• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Opinions needed

C

centuryseries

SOH-CM-2023
What is everyone's opinion of what this gentleman is doing?

Is it right that he is selling what clearly looks to be like FSX screenshots of payware products with a bit of editing, and Lockon/DCS screenshots with no editing at all?

http://www.redbubble.com/people/skyviper/collections/66491-3d-digital-art-works-aircraft

What gets me is that the implication is that he "drew" them himself, especially when you read the comments for each 3D artwork of the aircraft.......:dizzy:
 
I see nothing wrong with making a screenshot, turning it into something artistic with PS and selling prints of it. Just about the same as watching Bob Ross, trying to do what he does and selling the result at a yard sale.


The bigger problem is that I wouldn't want to buy any of the prints offered.
 
If you click on any of the pictures in the gallery to get a better look, at the bottom of each page is a "Report Copyright infringement" link. If you think he really is passing off others' work as his own the answer is in your own hands.

I'm with Bjoern: they're not something I'd pay money for. :pop4: There is a member here does some really nice warbird artwork I'd pay cash for, if there was any spare!
 
I'm not seeing where he states he drew them himself. I see where he discusses getting into digital art which can mean almost anything.

As a youth I posed for an artist's painting. I had to wear certain clothes for a photo shoot, which was used with other photos for the painting. I guess that using FSX or FS9 images and enhancing them for sale as digital art is no different.

Art is in the eye of the beholder...as they say. :a1310:
 
This is not okay. I understand that he's creating "art," but he's using someone else's art to do it. If I go out and take pictures of airplanes at the airshow, it's photography, it's art, and I can sell it. If I go to an art gallery and take pictures of others' paintings of aircraft on display (and especially for sale), it's still photography, it may be still art, but I can't sell it. This seems like the latter to me.
 
WarHorse47 said:
I'm not seeing where he states he drew them himself. I see where he discusses getting into digital art which can mean almost anything.

As a youth I posed for an artist's painting. I had to wear certain clothes for a photo shoot, which was used with other photos for the painting. I guess that using FSX or FS9 images and enhancing them for sale as digital art is no different.

Art is in the eye of the beholder...as they say. :a1310:
Click to expand...

If you hover your mouse over the work it says "by " and the name of the chap. The comments all congratulate the author on his artwork, yet the principle subject matter was clearly lifted from FS and is someone else's hard work with a new sky background. I wouldn't mind if he wasn't selling them or even asked for permission first....or even credited the 3D model and texturing to the original authors.
 
Real planes are the ultimate payware, so I see no difference in doing it in real life or in the sim. As long as he's the one who snapped the shutter or hit the V key, they're his.

I wouldn't pay for any of it, though.
 
Bone said:
Real planes are the ultimate payware, so I see no difference in doing it in real life or in the sim. As long as he's the one who snapped the shutter or hit the V key, they're his.

I wouldn't pay for any of it, though.
Click to expand...

So if I took a photo of the Mona Lisa and changed the background that is okay to pass off as my own work and sell it?

i don't think so.
 
centuryseries said:
So if I took a photo of the Mona Lisa and changed the background that is okay to pass off as my own work and sell it?

i don't think so.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is even remotely the same thing, but as you are developer, I do understand where you are coming from. Granted, this man is cheating somewhat in selling this stuff as 'art'.
 
centuryseries said:
So if I took a photo of the Mona Lisa and changed the background that is okay to pass off as my own work and sell it?

i don't think so.
Click to expand...
Interesting discussion.

Taking a photo of someone else's art, modifying it, and passing it off as my own digital art would seem improper.

So, are we considering FSX to be art??

To get back to your main post - which is to ask for an opinion - I don't see anything wrong with what he's doing. Perhaps it needs to be clarified as to the source of his digital art and what he is doing to modify or enhance the images.
 
This is really amateurish stuff but I'm not sure I recognize FS models? I've never considered screen shots as art anyway. All the work has pretty much been done for you. All you did was press a button. Having said that taking screens is a lot of fun, but I would never try to sell them. That's an interesting copyright question. It's Microsoft's sim, someone else's plane (maybe), possibly some addon textures, so who has the rights? I wouldn't think the screen shot taker can claim creative rights, even if you change the background.
 
As far as planes are involved, we all can do the same as this gentleman does. So we're all artists!

:)

I see no harm in what he does.


Cees
 
Sometimes I'm slow to figure things out, so it just might be my slowness....but for the sake of argument, let's say that:

1. The guy selling them didn't take the screenshots
2. The guy selling them didn't do the altering of the background in the screenshots
3. They are clearly traceable to other people....

Now what? What is the "desired end state" in this thread if the guy is breaking all of the rules? Is the remedy to sue the guy for infringement of copyright? If so, who would sue him? Where would they get the tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees needed to do that? Are there actually people on this board willing to risk losing large amounts of personal capital to sue the guy over screenshots?

I understand being irritated about it, but I guess my real question is, how do we imagine this could be realistically resolved?

And not trying to be a smart a$$, I'm truly curious what people are thinking.

Kent
 
not sure what this fellow is really into. perhaps he is taking parts of other photos or screenshots and assembling these pieces into a final "artwork". Check out the Corsair dirty'd up and preparing to land from the front of the carrier.
 
A couple of years ago I had the idea of selling digital art for display on digital picture frames. I was going to contact various screenshot artist and see if I could license their work and offer it for sale on a website. But first I had to find out what Microsoft said about it. I never got a direct response from Microsoft but from others who had had similar ideas shared with me what they had found out. A person may create images and videos using Microsoft's products as long as the images remain hobby works or non-commercial. The moment a person makes a penny using a screen or video capture in whole or in part the work is considered "derivative" in that it's derived from Microsoft's product. The EULA specifically denies the right to make derivative work. The EULA for Lockheed/Martin's Prepar3d includes the same restriction.

I graduated from the Columbus College of Art and Design back in 1974, with a major in illustration. I learned early on not to get into discussions about what is and what isn't art. For me the more important question is, is it legal or not. If the aircraft or the backgrounds in the images come from FS or P3D in any form, regardless of how much they're modified, then it's not legal to sell them.
 
The Vulcan definitely looks like Kazunori Ito's version. (the giveaway being the smoothing groups on the ailerons). So that's something to think about.
 
ColoKent said:
Sometimes I'm slow to figure things out, so it just might be my slowness....but for the sake of argument, let's say that:

1. The guy selling them didn't take the screenshots
2. The guy selling them didn't do the altering of the background in the screenshots
3. They are clearly traceable to other people....

Now what? What is the "desired end state" in this thread if the guy is breaking all of the rules? Is the remedy to sue the guy for infringement of copyright? If so, who would sue him? Where would they get the tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees needed to do that? Are there actually people on this board willing to risk losing large amounts of personal capital to sue the guy over screenshots?

I understand being irritated about it, but I guess my real question is, how do we imagine this could be realistically resolved?

And not trying to be a smart a$$, I'm truly curious what people are thinking.

Kent
Click to expand...

All I would like is to have proper credit and/or the images featuring my work taken down. No point in going to court, they have been on sale for over a year, so nothing really to be gained except proper accreditation.

I just find it misleading that the fellow has not sought any kind of permission nor made any reference to flight sim as the foundation for some of his images.
 
If the images are being produced by the seller, then there's no real difference between this and - say - a still life.

I can't see that there's any harm in this, from the facts offered.

If you can prove that other people's work is being 'borrowed', then that's another issue.
If you can't, then it might be better to let it go.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top