Scratch

kayybee wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

kayybee wrote:

There is also a way so even when you remix (download, edit, upload) the project, it won't say "remixed from, etc.". I would say it, but copiers would just use it to not have to give credit at all.

People who intentionally cheat the remix attribution tag in order to obscure credit are usually blocked from the site.

[So anyone who is planning to cheat the remix attribution tag system to claim copied projects as yours, please don't do it].

But it's sometimes useful when you're uploading the final update of your project to clear the mess.

I'm talking about a case of cheating the attribution tag to post copied projects. I'd imagine that if it's a project creator is self-remixing a project and wants to remove the attribution tag, that case is really is more of an aesthetic opinion of the project creator.

scimonster wrote:

Lightnin wrote:

One of the issues we've been thinking about that's related to this is the fact that the notes are automatically inherited by the remix - this causes a lot of problems and confusion. If I say "I worked really hard on this for days!", and someone remixes and changes something very small but doesn't change the notes, then they'll still say "I worked very hard on this!" - Which would give me the impression that the remixer was trying to take credit for my work, even if they weren't.

So you know how you can set the default notes, and if they aren't changed, they're not supposed to upload ("this is to prevent lots of projects with default notes text from appearing on the Scratch website"). So also, if the previous notes aren't changed, they won't upload.

I made a mockup related to this, but don't want to derail this thread. So check it out here:
http://scratch.mit.edu/forums/viewtopic … 78#p918578

cheddargirl wrote:

[So anyone who is planning to cheat the remix attribution tag system to claim copied projects as yours, please don't do it].

Check release dates. 'Nuff said.

Kaj_Aliv wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

[So anyone who is planning to cheat the remix attribution tag system to claim copied projects as yours, please don't do it].

Check release dates. 'Nuff said.

Not as easy to do when there's no attribution tag on the copied project and if the copied project isn't a well-known one (cases of copying like that is harder to detect). 

Seeing as you quit it must of certainly driven you round the bend... 

Lightnin wrote:

eliza1 wrote:

[blocks] Well, tweaking or copying can't get anybody famous, but remixing is when you take another user's project and make significant changes in it, such as fixing glitches, adding new things or changing something. Copying is when you take a drawing, trace it, and claim it as your own, or you can take the picture, block out the signature and claim it as your own. Usually, a user can take up to a week on a drawing, if not, more. The fact is that, it's....disapointing when a drawing that they are proud of is stolen from them. I get the idea that some drawings can look like each other, but not on purpose. And yes, I do put signatures on my drawings, but I can't get them copyrighted, it's too expensive, and for many other user's too.
(I'm deeply sorry if words are incorrect or the grammar is wrong)

eliza1 (variables <3)

Hmm... good points. I guess I underestimate the amount of work it takes to make good drawings (not being much of an artist myself).

As a mod, it's sometimes hard to tell if the remixer "traced" to try to steal credit for someone's work, or if their version really is their own take on someone else's idea. (i.e. not really tracing - just them applying their own style to someone else's original idea). The difference seems really subtle. Maybe Scratcher artists can come up with some guidelines to help us decide how to handle these cases?

When it comes to copying art, I suspect that many cases that seem obvious to artists are not so obvious to us.... So we need some help thinking about this.

I hope [link=this http://scratch.mit.edu/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=919666#p919666[/link] helps somewhat 

Last edited by Blackdog100 (2011-09-15 16:33:16)

Lightnin wrote:

eliza1 wrote:

[blocks] Well, tweaking or copying can't get anybody famous, but remixing is when you take another user's project and make significant changes in it, such as fixing glitches, adding new things or changing something. Copying is when you take a drawing, trace it, and claim it as your own, or you can take the picture, block out the signature and claim it as your own. Usually, a user can take up to a week on a drawing, if not, more. The fact is that, it's....disapointing when a drawing that they are proud of is stolen from them. I get the idea that some drawings can look like each other, but not on purpose. And yes, I do put signatures on my drawings, but I can't get them copyrighted, it's too expensive, and for many other user's too.
(I'm deeply sorry if words are incorrect or the grammar is wrong)

eliza1 (variables <3)

Hmm... good points. I guess I underestimate the amount of work it takes to make good drawings (not being much of an artist myself).

As a mod, it's sometimes hard to tell if the remixer "traced" to try to steal credit for someone's work, or if their version really is their own take on someone else's idea. (i.e. not really tracing - just them applying their own style to someone else's original idea). The difference seems really subtle. Maybe Scratcher artists can come up with some guidelines to help us decide how to handle these cases?

When it comes to copying art, I suspect that many cases that seem obvious to artists are not so obvious to us.... So we need some help thinking about this.

Maybe I could provide some insight? 

One form of copying is eye tracing, in which one imitates the image given. Here's an example, where the one on the left is the copy, and the one on the right is the original copyrighted image (yeah, it's from the Yu-Gi-Oh! anime series, sue me  ):

vs.

The copy on the left some wouldn't consider original because, well, it's pretty much more or less a mirror image of the original on the left. On the opposite side of the issue, some people copy because it's the only way to learn how to draw in a style they really like.

Another form is recoloring, where one takes an image and recolors it or modifies it (this time it's from Sonic, respectively), again the one on the left is the copy/recolor, the one on the right is the original:

vs.

The copy on the left some wouldn't consider original because, it seem like a recolor takes less effort than trying to draw out the entire thing. On the opposite side, I find this is usually done by people who want their character to follow a certain style but because do not have the artistic capacity to do so they resort to recolor. Alternatively, it could just be a personal take on that character (for example, I've seen characters recolored to make them look evil because the person wanted to envision and evil version of that character).

Just from looking around here at most recolor projects on Scratch, most don't intend recolors as an attempt to fool everyone, but rather it's done because drawing in itself is a difficult skill to learn and it's easier to redesign a character from an already existing image. It's very rare that this isn't the case.

I took the liberty of viewing deviantART's policy on copying or using other people's artwork, I think it might provide some insight:

All original works on deviantART are the legal property of the submitting artist. If you want to use a work you need to ask for permission from the artist, who is free to set whatever terms and conditions they wish. Permission should be obtained regardless of how you plan to use the work but especially if you plan to use it commercially.

To contact a member of deviantART, you can use the contact information available on the deviant's personal page (e-mail, instant messenger,...)or (if you are a member of deviantART yourself) write the artist a note.

DeviantART possesses no ownership claim in any submission and cannot grant you any license or permission for use.

Stock submissions and certain submissions marked with a Creative Commons License already have certain terms and conditions attached and can be used without directly contacting the artist providing that you obey the rules set for each work (which may vary from work to work).

The last part about the Creative Commons License I underlined because Scratch projects are automatically covered under a CC license, which allows for remixing and changing the work. To my understanding, this seems to have also applied to the images used in the project (excluding those used under Fair Use, which an entirely different issue in itself). Because Scratch projects are automatically covered by a Creative Commons license, it's possible that one could argue that the CC license can also apply to recolored images (provided the intent isn't meant to mislead and so long that the images follow the CC license rules). It's a legal limbo case.