I missed it somewhere). Some of the altered cards posted have been moderator'd away because they contained nudity, and now they are gone forever unless I take the time to actually PM the artists (and I am lazy and don't care enough to do so).
Now, I am not advocating nudity for nudity's sake, because let's face it, this is the internet and everything is a Ctrl-T away. I do like seeing people's work, however, and many of the contributors do not seem to have a dedicated website to house their alterations.
Spoiler tags are obviously not enough since they still cache the image (at least on most forums). However, other forums that I have been on allowed nudity to be linked, as long as any links containing "not safe for work" material were clearly labeled as such. This way, the browser will not load the image until the user clicks the link, which they will not do unless they wish to see something containing nudity. The way I see it, a user clicking a link is the same as them requesting a PM, except with an automatic response.
So basically I am wondering why people can't link their work that contains nudity.
Any thoughts? Counterpoints? Righteous denunciations from Heaven on high?
Azorius Chancery
Orzhov Basilica
Sphinx of the Steel Wind
Darksteel Forge
Here's an updated Liliana Vess, now with slightly more correct kneecap:
And, finally, here are two lands from my current FNM deck (I tend to search these out specifically):
Island
Mountain
Putting a copy of a spell on the stack (Storm) doesn't trigger stuff that checks for spells being played. Playing a copy (Scepter) does. However, Eye of the Storm specifically asks for a card, so it won't trigger off a copy (either played or copied). With that out of the way:
You play the copy of Vision Charm. I don't think it particularly matters what order the following happens in, but I know there are rules governing who gets to do what when.
Eye of the Storm will not trigger, since you are playing a copy.
Dovescape triggers, and will counter the copy and give you the tokens when it resolves.
Hive Mind triggers and will force each other player to copy that spell when it resolves. These copies will not trigger Eye of the Storm, Hive Mind, or Dovescape (they are not cards, nor are they being played; just copied).
In the end, everyone else gets a copy of your spell to resolve, and you get yours countered and some tokens.
If anybody with more rules knowledge would like to help out, feel free. This is just the best I can make of it.
Edit: If someone were to play an actual spell, all of the above would happen, except Eye of the Storm would also trigger for the original card being cast. Then each copy that player chooses to play from under Eye of the Storm would cause Dovescape and Hive Mind to trigger.
More edit: I am not sure if Hive Mind's trigger will fizzle if Dovescape's trigger resolves first. Your spell is gone once it is countered, but I don't know if that will prevent Hive Mind from making copies of it. If it DOES prevent it, then the order in which the triggers go on the stack will determine if Hive Mind will produce copies or not.
I think you should revert the water back to the previous color if you're trying to make it a swamp, especially a Magic style swamp. The blue suggests the water is clear and deep, whereas a swamp should be shallow and murky. Or, if you want to take it a different direction, the color is great, but because it seems like very clean water, perhaps you could show some of the submerged bits of the stuff in the water.
I also feel like it needs more "sharp" bits. The lower right feels far too blurry, and while the upper left is getting there, it could possibly use some sharpening. I actually like the leaves on the right in the second image more than the latest, since they are higher contrast there. I'm guessing you went over a lot of it with a large brush to get the light effects, but maybe going over some of the edges of the objects in the foreground with a very small brush and a darker color would help them "pop" more. Of course, you aren't done, and maybe that's something you were planning on doing anyway.
But maybe you weren't asking for any input, in which case I apologize. The only art forum I occasionally visit is based around providing critiques, so it's kind of my default mode.
I really like where this is going, though. Love the colors and the brush strokes you use in the stumps and leaves.
edit: Looking at the thumbnails, I think the color scheme works better overall in the second image, but the streams of light in the latest are really cool, too. Maybe reconcile the two somehow?
And I like to think of Lash Out as having Scry 1 instead of clash. In fact, that's how I view most clash cards.