Sprite Haven

I'm a Clean Up Animator for Skullgirls as well as the Concept Clean Up for Bee and Puppycat. I also work as freelance
Recent Tweets @
Posts tagged "art"

kouotsu:

Did you know an unpaid internship for a for-profit company is probably illegal? I think a lot of people don’t know this! Work done for a legal internship is not meant to be used by the company, unless maybe it’s non-profit. 

For instance, if a game company asks you to be an intern, what they’re basically supposed to do is give you things to make for their game, and once you’ve made them they throw them away and don’t use them. If they do want to use them, they have to pay you plain and simple. “Getting your name out there” is not a legal replacement for payment.

Here I’ll just paste this from the US Dept. of Labor’s website:

The following six criteria must be applied when making this determination [Unpaid Interns]:

  1. The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;
  2. The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;
  3. The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;
  4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;
  5. The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and
  6. The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.



There’s also some nice info here http://unfairinternships.wordpress.com/ with studies proving that taking an unpaid internship is very unlikely to help you get a job ever.

Anyways, don’t get ripped off and make sure your college artist friends know!

artofnighthead:

Christmas Carrie.

A few friends had suggested I drew pinups, I also wanted to actually finish a holiday pic this year, so why the hell not mix the two <:

I haven’t drawn anything Christmasy, so my friend Night took care of it. :3

personasama:

image

(Click to see it if you’re on the dashboard. I forgot Tumblr hates gifs bigger than a megabyte.)

I wanted to take the drawing on the back of the Hardcore Gaming 101: Sega Arcade Classics vol. 1 book (get a copy now!) and turn it into a full illustration. Man, I wish this game existed.

Also the Tera Drive is the super computer at the bottom of Sega HQ in Segagaga, hoho. I guess this is a 2 Mega-Terabyte cart or MTD-Rom disc.

I want the book and I want this game (to be real) ; ;

artofnighthead:

Nightarts of 2012!

Here’s what I consider my best works of the year so far~

Now back to commissions, halfway done!

(via bogglehead)

animoose:

Practicing some different faces. Which one do you like?

I love the sassy face on the bottom left but the top left one’s a cool one too :3

gnzg:

Quick gift art sketch for my friend Sprite37 of our characters Lorae and Marx. I really miss drawing my Minotaur girl

artofnighthead:

Another Mika sketch dayy~

Also as an extra, Emerald because I never really drew Cory’s birthday sketch (plus just felt like drawing here today, hohoh)

Night, I owe you so many drawings, I swear. You’re TOO kind to me ;A;

artofnighthead:

The Alchemist’s Shop.
Ambient Music: [link]

Garlfo, the goblin, is usually too busy to attend customers, but he has to stay at the register due to the crossroad’s regulations. So he just tells clients to take whatever they want and leave the money, or else something bad will happen to them. Basically whatever you try steal will beat your ass out of the store.”

Art © Enrique Bolatre - Nighthead.

(via bogglehead)

itsateben:

kouotsu:

violentgamzee:

thechromaticscale:

eldritchsky:

pyawakit:

kouotsu:

The CEO of Turbosquid got back to me today with some impressive decisions made all on their own. His entire email is above. The sum of things are this:

Turbosquid made $800 off my design. They decided, without my knowledge, to donate the money they earned from my IP to disaster relief. This is incredibly sleazy because: 1. If I complain about it I look like a complete jackass, and 2. they get to claim the donation on their taxes and effectively lose no profit.

Matt has decided that because Shank3D made his very own model of my design, I  do not have any right to the profits. This is a very interesting decision that goes against anything I’ve ever read about copyright and IP.

If I Wrote It, It Isn’t an Infringement

Writing something or creating it yourself does not automatically mean that it is not a copyright infringement. For example, if you write a story based upon another book or take a photograph of a painting, even though you created a new work, it could be what is known as a derivative work and infringement.

Derivative works is a particularly messy area of copyright law and one that is still being settled. However, it is based upon whether an “ordinary observer” would find the works “substantially similar”.

This is a very tricky area but it should suffice to say that simply doing your own work does not protect you from copyright infringement so long as that work is based heavily upon the work of someone else.”

Question: Can I make a sculpture based on a photograph without permission?

Answer: No. The sculpture would be a derivative work.  In one famous case, artists Jeff Koons made a sculpture based on a photograph of a group of puppies and argued that the sculpture was a “fair use.” See Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir 1992). The court found that the sculpture was not a fair use, in part because the sculpture damaged the photographer?s potential market for derivative works.  The photographer might want to grant a license to another sculptor to make a new work based on the photograph.  If so, the existence of Koons’ sculpture could reduce the potential market available to that licensee and thereby reduce the value of the photographer?s copyrights.”

I’d say the 10,000 people who responded to my original post are a good sign that there is nothing impressionably different about Shank3D’s derivative work.

The fact that his work is a “derivative work” and not “theft of work” doesn’t give anyone any more right to profit from my designs. If I did file a lawsuit, while I would not get more than the profit made due to the particulars of this matter, every penny profited from the selling of the work would go to me.

If you make a 3D model of Mickey Mouse and sell it, you don’t get to buy everyone pizza and cake to make up for it when you get caught.

On top of this, they have shown no interest in punishing the seller of the work any further than taking the model down. So in short:

- Shank3D gets to keep ~$800 he made by violating Turbosquid’s TOS in just about every way possible. He is also allowed to continue selling his other models on the site despite such flagrant infringement.

-Turbosquid gets to donate ~$800 of their money and decide it was the profit of this model, which is impossible to even prove — it’s abuse of coincidence. Of course there was no indication that it was donated in my name.

-I get to enjoy 0 dollars for my infringement, time taken to remove the infringement, and market confusion.

Pure sleaze. Please RT this (probably) final part of the story so everyone can see what Turbosquid’s idea of fixing the situation is.

Don’t try to call me again, Matt.

That’s what I call BULLSHIT!

Ugh, this makes me sick just reading it.

Haha wow, that’s a ball sack of dick moves

I got my company to drop over $1000 in purchases from TurboSquid when this first happened, and as long as I have any say in it we’ll always prefer other sites over them. Hopefully others have done the same and TurboSquid is getting hurt for this, but this still does nothing to get the artist what’s his or punish the actual thief :\

Good move! I can’t imagine how horrible it is for a production to find out you wasted money on an asset you have no rights to use, when that production may have already been completed.

A follow up to the previous reblog. Please share, especially fellow creatives. As a community, we have to rally against art theft. It could just as easily be you.

As for Turbosquid, if they really wanted to make things right, the would simply concede the obvious and admit that this item should not have been allowed to sell on the site. They should have dealt with the item and the infringing party in accordance with whatever particular method their terms of service decrees. They should have taken it upon themselves to calculate how much money they received as a result of the illegal act of selling Max’s work and given it to him. 

Making a donation to the disaster relief is great and it should go without saying that such charity is admirable. If Turbosquid is noble enough to recognize that those afflicted by the hurricane are in need of benefaction, they should have strong enough sense of justice to recognize Max’s obvious right to compensation. There is nothing noble about taking someone else’s money and doing what you see fit with it. There is nothing sinful about being compensated for your own productivity.

Pursuing your own self interest through the fruit of someone else’s labor is morally bankrupt. 

It should go without saying that the infringer should also compensate Max accordingly. Even if he truly was mistaken, actions speak louder than words.

kouotsu:

The CEO of Turbosquid got back to me today with some impressive decisions made all on their own. His entire email is above. The sum of things are this:

Turbosquid made $800 off my design. They decided, without my knowledge, to donate the money they earned from my IP to disaster relief. This is incredibly sleazy because: 1. If I complain about it I look like a complete jackass, and 2. they get to claim the donation on their taxes and effectively lose no profit.

Matt has decided that because Shank3D made his very own model of my design, I  do not have any right to the profits. This is a very interesting decision that goes against anything I’ve ever read about copyright and IP.

If I Wrote It, It Isn’t an Infringement

Writing something or creating it yourself does not automatically mean that it is not a copyright infringement. For example, if you write a story based upon another book or take a photograph of a painting, even though you created a new work, it could be what is known as a derivative work and infringement.

Derivative works is a particularly messy area of copyright law and one that is still being settled. However, it is based upon whether an “ordinary observer” would find the works “substantially similar”.

This is a very tricky area but it should suffice to say that simply doing your own work does not protect you from copyright infringement so long as that work is based heavily upon the work of someone else.”

Question: Can I make a sculpture based on a photograph without permission?

Answer: No. The sculpture would be a derivative work.  In one famous case, artists Jeff Koons made a sculpture based on a photograph of a group of puppies and argued that the sculpture was a “fair use.” See Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir 1992). The court found that the sculpture was not a fair use, in part because the sculpture damaged the photographer?s potential market for derivative works.  The photographer might want to grant a license to another sculptor to make a new work based on the photograph.  If so, the existence of Koons’ sculpture could reduce the potential market available to that licensee and thereby reduce the value of the photographer?s copyrights.”

I’d say the 10,000 people who responded to my original post are a good sign that there is nothing impressionably different about Shank3D’s derivative work.

The fact that his work is a “derivative work” and not “theft of work” doesn’t give anyone any more right to profit from my designs. If I did file a lawsuit, while I would not get more than the profit made due to the particulars of this matter, every penny profited from the selling of the work would go to me.

If you make a 3D model of Mickey Mouse and sell it, you don’t get to buy everyone pizza and cake to make up for it when you get caught.

On top of this, they have shown no interest in punishing the seller of the work any further than taking the model down. So in short:

- Shank3D gets to keep ~$800 he made by violating Turbosquid’s TOS in just about every way possible. He is also allowed to continue selling his other models on the site despite such flagrant infringement.

-Turbosquid gets to donate ~$800 of their money and decide it was the profit of this model, which is impossible to even prove — it’s abuse of coincidence. Of course there was no indication that it was donated in my name.

-I get to enjoy 0 dollars for my infringement, time taken to remove the infringement, and market confusion.

Pure sleaze. Please RT this (probably) final part of the story so everyone can see what Turbosquid’s idea of fixing the situation is.

Don’t try to call me again, Matt.