Quote from ArtsyMagicalsFishing for game wins via bad judge calls falls under the category of unsportsman like conduct, and is grounds for a DQ. Its no different then calling a judge for any other completely unjustified reason in an attempt to manipulate for a game win.
Quote from SwarfulweefSo, I got one of these "altered print" cards before the guy started selling them for crazy money, back when he first started selling these cards. It was a Counterspell.
This card was not foil, but from what I can tell, this card looks like it got a dose of acetate (smells like it, too), leaving the card name, casting cost, and text box. The art was then inserted over the blank area. It could be a proxy/fake, but this card at least looks legit. Still, I would not use it outside of casual play.
I was not horribly impressed. It's okay, and I got it for cheap (thankfully). Because of the acetate wash, the card smells heavily like wood varnish. And for what it's worth, I'm fairly sure the art was lifted off of Deviant Art.
The foil cards, though, look very... suspicious. My advice is buyer beware.
Quote from ArtsyMagicalshow is the flexibility on these, do they feel like a normal card?
Quote from Derk_DI want to ask - is it legal to use the original art/planeswalker or to modificate them and then sell them ? Because they are property to wotc .
Quote from saa »step 1. print a nice foil picture over a Tamiyo
step 2. sell it on eBay and get multiple bids over $220
step 3. profit!
Quote from closetvictorianThat is insane! I scrolled through his other sales, and that one is a bit of an anomaly- most of them are going for $15 or so.
Quote from closetvictorianIt makes me worried as to how much the artists commissioned for these cards are getting out of this. It takes a lot of work to create a work of art, not to mention a lot of hours involved.
Quote from BristolThe guys behind these cards claim to be paying commissions. However, there have been many complaints that they're just outright stealing the art.
Quote from firebrandhandsI recognized the artwork on an "altered" card being sold on EBay yesterday that I had seen before on Deviantart. Contacted the artist and, sure enough, it was stolen.
Quote from Mr.C "Spirit of the reserved list". What a load of BS.
Quote from Richard ArschmannHaving a complete collection of Drake Tsui cards is like having a complete collection of STDs.
Quote from metalevolenceThere is nothing wrong with necroing this old thread, because this Alteredprints company is stealing art.
A lot of the art on their other alters I have seen before while browsing art on the internet. I think it's likely that most of their art is stolen.
Quote from PlaguefatherYeah, that's kinda what I was getting at, a lot of the art that these sticker-printing guys use, is stolen.
However, nothing will get done about it because if the stolen art is WotC commissioned for a card, they'll say they'll do something, then dont... I told them 4 months ago that someone was stealing their art and just blowing it up, pasting it on stickers, slapping them on cards and making profit, and they didn't really do anything...
Heck, even Daarken lead a crusade against art theft, and it really had no effect, if companies don't pursue it, nothing gets done.
And yes, Daarken did lead a fight against a card game that stole his art, I don't remember if it was settled or not, but the guy blatantly lied to Daarken and it really grinded the artist community's gears.
I think if companies got spammed mail about these topics, they'd be more willing to do something.
Quote from witheringsanitythe idea here is "what constitutes copyright infringement" and "what kind of infringement is tolerated?".
the reason wizards doesn't go after "print" alters is the same reason they don't go after traditional paint, pencil, or marker alters. they all fall under the same type of copyright infringement. it is just as illegal to paint and resell a Thragtusk as it is to print out a picture of Thrastusk and put it on a card. so long as they aren't creating a fake card, the only difference between the two is the medium used. whether or not painted alters are considered more "artistic" than print alters is a matter of opinion or semantics. fact is, both equally violate wizards copyright (both are adaptive works).
Quote from saaI don't understand this part.
If I take a forest card, and I put a unicorn sticker on it, and resell it for $5, how does that violate anyone's copyright?
I understand how it would violate copyright if I scanned my forest + unicorn and was selling the digital artwork (because the forest part contains copyrighted art), but if I own a forest card and I own a unicorn sticker, and both are perfectly legal by themselves to resell, why can't I put them together and sell it?
Quote from witheringsanitywhether or not painted alters are considered more "artistic" than print alters is a matter of opinion or semantics.
Quote from PlaguefatherNo, it's actually a matter of fact, allow me to explain what you're doing.
This altered elesh norn took me about 6+ hours to complete.
In order to accomplish this, I had to use several artistic skills including color blending, color matching, and paint thinning. As well as having to know how to use the paint brush to achieve the effects desired.
This is artistic value, the alter contains effects hand painted by someone who has the skills to do so.
You know how long this render took me to make? 20 seconds... I'd assume another 2 minutes to print, and another 18 to cut and stick to a card... The only skill you apply is with a cutting knife. Literally, my non-artistic mother could do this in roughly the same amount of time...
Yet, somehow, your barely 20 minutes of work somehow gets you more money than MY 6+ hours of skill intensive work shown. You know how much the paints I use cost? about $4.25 per pot, and you only get a little 12ml container of it... Yeah, I use the good stuff because you can't match the colors otherwise...
I was barely able to get $20 out of the above Norn, whereas I normally see printed cards going for a lot more than that, about 2-3X the price...
Tell me, what makes your barely 20 minutes of copy, paste, print, cut, stick more valuable than my 6+ hours of artistic skills in practice?
I wouldn't miss this for anything.
Quote from witheringsanitywell i didn't think we were making this personal...
you may have had a point, were you not wrong. this is my elesh norn:
i spent hours altering this as well, about 10 hours in fact. and it takes several more hours to actually apply this to a card. each tiny little bit is cut out by hand, this isn't printed directly on a card.
i'm not going to argue that there aren't print alterers that do what you said, but the same could be said of paint alterers as well. some people just don't try very hard. i only meant that the medium someone uses to alter a card is not indicative of the actual amount of work put into them, nor their artistic value.
Quote from witheringsanitybecause you are creating what is called an "adaptive work". you are taking the original work (forest), and altering it with the unicorn sticker, hence creating a "new" work using the original forest as a base. now, no one is every going to be prosecuted for putting unicorn stickers on forests, but it does technically still fall under the adaptive works form of copyright infringement. under the letter of the law, putting a unicorn sticker on a forest in order to change the original forest art is no different than taking an oil painting of a forest that someone has done, and painting in a unicorn of your own design. both are adaptive works, and both are copyright infringement. one is simply more likely to get you in trouble, since the oil painting will likely net you more than $5, and the original artist is more likely to press charges if he sees the changes.
EDIT: also, this only works if the item is considered art and falls under copyright. obviously it is not illegal to combine objects and sell them, otherwise we wouldn't have things like food and clothing. but if you take "art" you don't own the copyright to and change it (even if you don't sell it), that is technically copyright infringement. case in point, someone was repainting and reselling Marvel Comics statues (not in some crazy way, just doing a better paint job then the factory did). seems totally legit, but he was sued for infringement because he isn't allowed to repaint (and therefor adapt) the work.
Quote from PlaguefatherGee, I didn't know Elesh norn had giant honkers like that... wouldn't that fall under the modifcation that you yourself said was wrongful infringement? Game, set, match.
I went and looked, it seems that that norn isn't the first copyrighted artwork you've modified... making larger breated, more scantily clad elspeths,
even Modifying Steve Argyle's alternate Liliana of the Veil artwork!
You're guilty by your own admission and from the evidence i've seen!
The sexualized alters you do AREN'T allowed by the DCI or WotC... Making planeswalkers dress more scantily and giving them bigger breasts counts as such.
Quote from witheringsanityugh. are you a child? please stop with the "i can't wait to hear this" and "game set match" crap. no one ever wins an online argument.
if you had actually bothered to READ THE THREAD, you would know i already stated that what ALL alter artists do is copyright infringement. that was THE WHOLE POINT of my responses to that other fellow. i was stating that even though altering MTG cards is technically infringement, it is wizards own choice for what type of alterations to "allow".
my POINT which you seem so eager to miss is that the medium used (print, paint, marker, crayon, pencil, pen, chisel, dirt, etc, etc) to alter a MTG card is completely irrelevant when it comes to copyright law. the ONLY thing that matters is taking a copyrighted work and changing it. just drawing a smiley face on a plains is technically infringement.
PS.. Elesh Norn does have breasts, in the majority of the artwork portraying her. i felt the character looked better with them so i added them in. i apologize if the female form offends your delicate sensibilities.