Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

> it's not commercial and it's not competing with the original work

Yes it is and yes it does.

"Fan art" is "fan" in name only.

If you read back on my original post, you will see that I am talking about almost the entire online professional art commissions market.

From online, to convention centers, and more.

All of this is commerical and all of this competed with the IP owners.

People just sell other people's IP in all of these places.



sort by: page size:

> this person made fan art of the character Loki from the Marvel films

Where are you getting that from? The only artwork I see linked in the takedown request on Twitter is the words "Low Key" in a generic-looking font.

Is there a fan art of the Marvel character someplace that I'm not seeing?


TLDR: Nope.

> However, I don’t believe anything was actually stolen from, copied from, or even directly inspired by ART+COM.


Where is this said? I'm looking at the collection of artists this site is happily offering to rip off (https://twitter.com/arvalis/status/1558632898336501761/photo...) and there's a lot of people with long careers making copyrighted work. I really can't imagine finding a ton of CC work by Bernie Wrightson or Wayne Barlowe or Brom or Junji Ito, for instance.

> Americans handcrafting your fandom

As was mentioned, you can find a great deal of that at the Artist Alley of any sizeable fan convention.


> The team is going to great lengths to make this ethical and fair (try and generate a photo of a copyrighted character like Hello Kitty or Darth Vader).

imagine doing something as unethical as drawing hello kitty


Reposting someone's art on Twitter/IG/whatever is a bit different to literally selling someone else's art though, isn't it?

He doesn't draw any art. Most of it he buys from art repositories (because already existing generic art is cheaper), the art he can't find he commissions from freelancers. It's in the article.

> If some other person draws a picture in their “style”, no one has to ask permission. That’s not a thing.

Try making a comic book with a character that looks like Mickey Mouse and see how well that goes.


> The biggest problem with Artvee is that they don’t link to the source of the image

That is why Open Clip Art[0] is much better place to get Public Domain vector art.

[0] https://openclipart.org


What does your comment even mean? If I were to create an original piece of art of an famous style, would that be considered a “blatant rip-off”? For a sanity check, here’s the website of the artist that created this original illustration: https://janneiivonen.net/about

> the artist were going to be friends of the website owner

What in the world is wrong with that part?


This has nothing to do with the hustle; this is post-hustle - that's why these companies are even reaching out to the artists directly. The ones that know exactly who they're trying to copy are the worst offenders.

> Also, original art/design will always get credit if it is promoted properly.

This is simply not true, which is why Twitter is often a platform used for calling people out.


No, it’s not really fan art. It just happened one of the largest art patrons was the church. They wanted art to “educate” (i.e. evangelize) a largely illiterate population. And there was no internet back then, so every religious site would need art illustrating the same themes.

> Props to whoever drew all those illustrations, they really took the time, that's probably 99% of the effort there.

Most likely the same freelance contractors as wikihow.

https://onezero.medium.com/we-finally-figured-out-who-makes-...


As others have pointed out, it's sometimes NOT the artist selling the URL.

"So unlike say artists there is really no issue of them being outcompeted by a derivative of their own material."

Well, except for the tiny detail that the entire point of visiting or posting on Reddit becomes rather pointless.


> I won’t describe the art, though you can easily find it on Twitter, because it might threaten the joy of discovery.

Isn't the hero image of the article a screen shot of it?


> I am the original artist behind the iconic GIF

Who can validate that?


Deviantart is your source? Really?
next

Legal | privacy