Cuss words (mild or abbrev.), blasphemy, URL’s (website addresses), incivility, obscene gestures on avatars or failure to give the name ‘God’ or ‘Jesus’ capitals, will be deleted.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Old Caricature Stuff
Here's two old caricatures I did for a company called, "Faith Computing" I'm not sure if I ever posted it. I drew & colored both faces & the car that you see in this picture. The LOGO itself, WAS NOT drawn by me though.
thanks! If I had time, I'd redraw the guy. But.. my time is so limited now, cause of all the work I've been getting. Maybe later, I'll try another stab at it. ;)
No it's not Disney's version. It's Esly's version drawn for a client who has a similar car & wanted it illustrated into a cartoon. They did ask for the Disney style. So, that's what I gave them. A style is not copyrighted. The character (which is different then the one I drew) is copyrighted.
Remember, I draw caricatures. ;) Caricatures are not copyrighted.
Thanks for asking though. Go to Disney & ask the caricature artist to draw you *like* a cartoon & they will.
I'm an artist/designer myself, so find this topic quite interesting.
So let me get this right, a Disney image is copyrighted, yet a Disney image is royalty free if you copy it and call it a 'caricature' and put your own logo on it??
PS:
Wondering if Ray Comfort calls the Darwin biography a 'caricature' of Stan Guffey's version?
Let me ask you Esly, in all honesty, if McDonald's commissioned an artist who drew a car logo EXACTLY as you have drawn here, and put a McDonald's golden 'M'logo on it where you have put the 'Faith' logo...
...do you honestly believe that Disney/Pixar would have zero problem with McDonald's?
An artist is allowed to portray an object or person into a theme or style so long as it's not the EXACT copy of the original item. Here are two samples of what I mean."snow white/7 drawfs", Pinocchio.
Because it's an "expression" of one's own interpretation of art. Make sense?
Like the bible says, "there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
Logos are a completely different scenario. But, then again, I've seen many of the same copied like logos everywhere all the time. It's very legal, because each posses a different word or stroke of art.
I personally would not take someone else's logo & give it to someone else. no. Why would I do that? It's not my own interpretation. It'd be someone else's interpretation.
A sample of a logo copy would be "Burger King" & "Hungry Jacks". Google search the image, and you'll see what I mean. They are two separate companies. They both sell the same stuff. They both look alike too.
That'd be no concern of yours, unless I was the copyright holder
"If so, where did you get the idea of this being wrong?"
I never said it was 'wrong', I just wondered what the legal implications (if any) were.
"Who's to say it's not wrong to not copy people's work? The law?"
Well, yes. If you copy (plagiarize) other people's work there are laws that deal with this. Whether you or I agree or disagree with those laws is simply so much hot air unless we campaign to change them.
"Well, what if the law over here says that it's okay. But over there says it's not okay?"
Ask a lawyer?
"Then, who's right & who's wrong?"
Law does not deal with 'right and wrong'. Law deals with 'legal' and 'illegal'.
"Who controls the morality here?"
Interesting point. Do you think plagiarism is a moral issue? Is theft a moral issue? Is thieving 'wrong' because someone is aggrieved, or is it relative, and if they aren't aggrieved and do not consider themselves 'owners' of anything, is it still theft?
1. Is plagiarism (theft of intellectual property) relative in your book?
2. Or is some plagiarism good, and some plagiarism bad?
3. Is some plagiarism neutral?
Tough questions, eh?
You go on:
"Do you have an "Authoritative World Standard" for all humanity to do what you think is right?"
I try to do what I think is right, by my standards, and I respect other's standards as much as I can. There is also the matter of laws. Personally, I tend to invoke the Golden Rule.
"If so, wouldn't you be invoking your beliefs of what's right & what's wrong on me?"
I don't quite know what you mean.
Above I was talking about US copyright law and plagiarism, I was actually asking you a question, not making a judgment.
You ask:
"Why bother me with your belief?"
Esly, I was simply asking you a legal question, not 'stating my belief'.
Finally you ask:
"In your case, nothing should matter. Survival of the fittest right?"
Ah, now you are stating my beliefs again ( I have addressed this elsewhere in your blog, to no response from yourself).
I find it amusing that I have not 'bothered you with my beliefs'(I have merely questioned you regarding copyright law) yet here you are actually having the temerity to speak for me and tell me what my 'beliefs' are.
Priceless.
Let me correct you:
A. I do not consciously form my ethical and moral compass according to your mistaken understanding of natural selection*
B. I am not a nihilist. Things matter to me. I am also empathic, and I feel that things matter to others. I make no apology for not resembling your straw-man.
*'Survival of the fittest' (in the context of natural selection) is a simple observation of the fact that populations which best fit their environment and overcome environmental pressures are more likely to continue to breed successfully. It is descriptive, not prescriptive and has exactly zero to do with my conscious considerations regarding ethics and morals. You seem to have the term confused with an identical one popularized by media/tabloid or sporting terminology.
I would honored if you would answer my questions 1, 2 and 3 (above)?
I believe I have answered all of yours but will be pleased to clarify any points should you require.
"A sample of a logo copy would be "Burger King" & "Hungry Jacks". Google search the image, and you'll see what I mean. They are two separate companies."
Hungry Jack's (note the apostrophe)was the name chosen by Burger King for it's franchise in Australia, as the 'Burger King' name was already owned by an Adelaide food company.
That's why you see the same bun logo, and that's why it's 'very legal'(as you say) because it was a franchise, not because someone has simply 'added their own stroke' and gotten away with it.
Hi Esly, sorry it was a typo, I type too quickly for my brain. I hope you weren't offended.
Any comments on my answer to you, or my three questions?
I'd be interested in an honest, open dialogue. I do find it strange that you dictate my own 'beliefs' to me, yet when I correct you, you make no mention of it. Why is this?
I have answered all of your questions honestly, yet you answer none of mine in return. Additionally, I apologized for mis-typing your name, yet you have nothing to say about misrepresenting my beliefs?
Why this great disparity in the way we approach dialogue?
Sure, old fairy tales are public domain to reinterpret (like the Bible) and create new character designs for, but Disney's seven dwarves are his designs and can not be used unless licensed. Any imitation of likeness (like McQueen the Pixar car) is subject to cease and desist or law suit.
I get the feeling Esly that when you disseminate misrepresentation/propaganda and someone questions your claim, or speaks up against it, you clam up/ignore it and simply carry on regardless. At the most you address an inconsequential or tangential point.
#2. I have no reason to justify myself to you, because God is my judge. Not you. Therefore, I answer to Him only.
#3. I care for all the atheists that have posted on my blog (as well, as the christians). I see no reason to have a debate with any of you. Cause I will always hold true to the True God, creator of all things.
#4. I'm super busy right now. And I don't have full-time access to blog commenting all day. Though, I wish I could. Ray can do that cause he has tons of back up to help him out through his large ministries.
#5. This blog is for "ARTIST'S" (primarily christian artists). It was never intended for debating "ATHEISTS". Though, I don't mind that you post on here & speak your true thoughts, so long as words stay civil & mature.
#6. I will never deny Jesus as my Lord & Savior. He's already revealed Himself to me. So, I'm satisfied with the very real proof that He's given me.
#7. To answer your questions 1,2 & 3 altogether... Plagiarism can be done for two reasons. By Mistake or Done Purposefully. Only God knows the heart.
Thankfully, God can forgive the things man cannot... so long, as you "Repent" and put your "Trust" in Him for good. His Grace exceeds what any man could ever give. Now, That's a God worth praising! :)
"For as the heavens are high above the earth, So great is His mercy toward those who fear Him;
As far as the east is from the west,So far has He removed our transgressions from us." (Psalm 103:11-12)
@ Ruben: The Car I drew is an imitation of the guy's ACTUAL car... formatted to fit into a cartoon resemblance drawn digitally. Same goes for when I draw a caricature of a famous celebrity. Yes, the person's face might be copyrighted. But an artist's art is copyrighted by the individual. Just like the original car design is copyrighted by the car manufacturer.
If someone draws it.. even a bit differently (as I did) it's not copyrighted.. because it has been changed into an image that represents a car owned by a man who bought it.
Thanks Esly, although that was a lot of words just to offer me the middle finger.
"I see no reason to have a debate with any of you. Cause I will always hold true to the True God, creator of all things."
In short, you show that you can say what you like about others, even misrepresent them, because you only answer to your 'God' (who forgives you for your lies, and for plagiarism) and so you feel no obligation to show honesty. respect or humility to fellow humans, especially 'ATHEISTS' (sic)?
Got it.
Ciao, bella. You've shown me your version of 'care' and honesty. I shall trouble your blog no more.
Raoul, Forgive me if I came across that way to you. I'd never offer you the middle finger, despite what you may think.
It's funny you just said what you said.. because that's how I feel you're treating me right now.
Misrepresenting me & lying about me. Though, I forgive you because I understand that #1-you are human & have no possibility of being perfect & #2-you're so-called, "standard of morality" has no foundation except in your imagination. If there's no God, there's no moral standard & I know, you know that.
Keep on keeping the faith, Esly. Remember that if people said spiteful things and tried to malign Jesus Christ (who lived a perfect life), it's no suprise that we, as Christians, will receive the same treatment. May God truly bless!
25 comments:
Looks really cool!
thanks! If I had time, I'd redraw the guy. But.. my time is so limited now, cause of all the work I've been getting. Maybe later, I'll try another stab at it. ;)
Is that version of Disney's 'Lightning McQueen' car from Pixar's 'Cars' licensed to you? Cool!
No it's not Disney's version. It's Esly's version drawn for a client who has a similar car & wanted it illustrated into a cartoon. They did ask for the Disney style. So, that's what I gave them. A style is not copyrighted. The character (which is different then the one I drew) is copyrighted.
Remember, I draw caricatures. ;) Caricatures are not copyrighted.
Thanks for asking though. Go to Disney & ask the caricature artist to draw you *like* a cartoon & they will.
Hi Esley, thanks for answering.
I'm an artist/designer myself, so find this topic quite interesting.
So let me get this right, a Disney image is copyrighted, yet a Disney image is royalty free if you copy it and call it a 'caricature' and put your own logo on it??
PS:
Wondering if Ray Comfort calls the Darwin biography a 'caricature' of Stan Guffey's version?
Let me ask you Esly, in all honesty, if McDonald's commissioned an artist who drew a car logo EXACTLY as you have drawn here, and put a McDonald's golden 'M'logo on it where you have put the 'Faith' logo...
...do you honestly believe that Disney/Pixar would have zero problem with McDonald's?
Honest answer please.
An artist is allowed to portray an object or person into a theme or style so long as it's not the EXACT copy of the original item. Here are two samples of what I mean."snow white/7 drawfs", Pinocchio.
Because it's an "expression" of one's own interpretation of art. Make sense?
Like the bible says, "there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
Logos are a completely different scenario. But, then again, I've seen many of the same copied like logos everywhere all the time. It's very legal, because each posses a different word or stroke of art.
I personally would not take someone else's logo & give it to someone else. no. Why would I do that? It's not my own interpretation. It'd be someone else's interpretation.
A sample of a logo copy would be "Burger King" & "Hungry Jacks". Google search the image, and you'll see what I mean. They are two separate companies. They both sell the same stuff. They both look alike too.
Now, if I did..
would it be wrong in your book?
If so, where did you get the idea of this being wrong?
Who's to say it's not wrong to not copy people's work? The law?
Well, what if the law over here says that it's okay. But over there says it's not okay?
Then, who's right & who's wrong?
Who controls the morality here?
Do you have an "Authoritative World Standard" for all humanity to do what you think is right?
If so, wouldn't you be invoking your beliefs of what's right & what's wrong on me?
Why bother me with your belief?
If you truly are an atheist, who believes there is no God to give us a Standard Law of Morality?
In your case, nothing should matter. Survival of the fittest right?
Hi Esly, you ask:
"Now, if I did..
would it be wrong in your book?"
That'd be no concern of yours, unless I was the copyright holder
"If so, where did you get the idea of this being wrong?"
I never said it was 'wrong', I just wondered what the legal implications (if any) were.
"Who's to say it's not wrong to not copy people's work? The law?"
Well, yes. If you copy (plagiarize) other people's work there are laws that deal with this. Whether you or I agree or disagree with those laws is simply so much hot air unless we campaign to change them.
"Well, what if the law over here says that it's okay. But over there says it's not okay?"
Ask a lawyer?
"Then, who's right & who's wrong?"
Law does not deal with 'right and wrong'. Law deals with 'legal' and 'illegal'.
"Who controls the morality here?"
Interesting point. Do you think plagiarism is a moral issue? Is theft a moral issue? Is thieving 'wrong' because someone is aggrieved, or is it relative, and if they aren't aggrieved and do not consider themselves 'owners' of anything, is it still theft?
1. Is plagiarism (theft of intellectual property) relative in your book?
2. Or is some plagiarism good, and some plagiarism bad?
3. Is some plagiarism neutral?
Tough questions, eh?
You go on:
"Do you have an "Authoritative World Standard" for all humanity to do what you think is right?"
I try to do what I think is right, by my standards, and I respect other's standards as much as I can. There is also the matter of laws. Personally, I tend to invoke the Golden Rule.
"If so, wouldn't you be invoking your beliefs of what's right & what's wrong on me?"
I don't quite know what you mean.
Above I was talking about US copyright law and plagiarism, I was actually asking you a question, not making a judgment.
You ask:
"Why bother me with your belief?"
Esly, I was simply asking you a legal question, not 'stating my belief'.
Finally you ask:
"In your case, nothing should matter. Survival of the fittest right?"
Ah, now you are stating my beliefs again ( I have addressed this elsewhere in your blog, to no response from yourself).
I find it amusing that I have not 'bothered you with my beliefs'(I have merely questioned you regarding copyright law) yet here you are actually having the temerity to speak for me and tell me what my 'beliefs' are.
Priceless.
Let me correct you:
A. I do not consciously form my ethical and moral compass according to your mistaken understanding of natural selection*
B. I am not a nihilist. Things matter to me. I am also empathic, and I feel that things matter to others. I make no apology for not resembling your straw-man.
*'Survival of the fittest' (in the context of natural selection) is a simple observation of the fact that populations which best fit their environment and overcome environmental pressures are more likely to continue to breed successfully. It is descriptive, not prescriptive and has exactly zero to do with my conscious considerations regarding ethics and morals. You seem to have the term confused with an identical one popularized by media/tabloid or sporting terminology.
I would honored if you would answer my questions 1, 2 and 3 (above)?
I believe I have answered all of yours but will be pleased to clarify any points should you require.
Kind regards,
Raoul.
Raoul,
Give yourself a cookie mate, that was an awesome comment.
Elsy, forgot to say, you may find
this example
interesting re the same topic.
Raoul
Elsy, you said:
"A sample of a logo copy would be "Burger King" & "Hungry Jacks". Google search the image, and you'll see what I mean. They are two separate companies."
Hungry Jack's (note the apostrophe)was the name chosen by Burger King for it's franchise in Australia, as the 'Burger King' name was already owned by an Adelaide food company.
That's why you see the same bun logo, and that's why it's 'very legal'(as you say) because it was a franchise, not because someone has simply 'added their own stroke' and gotten away with it.
Hope this clears things up.
Raoul.
Esly, I just love the Lightning McQueen car!
Your Angelina and Brad caricatures are ok. :/
@ Anonymous:
If you are speaking about the "Celebrity Millions" Angelina & Brad weren't drawn by me, but by Paul Clarkson. ..
@ Raoul: Esly <-- correct spelling of my name. ;)
Hi Esly, sorry it was a typo, I type too quickly for my brain. I hope you weren't offended.
Any comments on my answer to you, or my three questions?
I'd be interested in an honest, open dialogue. I do find it strange that you dictate my own 'beliefs' to me, yet when I correct you, you make no mention of it. Why is this?
I have answered all of your questions honestly, yet you answer none of mine in return. Additionally, I apologized for mis-typing your name, yet you have nothing to say about misrepresenting my beliefs?
Why this great disparity in the way we approach dialogue?
Regards,
Raoul
Oooooh! I didn't even know that caricature-copyright "rule" :D
REALLY cool examples, btw (Snow White caricature :D)
Sarah ;)
Sure, old fairy tales are public domain to reinterpret (like the Bible) and create new character designs for, but Disney's seven dwarves are his designs and can not be used unless licensed.
Any imitation of likeness (like McQueen the Pixar car) is subject to cease and desist or law suit.
Ruben
I get the feeling Esly that when you disseminate misrepresentation/propaganda and someone questions your claim, or speaks up against it, you clam up/ignore it and simply carry on regardless. At the most you address an inconsequential or tangential point.
What about open dialogue?
Hi Raoul.
#1. I'm not the argumentative type. :)
#2. I have no reason to justify myself to you, because God is my judge. Not you. Therefore, I answer to Him only.
#3. I care for all the atheists that have posted on my blog (as well, as the christians). I see no reason to have a debate with any of you. Cause I will always hold true to the True God, creator of all things.
#4. I'm super busy right now. And I don't have full-time access to blog commenting all day. Though, I wish I could. Ray can do that cause he has tons of back up to help him out through his large ministries.
#5. This blog is for "ARTIST'S" (primarily christian artists). It was never intended for debating "ATHEISTS". Though, I don't mind that you post on here & speak your true thoughts, so long as words stay civil & mature.
#6. I will never deny Jesus as my Lord & Savior. He's already revealed Himself to me. So, I'm satisfied with the very real proof that He's given me.
#7. To answer your questions 1,2 & 3 altogether... Plagiarism can be done for two reasons. By Mistake or Done Purposefully. Only God knows the heart.
Thankfully, God can forgive the things man cannot... so long, as you "Repent" and put your "Trust" in Him for good. His Grace exceeds what any man could ever give. Now, That's a God worth praising! :)
"For as the heavens are high above the earth, So great is His mercy toward those who fear Him;
As far as the east is from the west,So far has He removed our transgressions from us."
(Psalm 103:11-12)
@ Ruben: The Car I drew is an imitation of the guy's ACTUAL car... formatted to fit into a cartoon resemblance drawn digitally. Same goes for when I draw a caricature of a famous celebrity. Yes, the person's face might be copyrighted. But an artist's art is copyrighted by the individual. Just like the original car design is copyrighted by the car manufacturer.
If someone draws it.. even a bit differently (as I did) it's not copyrighted.. because it has been changed into an image that represents a car owned by a man who bought it.
Thanks Esly, although that was a lot of words just to offer me the middle finger.
"I see no reason to have a debate with any of you. Cause I will always hold true to the True God, creator of all things."
In short, you show that you can say what you like about others, even misrepresent them, because you only answer to your 'God' (who forgives you for your lies, and for plagiarism) and so you feel no obligation to show honesty. respect or humility to fellow humans, especially 'ATHEISTS' (sic)?
Got it.
Ciao, bella. You've shown me your version of 'care' and honesty. I shall trouble your blog no more.
Raoul,
Forgive me if I came across that way to you. I'd never offer you the middle finger, despite what you may think.
It's funny you just said what you said.. because that's how I feel you're treating me right now.
Misrepresenting me & lying about me. Though, I forgive you because I understand that #1-you are human & have no possibility of being perfect & #2-you're so-called, "standard of morality" has no foundation except in your imagination. If there's no God, there's no moral standard & I know, you know that.
Keep on keeping the faith, Esly. Remember that if people said spiteful things and tried to malign Jesus Christ (who lived a perfect life), it's no suprise that we, as Christians, will receive the same treatment. May God truly bless!
Raoul you are a Troll.
Amen! Thanks Jimmy! So true! :)
Post a Comment