Alright, since people are clogging the Altered Art thread with squabbling over who Edward P. Beard, Jr. is going to sue next, I figured I'd turn the debate over to here and get this discussion away from being meshed in with the card alters.
And, for my opening statement;
I remember reading somewhere that Wizards had gone by a different purchasing method in the earlier sets for commissioning artists - something like not purchasing full rights before, and now they do it so they have more control over the artwork and what can be done with it or what the original artist can do. I'm kinda going on a long shot by posting without reference to where I read that, so please allow me time to find a link
Ed Beard has replied to my Email. Here is what I emailed to him:
Dear Mr Beard,
I'm a forum user at mtgsalvation.com and have been altering magic cards for personal use for a couple of weeks.
Yesterday, another user named "Chris" has informed us that he talked to you about altered cards and their
possible copyright infringements. He also posted your answer in the forum, in which you characterised
some of my fellow users as "thieves", "wannabes" and "skells" who would "bastardize" your artwork to
"make huge sums" with it. It was also made plain that you would like to take legal action against
altering cards and the people making it.
However, despite these strong words, most users in this forum are simply fascinated by altered magic
cards and those ", at least that is my impression. These user are not any near a business model that would make
huge sums with your artwork, in fact the word business model itself is ridiculous when talking about
this issue.
Altered magic cards have become widely popular among the Magic the Gathering community. We are all
fascinated by the game and of course it's artwork, which in combination makes a very magic of its own.
Hence, I'd like to invite you to our forum to discuss this issue with us, like Amy Weber has done
it some time ago.
Kind regads,
... and here is his reply:
Dear [my name],
I worked for 15 years in my field struggling for years to get a break and never plagiarized or used another artists creations or works to make a dime no matter how bad things were, let alone create an entire website of others art to modify. It's called ethical respect for another works.
I have been a teacher for 25 years and aside from the over 135 students I have published in the illustration and Gaming field I have always been sympathetic as well as professionally supportive of young artists all over the globe. All you need to do is view my 14 free youtube instruction videos that I created for FREE ( even though my instruction videos are sold and make a good portion of my income ). I do this so that young illustrators can receive some of my 30+ years of experience. I also spend well over 4 hrs per night at times, responding to questions about technique to the hundreds of subscribers and young artists who ask questions about the video and my techniques. Take a moment to view these videos and posts for yourself ( just type the key word Ed Beard Jr.) I think you will see that I am perhaps one of the most generous and supportive of young artists professional illustrators in my felid.
The problem that has now been created has been brought on by these altered card artists themselves. Aside from the total disregard for the original creator of the art ( blocking the name of the original creator, not asking for permission from the intrinsic rights owner or copyright holder) the basic lack of courtesy to request permission and at the very least the blessing of the original creator before using the art for profit, no matter how small is alarmingly arrogant.
None of my art students would ever dare use another artists works to expand upon and not understand the basics of copyright and ownership in the creators rights. It is the Golden rule that all artists should hold most sacred. There is no excuse for ignoring the responsibilities to the original creators and fellow artists works.
Then adding more fuel to the fire and insult, I was sent copies of all of the posts made in response to Chris when all he posted was a small paragraph that defined WHY these ACA are a violation of the original artists rights. Chris and I were brutally attacked by what you call " people who are just fascinated by ACA or art students just trying to make a buck to support their studies" this preceeded my final reply to Chris.
As far as I am concerned anyone who would post the laundry list of insults about me as a person as was done, or threaten me personally ( kick me in the balls...LOL) as well as pledge to defy my requests and state that they think it's fun to do more just to " prod the bear" and countless other defamatory insults, have no right to call themselves artists or even decent people.
It is for these reasons and as a direct result of mtgsalvation allowing these ignorant and disrespectful infringing artists and insulting members to post such attacks, that forced me to defend and respond with both the legal rights issues and characterizing those on this forum ( who other than one person Chris) the in the words necessary to properly define the type of person who cares nothing for another artists rights, credit or reputation.
Again, the saddest thing about this entire issue is that if any of these so called artists would have done the minimum and respectful thing that they should know is their obligation and contact the creators and proper copyright holders, I "may" have authorized one of them if they demonstrated this respect and ability to maintain the integrity of my name on the card as well as the original art. At the very least I would not be notifying WOTC and any and all websites that are supporting this violation of copyright without authorized permission from the creator.
The abundance of insults, deformational statements about my artwork and me as a person have all been saved and printed. If I were you and your fellow collectors I would be very upset at those who posted such things and moreover recommend they apologies to me and any other artists whose works on cards they did not seek permission from. Then perhaps you and your group "might" escape the misery that I and my other fellow Magic artists intend to bring forth against anyone who continues this action.
Just today I received the following response after I notified this ACA to remove my cards and even complimented her abilities. I told her that if she had respected me as the original artist and actually requested permission I "may" have given her my blessing. ( naturally this assumes additional authorization was provided from WOTC as co-copyright holder in other rights to the work. ( again artists maintain intrinsic rights if not all rights in some cases )
here is her one line reply
"no problem. I will know longer alter your cards and remove all of your cards from my web site."
You'd think that after all of the lengthy explanation and appeal this artist would at the very least offer an appropriate apologie. Certainly more than this one liner.
It is once again testimonies to the lack of common respect and etiquette that is lacking so horribly among young artists or worse simply those who just don't give a damn.
You have an opportunity to change the direction that this is going among your members if you educate them to the proper things to do. It may be that other original Magic artists "might" even grant permission if they were actually respected and contacted in the first place. Also defaming and insulting an artists as so many members of mtgsalvation ACA forum did, definitely will get you a boat load of trouble. I believe the term was "prodding the bear"
I and my collectors and fans will be watching all posts until this is rectified.
Good luck,
Ed Beard Jr.
I have again invited him to speak for himself in our forum, but doubt that he will do that.
I suggest we continue the discussion about this in this thread. Maybe we can establish some ground rules about future card alters both mtg artists and card alterers can live with, like always leaving the original artists's sig on the card.
To be perfectly honest, there is a fine line between an Illustrator, and an artist.
That being said, I think the card altering community should respect the Illustrator's request to respect the copyright laws in place. But I also believe that the card altering community should stand up and defend themselves as artists.
Ed Beard is an Illustrator, not an artist. I say that with respect to what he does for a living. Art is something that was and always is rooted in sharing something. An artist is committed to presenting something appealing to an onlooker, be it a lyrical poem, or a painting of grandeur. An illustrator is just a commissioned, in that the basic idea behind the act is to make money, as opposed to making people think.
That statement is based on the people I know in the fields of music, painting, drawing, writing and philosophy. Just because Ed Beard is a teacher does not make him superior to other people. His reply seems like a reply in arrogance and ignorance.
I agree with respecting the original artists copyrights and I would gladly keep their names on altered cards if that was all they asked of us, but I have to point out that while Mr. Ed Beard seems to be convinced that if he gets an apology everything will be fine and dandy, I don't think every other artist that's had one of their cards altered and sold will be as forgiving.
In addition, copyright, in most cases, does not prohibit one from acts such as modifying, defacing, or destroying his or her own legitimately obtained copy of a copyrighted work, so long as duplication is not involved. However, in countries that implement moral rights, a copyright holder can in some cases successfully prevent the mutilation or destruction of a work that is publicly visible.
Ta-da. In other words, because Ed Beard didn't actually paint the image on each individual card, the art on cards are considered copies. Copyright law only protects the rights of the original work.
I do not agree with Ed Beard's opinion because he didn't actually paint the card images; a machine did. He has all the reason to get mad if his original work is defaced, but not these reproductions. Heck, Wizards isn't even obligated to print the artists' names on the cards had it not been in their contract.
Ta-da. In other words, because Ed Beard didn't actually paint the image on each individual card, the art on cards are considered copies. Copyright law only protects the rights of the original work.
I do not agree with Ed Beard's opinion because he didn't actually paint the card images; a machine did. He has all the reason to get mad if his original work is defaced, but not these reproductions. Heck, Wizards isn't even obligated to print the artists' names on the cards had it not been in their contract.
so your really going to trust a website who lets anyone change the wikipedia page. especially when it doesn't to something as a copyright law. Before you quote anything. it's best if you contact a lawyer about it.
as for everything you herd what an artist has to say about it.(and his lawyer) now we wait and see what wizards of the coast has to say about this. as i said before i did contact them direct and they are drawing up the legal parts of it. I will post everything they say about the subject when i do get it.
so your really going to trust a website who lets anyone change the wikipedia page. especially when it doesn't to something as a copyright law. Before you quote anything. it's best if you contact a lawyer about it.
as for everything you herd what an artist has to say about it.(and his lawyer) now we wait and see what wizards of the coast has to say about this. as i said before i did contact them direct and they are drawing up the legal parts of it. I will post everything they say about the subject when i do get it.
I would trust Wiki more than a guy who has huge grammatical errors.:rolleyes:
After Mr Bears first reply to email I directly sent him another email to clarify a couple of things and try to calm things a bit down.
In short I...
- ... did state that the user fork has had it part in making other user`s aggresive by refusing to use correct grammar or spelling and by refusing to open a new discussion thread, hence disqualifying himself as a troll
- ... wrote that the term "trodding the bear" was never used, instead it was "dont poke the bear, unleass you have to", which is clearly not an insult
- ... showed understanding for his opinion, him being upset, and his right to protect his intellectual property
- ... told him that WOT have been in the know about altered cards for a long time wihtout doing anything about it
- ...and, most important, once again invited him to take an active role in this discussion to help sort things out.
Not unexpected, but still very sad, the response I got was not very constructive:
Hello again [my name],
I certainly understand your desire to minimize any damage both reputational, defamatorily and threatening the many posts directed at me both personally and professionally have done. But as you have stated you do not sell or profit from any of the modifications that you may do, so you are exempt for the most part from any action. However, you are severely mistaken if you think you can sway me from viewing these arrogant and viciously defamatory and insulting posts from being anything but what they are.
These posts were made totally independent from anything the member named Chris might or might not have done. They were in no way prompted by Chris or anyone else and were simply a direct response to my "strictly factual and legalese that I originally sent as a response to Chris's inquiry last week.
THERE IS NO EXCUSE for these kinds of attacks and furthermore no excuse for the failure of the mtgsalvations moderator from immediately removing and enforcing what should be more important etiquette rule of conduct to not slander, flame and defame an individual.
Your point that Chris was to blame for instigating and somehow responsible for these posts as if he inspired a riot is ridiculous. Aside from my attorney and the several hundred collectors and fans of mine who have already begun a campaign against this sort of willful slander improper online forum etiquette, all persons who have viewed these posts have been disgusted by what they have seen. My phone has been ringing constantly with words of support and despise for mtgsalvations and the entire pathetic ACA community and e-mails have not stopped as well.
As to the many other distortions of facts about who posted what or what they might or might not have meant I honestly have to tell you that you are wasting your time and effort.
If you think that my being told that my work is only suited for airbrush on vans, that I should be kicked in the balls, that I am a prick for defending my creative rights and so on is somehow not what it is and that your fellow artists did not really mean what they said you are again mistaken.
I made my legal and ethical points abundantly clear in my second response to Chris. For the record, I have never communicated with Chris before his first contact this weekend nor heard from this person in my life until this week and did not ask or put him up to posting my initial legal paragraph response on the forum. In fact he only stated that he wanted my opinion, it wasn't until I returned from a show I was guest fundraiser at for Make-A-Wish that I realized from another collector that he was posting mine and my webmaster's responses. However, I am very pleased that at least one person on this entire forum had the ethics to speak out against these illegal and disrespectful acts against the original card artists.
Again, it really is not up to WOTC to decide to or not to enforce the protections they guaranteed in the artists' contracts and we as intrinsic rights holders and copyright holders in many cases have every right to litigate against those who alter our art which includes any and all types of extension that connect to the original art, pursue them for blocking the proper credit and possibly confusing the public who may or may not be familiar with who the original artist is. I have seen these cards on Ebay and countless images all over the web. Confusion is a reality and contrary to this forum, or your group, the rest of the world does not all play magic.
I have very specifically taken a lot of time to explain this. Your point that WOTC has demonstrated that they do not care if someone modifies their product and sells it for profit is also not true in any remote stretch. No where in the article does it address cards altered for sale or profit. The article is only about specifically whether a card could or could not be tournament legal. The cards they are speaking of could very well be modified for free by the player themselves or the artists of the original card in which case it would be legal regardless. It's about making money off the backs of other's intellectual properties period.
I would recommend [my name] that you spend your efforts in contacting the members who caused this problem for you and your "not for profit" and credit respecting artists. What you really need to do is get everyone who defamed and slandered me with derogatory comments to retract and apologize for their actions to me publically and then withdraw from ever modifying another person's artwork for profit without permission from the copyright holders and creators ever again.
Other that that there is nothing you can do to reverse the current motion forward to prevent this from ever happening again.
Lastly, I have no desire to join any forum that condones and allows for this type of behavior. The fact that the entire thread has been allowed to stay is evidence of how inept and or in concert the moderator is with supporting these posts and as you say is in direct violation of their own policies.
As to your comments about Chris and that someone who spells incorrectly or has poor grammar is somehow un authorized to speak on my behalf is wrong. This point is a poor excuse for ignoring the content of their post and or character. Chris has posted all that I need to say on this subject. From this point on the attorney, who I pay handsomely, can handle this from here if it becomes necessary.
I wish you the best and respect your efforts, however misplaced.
Sincerely,
Ed Beard Jr.
p.s. If you are going to post any of our e-mail exchanges, you must post them complete and "unaltered" (no pun intended).
I`d be happy if anyone involved in this issue, be it an card alterer or fan, read his response and formed his very own opinion about it.
Personally, I'd like to know how other feel about this, if we should change something to prevent anything like this happening in the future, and if so, what we should change.
At the moment, I am busy with job, but will post my opinion about it later.
Alternatively, we can sort things out...
I understand that Ed is pissed, but nonetheless he must abide by the nature of what is called, drum roll please, reality. It's not like we do it to piss the artists off. We do it for fun. Even if commission is involved or not, the alternating shouldn't be stopped, should it? Madness!
Side note: Ed is pretty arrogant in my opinion.
Extra side note: the moment of truth-consult with Richard Garfield. :X
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A wind is ruffling the tawny pelt of Africa."
-Derek Walcott
While I feel for Ed, it doesn't seem like he has a great grasp of US copyright law.
As I understand it, the law makes it illegal for someone other than the copyright holder to copy a copyrighted work. Defacing or modifying a legally-owned copy of a copyrighted work does not, without more, violate copyright law in most jurisidictions.
In particular, although Ed (along with Amy Weber and other aggrieved artists) always bring up "moral rights" and "intrinsic rights," those "rights" generally are not legally-recognized rights in the US, as far as I know (although they can be applied to certain very significant work like large sculptures, etc. under VARA.)
That said, there are even variations within the US, with some appeals districts (last I heard) holding that selling modified works can be illegal. Also, there are some things alterers do which are almost certainly violations of copyright law. These include:
* Using copyrighted characters in an alter. Altering a Psychatog by drawing a picture of Dr. Teeth (the muppet) probably infringes Disney's copyright in the Dr. Teeth character.
* Passing off someone else's art as your own, or passing off your own as someone else's. It can be a violation of trademark or some other intellectual-property law, for instance, if I alter a card and then claim that Ed Beard did the altering. Or if Ed Beard altered the card, and I claim that I did it.
I'm no lawyer but i have many doubts that he can win this in courts. And the actual response he can have from the internet community can be very well be prejudicial to his work and carreer.
That beeing said... he does make some good points. I think ppl should always keep the original artist name if it plainly clear the altered card is based on it or even simply a parcial alter on the original drawing. This is easy to do and basicly clears most of the problems.
Sometime I like adding art at the bottom.
Do I have to leave the printed name that's on the card or can I move the name to another part of the card by printing it in myself.
Do I have to leave the printed name that's on the card or can I move the name to another part of the card by printing it in myself.
This seems like it's more an issue of etiquette than anything. I don't know of any US law which would require you to credit the original artist. But I'm no expert; I would be very interested if anyone could post a quote from a statute or case which says otherwise.
If Ed Beard has so many supporters, I find it strange that not one of them (except for forks, who seems to be nothing but a trouble making, brown nosing tattle tale), has come here to defend him.
I'd like to hear what they have to say.
Also, I'd like to know why forks even took the time to contact Ed Beard. Are you one of his students? What's the deal?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"When the gorilla playfully grabbed the wurm's tail, the wurm doubled back and playfully ate the gorilla's head."
I would imagine, that if there is any part of the original ARTWORK left on the card, then the original artist must be credited, as the artist was paid for production of the image, not the card itself. So like an extend art yes, completely different, original art on the card, I wouldn't think so.
Honestly, I feel there is no point even trying to reason with him. He's very arrogant and will not back down.
I am glad you say this, because that is my feeling as well.
I've read all emails we got from him several times and will focus on some facts:
- He complains about beeing attacked and insulted from users of this forum, but uses strong, harsh and very negative language himself ("skells" and others)
- I told him the phrase "trodding the bear" he complained about in particular was actually never used in this forum, but he doesnt want to listen. Instead of "trodding... " it was "don't poke the bear, unless you have to" which was clearly meant as warning not to mess with someone who is stronger than you.
- He feels insulted because some user deems his artwork is best suited as "airbrush on vans" and nothing more. While I can see that is indeed insulting for an artist, assessing an artist's work as mediocre or even worthless is certainly not a crime, well, as long as you live in a country that guarantees freedom of speech.
- He threatens the entire forum with his laywer and with the many legions of his fans who are already allegedly "campaigning" against our forum.
- Most importantly, he refuses to take part in constructive talks about altered magic cards at all. This is indeed a pity as I'm sure he would have been welcomed by the wide majority of users.
My feeling is that a lot of lèse-majesty is involved in this issue. Sitting like a king in his golden hall waiting for the peasant to apologize is certainly an attitude that does not help solving problems. After all what we have read so far from him, I highly doubt a single user will apologize to him.
The bottom line is that there is no reasoning with him anyway and the best we can do is to think about what we can do to prevent things like this in future.
As for the legal aspect of this issue, I'm sure he does have a solid base to argue from, at least concerning the legal system of the United States. This does not necessarily mean he is right about magic cards. The artist's artwork is only a small part of a magic card, it is embedded into the card and does not define the value of a card. However, I doubt anyone in this forum will mandate a laywer with this question as long as he is not forced to do so.
I do understand that Mr Beard is upset about us painting over the original arists's name on magic cards, but disagree that this is done intentionally to claim credit for the whole artwork. Anyhow, since this might be viewed as stealing artwork or insulting the original artist, I will from now on always leave his name on the original card. The main reason cards get altered is the love for the game and the beaufty of art itself. No one should feel harmed by it.
Also, I am happy to see others contribute to this discussion, although I sincerly hope that some other card alterers who haven't done so will still share their thoughts.
This may sound strong, but if you are in a car accident and say your sorry or apologize, this is admitting guilt. If the apologize is recorded (which every thing we say on this forum is) it can be used in a court of law against you.
Just keep this in mind.
people need to stop moking me and start looking up the truth. I see no point of contuining this thread. all it has turned into is moking me and my gramer and you guys *****ing an artist said something. unless people want to go ask a lawyer or god forbid the person who owns most of the copyright(wizards). there is no need for this thread. but as i stated i am tring to get the truth about this matter(unlike most of you) that is why i contacted an artist and contacted wizards of the coast. My next step will be contacting a lawyer if need be
also the reason why i contacted him is because i thought he knew a thing about law.(from his statement about no going to gencon and his website copyright info) I also went to the source of magics cards itself(wizards of the coast) to get there legal part of it. all i wanted to know is how this was legal and everyone blew up from the get go and claimed i was a toll.(from the 1st post)
I need to get a White Knight and draw something stupid then post how awesome it is.
This guy is getting out of hand. I am actually starting to get annoyed with his rants. We just need to stop emailing him cause that seems just to agitate him more. He is still full of himself on the subject. But now that he is talking that we are in the wrong for doing more than just his work.
Welcome to Weekend Update special.
Really with Boundforgreatness
You think we shouldn't be able to mod our cards. REALLY! you do know that we paid for each card in the pack now right?
You think we should apologize to you and retract what we said. REALLY! You do know what the 1st amendment is right. It has been streched to internet as well. With you saying its defimation of character. Well you sir are crazy. We didn't say you did something to a child in 1990. We said you are full of your self which I have repeated my opinion.
WOTC cares about people altering their cards. REALLY! You do know some of us in the community have been as to come to different tournaments to come and do alters. BTW if WOTC really wanted us to crack down I believe they would have said something in that article like under the lines of CAN'T PLAY WITH ALTERS. that would stop the market on alters on the most part. I know I wouldn't have bought mine cause I wouldn't be able to use them.
people need to stop moking me and start looking up the truth. I see no point of contuining this thread. all it has turned into is moking me and my gramer and you guys *****ing an artist said something. unless people want to go ask a lawyer or god forbid the person who owns most of the copyright(wizards). there is no need for this thread. but as i stated i am tring to get the truth about this matter(unlike most of you) that is why i contacted an artist and contacted wizards of the coast. My next step will be contacting a lawyer if need be
also the reason why i contacted him is because i thought he knew a thing about law.(from his statement about no going to gencon and his website copyright info) I also went to the source of magics cards itself(wizards of the coast) to get there legal part of it. all i wanted to know is how this was legal and everyone blew up from the get go and claimed i was a toll.(from the 1st post)
But WHY do you CARE?
And for future reference, it's mocking.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"When the gorilla playfully grabbed the wurm's tail, the wurm doubled back and playfully ate the gorilla's head."
I think this whole thing reeks of posturing. Persnickety is the word that comes to mind.
I also feel that it is odd that the one person so concerned with insults is the one that has used the greatest volume of them. However, that is neither here nor there.
I'm from a different artistic background than some. Look at Velázquez's Rokeby Venus, and then consider the derivative work produced by Basquiat. Then look at the truly old stuff such as Titan's Venus of Urbino.
As this seems to be where we are discussing this issue I will repost what I posted in the other forum in regards to this issue...
Quote from bleedingteddy »
OK I am no lawyer nor do I pretend to be any type of expert on law copyright or otherwise but I do have the ability to use google and follow links and I found this one which I believe may push this arguement even further into ambiguity.
This is a checklist for seeing if your work would fall under the Fair Use guidlines of American Copyright Law and by my best understanding of the factors both in support of a work being fair use and against this whole arguement could quite easily go either way.
A couple things that it appears that we as alterers can do so as to protect ourselves from and possible prosecution under copyright law would be to...
a) If doing an extension be sure to leave the original artists name visable on the card.
b) Do complete new art alters.
c) Do not do copying alters (ie like reproducing the old lightning bolt art on a new lightning bolt card)
Finally if you are really worried about possible legal consequences contact the artist directly and keep records of the corrispondence if they approve the activity they can not then later come after you for it unless they first ask you to cease and you continue as far as I know.
As to the letters from Ed JR. that started this whole debate it really would have been nice if he had just dome here himself and spoke his piece but at the same time I totally understand why he doesnt as once again I am not a lawyer but if he were to decide to go with some sort of criminal action against 1 or more alterers for whatever reason him posting here personally could amybe be something damaging in litagation.
Also to you Ed if you are reading this I hope you realise why we as alterers do this (or at least many of us). It is because this game and the whole enviroment of it, including the original art which we have all had our own love/hate relationships with, has inspired us to add something of ourselves into the mix. You see we cant all be, even the most talented of us, actual magic artists with our own art on the cards so to a degree we live vicariously through putting our own art or art alterations on the cards instead. I really do wish that you would see it as the flattery that is intended rather than the defacing that you seem to think of it.
In addition to what I had previously written I have to say that there isnt really much more to say until Ed or someone similar either "puts up or shuts up". By that I mean that we have hashed this issue out fairly throughly short of hiring a lawyer and until one of these artists (although Ed is the only one I actually know of) that has been complaining about the alters goes out and files litigation against some of our community that we should just kinda let this blow over.
EDIT-Another question occured to me as I was posting this,...how is the altering of a magic card any different that a rapper sampling music or a collage artist using a picture from a magazine in a collage? Both of these are not only considered acceptable but accepted as artforms in and of themselves. Altering magic cards seems to me to be more or less the same.
Altering magic cards is basically found art. Found art is perfectly legal.
An example of found art is taking a nike shoe and dipping it in pig blood. Yeh the nike shoe is copywrited and trademark but the artist has altered it in someway to make the work original. Collecters buy things like that all the time.
That being said, this Ed Beard Jr. guy is right, the majority of you guys have no respect for the original artist and as illustrations, it is the equivalent to plagiarism to sell them as your own. These are illustrations. Do any of you know how hard it is to make it as an illustrator? I studied illustration for just one year in art school and the life all of my professors described was terrible.
If you are going to sell them to others, then that is wrong. However if you just want to **** up a card and keep it for yourselves, go ahead, hopefully this Ed Beard Jr guy doesn't have a problem with that.
Just ask the original artists permission before you take their work and mess with it, all of the problems would be solved that way
EDIT-Another question occured to me as I was posting this,...how is the altering of a magic card any different that a rapper sampling music or a collage artist using a picture from a magazine in a collage? Both of these are not only considered acceptable but accepted as artforms in and of themselves. Altering magic cards seems to me to be more or less the same.
Rap artists have to get the rights for all the stuff they sample before it is released. I think that is a pretty bad analogy. If they don't, it's a world of hurt.
Collage may be a bit more similar. And if people care, Andy Warhol was constantly having injunctions filed against him until the day he died.
All I will say is that art and law overlap in a very very strange way. I sold a painting a few years ago for X dollars and the person sold it 3-4 years later to a collector for about 3X. As it turns out, I was legally entitled to a share of the profits from the second sale. I asked a lawyer and they told me that even though I sold the painting, I retained legal rights. My eyes glassed over as he began to explain it to me and I woke up when the drool hit my bare arm. I don't care enough to hunt someone down for stuff like that. I don't move enough product to think a retained lawyer is worth my time. But, obviously some people do.
The more I look at this whole fiasco, the more I really don't know. A lot of you are basing your legal opinions of the situation on your limited understanding of the law and his unsavory demeanor. Neither of those make you right or wrong or make what you are doing legal or illegal. I have only been doing this for a few months and it never occurred to me that selling what is essentially a creatively destroyed magic card that I own would be illegal. If I tear a card in half and sell it, that seems intellectually very similar. If I take a sharpie and cross out the face of a character on a card and sell it, that seems (again) very similar. I guess I just don't see why it's okay to sell unaltered cards and it's not okay for altered cards. I honestly don't. If I charge an extra $4 for shipping (an added service added to an object of value) it seems identical to charging an extra $40 for an alteration (an added service added to an object of value).
hell, my Grandmother made a living from 1985-2005 sewing printed pictures and fabric patterns onto sweatshirts and selling them at craft fairs. She was well known for this and was revered by the qtips in her trailer park. There was never a law suit or talk of legal action. I just asked her.
That being said, this Ed Beard Jr. guy is right, the majority of you guys have no respect for the original artist and as illustrations, it is the equivalent to plagiarism to sell them as your own. These are illustrations. Do any of you know how hard it is to make it as an illustrator? I studied illustration for just one year in art school and the life all of my professors described was terrible.
You assume that people here are just a bunch of kids with no dedication to their careers. And you assume that people here aren't illustrators. That's kind of funny.
I wish all we have to do to solve the problem is simple make sure the original artist name remains on the card, same where.
That would be easy, I'll give it a try, it can't hurt.
As for asking permission everytime I would like to alter a card. That would be very difficult.
If we had a list of artist that didn't want their cards altered, this might work.
There are so many things that I would like to say regarding this issue, but I fear that my words have already been said by many others here already.
The fact of the matter is; No one can stop you or sue you for selling a legal commodity that you own. Period. If I purchase a crappy Ed Jr. Birds of Paradise, and sell it on eBay, Ed Jr. can't say squat about me selling his work. If I purchase a crappy Ed Jr. Birds of Paradise, slap some paint on it, and sell it on eBay, Ed Jr. can't say squat about me selling his work. I own the card, and the alteration.
I buy a Ford Windstar, mauve. I paint flames and junk on it, and sell it for more on eBay. Ford gonna sue me? Nope.
I buy a Ford Windstar, mauve. I remove decals and cover up Fords name, and paint the black tires to match the mauve car, and sell it on eBay. Ford gonna sue me? Nope.
It seems that this issue has been blown way out of proportion. Copyright law is deep, dark and brooding, and someone has found a way to lock our minds in that abyss, wondering if we are breaking some sort of law with what we are doing. We are NOT. If we were, WotC (the company that holds rights to the PRODUCT we are altering and selling) would have been all over us YEARS ago.
Unfortunately, Ed, you have been the victim of trolling as much as we have. Fork, you are seen as a troll, and justly so. We weren't all riled up about this until you came in and stuck your fingers in the pie, and unlike other people that have shown distaste, I don't give a good god damn WHY you did. Calling the sky green when it is obviously blue, doesn't make the sky green.
"He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool."
I stopped posting in the Alterations forum, just as I was getting my chops as an alterer, thanks to trolling and the like. It turned into a place that I didn't really want to share my work. How unfortunate.
I pose this to the community;
Lets find a single instance of litigation, with a guilty result, regarding altering magic cards.
Until that happens, lets lock this shizza up fo reals. No one needs this drama. Not us, not them, not even terrible Birds of Paradise artist Edward Beard Jr.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A lot of what we ascribe to luck is not luck at all, it's seeing what other people do not see and pursuing that vision.
- Howard Shultz
You assume that people here are just a bunch of kids with no dedication to their careers. And you assume that people here aren't illustrators. That's kind of funny.
judging by the majority of the work seen here, if they are illustrators they are obviously not doing very well for themselves at all
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And, for my opening statement;
I remember reading somewhere that Wizards had gone by a different purchasing method in the earlier sets for commissioning artists - something like not purchasing full rights before, and now they do it so they have more control over the artwork and what can be done with it or what the original artist can do. I'm kinda going on a long shot by posting without reference to where I read that, so please allow me time to find a link
Debate away!
Edit: $#!7 has emphatically hit the fan.
That being said, I think the card altering community should respect the Illustrator's request to respect the copyright laws in place. But I also believe that the card altering community should stand up and defend themselves as artists.
Ed Beard is an Illustrator, not an artist. I say that with respect to what he does for a living. Art is something that was and always is rooted in sharing something. An artist is committed to presenting something appealing to an onlooker, be it a lyrical poem, or a painting of grandeur. An illustrator is just a commissioned, in that the basic idea behind the act is to make money, as opposed to making people think.
That statement is based on the people I know in the fields of music, painting, drawing, writing and philosophy. Just because Ed Beard is a teacher does not make him superior to other people. His reply seems like a reply in arrogance and ignorance.
Signature By Worldslayer608
My Trade List
Just.... food for thought.
Ta-da. In other words, because Ed Beard didn't actually paint the image on each individual card, the art on cards are considered copies. Copyright law only protects the rights of the original work.
I do not agree with Ed Beard's opinion because he didn't actually paint the card images; a machine did. He has all the reason to get mad if his original work is defaced, but not these reproductions. Heck, Wizards isn't even obligated to print the artists' names on the cards had it not been in their contract.
so your really going to trust a website who lets anyone change the wikipedia page. especially when it doesn't to something as a copyright law. Before you quote anything. it's best if you contact a lawyer about it.
as for everything you herd what an artist has to say about it.(and his lawyer) now we wait and see what wizards of the coast has to say about this. as i said before i did contact them direct and they are drawing up the legal parts of it. I will post everything they say about the subject when i do get it.
I would trust Wiki more than a guy who has huge grammatical errors.:rolleyes:
Bush says mission accomplished
May 1st 2011:
Obama gets the mission accomplished
In short I...
- ... did state that the user fork has had it part in making other user`s aggresive by refusing to use correct grammar or spelling and by refusing to open a new discussion thread, hence disqualifying himself as a troll
- ... wrote that the term "trodding the bear" was never used, instead it was "dont poke the bear, unleass you have to", which is clearly not an insult
- ... showed understanding for his opinion, him being upset, and his right to protect his intellectual property
- ... told him that WOT have been in the know about altered cards for a long time wihtout doing anything about it
- ...and, most important, once again invited him to take an active role in this discussion to help sort things out.
Not unexpected, but still very sad, the response I got was not very constructive:
I`d be happy if anyone involved in this issue, be it an card alterer or fan, read his response and formed his very own opinion about it.
Personally, I'd like to know how other feel about this, if we should change something to prevent anything like this happening in the future, and if so, what we should change.
At the moment, I am busy with job, but will post my opinion about it later.
My gallery of altered cards
Alternatively, we can sort things out...
I understand that Ed is pissed, but nonetheless he must abide by the nature of what is called, drum roll please, reality. It's not like we do it to piss the artists off. We do it for fun. Even if commission is involved or not, the alternating shouldn't be stopped, should it? Madness!
Side note: Ed is pretty arrogant in my opinion.
Extra side note: the moment of truth-consult with Richard Garfield. :X
-Derek Walcott
As I understand it, the law makes it illegal for someone other than the copyright holder to copy a copyrighted work. Defacing or modifying a legally-owned copy of a copyrighted work does not, without more, violate copyright law in most jurisidictions.
In particular, although Ed (along with Amy Weber and other aggrieved artists) always bring up "moral rights" and "intrinsic rights," those "rights" generally are not legally-recognized rights in the US, as far as I know (although they can be applied to certain very significant work like large sculptures, etc. under VARA.)
That said, there are even variations within the US, with some appeals districts (last I heard) holding that selling modified works can be illegal. Also, there are some things alterers do which are almost certainly violations of copyright law. These include:
* Using copyrighted characters in an alter. Altering a Psychatog by drawing a picture of Dr. Teeth (the muppet) probably infringes Disney's copyright in the Dr. Teeth character.
* Passing off someone else's art as your own, or passing off your own as someone else's. It can be a violation of trademark or some other intellectual-property law, for instance, if I alter a card and then claim that Ed Beard did the altering. Or if Ed Beard altered the card, and I claim that I did it.
Sometime I like adding art at the bottom.
Do I have to leave the printed name that's on the card or can I move the name to another part of the card by printing it in myself.
Check Out My Card Gallery
I'd like to hear what they have to say.
Also, I'd like to know why forks even took the time to contact Ed Beard. Are you one of his students? What's the deal?
I am glad you say this, because that is my feeling as well.
I've read all emails we got from him several times and will focus on some facts:
- He complains about beeing attacked and insulted from users of this forum, but uses strong, harsh and very negative language himself ("skells" and others)
- I told him the phrase "trodding the bear" he complained about in particular was actually never used in this forum, but he doesnt want to listen. Instead of "trodding... " it was "don't poke the bear, unless you have to" which was clearly meant as warning not to mess with someone who is stronger than you.
- He feels insulted because some user deems his artwork is best suited as "airbrush on vans" and nothing more. While I can see that is indeed insulting for an artist, assessing an artist's work as mediocre or even worthless is certainly not a crime, well, as long as you live in a country that guarantees freedom of speech.
- He threatens the entire forum with his laywer and with the many legions of his fans who are already allegedly "campaigning" against our forum.
- Most importantly, he refuses to take part in constructive talks about altered magic cards at all. This is indeed a pity as I'm sure he would have been welcomed by the wide majority of users.
My feeling is that a lot of lèse-majesty is involved in this issue. Sitting like a king in his golden hall waiting for the peasant to apologize is certainly an attitude that does not help solving problems. After all what we have read so far from him, I highly doubt a single user will apologize to him.
The bottom line is that there is no reasoning with him anyway and the best we can do is to think about what we can do to prevent things like this in future.
As for the legal aspect of this issue, I'm sure he does have a solid base to argue from, at least concerning the legal system of the United States. This does not necessarily mean he is right about magic cards. The artist's artwork is only a small part of a magic card, it is embedded into the card and does not define the value of a card. However, I doubt anyone in this forum will mandate a laywer with this question as long as he is not forced to do so.
I do understand that Mr Beard is upset about us painting over the original arists's name on magic cards, but disagree that this is done intentionally to claim credit for the whole artwork. Anyhow, since this might be viewed as stealing artwork or insulting the original artist, I will from now on always leave his name on the original card. The main reason cards get altered is the love for the game and the beaufty of art itself. No one should feel harmed by it.
Also, I am happy to see others contribute to this discussion, although I sincerly hope that some other card alterers who haven't done so will still share their thoughts.
My gallery of altered cards
Just keep this in mind.
also the reason why i contacted him is because i thought he knew a thing about law.(from his statement about no going to gencon and his website copyright info) I also went to the source of magics cards itself(wizards of the coast) to get there legal part of it. all i wanted to know is how this was legal and everyone blew up from the get go and claimed i was a toll.(from the 1st post)
This guy is getting out of hand. I am actually starting to get annoyed with his rants. We just need to stop emailing him cause that seems just to agitate him more. He is still full of himself on the subject. But now that he is talking that we are in the wrong for doing more than just his work.
Welcome to Weekend Update special.
Really with Boundforgreatness
You think we shouldn't be able to mod our cards. REALLY! you do know that we paid for each card in the pack now right?
You think we should apologize to you and retract what we said. REALLY! You do know what the 1st amendment is right. It has been streched to internet as well. With you saying its defimation of character. Well you sir are crazy. We didn't say you did something to a child in 1990. We said you are full of your self which I have repeated my opinion.
WOTC cares about people altering their cards. REALLY! You do know some of us in the community have been as to come to different tournaments to come and do alters. BTW if WOTC really wanted us to crack down I believe they would have said something in that article like under the lines of CAN'T PLAY WITH ALTERS. that would stop the market on alters on the most part. I know I wouldn't have bought mine cause I wouldn't be able to use them.
This has been another episode of
REALLY with Boundforgreatness
Just FYI IMO your no John Avon......
Bush says mission accomplished
May 1st 2011:
Obama gets the mission accomplished
But WHY do you CARE?
And for future reference, it's mocking.
I also feel that it is odd that the one person so concerned with insults is the one that has used the greatest volume of them. However, that is neither here nor there.
I'm from a different artistic background than some. Look at Velázquez's Rokeby Venus, and then consider the derivative work produced by Basquiat. Then look at the truly old stuff such as Titan's Venus of Urbino.
It's called citing.
In addition to what I had previously written I have to say that there isnt really much more to say until Ed or someone similar either "puts up or shuts up". By that I mean that we have hashed this issue out fairly throughly short of hiring a lawyer and until one of these artists (although Ed is the only one I actually know of) that has been complaining about the alters goes out and files litigation against some of our community that we should just kinda let this blow over.
EDIT-Another question occured to me as I was posting this,...how is the altering of a magic card any different that a rapper sampling music or a collage artist using a picture from a magazine in a collage? Both of these are not only considered acceptable but accepted as artforms in and of themselves. Altering magic cards seems to me to be more or less the same.
My Traders.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=155934
My Blog
http://bleedingteddy.blogspot.com/
An example of found art is taking a nike shoe and dipping it in pig blood. Yeh the nike shoe is copywrited and trademark but the artist has altered it in someway to make the work original. Collecters buy things like that all the time.
That being said, this Ed Beard Jr. guy is right, the majority of you guys have no respect for the original artist and as illustrations, it is the equivalent to plagiarism to sell them as your own. These are illustrations. Do any of you know how hard it is to make it as an illustrator? I studied illustration for just one year in art school and the life all of my professors described was terrible.
If you are going to sell them to others, then that is wrong. However if you just want to **** up a card and keep it for yourselves, go ahead, hopefully this Ed Beard Jr guy doesn't have a problem with that.
Just ask the original artists permission before you take their work and mess with it, all of the problems would be solved that way
Rap artists have to get the rights for all the stuff they sample before it is released. I think that is a pretty bad analogy. If they don't, it's a world of hurt.
Collage may be a bit more similar. And if people care, Andy Warhol was constantly having injunctions filed against him until the day he died.
All I will say is that art and law overlap in a very very strange way. I sold a painting a few years ago for X dollars and the person sold it 3-4 years later to a collector for about 3X. As it turns out, I was legally entitled to a share of the profits from the second sale. I asked a lawyer and they told me that even though I sold the painting, I retained legal rights. My eyes glassed over as he began to explain it to me and I woke up when the drool hit my bare arm. I don't care enough to hunt someone down for stuff like that. I don't move enough product to think a retained lawyer is worth my time. But, obviously some people do.
The more I look at this whole fiasco, the more I really don't know. A lot of you are basing your legal opinions of the situation on your limited understanding of the law and his unsavory demeanor. Neither of those make you right or wrong or make what you are doing legal or illegal. I have only been doing this for a few months and it never occurred to me that selling what is essentially a creatively destroyed magic card that I own would be illegal. If I tear a card in half and sell it, that seems intellectually very similar. If I take a sharpie and cross out the face of a character on a card and sell it, that seems (again) very similar. I guess I just don't see why it's okay to sell unaltered cards and it's not okay for altered cards. I honestly don't. If I charge an extra $4 for shipping (an added service added to an object of value) it seems identical to charging an extra $40 for an alteration (an added service added to an object of value).
hell, my Grandmother made a living from 1985-2005 sewing printed pictures and fabric patterns onto sweatshirts and selling them at craft fairs. She was well known for this and was revered by the qtips in her trailer park. There was never a law suit or talk of legal action. I just asked her.
You assume that people here are just a bunch of kids with no dedication to their careers. And you assume that people here aren't illustrators. That's kind of funny.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
That would be easy, I'll give it a try, it can't hurt.
As for asking permission everytime I would like to alter a card. That would be very difficult.
If we had a list of artist that didn't want their cards altered, this might work.
Check Out My Card Gallery
The fact of the matter is; No one can stop you or sue you for selling a legal commodity that you own. Period. If I purchase a crappy Ed Jr. Birds of Paradise, and sell it on eBay, Ed Jr. can't say squat about me selling his work. If I purchase a crappy Ed Jr. Birds of Paradise, slap some paint on it, and sell it on eBay, Ed Jr. can't say squat about me selling his work. I own the card, and the alteration.
I buy a Ford Windstar, mauve. I paint flames and junk on it, and sell it for more on eBay. Ford gonna sue me? Nope.
I buy a Ford Windstar, mauve. I remove decals and cover up Fords name, and paint the black tires to match the mauve car, and sell it on eBay. Ford gonna sue me? Nope.
It seems that this issue has been blown way out of proportion. Copyright law is deep, dark and brooding, and someone has found a way to lock our minds in that abyss, wondering if we are breaking some sort of law with what we are doing. We are NOT. If we were, WotC (the company that holds rights to the PRODUCT we are altering and selling) would have been all over us YEARS ago.
Unfortunately, Ed, you have been the victim of trolling as much as we have. Fork, you are seen as a troll, and justly so. We weren't all riled up about this until you came in and stuck your fingers in the pie, and unlike other people that have shown distaste, I don't give a good god damn WHY you did. Calling the sky green when it is obviously blue, doesn't make the sky green.
"He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool."
I stopped posting in the Alterations forum, just as I was getting my chops as an alterer, thanks to trolling and the like. It turned into a place that I didn't really want to share my work. How unfortunate.
I pose this to the community;
Lets find a single instance of litigation, with a guilty result, regarding altering magic cards.
Until that happens, lets lock this shizza up fo reals. No one needs this drama. Not us, not them, not even terrible Birds of Paradise artist Edward Beard Jr.
- Howard Shultz
CURRENTLY PLAYING
UWR: American Control
judging by the majority of the work seen here, if they are illustrators they are obviously not doing very well for themselves at all