Posts that AlanH is monitoring

Topic: Conversation about the match

Awesome.
Week 1 raised the bar on thinking. Week 2 raised the bar on discussion.
I can’t wait to see what we get next Friday from Chuck and Steven.

Chair, check. Popcorn, check. RSS working, check…

Topic: Conversation about the match

That’s a bummer about the one rule that exists. I guess I’ll have to re-do my remix. Oh well, slow day at the office anyhow.

Topic: Conversation about the match

Two quick things from the Royal & Ancient Society of Layer Tennis.

First if all there are virtually NO RULES for what constitutes a good play or volley and there is nothing that prohibits players from using their own or public domain or purchased stock work or elements from it in the course of a match. In fact almost nothing is prohibited. Part of what we have always loved about hosting these matches is seeing how things develop on their own and how people create their own notions of how to judge good and/or fair play.

One rule does exist. Players must agree beforehand the they won’t use images that they don’t have permission to use and they are told this quite explicitly. Our basic stance is “if you’re not sure if you can use an image don’t use it.” These things are difficult to police and, quite frankly, doing so is not our idea of fun. Our policy stands and going forward we’ll make an even greater effort to communicate it. Ultimately the players are responsible for the work they post.

Topic: Conversation about the match

I see where your coming from, i just disagree.

To use your words, he created an original image using the “principles and techniques” oh his contemporary. The compositions are vastly different and the techniques are different enough to see how the concept and technique are evolving. I might not hail it for its originality but I certainly wouldn’t take it to a persecution of an unethical act.

Under your logic, I suppose everyone who implements the oh-so-popular “glossy reflective floor technique” in their designs owe the original creator of said technique (whoever the hell that is) same serious royalties.

Last words: Ownership over style is a slippery slope on the mountain of lost causes and the domain of narcissists.

Topic: Conversation about the match

“There is no rip off here.“

unfortunately i think you’re very, very wrong on this. those other artists became inspired and created unique, original work based off the principles and techniques of their contemporaries. in this case of Duerden and Seveso, i don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say this is borderline verbatim.

Topic: Conversation about the match

Greatmiddlewest has a point. I believe Google Image “diving” is perfectly legit in this NONCOMMERCIAL circumstance because it is done in the vein of collage and cultural reappropriation and remixing. If he had scanned a magazine and used it as a base image in a larger collage, no one would have a problem.

If the “stolen” images were used wholesale in the design and not as an element in a larger artistic work, then yes it would be “wrong”. Seriously, would you expect him to have his own picture of a fucking hummingbird? Sheesh.

However, using the pre-existing artwork in a manner in which it contributes a majority of the images message, texture and visual design is a bit of a foul. The reason that volley worked was because of the image, and that is misleading to the intent of Layer Tennis. I fully expect the players to raid their stash of images, but I also expect those images to be used in a new manner as an element that helps create a whole new design.

As far as that image looking too much like another artists work, i don’t see it. Sure they are similar, but damn if artists aren’t allowed to find inspiration from each other. What would Picasso have been without Georges Braque or Basqiat without Cy Twombly? There is no rip off here.

Topic: Conversation about the match

@GMW re: “Can Google images be referred to as a part of pop-culture?”

That enters into a similar debate to sampling in popular music, where opinions differ as widely as laws do in different areas. There are so many factors: context, permission, parody protection, the importance of the sample to the work as a whole, the recognizability of the sample, the age or familiarity of the sample, editorial vs. commercial usage… If an image found on Google isn’t permissible, what about an image scanned from a 45-year-old book from that’s long out of print and the publisher long out of business? There are laws governing such matters, yet we all have our own ethics, too. That actually goes back to the Seveso argument, too, just as a commercial may legally feature ‘soundalike’ musicians without the original artists’ permission, (and I’m just wildly guessing a scenario here), what if a company likes Seveso’s style but Seveso isn’t interested in doing commercial work, who’s to stop the advertising company from finding another illustrator to create their ad in a very similar style? How many Peter Max-like or Andy-Warhol like ads or posters (aside from the ones they actually did) have you seen? Can Joy Division stop Interpol? Can Jeff Koons stop Daniel Edwards? Can Helen Hunt stop Leelee Sobieski? Are imitations generally pretty lame compared to the original? Usually, but they’re usually not illegal. And sometimes the imitation can add another dimension to the original idea.

Again, and I want to be very clear, I’m not sure what the official policy is, or what communication there was on this subject between CP and the artists, and I still am giving the artists benefit of the doubt, there are many possible explanations. Perhaps Neil was Seveso’s student? Perhaps Seveso was Neil’s student! Perhaps they’re friends and work together. Perhaps theres’ an explanation behind the google images.

Topic: Conversation about the match

i think you make some really good points and i’m glad that even though i seem fired up about this, it is a totally positive thing to discuss

Topic: Conversation about the match

@ Anton – Yeah, I caught it, I just think it’s kinda weird to use something so finished and polished for anything other than the serve. I think a big part of this contest is to be spontanious and think quickly, reacting to the previous move.

My opinion on Google images, admittedly, is kinda based on wishful thinking, (no-one is getting proper notification or permission), but because this is only for fun, and not for profit, is done on the fly, but I still think it should be allowed. I’m probably in the minority on this, but come on, it’s just a game. It’s like the Dada artists appropriating images from fashion magazines, newspapers and other areas of pop-culture at the time for use in their collages. I think Picaso did this too. In most cases, the context is totally removed, the images are usually highly modified. And what if the sources were cited, like a disclaimer.

Just thinking out loud here…
Can Google images be referred to as a part of pop-culture? What if we think of this appropriation more like quoting the work of another artist to create a new work? (that’s from wikipedia’s entry on appropriation in art). Also, When Google compiles the images from a specific search result into their interface, they are sharing and redistributing without the image creators permission. The only difference is that they are citing the original context in which it appears online. Couldn’t designers participating in Layer Tennis do the same thing? Would that make it more permissible?

I dunno, regardless of where this discussion leads to, it’s a very interesting debate, and I’d love to hear more opinions.

Topic: Conversation about the match

@Greatmiddlewest – how can that be? Google image theft is a much bigger issue than using one’s own previously-made work.

Did you catch what Bryan said up above?

There’s nothing in Layer Tennis rules that prohibit using ones own images from the past, in fact, it’s more or less necessary to raid your hard drive for imagery, especially in a situation like this where there may be dozens or more individual images in each volley.

Topic: Conversation about the match

Maybe I was confusing (double negative), but I believe we are in agreement on this issue. Please read my post again…

”...it would be very difficult to convince me than most of the 7th Volley WASN’T prepared ahead of time.”

meaning I think it was prepared ahead of time, and you just confirmed it. During the match, I called him out on that right after he posted it. (if you look on page 9 of this thread, it’s the first post.) I don’t think that’s fair for him to use that, hence my advocacy for disqualification.

Like I said before, this troubles me much more than the Google image issue.

Topic: Conversation about the match

@ Greatmiddlewest
“Apart from all that, it would be very difficult to convince me than most of the 7th Volley wasn’t prepared ahead of time. That just undermines the whole point of the game.”

I wish – believe me- I wish it wasn’t this easy…but it took all of one search of ‘neil duerden’ on google to find this:

i dont even know if this would be such an issue if this previously designed work hadn’t taken up almost 75% of the 7th volley! if it was small and stuck in a corner somewhere, maybe nobody would have noticed. but for goodness sake…

again, i want to reiterate i have ZERO issues or personal matters with neil. he doesn’t know who i am, i don’t know him. this could have been any old joe schmo and i’d still have felt just as bothered to make points of these things

Topic: Conversation about the match

i’ll trust and hope you’re correct about that but i suppose only neil and couscous know where all the images came from and if they had permission to use them.

Topic: Conversation about the match

@Will

“and i’m sorry to spur anything more on, but let’s not even get started on the photos of the people/models from this whole match. certainly these guys don’t have rights to these photos of girls that are from professional fashion photoshoots…?”

Both participants have incorporated their illustration with model photos for advertising work and I’d imagine most of their people/model imagery is from their portfolios or working files for client or personal projects. This is a bit stickier than the Google question, since they were somewhat involved in the creation of those elements, yet they may or may not retain rights to re-use them for (what it’s fair to call) self-promotion. We’ll consider that angle in our statement, too, though again, we’d like to think the artists would make proper choices when using such imagery.

Topic: Conversation about the match

I’d really like to hear Neil D. and Couscous’s take on all this. Maybe we’re way off the mark on these accusations?

you have no idea how much i wish that was the case and how i wish so badly that i felt this way. it certainly would make things easier, wouldn’t it? the problem is, the proof is there. i don’t really see how Neil or Couscous could have a different take or explanation for a few of these issues… the Google issue is not even up for debate, and the Alberto Seveso issue, while up for debate, is, unfortunately, very palpable. i would in fact be more interested to hear Seveso’s personal feelings on the matter

Topic: Conversation about the match

i appreciate the response. i don’t mean to be crusading or unfriendly at all and please allow me to apologize for coming off as angry or a little too intense. with that said, in my personal experience, one of the biggest flaws of the design community online today is the lack of accountability and respect for other people’s things. its this attitude of ‘want to use someone else’s stuff as long as you make it subtle? go ahead. nobody will know, because the internet is such a big place’.

well, i immediately spotted the alberto seveso issue and wanted to make a point of it. i also became a bit curious about the imagery that was used in some of neil’s volleys and, well, it doesn’t take long to open a new window and type “hot air balloon” just to see what happens. i suppose the fact that it was the first result was a bit shocking to me…

again, i know this is all supposed to be in good fun and believe me, i am all for good fun. but can we assume that the photographer of that hot air balloon or the photographer of that hummingbird would take this all in good fun? we can not, and because this is an open forum, i took the liberty of bringing these things to light for two reasons. 1- an explanation. maybe neil had no idea that wasn’t OK to do. i have a hard time believing a true professional would not know that, but i can’t make that assumption. 2 – discussion. its fascinating to me that AlanH tried to reason with using google images because of the lack of time. certainly a flawed excuse and one i find challenging and interesting to respond to.

and i’m sorry to spur anything more on, but let’s not even get started on the photos of the people/models from this whole match. certainly these guys don’t have rights to these photos of girls that are from professional fashion photoshoots…?

it’s just a frustrating thing. i’m not here to get neil or anybody in trouble, or here to become the imagespotting snitch. but if this remains an open forum where anyone can discuss anything about the match, then this is what i’ve chosen to discuss. again, thanks for your response and i truly hope this continues to be an interesting but fruitful discussion

Topic: Conversation about the match

I agree that a lot of this discussion seems a bit over the top, or even angry, and there’s no reason it can’t mellow out a bit.

Topic: Conversation about the match

@Will, AlanH & Anton:

I have more of a problem with the appropriation of the 7th Volley style than I do with the ganking of Google images. It is a little troubling that this Google method was used rather than grabbing stuff from his own personal image library, but as this was all done in the spirit of fun, It doesn’t trouble me too much that (sort of) ‘generic’ images of a hot air balloon and a hummingbird (and probably more) were used. I’m sure this issue had a lot to do with the out-come of the match, and people’s perception of his work during it.

In regards to the 7th Volley, why would a world class designer need to steal or ‘be influenced’ so directly by Alberto Seveso’s work? This really troubles me and I think it’s grounds for disqualification. It’s not done nearly as well, and there’s really not enough departure from the original concept for me to be satisfied that he added enough of his own contribution to it. Apart from all that, it would be very difficult to convince me than most of the 7th Volley wasn’t prepared ahead of time. That just undermines the whole point of the game.

I agree that there should be some sort of terms or a rulebook set up that clearly defines what kind of images can be appropriated and what is ‘out of bounds’, what is classified as a foul, etc.

I’d really like to hear Neil D. and Couscous’s take on all this. Maybe we’re way off the mark on these accusations?

I still enjoyed the match very much. I’ve been waiting for this for years.

Topic: Conversation about the match

Will, I’ll speak semi-officially for CP, since Jim’s out today:
There seem to be a lot of angry threads all over the internet about Duerden “ripping off” Seveso’s work. I don’t know the whole story/history, but their work is admittedly similar. The actual content of Duerden’s work, however, is original, and even if the style isn’t (and again, we don’t know the story), it meshes well within the scope of his work, and it’s not our place to get involved in any rivalry that may be there. Others commented about that image because it was a finished image from Duerden’s site. There’s nothing in Layer Tennis rules that prohibit using ones own images from the past, in fact, it’s more or less necessary to raid your hard drive for imagery, especially in a situation like this where there may be dozens or more individual images in each volley.

That said, you are correct in that Google Images is not a free stock art source. I’m not sure exactly what participants are told regarding that matter (Jim can comment on that later) so let’s give Neil the benefit of the doubt that he was under the impression that it was OK to use such material for this non-commercial, high-pressure, friendly contest. We’ll revise and/or clarify our policy and rules, but that said, I think it’s the artists’ responsibility to follow the rules and be responsible about copyright infringement, bad taste, etc. The work tells all, if a player is out of bounds, he’ll hear about it from the commentator, his opponent, and the forums (as we’re seeing now.) Of course, we’d really prefer the forums don’t turn into an angry mob/imagespotting committee, so heading it off at the pass is in everyone’s interest.

We appreciate your comments and detective work, Will, and the questions you’ve raised are entirely legitimate, but let’s keep it friendly and mellow, there’s no need for rabblerousing and crusading, we’re all on the same team. Again, I’m sure Jim will have something to say about it too, and hopefully Neil will chime in himself.

Topic: Conversation about the match

also…
I’m sure finding explicitly free images is pretty hard in such a short amount of time

ooooh i see. so since he had a limited amount of time, that makes it ok. hmm…

so…are you telling me that if he had been in a school setting he wouldnt have been in trouble had this been found out? if he worked at an agency and did that for a corporate client and nobody realized until after the campaign was rolled out, that would be alright? no! he’d be expelled or fired. maybe i’m getting fired up “over nothing”, but then again maybe someone should be getting fired up that this can happen, be proven, and people like you AlanH stand back and try to defend it

Topic: Conversation about the match

but you need to cool down a bit; it seems like you have it in for Duerden

ha. give me a break. i dont even know neil. i do know that i have it in for people who breeze over the fact that another artist’s work was stolen. i have it in for people like you who have flimsy and weak morals and standards. how in God’s name do you know if Neil is profiting from this or not?! what if he is being paid?? or what if he were to get hired based solely off the work he did here on layer tennis? is that fair?

lose the lukewarm attitude and take a stand for something

Topic: Conversation about the match

haha Originality kneels under stifled artistic inspiration. Especially when time is short. I fully support the proposed policy..

Topic: Conversation about the match

i really do hope for the sake of the credibility of neil and layer tennis that this discussion gets taken seriously over the next week and there is some good feedback and ideas regarding all that i’ve brought up.

Topic: Conversation about the match

Can a real artist vehemently articulate great gradients in outlines?..

That is the question.. I think.. :)

Topic: Conversation about the match

oh come on… stay on topic. ill up it to photobucket tomorrow or something…sheesh