Asymmetry and the Dangers of Internet Image Posting
So, if you didn’t read yesterday’s post since earlier this morning, you might want to jump over there and read it. I used a quote to highlight the reasons for not copying and for crediting others. Then ironically the quote image turned out to be a misappropriated quote, reworded and posted without credit. Which brings up the one thing I didn’t summarize in yesterday’s post from the “rules” we suggest in the upcoming article “Stealing Talent” (see the Spring 2014 issue of The Polymer Arts being released on Friday.) That suggested rule is … never post anything derived from another artist’s work, not even from a class or tutorial, unless you’ve really made it your own.
Publicly posting anything that is not uniquely yours, even if you give credit to the original artist that inspired or taught you, is a dangerous and potentially harmful practice, for both you and the original artist. Your credits in the comments section of Flickr, Facebook or even a caption on a website will not necessarily follow that image as it is reposted unless the person pinning/posting consciously chooses to include your words. With the credits missing, people may think you are ripping the original artist off. Besides making you look bad, the original artist is no longer getting credit for his/her hard work.
So I have a proposal … let’s commit to NOT posting images publicly that are not our own original pieces. Let’s only post art which truly represents our unique creativity and ideas. And if we post something that was created as a result of a class or tutorial have it marked with the original artist’s name/credits IN the image itself. You can add text to your images using your photo editing software or watermark them using free online software like www.picmarkr.com or www.umarkonline.com. This way, credit will not be lost when images are reposted.
You may also put your name on images of your own work so they also will always have proper credit no matter where they wander off to, but please, do so as unobtrusively as possible. Watermarking takes away from the presentation of the art and if it weren’t helpful online, I would say never watermark your images at all. But if you do, remember to save an unmarked version as well so it can be used for other things like, oh, getting published in a high quality magazine.
Since I was going to post samples of asymmetry this week (a counter to last week’s symmetry theme) but would also like to give you an example of a watermarked image, here is a bead I created using Dan Cormier’s die-forming technique. And no, in this case, the credit to Dan isn’t necessary–this would never be mistaken for one of his pieces–but it was part of an exercise for an article reviewing his book, Relief Beyond Belief.
Asymmetry (getting back on track here) would seem to be about composition set off balance. But actually, it is completely the opposite. Asymmetry is all about balance. A well composed asymmetrical piece will have the various sides and position of elements balanced against each other–unless you are trying to create a sense of unbalance or tension. We’ll talk more about that tomorrow. I have chatted enough for the last day or two.
I do want to thank all of you who sent me emails about yesterday’s post. I would highly encourage you to actually use the comment section of the blog here to share your thoughts with everyone. It is pretty telling that dozens of people emailed me but no one left a comment. It is a heated subject. But if you email me instead (and I really don’t mind at all!) please do let me know if we can repost your comments and we’ll do so anonymously. This is an important subject and we’d like to hear your thoughts as well!
If you like this blog, support The Polymer Arts projects with a subscription or issue of The Polymer Arts magazine as well as supporting our advertising partners.
If you are going to watermark unobtrusively, as you have done with this photo, wouldn’t it be easy to crop it and repost it?
Someone certainly could–any watermark can be removed by a determined person. But its not stealing an image that I wanted to address. It’s the unintentional loss of the comments or credits as people re-post on Facebook, pin to Pinterest or post onto Tumblr. I believe much of the misinformation out there is accidental–images are pulled and posted without information or with misinformation. This would help keep credit for the work with the piece and save a people from looking bad who tried to attribute responsibly.
Hi Sage.
I love what you wrote about credit, design and technique. I know we have had similar convos before about this.
My husband is also and artist so I get his input on this topic all the time.
There is something to be said for “inspiration” – I never directly copy someone’s work – but something or some part of a person’s piece DOES inspire me – and I think, ALL artists are inspired this way.
I am inspired by my photographs, for example. I give credit to myself for taking the picture that inspired me.
One problem I have had is with people not giving a thought to taking the name of design and claiming it for themselves. I find the more “well-known” people do this…no one is going to question them – the ones that will be questioned are the lowly artists like me that have never had their works in a publication, but still have been doing the art for over 20 yrs….
It happened to me with one particular design. I have metadata to and website archives to prove that came up with the technique first AND THE NAME of it – but as I said…I’m a no one and what would I have to gain by pushing the issue.
When I used to teach, I taught technique only, using tutorials I put together, always with modifications (as I always find a different way to do things for some reason) BUT, I made damn sure I gave the original technique creator credit, with a link to the original tutorial if applicable. I think that what people create with the technique is the most important thing, and a very person thing.
People cannot hold a patent or “own” a technique on an artistic endeavor. If that was the case, we could have but one person that tattooed “photo-realism” or one person that painted “impressionistic” art. “Tiffany-settings” for Diamond rings could only be done by Tiffany – and we KNOW that that is not the case. Look at car design, for example. See how the Fiat has ripped off the Mini Cooper paint design schemes EXACTLY?? (Our good friend is the Gen Mgr of a Mini dealership and kvetches about this all the time!!!). Nothing the company can do about it. Even a micromillimeter of a difference in a line makes it “different.” This stuff is litigated all the time – unsuccessfully.
It is SO endlessly frustrating to see CERTAIN polymer artists trying to narrow the field more and more for everyone by claiming “ownership” of shapes. REALLY? (I don’t see Ford/Forlano harassing the polymer community about how folks have been inspired by the shapes that THEY use!! That is one reason why I respect them as REAL artists.)
Give it some analytic thought and you will see this whole big to-do about “that’s MY technique/shape, etc.” ludicrous.
If people don’t want to inspire others to create then they should NOT teach their precious top-secret techniques to anyone. It would seem they just want the glory and the cash – isn’t inspiration at the heart of ALL art??? If not, it should be. People as a whole are just becoming too greedy.
I create to make people feel a certain way when they see, wear, feel my pieces. I’m happy to show others how I created it. Maybe they can add something new to what I’ve done….Gads, can you image if fashion designers were like this? We’d all be wearing burlap bags…or the burlap bag “inventor would be chasing us all down for “stealing his design” and we’d be wearing sheets, and the sheet designer would be suing everyone left and right… you see how crazy this is getting???
Who really invented a cat’s-eye shape? a spiral? an elongated hexagon? I think the answer not be any “human” – not to get religious or scientific on you (and you can be a believer or an atheist to agree with my argument) – but the case for invention of shape can goes to nature hands-down (for the scientific way things are put together/or to a Divine Being for creating these things – just look under a microscope at the “shapes” of crystals, or proteins, of diatoms – they look the same as the shapes certain folks are trying to claim as their own right now in the polymer community).
Sorry this is not worded so eloquently – I just wanted to get my thoughts out while they were fresh.
Regarding TODAY’s post and the pic of your bead…
How you worded it makes it seem as if Dan Cormier is responsible for your design or even the bead itself. IT is VERY confusing.
How about saying, “Inspired by Dan Cormier’s blahblah technique?”
That would work as well. There is a limit on how much you can write on these watermark programs. You only get one line so I had to keep it short and that’s what fit. This is why doing it in Photoshop or whatnot would be better.
Thanks so much for this thought provoking article. As a library media specialist, jewelry maker, and new clayer I very much appreciate the many layers of gray that are involved in copyright. An example we use is George Washington and the cherry tree. In the US it is considered common knowledge that young George chopped down the cherry tree. Because it is common knowledge and the author of the story has been lost in history a credit or citation for this story is not necessary. I think this is what you refer to in the first post. Shapes are common knowledge but a technique should be credited. For example, we don’t refer to a graduated blending technique based upon off-set triangles, but refer to a Skinner Blend, thus giving credit to Judith Skinner.
Most people understand copyright as it applies to the written word. However, all creations,such as poetry, art, music, etc. are automatically copyrighted in the US for the creator as intellectual property. An organization called Creative Commons (CC)developed licensing that provides creators the option of sharing their work (or not) on a variety of levels, from very restrictive to very generous. Perhaps we should consider making levels of sharing our work clear by using CC licensing. There is an easy to use license generator, in a number of languages, on their site:http://creativecommons.org/choose/
Thank you for bringing this challenge, particularly important in this digital age, to light. I am interested to hear what folks think.
Note: The link to picmarkr links back to this page. http://picmarkr.com/ will take readers to the site.
I was just in a class with a fabulous artist. She talked about this and said if you can’t use the techniques you paid to learn, why take the classes? I agree. I do say that I learned from specific artists and even combine techniques but if I can’t use what I learn it is hard for me to justify learning it. We all imitate things we are attracted to. It is a complement. When we take a class we start out making things very similar to what we learn. Eventually that changes into our own. I hope people realize this.
Some people say if you teach it, it’s out there,accept it. I sort of agree. I notice many artists teach things they are done with or don’t teach at all. They don’t want their current techniques to be out there. That is how it is. It would be a dull world with littl inspiration if we can’t share, teach and pass along our knowledge.
I do agree we should use watermarks and put some controls to protect our copyrights. This is important to all. We don’t want forgeries out there.
Thanks for opening this up for discussion
This discussion is really interesting. From my perspective it seems that there is a component, which is more emotional than rational orcopyright law related. We live in a very competitive world and each of one needs to think hard, what the repercussions of posting /publishing any image means. We need to think hard about the concept of making a technique one’s own. It is better to communicate with the person we took a class with or an artist who inspired us to get their feedback on our work to get a sense of how we are travelling.
I do not teach, however if I feel I would like to share my skills, I would make sure that the class projects are something I am happy for others to run with
Thank you for the post yesterday and the further clarification today.
It was a breath of integrity to see your rules posted yesterday. While we all understand that there is inherently some gray area, the arts and crafts community would be a far better place if everyone stood in the GOOD.
Copying an image, and sharing content we did not write ends up causing huge problems. The gray areas quickly slide into BAD and UGLY behavior.
The point is, if you aren’t sure the the gray area ASK. Ask before you copy information. ASK before sharing content you didn’t write.
Understand your motivation before entering into the BAD and UGLY.
If you make a mistake, then acknowledge the error. Sage offered us a great example of acknowledging a problem in yesterday’s post with an appropriated image.
It is hard to believe that someone took a quote and made the letter style image with it. That is unethical, perhaps illegal. Do not take content you didn’t write. Do not copy images you didn’t create. IT is the only way to stay in GOOD territory AND honor original content.
Harriete Estel Berman
My tablet was overly eager to publish my comments before completion.
Further to the teaching dilemma and technique issues. Sometimes one takes a class and in oder to perfect the technique one has to do it a zillion times over. One posts some images online as part of course feedback. The pieces look very similar to other people’s and students can compare at the time. My gut feeling is, that one should take them down afterwards – but then we are so busy, forget and move on to the next thing. There seems to be such a rush to show and tell after courses, which is really only necessary with interactive online classes. When I was a potter in the pre internet days the issues of online expression and exhibitionism did not arise. It is time we consider the implications of publishing our work online, as once released it is very difficult to contain the flow.
The issue of images goes beyond copyright and into the area of personal rights. Do people who post course images taken at private events ask participants whether they are happy for the people shots to be posted online? Do they ask people whether they are happy to have themselves and their work published in this manner. Do teachers take the time to establish rules regarding dissemination of material and remind the participants of copyright issues. Did teachers design a course in such a manner that students are not trapped into a design based technique via projects. Do they offer students a range of possibilities of applying a technique to stimulate self-expression.
It seems to me, that teaching projects has become in many ways a means to earn money first and educate last. Many classes and tutorials sold online are merely design projects targetting an audience who just wants some entertainment or challenge, rather than serious craftspeople looking to further their skills. Whether it is polymer or any other art or craft form anything shared will be re-shared inevitably. An issue arises when money changes hands and when lazy or incompetent practitioners teach other artists bread and butter courses. Worse still, they run retreats where this happens blatently without inviting the original artist to run a class.
There are also those, who ask a workshop instructor whether they may teach the class themselves, placing the instructor into an awkward position. It is a very lazy approach to copyright issues and creates a lot of discomfort al round. It is time we as artists take a stand and only teach what is our’s to share. Our own original designs adapted for class level, which will give our students new skills to allow them to grow.
I once contacted an artist with regards to a technique. She referred me to a DVD she had learnt the technique from. I purchased the class and what I took from the experience was a lot more than a few skills. I learnt the amazing transformation that happens when one artist grows way beyond what was the basis of her initial lesson. I developed a deep respect for her skills and sense of design. It has been painful to watch versions cropping up online. It has been even more painful to see people sell derivative works and re-teach the classes based on her book.
I really hope that this discussion leads to more thought being given to how we develop our skills and how we digest the vast stimuli we can expose ourselves to as members of a www community. We seriously need to take a step back and let our personal rather than our wannabe or icandothistoo voice channel our creativity. We need to learn more about ethical behaviour, consideration and empathy. When someone steals, they need to consider the emotional trauma experienced by those they violate. If someone is wrongly accused, it takes great strength to weather the storm. This is no less traumatic to an individual.