We recommend that you contact staff well in advance of the deadline to ensure you can be accommodated. Please note: staff assistance is not available after p. Large print is available upon request. Nominations for California's next Poet Laureate are now open! Learn more at www. Application Links: Online Application Portal: calartscouncil.
Guidelines Download. Guidelines in Spanish Download. Featured Grantee: Armory Center for the Arts. Staff Contact:. Get the latest news by signing up for our newsletter!
Sign Up. Learning Center Why the Arts? Subscribe to the California ArtBeat weekly newsletter. Zip Code. Thank you for signing up. Report Post « » Your Name:.
However, the state of affairs regarding the internet these days, has delivered a new actionable offence by individuals. Who simply believe that art on the internet is free, or there for them to do with as they please. This, from a creative point of view is becoming unacceptable. After all, us artists, we make a living from our works. Taking away, or misusing that ability to pay our bills is detrimental to our own survival.
More poisonous is the way that many people some creatives as well misuse and reuse artwork in order to resell and make a living off the back of the creative mind.
What the Artistic License aims to achieve, is basically create a community of artists hopefully in large numbers that will work with an organised and legal body, to help each other, and for the purpose of individual complaints in a way that can register offenders, work to make better links with the reproduction industry, and look at ways where the creative soul can feel more at ease in putting out their work piece, without fear of the many aspects that are listed below.
Below are some categorised areas of concern. If any of these have affected your operation as an artist, then maybe instead of feeling like a single voice in a sea of internet confusion and intricacy, that there could be a place where you could feel that like minded artists feel the same, support this injustice and work together in order that we all make a good living from our skills.
Here is a good example of one of the more common aspects of internet crimes against artists; image misuse. This is in fact one of the pieces of the founder of the artistic license movement, Rob Snow. He came across the image through a vigilant eye of a known associate of his. This led him to discover that two of his images had been used by the Greek bar to advertise a party. It must be pointed out at this stage that the artist had not agreed to allow the use of this artwork in such a way. After contacting the bar and graphic design who was responsible, the artist found a plethora of contradictions in statements coming from both of them.
The designer said he know the artist and so though it OK to use his image. The artist later denied any knowledge of the graphic designer. They also tried several gracious attempts to flatter the artist, saying that they loved his work and it made his work look good, or it will be seen by lots of people. All of which would not result in a fee being paid for the image.
When that was discussed the bar stated that the party would be that friday and they would be willing to remove the image then, after the party. The artist stated he wanted a letter of intent, and removal immediately, and for the graphic designer to formally apologise. Not all the conditions were met, but at least the images were removed instantly. Now, this type of incident happens too much on the internet, and without helpful eyes monitoring the chaos that is the websites of millions, it is really hard to discover how much misuse there is.
There is undoubtedly a lot. Another example of how some artists take their creativity to a questionable level. This is a comporary artists finding artwork that she likes by others, in this case the image on the left is artist Jiri Borsky. The one on the right is the poor copy. Although the artwork has been rendered in a different compositional angle, with a different rendering technique and so forth, it is undoubtedly a copy of the original in idea and feel.
This falls under the illegal category of intellectual property theft. And to compound it more, the said artist her name is Susy Brigden is also not only an occasion idea their, but in fact steals elements and whole images from a lot of known people.
There are ways to combat this, which will be discussed in detail in other posts, but such tools that allow reverse image searching, and registering copyright on the artwork can be useful tools. The big issue as above is that this type of misuse is hard to track and discover. This artist will be added to the blacklist and as soon as the organisation is set in place, will be approached for some form of understanding on her flagrant copyright infringements.
This example was highlighted on a fantastic site that is actually set up for the sole purpose to spotlight infringements on image misuse. Now, there is no doubt when placed side by side that this is a copy. The original on the left and the copy on the right. The sad aspect, which you can explore, just by looking at the logos, is that they both deal in the clothing industry. So, not only has Plivertees took the base logo design, but is in fact in the same industry.
This again is highly illegal and is not even ethically good as a designer. This is becoming a bigger and bigger issue, especially since the popularity of iPhone cases. The sad point, which in unlike many legit POD sites, is that the artist receives nothing from any sales made here. This issue is also compounded by the way illegals take artwork and produce products in countries such as India and China, where manufacturing is very cheap, and selling it off the radar.
There would be great sense of hope, if a body could be set up globally that monitored this type of activity across many continents, and the culprits brought to justice. This is an issue many an artist using POD sites feels is a contributing effect to the theft of their artwork, and use on such sites as above. The fact that a great deal of popular POD sites fail to apply a watermarking solution to the enlarged version of the images. Here are three examples of the more popular sites.
And as you can see there are two enlarged views that can be taken and reutilised. They want images that are physically big enough to place on the cases templates, etc, so they can get the products out there. Many of these images too, away from the thieves, can in fact be taken and reused by individuals for online artwork as in example one , and wallpapers for phones and iPads.
The sites are not obliged to apply watermarks, but in a sense of morality and respect for the artists whom make them money, surely the application is not that much of a request. I participate in maybe some 15 POD sites and have found a good majority do add watermarking, or even allow you to apply as you wish.
However, the popular ones seems to avoid this, and could be a key to why they are popular. However, when the photograph is physically copied as a new piece of artwork based on an existing artwork in the image itself then this is a copyright infringement. As you can see in these examples, Miranda Josafat has taken two known photographic artists and duplicated their work exactly in compositional forms, regardless of being in her style.
Once again, this is a simple example of something that is done time in and time out due to the global aspect of image sharing on the internet.
0コメント