artistical question

[goatschool]

if you, say, did artwork for a band's release a few years ago

and they are re-releasing the thing, and inform you on the eve of release that portions of what you did have been re-rendered by a different artist... and that you'd be given credit for what his rendition is based on...

how would you feel?

 

[deadair]

a little ticked off

 

[goatschool]

that's how i feel jake, but

that is my initial reaction, and i keep trying to analyze why i feel like that.

there are other added factors, major ones, but i wanted to see what anyone else has to say about the essence here?

i guess as a musician, if someone did a cover of your stuff without permission, but then again that's not really comparable?

 

[mindspell]

I would ask that they use my artwork entirely, unchanged, or use different artwork altogether. I wouldn't want my work altered and credited as such.

And yeah, ticked off too.

 

[minxnim]

nix legally in NYC intellectual property rights laws verify that unless you sold all rights to the original work they need your written permission to alter it. LET THEM FUCKERS KNOW THAT.

 

[goatschool]

i suppose this could be their way of saying that my traycard sucked, but i recall them telling me they loved it @ the time.

i guess that doesn't matter in light of the overall scheme.

mindspell, this isn't snarky or whatnot: do you feel it justified to consider artwork as proprietary and unalterable once it leaves the creator's hands?

i had one very close friend (a talented musician) who made a shitty comment toward me once, something about how he felt it was "weird" that i'd request to have my name printed at the bottom of some flyer (i put a lot of work into, at the band's request)

it wasn't his band, and i interpreted his comment as part of his attitude that art was part of the landscape once it is out there... and i suspect the person from today's band has adapted a similar outlook.

but i'm really not mature enough to shed my possessiveness of what i do? i mean, it's all i have in life. i haven't read much theory on materialism or 'property' and all of this hurts as far as growing pains go.

 

[goatschool]

minx one of the band people (a guy i used to consider a friend, at this point) lives in japan!

 

[minxnim]

oh come on fuck that guy. everyone has a right to feel differently about art. no one is

 

[minxnim]

if they bought it from you and you lived in NYC and they applied US rules and procedures to the use of it, then they're bound by it anyway.

 

[FalseTodd]

i'd be annoyed and i think the cover song is a bad analogy but i'm having trouble verbalizing

 

[minxnim]

the cover song is a bad analogy because... well covering a song generally means more homage than anything else.

 

[goatschool]

you're right, it is a bad analogy. i'm not thinking clearly, either.

 

[minxnim]

well annnyway IMO you have a right to be annoyed. it's not petty at all to think someone would ask you before tampering with a design/artwork. it seems only logical that they would give you notice or ask permission.

 

[goatschool]

my first response to him was vague and angry, and he responded by saying i'm a weird guy and that i was discourteous towards his "passing along of info".

this has not been a good month. at all.

 

[mindspell]

G, I am a firm believer of Open licenses and their validity in all sorts uses. Just like the Creative Creative Licenses. I also believe that if you decide that fair use of your artwork is not altering it then it should be treated as such. Terms of usage are an essential part of an artist-user contract and they should not be breached under any circumstances. But everything is up to you and what you feel is proper use of your artwork.

 

[minxnim]

this guy is not a good businessman. that's all i know.

 

[Josh Seipp]

it's ok to get angry at people I just realized this weekend

i'd be angry

what mindspell said, really

 

[Josh Seipp]

or I'd ask that they have me do the changes as an alternate solution

 

[goatschool]

mindspell, i'm damaging myself for not really exploring what you are talking about. i have to find the energy to do so.

i don't think of myself as an exceptionally talented illustrator or designer, but i have been at it for a little while and i think i have a little bit to offer.

but somewhere along the lines i got lost in working for people and proving myself (to myself?) and forgetting that i should be getting compensated for it/protecting my output. i am also very poor at asking people for specifics, because i feel that puts a wall up between both parties.

how do you musicians deal with this stuff?

in any case, minx is right, mindspell is right: this guy is a metal dude with punk/DIY ethics that i used to admire, but now suspect they are as rigid as his lack of foresight and blot out the human aspect of creativity. either that or just his selfishness over my own selfishness.

but M&M i'm going to explore what an open license is, or the concept of it

(the legality of this particular project is really, really sketchy - up to the point where the label who 'owned' it is on hiatus)

 

[goatschool]

ps yes josh

pps i really like working with avi, let me clarify