We are hopefully soon going to do our own review of the book in the next week or two, depending on how the postal system goes. So stay tuned for a palaeo-artist take on this volume here on ART Evolved soon...
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Reviews of Dinosaur Art the book
Hopefully you've all heard about the upcoming Dinosaur Art: The World’s Greatest Paleoart book. If not it is looking like THE book on palaeo-art by the modern greats.
Dave Hone posts his thoughts on the book here, and Brian Switek has a short review here.
We are hopefully soon going to do our own review of the book in the next week or two, depending on how the postal system goes. So stay tuned for a palaeo-artist take on this volume here on ART Evolved soon...
We are hopefully soon going to do our own review of the book in the next week or two, depending on how the postal system goes. So stay tuned for a palaeo-artist take on this volume here on ART Evolved soon...
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Velociraptor Mongoliensis: 1:1 Sculpture
Hello All,
My name is Nicholas Fonseca. I am new to Art Evolved, and I am excited to share my first post.
I am sharing with you my life reconstruction of Velociraptor mongoliensis.
I based this reconstruction on photos and dimensions of the "Fighting Dinosaur" Specimen: GI 100/25.
I wanted to create an image of Velociraptor as animal not a movie monster. Too many times dinosaurs, and Velociraptor in particular are portrayed jaws agape in a ferocious leap onto prey. I chose instead to pose this animal crouching over a nest of its eggs. I feel this creates a naturalistic view of Velociraptor, as an animal that not only needs to hunt prey "or hapless scientists" but also to rear its young thus ensuring the survival of it's genetic progeny.
Enjoy!
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Sculptors of Beijing's Dinosaur Park
As promised here is one of the many palaeo-art related gems I encountered on my Chinese expedition. I thought I'd start on a light hearted and more comedic entry, and the Beijing Natural History Museum's Dinosaur Park fits that bill perfectly.
Overall the Natural History Museum in its public halls and galleries is a fantastic kids museum, and is a lot of fun. The quality of the casts in the skeleton hall are not of a good enough grade to satisfy a hardcore technical palaeo-nut, would be my only warning. I frankly loved it, and it held up a good hour long visit (as the signs were all in Chinese, and my wife wanted to push on our day this was all I could afford, but it was just the right amount I'd say unless you can read characters).
In the basement of the museum though is a series of three themed rooms filled with the most fun and silly Dinosaur display I've seen in a while. I'll let the pictures tell most of the story, but in a nutshell what I loved about all the models you are about to see is that none of them were robots. All of them were giant static statues, that felt more like giant action figures from my childhood than something that should be in a museum. That's exactly what they were in a sense, copies of the bad dollar store Dinosaurs we 80 kids all used to get. I suspect the sculptors were provided such toys directly from the factories that produced those toys as their references (I could be wrong, but that's what they felt like).
David Hone covered two of the highlights of this display here and here, but upon visiting I found several more that I had to share.
The only technically correct thing about the exhibit was this nice welcoming sign.
(Blogger's photo captioning suddenly won't work for me here, so all these sculptors are credited to their unknown artist, and as usual please let me know should you happen to know who their creator was)
I totally owned a small version of this guy! Apart from being a 100 times larger and badly painted this was a weird flash of nostalgia for me...
This guy feels like he is out of an old skool painting.
A nice collection of (inaccurate) Chinese Sauropods.
This combo had to be the single best highlight of the whole "Park". The demonic theropod about to chow down on a cartoon smiling Sauropod.
Overall the Natural History Museum in its public halls and galleries is a fantastic kids museum, and is a lot of fun. The quality of the casts in the skeleton hall are not of a good enough grade to satisfy a hardcore technical palaeo-nut, would be my only warning. I frankly loved it, and it held up a good hour long visit (as the signs were all in Chinese, and my wife wanted to push on our day this was all I could afford, but it was just the right amount I'd say unless you can read characters).
In the basement of the museum though is a series of three themed rooms filled with the most fun and silly Dinosaur display I've seen in a while. I'll let the pictures tell most of the story, but in a nutshell what I loved about all the models you are about to see is that none of them were robots. All of them were giant static statues, that felt more like giant action figures from my childhood than something that should be in a museum. That's exactly what they were in a sense, copies of the bad dollar store Dinosaurs we 80 kids all used to get. I suspect the sculptors were provided such toys directly from the factories that produced those toys as their references (I could be wrong, but that's what they felt like).
David Hone covered two of the highlights of this display here and here, but upon visiting I found several more that I had to share.
 |
| By Unknown Sculptor If you know who this artist was though could you please let us know so we can properly credit their work |
(Blogger's photo captioning suddenly won't work for me here, so all these sculptors are credited to their unknown artist, and as usual please let me know should you happen to know who their creator was)
This has to be the happiest victim herbivorous Dinosaur in the history of victim plant eaters.
Dr. Who and the Phylopics Panic!!!
I had an unexpected surprise this morning while checking my Facebook. Someone had posted this digital poster on Dr. Thomas Holtz's wall for an upcoming Dr. Who episode.
Now for most people the excitement would be over everyone's favourite immortal time traveller taking on Dinosaurs (a second time, hopefully this time will be a lot better than the first time in the 70's :P).
However for me there was an immediate huge distraction about the poster. The Dinosaur shadow menacing the Doctor was one of the silhouettes I had created for Phylopic... Now I have no problem with its use here, as it is free domain on Phylopics (though I'd always only anticipated its use by researchers). The real question I had was this an official promotion by the BBC or not. As let's face it that would be some real boasting rights to be part of an official Dr. Who printed teaser (even if they had a legitimate reason not to pay me).
While it looked real enough, it turns out to fan art by artist James Gray. Oh well. It did the trick of getting that episode firmly entrenched in my head as one I have to see.
This very brief "incident" left me reflecting on my involvement in Phylopics for a couple minutes though. I've been very actively promoting and encouraging people to make images for the site. Yet this poster demonstrated it wasn't just scientists who might use the images freely available on the site. It is open to everyone.
When I initially got involved in Phylopics and promoted it, I'd only honestly envisioned researchers and science workers using the images. Yes that was dumb of me, but today I had a low level reality check. Anyone and everyone could use those images. Was this something I wanted or should be encouraging others to do?
Of course this was a dumb (but sadly predictable) knee jerk reaction. The whole point of Phylopics is that anyone who wants access to scientifically accurate (silhouetted) images can now have access to them for free. I'd rather non-science parties using and accessing these accurate free images rather than producing or acquiring inadequate material to further muddy the waters!
So yes, among these users might be TV/Movie producers, book publishers, and/or museums. Yes in an ideal world I would rather these sorts of parties have to pay and/or at least credit me. However at the end of the day the images in question are just a silhouettes. They really are not that hard to make for us or these various parties. I'd rather they take correct ones from a credible source, instead of them drawing up their own with (probably) less of an eye for accuracy.
Also as silhouettes they are of very limited use to most people. This Doctor Who poster demonstrates the one function this Albertosaur will be to an illustrator, as a shadow... James Gray couldn't ever extend this to show the Dinosaur itself. At least not without infringing on my other images copyrights (so in a sense this is a great means of encouraging people to get my other images and pay me. You know if the world worked like make belief :P... also you know if he wasn't infringing on the BBC's Doctor Who copyrights too...)
The only functional use these silhouettes is as a simplistic diagnostic diagram. Yes books, shows, and movies use these all the time. Yes they could use them from Phylopic. Yes they could do so without paying the artists who created them (though I think some of the licences do require them to at least credit them). Yet at the end of the day these aren't the money making images in any of these media. No one is going to buy the book because of the silhouette pictures comparing a human's size to a Dinosaur's in the corner of the article. No one is going to buy the movie because of the technical readout that pops up on the computer for a moment when Mr. Spock is briefing the crew on the carnivores of Dinosaur Planet.
So why freak out about it? (This question being addressed as much to my momentary paranoid self as to you the reader). Yes pick your battles, and fight them hard. Just make sure you know what the battles are about. Phylopics is a different battle than breaking out as an artist. It is about science outreach and empowerment. We can't hope to get more paying science art gigs if scientists can't communicate or getting their research out there.
Phylopics is a great way to quickly and easily contribute free art to scientists that doesn't take a lot of your time, and that would be of very limited commerical use by itself. Yes other non-science parties might use, but who cares. Really that is a bonus getting out correct visual information. I still stand by Phylopics and its mission. I still stick to it mostly benefiting science and researchers. I just have to acknowledge there could be some more use by nonexpected parties than what I was originally advertising to everyone.
So still please consider making some silhouettes for Phylopics today. Just keep in mind how they might get used in addition to science. I still think it is worth the trade off!
 |
| By James Gray |
However for me there was an immediate huge distraction about the poster. The Dinosaur shadow menacing the Doctor was one of the silhouettes I had created for Phylopic... Now I have no problem with its use here, as it is free domain on Phylopics (though I'd always only anticipated its use by researchers). The real question I had was this an official promotion by the BBC or not. As let's face it that would be some real boasting rights to be part of an official Dr. Who printed teaser (even if they had a legitimate reason not to pay me).
While it looked real enough, it turns out to fan art by artist James Gray. Oh well. It did the trick of getting that episode firmly entrenched in my head as one I have to see.
 |
| By myself (Craig Dylke) It is freely avaliable copyright free at Phylopics here. |
When I initially got involved in Phylopics and promoted it, I'd only honestly envisioned researchers and science workers using the images. Yes that was dumb of me, but today I had a low level reality check. Anyone and everyone could use those images. Was this something I wanted or should be encouraging others to do?
Of course this was a dumb (but sadly predictable) knee jerk reaction. The whole point of Phylopics is that anyone who wants access to scientifically accurate (silhouetted) images can now have access to them for free. I'd rather non-science parties using and accessing these accurate free images rather than producing or acquiring inadequate material to further muddy the waters!
So yes, among these users might be TV/Movie producers, book publishers, and/or museums. Yes in an ideal world I would rather these sorts of parties have to pay and/or at least credit me. However at the end of the day the images in question are just a silhouettes. They really are not that hard to make for us or these various parties. I'd rather they take correct ones from a credible source, instead of them drawing up their own with (probably) less of an eye for accuracy.
Also as silhouettes they are of very limited use to most people. This Doctor Who poster demonstrates the one function this Albertosaur will be to an illustrator, as a shadow... James Gray couldn't ever extend this to show the Dinosaur itself. At least not without infringing on my other images copyrights (so in a sense this is a great means of encouraging people to get my other images and pay me. You know if the world worked like make belief :P... also you know if he wasn't infringing on the BBC's Doctor Who copyrights too...)
The only functional use these silhouettes is as a simplistic diagnostic diagram. Yes books, shows, and movies use these all the time. Yes they could use them from Phylopic. Yes they could do so without paying the artists who created them (though I think some of the licences do require them to at least credit them). Yet at the end of the day these aren't the money making images in any of these media. No one is going to buy the book because of the silhouette pictures comparing a human's size to a Dinosaur's in the corner of the article. No one is going to buy the movie because of the technical readout that pops up on the computer for a moment when Mr. Spock is briefing the crew on the carnivores of Dinosaur Planet.
So why freak out about it? (This question being addressed as much to my momentary paranoid self as to you the reader). Yes pick your battles, and fight them hard. Just make sure you know what the battles are about. Phylopics is a different battle than breaking out as an artist. It is about science outreach and empowerment. We can't hope to get more paying science art gigs if scientists can't communicate or getting their research out there.
Phylopics is a great way to quickly and easily contribute free art to scientists that doesn't take a lot of your time, and that would be of very limited commerical use by itself. Yes other non-science parties might use, but who cares. Really that is a bonus getting out correct visual information. I still stand by Phylopics and its mission. I still stick to it mostly benefiting science and researchers. I just have to acknowledge there could be some more use by nonexpected parties than what I was originally advertising to everyone.
So still please consider making some silhouettes for Phylopics today. Just keep in mind how they might get used in addition to science. I still think it is worth the trade off!
Julio Lacerda the Causal Paleoartist
Another great palaeo-artist with a blog is Julio Lacerda. I've been following him awhile, but just embarrassingly realized there has been no noise or commotion made about his efforts here on AE.
So be sure to go check out his great art and well explained posts about his work here.
 |
| By Julio Laceria |
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Judging a book by its cover...
Over on Archosaur Musings Dr. Dave Hone just reviewed the 2nd edition of The Complete Dinosaur. In the comment section an interesting an exchange between Dr. Hone and SVPOW's Dr. Mike Taylor caught my interest.
Dr. Taylor's voiced his dislike of the book's cover due to the art being "cartoonish" in his opinion, and Dr. Hone disagreed with him on. I'll quote the whole thing in a moment, but here is the cover for your contemplation first. Pay attention to your reaction to it. Does this strike you as "professional" level art or something else...
 |
| By Bob Walters & Jeff Breeden |
Mike Taylor- It’s a real shame that the 2nd edition, like the 1st, has a cartoon cover. When I started to be seriously interested in palaeo, I passed over the original TCD because it didn’t look like a serious work. When I finally read it a couple of years later, I realised what I’d been missing — probably the single most useful book I could have read at that stage. I hope the new cover doesn’t lead too many others into making the same mistake.
Dave Hone- I don’t think it’s a cartoon Mike. It’s a proper piece of dinosaur art, and certainly no less ‘serious’ than a great many dinosaur book (The Dinosauria has something not too dissimilar). A simple flick through should make it obvious about the content too given all the references and technical figures..Nope, I just disagree. I really don’t think it is.Well, then our profound debate seems to be at an end.Unless a third party would like to break the tie?
Well it is simply a matter of opinion/ taste. Though to continue just a little Mike, in your original comment you do rather imply that you judged the book by it’s cover. I can’t help feeling that phrase rings a bell somehow… 
A few "third parties" ended up weighing in, myself among them. The final verdict on whether this piece was "good" or not is not really important, as Dr. Hone accurately pointed out it is more a matter of taste and opinion. What interested me was the issue Dr. Taylor touches on. How stylization of palaeo-art can affect people's opinion of it (and in this case the book it is attached too).
Overall the composition of this cover art is pretty standard and, apart from perhaps some thickness issues with the Diabloceratops forelimbs, isn't a bad reconstruction. What Dr. Taylor is mostly picking up on is the colour palette choice by the artist. Every colour is bright and vivid, giving it the "cartoony" appearance.
When you take the colour away there is nothing cartoonish or simplistic about this drawing. With colour though I do agree that the palette choices give this piece a surreal and unrealistic appearance.
Whether this is good or bad is up to you. It can be said safely to not be photo realistic.
Does this sort of stylization hurt you or your pieces credibility though?
Obviously if you were trying to impress someone like Dr. Taylor it would.
Yet I know many scientists who currently don't hold an opinion like Dr. Taylor. Dr. Hone obviously being one of them. In addition to him, I know of at least three more that in the past year approached me for possible book covers due to my own stylized work.
I personally was floored when they approached me, and I wonder if the Complete Dinosaur artist had a similar request for this book. In my world if you are a palaeontologist seeking a book cover you'd ask for some of the very best palaeo-art from the top names.
It turns out for years this is exactly what authors have been doing. In the rough words of one of my potential clients "Sure we could go for a more conservative and 'realistic' piece by say Micheal Skrepnick or Julius Csotonyi, but everyone has those these days. You're book just blends into the crowd that way. Lately we've been going for artists and pieces with some character and quirkiness to make our books stand out."
I'm not complaining about this trend in any case myself :P However I found Dr. Taylor's reaction to such a quirky piece very interesting. It certainly attracted his attention, but not in a good way. That said I think I see what my clients are thinking this (and I suspect this book's team were thinking as well). Any attention is good.
In looking through my own books I find that Micheal Skrepnick can be found on nearly 1/3 of all the covers. I certainly adore his art, and I personally was noting how he is the king of modern palaeo-book covers, but from the individual book's point of view this could be a bad thing. I do find when I'm, too rarely, presented with a bookstore self with a wide selection of Dinosaur volumes the Skrepnick covered books don't leap out at me. I have to read the titles and blurbs to be attracted. (Sadly I can only think of three bookstores where I can cite this "test", two were in museums and one a university bookstore... if only it were more common).
I can only speculate on whether the Complete Dinosaur's cover was chosen for this reason or not, but I have suspicions.
Does this covers unusual colour scheme catch your attention? What is your reaction to it? Overall do you judge or pick your palaeo-books in any part due to their covers?
Monday, August 6, 2012
China Palaeo-art August starts
I just returned from a two week trip to mainland China, and while I was there I naturally visited all the museums I could. All the while recording the art I saw along the way.
I'm still in the midst of sorting all 3000 of the photos I took (I take a LOT of panoramas, so it'll condense to probably more like 1000ish). As I go I'll be sharing some of the unique things I discovered.
It has been very interesting moving to Asia (I currently live in Hong Kong these days), as I'm finding they have a totally different set of palaeo-artists in their books and museums we just don't get to see in the West (while many of our well known artists still appear here too). I'll try to share some of them over the next month.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Back in Business
Hey everyone.
Contrary to rumour we have not suffered a mass extinction here on ART Evolved. Definitely some selective pressures working against art posts in the lives of the admins, but we survive to art another day.
That said its only me holding the fort for the next month. I'm hoping to get you some interesting stuff (including introducing you to the work of an outstanding palaeo-artist well known in China, but virtually non-existent in the West). We also have some new people to our community wanting to share their stuff, and I'm hoping to either get them on the blog's membership or posted soon.
So stay tuned for a palaeo-art packed end of summer here on ART Evolved...
Contrary to rumour we have not suffered a mass extinction here on ART Evolved. Definitely some selective pressures working against art posts in the lives of the admins, but we survive to art another day.
That said its only me holding the fort for the next month. I'm hoping to get you some interesting stuff (including introducing you to the work of an outstanding palaeo-artist well known in China, but virtually non-existent in the West). We also have some new people to our community wanting to share their stuff, and I'm hoping to either get them on the blog's membership or posted soon.
So stay tuned for a palaeo-art packed end of summer here on ART Evolved...
Saturday, July 7, 2012
CIA Inspired Pop Culture...
With our upcoming end of summer blockbuster themed Pop Culture 2 gallery, I hit a funny Facebook group today that lends itself well to the theme.
Dinosaurs were invented by the CIA to discourage time travel. I'm picturing all sorts of possibilities from Mulder and Scully investigating to Dr. Brown being interrogated about misinformation...
Friday, June 29, 2012
I (Craig) have a dedicated Palaeo-art blog now...
While we're highlighting a number of new palaeo-art blogs, I figured I'd throw mine into the lot. Now please remember by no means am I comparing myself to the talents and abilities of Luis Rey or Julius Csotonyi, but I haven't official announced or pitched this blog before.
So if you have nothing better to do check out my Prehistoric Art page. It's nothing fancy yet, just a dedicated portfolio site. I intend on adding some making of's and expanding the science of the art section.
 |
| By Craig Dylke |
Julius Csotonyi has a Blog too!
Yet another powerhouse in the world of palaeo-art has launched a blog.
Be sure to check out Julius Csotonyi's Evolutionary Routes!
 |
| By Julius Csotonyi |
Remember the ART Evolved Sequel!
With the nice long days of summer here (or chilly cold of winter for our Southern Hemisphere readers) we thought a nice relaxed and fun gallery topic would be just the thing.
So we are having a sequel Pop Culture gallery.
We'll be hosting it at the beginning of September. As myself and Peter (both school teachers) will both be fairly at this time I won't claim a right on September 1st posting time. However if you'd like your piece definately be in this gallery as of the launch (though we do add late entries... just not promptly) try to have your piece in by the 1st.
If you're new to the site, we accept any and all artwork submitted that is
themed around any of our gallery topics. Just send your submission(s), along
with any accompanying text you'd like with them, and the link to your
website/blog/online picture gallery to our email artevolved@gmail.com, and we'll post them!
Monday, June 25, 2012
New Luis V. Rey Paleoart Blog
You've seen Rey's distinct style everywhere, but my favorite collection is his work in Dr. Thomas Holtz's Dinosaurs: The Most Complete and Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of all Ages.
Click here to view on Amazon.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
In Unrelated Gregory Paul News...
Almost like clockwork, Gregory Paul has just had his (what now seems to be) annual melt down on the Dinosaur Mailing List for the year. As this time around it doesn't really pretain to art (unlike last year), I'm only going to briefly cover it.
There are common trends in this year's version with the last one though. Greg still seems to feel that as the "biggest" and "smartest" Dinosaur fan out there, no one loves them or knows like him so once again he can claim ownership of them and tell the rest of us to piss off. You know because the world works like that.
The particular issue this time is Mr. Paul jumping into a discussion about the origins of flight, and telling everyone to stop trying to touch the subject, as he has magic definitive data that will end the controversy forever... We JUST have to wait the year, to two year, to whenever till he gets it published...
Because remember people science isn't about speculation and theorizing from multiple viewpoints or vantages. It is about dogmatic declarations from a single source (can you believe I STILL dig this guy's atheism writings, despite his palaeontological attitude mimicking religion's dogmatism)
Also note I've specifically linked to the brilliant rebuttal by Dr. Heinrich Mallison and not just Mr. Paul's original post. I thought the reply was really funny in how too the point it is.
There are common trends in this year's version with the last one though. Greg still seems to feel that as the "biggest" and "smartest" Dinosaur fan out there, no one loves them or knows like him so once again he can claim ownership of them and tell the rest of us to piss off. You know because the world works like that.
The particular issue this time is Mr. Paul jumping into a discussion about the origins of flight, and telling everyone to stop trying to touch the subject, as he has magic definitive data that will end the controversy forever... We JUST have to wait the year, to two year, to whenever till he gets it published...
Because remember people science isn't about speculation and theorizing from multiple viewpoints or vantages. It is about dogmatic declarations from a single source (can you believe I STILL dig this guy's atheism writings, despite his palaeontological attitude mimicking religion's dogmatism)
Also note I've specifically linked to the brilliant rebuttal by Dr. Heinrich Mallison and not just Mr. Paul's original post. I thought the reply was really funny in how too the point it is.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Crediting Pictures: An (Un)Official Guide
Given the recent Cretaceous Studies incident and some people's questions on how pictures should be properly credited, I've thrown together this guide on what crediting should (ideally) look like. A lot of this is directly inspired by ART Evolved Admin Glendon Mellow who has put up several very good and important links about art use and artist crediting (here and here being two key ones of many). For a full understanding of the issues surrounding online image use definitely read these posts by Glendon. I'll summarize some of it here, but this post is meant to be a practical demonstration and reference of how you should be posting other people's pictures.
`
So a quick brief on why art/photograph crediting is important.
`
If you run a website, blog, or other online venture, I'm sure it isn't a stretch to say, a big part of the reason you do it is for the sense of positive attention and recognition you get from your visitors. The only thing is if not everything on your page was actually created by yourself, than you alone shouldn't be the only one basking in that attention. If you are using pictures or photographs created by other people to improve your site than you should be sharing your success with them...
`
Using work by others means you are gaining from their time and effort, and unless your paying them money you really should be recognizing this. No matter how much work you put into making and arranging your sites content, artists and photographers typically put a comparable amount of their own work into their art. So even though you are the one who brought their work onto your site for the world to see, your site would be all the less without that picture. Give this contribution to your site the nod it deserves...
`
`
Hopefully the work that went into a piece of artwork should be self evident, but there is a common misconception that photographs are "easy" to take, so its okay to use them as though they are free. Yes in principal one takes (most) pictures by simply snapping a camera, but the catch is that photographs capture an exact moment of time. They are not truly replicatable. More to the point most of the time the photos we seek are of things, places, people, or events we ourselves haven't been able to photograph ourselves (otherwise why didn't you take the photo yourself?). Meaning a photographer who has captured something you haven't, still has expended resources you were not willing to, and thus you are still borrowing this other peron's efforts. So photographs are art, just of a very unique nature...
`
How do we properly share our site's success with those who help create the pictorial content? Easy, credit them by name and link back to their site. That way anyone interested in the pictures and their creator can easily find this artist/photographer, and hopefully help the creator keep making more pictorial stuff for us all to enjoy!
`
`
Frankly it is not only the right thing to do, but most of the time something you have to do (I'll talk about copyright in a bit). Crediting and linking is protection against an artist's wraith should you be using a picture improperly, as it is hard for a creator to get furious if they find you've at least been acknowledging their efforts and sending them potential customers and fans. On the other hand if you have just been taking their stuff and not remotely hinting to their existence or the fact you appreciate their stuff, you could have (legal) problems on your hands.
`
So I've thrown together this quick reference guide of how to reference yours and other people's work. All the artwork is "real" (though please don't judge it, I made them in a hurry for this tutorial only), as are the links and credits. So please feel free to click and see how I've done this crediting. I have permission for all pieces I've used and modified, in addition to just crediting them if anyone was wondering.
`
The trend I hope you'll notice is that the more of your own work appears in your pictures the more options you have for displaying them. As you're effort in the pictures drops so do your options for post them morally and legally...
The categories are:
`
0. Captioning versus Not captioning
1. All My Own Work
2. My Work and Someone Else's
3. All Other People's Work
4. One Last Thing to Consider: Copyright
`
0. Captioning vs. Not captioning
`
For all my other examples I've used captions, which is a useful tool for ensuring the text always accompanies the pictures. This is an easy feature to use on the new Blogger platform and many other online host services. However if you are unable to use captions, you should still be typing out credit lines directly above or below the picture. Not having caption capabilities is no excuse or hindrance to crediting.
`
Non-caption
Picture by Craig Dylke
`
This was not a caption, but is just as functional. Simply type your credit line, align the text as you wish, space it so it is on the line direct under (or above) the picture, and you're done!
`
Caption
|
| By Craig Dylke |
Here is the caption. Apart from how Blogger displays it, there isn't much difference here with the actual caption. The benefit is that if I move the picture in the post the credit line automatically follows it.
`
1. Crediting All My Own Work
`
`
`
I start the guide with how to credit your own images and pictures. When you own ALL the content than you frankly can do whatever you want with it. I'm just presenting you with options here.
`
As this is not as sensitive category (the only person you'll be ticking off here with improper crediting will be yourself after all) I'm not going to go into detail, except on watermarking.
`
For this tutorial I've used a picture created by mixing a piece of my own artwork and one of my own photographs. These tips can be used on a singular photo or artwork, or in cases like this where you've mixed more than one thing together...
`
`
Method 1: No crediting or linking
`
`
`
Using your own stuff is the only time it is acceptable to have no credit, caption, or links. As it's all yours, do feel free to do with it as you please. Credits are useful for clarifying whose material it is, but again that's up to you...
Using your own stuff is the only time it is acceptable to have no credit, caption, or links. As it's all yours, do feel free to do with it as you please. Credits are useful for clarifying whose material it is, but again that's up to you...
`
Method 2: Crediting but with no links
Method 2: Crediting but with no links
`
|
| By Craig Dylke |
A great way to denote that something is indeed yours, and provides others an easy way to back link and credit you, is to credit yourself. If this is your only site or post about a particular piece or photo you don't need the back link. There is no point in someone clicking to see what they are already looking at! ;)
`
Method 3: Credit and Link
|
| By Craig Dylke |
Adding a link to the credit line is the most common method through out the rest of this tutorial, and it works fine for your own work so long as there is a reason. Add the link should only be if you have somewhere different and relevant to send visitors your visitors. In this case I've sent you to my official page for this Dinosaur artwork.
`
Method 4: Watermarking`
Now we come to a method that is (in my opinion) only okay for work that is your own, and that is watermarking. This is a fancy term for superimposing words over a picture, like I've done here. They can be more tastefully and artfully done (transparency, fancier colour choices etc.).
`
Watermarks could be thought of as a virtual of stamp of authority. So putting your stamp on your own stuff is fine, but its not good edict to stamp for someone else (especially if they don't even know your using their stuff). There is an implication of authority and ownership with a watermark. So to do it for someone else on implies that you not only have permission to post that person's work, but that this other person endorses your use of it.
`
So my advice don't watermark anything that is not 100% your own. If you watermark for someone else and they don't like your use of their stuff you could aggravate things (compared to the methods listed below)!
`
2. Crediting My Work mixed with Someone Else's
2. Crediting My Work mixed with Someone Else's
`
So what happens if you mix other people's art with your own? Now we are entering a category where there needs to be some recognition for those who made your final product possible. Regardless if you did a great job photoshopping or drawing around or on top of that other person's stuff. Point is without those other elements the final product wouldn't exist! (Even if you think what you've used is "easy" to reproduce. Instead of giving that lame excuse just go reproduce the element! If you use someone else's effort to save yourself work you need to give credit!).
`
The only correct way to post this sort of composite artwork is to include a credit somewhere.
`
Method 1: Credit and link stuff that is not your own
`
If you only want to minimally put credits by or around your pictures, you can get by with just crediting and linking to the other person. However this is the most minimum you can get away with.
 |
| Dinosaur by Peter Bond |
If you only want to minimally put credits by or around your pictures, you can get by with just crediting and linking to the other person. However this is the most minimum you can get away with.
`
The credit should make clear what the other person created. Your linking should send visitors to an online portfolio, homepage, or post about the person's art. Here I've linked to Peter's specific post about this art. Just make sure the link is of use to someone wanting more information about the artist, and presents that artist in a positive light.
`
Method 2: Credit and link all components |
| Dinosaur by Peter Bond, Photograph by Craig Dylke |
`
The problem with crediting just the other person's work (which you have to do) is that it becomes unclear you were responsible for some of the work in a picture too. Crediting yourself is the answer. There is nothing wrong with plugging yourself when you created the work.
The problem with crediting just the other person's work (which you have to do) is that it becomes unclear you were responsible for some of the work in a picture too. Crediting yourself is the answer. There is nothing wrong with plugging yourself when you created the work.
Just again make sure you're back linking is relevant on yourself. In this case I don't have this picture anywhere else on the web. So there is no need for a link (as if this were on my own site you'd already be on it).
`
`
3. Crediting all other People's Work
`
`
Finally we come to what happens when you use art or photos by just other people. There is only one proper answer. Credit and back link to all the creators involved. Even if you photoshopped it all together, it is NOT your creation. Those elements took other people's time to exist (if you think they were easy to make, than go make your own!) so they need to be acknowledged. Whether it be a single thing you used or a bunch you mixed together. You only have the one option!
 |
| Art by Glendon Mellow, Photograph by Peter Bond, Optional Credit Photoshoping by Craig Dylke even though it is rubbish in this example :P |
This is pretty straight forward. Acknowledge each creator and their part in your composition. You can credit yourself for mashing the components together, but that should be the last credit (and I'd suggest only if it is a really good effort... I'm half embarrassed putting my name to this as it is not an example of my best work).
`
Once again make sure your links are of use to people seeking more information about the artist, and you'll be good as gold.
`
`
5. The Last Thing to Consider: Copyrights
`
In my opinion if you follow the other guidelines above, especially when using images and pictures by other people, I recon you should not have a major problem like legal action or angry creator declaring war on you if you are crediting them properly. That having been said the above methods do not actually protect your use of the images. You need to be aware of the legal implications of using other peoples' work.
`
If you use an image improperly and a creator comes after you (which is within their legal rights) the outcome can vary from you having to take down the offending image, your whole website being shut down, or an outright lawsuit against yourself! Right away you should check the copyright on any image that is not your own before posting it on your website. Just because you found it on some other site uncredited doesn't mean its okay for you to do the same. When I say it is not okay I mean that both ethically AND legally. Just because someone else is breaking the law doesn't absolve you of the same crime if you commit it too!
`
`
Creative Commons
`
One of the most common copyright types you'll encounter these days is the creative commons. This is a standardized set of image usage criteria established with the theory that image creators AND users would all follow the same rules. This has not worked out mostly due to users. Please don't be one of these image users that ruin a perfectly acceptable universal standard!
`
Most creative commons are denoted by a graphic like this somewhere on an image's page. The vast vast majority of them do not appear on the the image itself. For reference you'll note we here at ART Evolved have one at the very top of our site.
`
Creative Commons can seem confusing if you don't know what they mean. However I've provided this excellent graphic by Milos Janata that should hopefully show you how easy they are to understand.
`
One of the most common copyright types you'll encounter these days is the creative commons. This is a standardized set of image usage criteria established with the theory that image creators AND users would all follow the same rules. This has not worked out mostly due to users. Please don't be one of these image users that ruin a perfectly acceptable universal standard!
`
Most creative commons are denoted by a graphic like this somewhere on an image's page. The vast vast majority of them do not appear on the the image itself. For reference you'll note we here at ART Evolved have one at the very top of our site.`
Creative Commons can seem confusing if you don't know what they mean. However I've provided this excellent graphic by Milos Janata that should hopefully show you how easy they are to understand.
`
`
You'll notice a very common requirement here is to mention the creator of anything you have used. So get those credits up!
`
Outright Copyright
`
Some creators just put an all out copyright on their work, which means that you can not legally use that image without their expressed permission. Yes that often doesn't happen on the Internet, but you yourself don't want to get caught breaking the law and simply using the excuse "but they did it too"!
`
Now if there is an image you must use but it is copyrighted, my suggestion is break the law as gently as you can (I'm not pretending to be an angel in this regard... I have been known to post copyrighted work BUT...). Make sure you credit the heck out of it. It is also a good idea to state in that credit you are more than willing to take down the image if requested to by the owner. Also whatever you do make sure you are not making any money from your site or the image use! If you make money (even just from ads) that is asking for the most severe legal recourse!
`
Again showing you at least respect the artist enough to pay them their due in credit should protect you from the worst options they have that their disposal. That said be aware you are still taking a risk in doing this. So do so at your own risk!
`
Mashups and Copyrights
`
All the pictures I used in this demonstration today were composites of multiple pieces, and in all cases (had I not acquired permission from the owners before making this post) I would have been really breaking copyright law!
`
In cases where you are modifying other people's work it is really important to be careful of copyrights. You can open yourself up to the more intense consequences of infringement with derivative works. You should not modify or mix parts of images that have total copyrights or Creative Commons licences that forbid it (and keep in mind nearly half of CC licenses prohibit unauthorized derivative works!).
`
You open yourself up to a lot more action to be taken against your site or yourself. If you are mashing up other people's stuff you should definitely be crediting them!
`
Conclusion
Hopefully the one take home message is that you credit everything and anything that you did not directly create on your website. It not only protects you, but hopefully will help the image creators keep on creating stuff! I'd also caution you to beware of copyrights for the safety of your site/blog and or bank account.
`
Conclusion
Hopefully the one take home message is that you credit everything and anything that you did not directly create on your website. It not only protects you, but hopefully will help the image creators keep on creating stuff! I'd also caution you to beware of copyrights for the safety of your site/blog and or bank account.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)