Regarding Art Theft

While I think it is a good idea to step up the standards for controlling art theft, good luck trying to verify every image on this whole website. Most of the images people use are free use, or official content. Many artists themselves could care less whether people people use their stamps, GIF's, and icons (most commonly used everywhere), and I'd say this level of monitor should really only matter for fan art, or full-drarwn pieces. You have to expect tons of questions, because this is is first site I've seen make an attempt at being very strict in the images people use. This is the internet, after all. It'll be near impossible to find the owner of some things, and thus not being able to use them take away something very great from the internet. I'm not saying art theft isn't serious, I am an artist myself, intending to be professionally. I just think it's a bit extreme to ban hammer somebody posting a picture of something they like if they didn't write a full report on every exact detail about it. They are not selling it (and if they are that is indeed cause for concern), it's simply posing a small picture. I can see this being relevant in RP forums where people may claim various internet characters as their own, but writing a "Works Cited" page for the GIF's in one's signature seems a bit silly and impossible to manage. I just hope people don't become afraid to post a picture. (I was also curious in the case of character "adoptables" bought from another artist - while I'm not one who buys character designs, how would it make sense to have to credit the original artist? If you have paid for the art, the ownership of the design transfers to the buyer.)

Excuse me for coming off a bit brash, but seriously.. how hard is this to understand? Every question here so far has been "but what about x? does that need to be credited?" It's not that difficult to understand. If you did not make it, you need to source it. If you just pulled it off google, you need to source it. If an image you are using is free to use or official content, then all that needs to be stated in a tooltip or something similar is 'btw this is free to use lol' or 'art is official' Any image that you found of google needs to be traced back to its original creator Google themselves even point out that images may be subject to copyright -- that they cannot confirm or deny that an image they have is free-to-use. We're not enforcing this rule because it's something we made up -- it's an actual law. Copyright is a big thing for a very good reason, and we're not about to ignore it. I know for a fact if I found a user using my artwork without my permission for a character reference for their RP I would literally flip tables. It's something that bothers me to no end - just "Yeah no. Fioré does not behave like that what are you doing to my beloved Leafeon Sona." Very few things make me see red immediately. This is one. It's incredibly disrespectful to have someone's artwork being used for something it was not designed for. I've already said it but I will restate it again. If you did not make something in your signature or avatar and you cannot get permission to use it from the original creator, remove it. I'm aware that some artists are inactive, but them's the breaks, as they say. You'll just have to consider yourself out of luck on using that particular image. If an artist has two accounts on the website, go with the account that been most active and just send them a polite note asking if you can use their image. It's courteous to ask for things that you want to borrow.

---

To clarify something, a gif like Is generally okay. Gifs that are from TV shows/anime/movies/whathaveyou and are generally acceptable to be used in your signature or About me section. Just credit them by saying something along the lines of "The Lion King(c) Disney" and you're good to go. After all, we don't expect you to send an email to Disney asking for permission to use a clip from their movie to use as a gif. While it would be impressive, it's incredibly unlikely that they'd respond.

---

You pretty much answered your own question here. Ownership has been transferred, so it's alright. :)

I’m on the fence here; really. Some of these rules seem a little ‘extreme’. I find myself at an impasse. I’m paying for commissioned artwork by a friend who does not sign their work nor do they care nor want be ‘cited’ every time I post the artwork of my characters that I have paid for. Will I be banned for following their wishes? For not citing the artist who drew my characters that I have paid for with £? I'll say this again just so I'm clear. I've paid for the work; it belongs to me now, it's copyrighted to me and the artist does not want to be known or have their name flashed in public. What do? Answered my own question; they belong to me. Whoops Also I know talented artists who aren't even 'online' so to speak; how can they be cited when they have no website to cite? Surely putting down their name and the likes is infringing on their privacy; especially when don't give permission for their name to be used. I mean how can such a thing be proven? Permission wise? A signed contract? A photo? But then again anyone can falsify that. xD I'm probably going to much into this. But I'd hate to be banned for using commissioned art from an 'offline' artist as I have no proof that it actually belongs to me. e_e sorry for beating a dead horse here; but BLARG

To be honest I'm a bit confused by why some people appear to think this is such a big thing to do (just to clarify, I'm speaking about people who are making things more difficult than they have to be, not people with legitimate questions or concerns about this); simply writing "Art is official" on a the bottom of a template, for example, is easy. I put it right into the template design so that I don't need to write it out each time. Constantine: I personally think it's a little bit different when it's art you've payed for. When the artist posts online, of course I'd link back to them even if I have payed for it. But in your instance, where the artist doesn't put their art online, what I'd do is just state that it is commissioned work from an offline artist somewhere. This is just my own opinion though; what Ravyne & other staff would prefer you do for such a situation could be different. And permission can be falsified like you said. Screenshots of permission are especially easy for someone to falsify as long as they have a little knowledge in photoshop. But to be honest, if someone goes through the trouble of editing / falsifying proof of permission... well, that's just sad. e_e Edit in addition to Eltafez's post: Indeed there are some people that truly don't care where their art ends up. But if that's the case, a lot of artists will state that along with their work so that people know. If they haven't stated it themselves, though, that's not reason to assume they are are one of those people who don't care. Receiving permission to use an image that isn't yours & giving credit is always better than assuming. And even if most images used on this site are free use, simply stating that somewhere ("this item is free use etc etc etc") isn't going to hurt you, I promise.

Wrong on that matter. PFQ is certainly not the first site that strictly controls its users' image behavior. In fact, all the game sites that I had played were the same: if you didn't credit the piece of art, it's expected to be official, drawn by yourself, or free-to-use. If it's none of that and you're caught, it's a ban. Now, you might not care where your art ends up, but plenty of others do. It's in your own interest that you do, too. In fact, I've seen a lot of cases where someone tried to claim an image as their own just to sell it off. Imagine that - someone is gaining profit through you without you knowing it. Unless the artist explicitly targeted resale (which would be announced somewhere visible), many will be unhappy to hear that their work is being sold (in copies). This, along with copyright infringement, is enough to get the site in trouble. We wouldn't want PFQ to close because of a few troublesome individuals, would we? But that's what'll happen if there's stolen art discovered here and the rightful owner decides to press charges.

I agree with Dracowlfie 100%. It's the internet, people will post tons of offensive things (in different forms) and often times, there's nothing you can do to change that. I also think this site is being way too extreme.

"It's the internet" is not, and has never been, a valid excuse, ever. If I engage in paedophilia on the internet, do you really think "it's the internet" would make it okay? Pretty bloody not! I take an extreme example to make a point: theft is theft, be it a 50p chocolate bar at the corner shop, your friend's DS game, a bank's money, or an image on the internet, it is theft and theft is not acceptable. If you want PFQ to be shut down on account of harbouring copyright violators, then you're going the right way about it. There's a reason YouTube deletes infringing videos!

Should photographs of real people e.g musicians/random people on the street or just a picture of yourself as your avatar be credited if not taken by you? I know this is the dumbest question.

Well, photography is a kind of art; I would credit the person who took it and if possible, the people in it.

That is perfectly understandable; but I feel that you've given yourself a somewhat impossible task that will swallow up the staffs time. There's only so many of you and I already imagine your workload is intense as it is. With PFQ growing at the rate it is with new members everyday just how is this message going to hit home? How can this be regulated? xD I mean this is why I suggested having RP Moderators who can actually lessen the burden. But with how it is now? Someone is going to end up ripping their hair out. Copyright law is law and the likes; but sometimes trying to educate folk who are ignorant/naive and too young to understand it is futile. Nooblets are going to noob. And this endeavour is going to be an everyday task. V.V Where I feel that many members of the community will get the boot for; the 'punishment' for this just seems like too much for something some folk will never grasp. Banning them right off the bat? That's intense; perhaps a work up to a ban is more called for rather than 'WHAM'. @Void; No. How can someone pull that off? Crediting the photographer yes; but the folk in it? Good lord. It's not even WORTH using the image if that's the case.