wow Wanda… nice investigative report 
For sure, that model and her pic is one and the same :eek:
You see? I told ya MA “borrows” 
whoah that is scary :eek: are all the paintings made that way??? Ö_ö ö_Ö
[QUOTE=wanda]
This is generally wrong.
I recall a website of a guy who used to make these “paintings”.
He used to take a photo of a model and paint latex on top of it to make it look like she was wearing it.
Unless this guy had permission to use the photos - which I highly doubt - then he is breach of copyright law.
Now compare this painting and photo - you can clearly see its the same image 
https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/gallery/files/3/7/8/exhibita_thumb.jpg[size=1][br]Click to enlarge[/br][/size]
[/QUOTE]
hmm.. this indeed is interesting. I wonder if that model has been compensated by MA in any way for the rights to her likeness? =?
If MA wants to use the picture of me in a jester hat, I will sell them the rights for less than 100ped. plus ill be famous.
Very nice find Wanda 
gives rep
You all are assuming that the guys who makes the paintings did not get rights to do it.
Generally speaking these rights to pictures can be obtained very cheaply. For my bands album cover we were going to pay $50 for the rights. We ended up going another direction.
I hate to see everyone jumping to the conclusion that MA has done anything even remotely wrong when their is no proof whatseoever.
And nice find Wanda!!!
DD
:evilking:
1 Like
[QUOTE=Devil Doll]
I hate to see everyone jumping to the conclusion that MA has done anything even remotely wrong when their is no proof whatseoever.
[/QUOTE]
Me too. 
I have seen the artists work that Wanda mentions. I wish I could remember the site it was on. Google image searching for “latex”, “models”, “celebrities” isn’t returning the correct results. :laugh:
I’m very sure all of the paintings are done this way. I’m also very sure Caprice hasn’t been compensated for it
If I’m right I think that photo is either copyrighted to FHM/the photographer or to Playboy - although I’m a little rusty on it.
[QUOTE=Devil Doll]
You all are assuming that the guys who makes the paintings did not get rights to do it.
Generally speaking these rights to pictures can be obtained very cheaply. For my bands album cover we were going to pay $50 for the rights. We ended up going another direction.
I hate to see everyone jumping to the conclusion that MA has done anything even remotely wrong when their is no proof whatseoever.
And nice find Wanda!!!
DD
:evilking:
[/QUOTE]
That’s true devil doll.
The problem is that the MA paintings are too low resolution to see the full detail. In the painting its difficult to see if the models face is photographic or painted.
I refered to a website where the guy was producing computer artwork directly onto photos - these were not original artworks, like 8ft oil paintings, just photoshop and high rez scans.
Add to the fact that their are references to TV shows and hollywood movies - I doubt this guy has had permission from lucasarts to use their copyrighted images to produce his own “erotic” images.
Buying photos to “deface” is not so cheap - particularly when a) its from a high profile publication/photographer and b) when the photo in question is of a celebrity (Caprice is a famous non-person in the UK)
<— yup made new avatar using this same >“paint” technique, long live MA, can i get a job? :kos:
[QUOTE=ZarathustrA]
I have seen the artists work that Wanda mentions. I wish I could remember the site it was on. Google image searching for “latex”, “models”, “celebrities” isn’t returning the correct results. :laugh:
[/QUOTE]
do you by any chance mean these?
http://www.sorayama.net/categories.html
http://www.suicide.couk.com/gallery/sora/sorag.htm (this one isnt official, or even very good…)
there was another one i couldnt remember… sorry…
btw wanda… reps… and good thread, mb…
edit nea, thats DEFINATELY an improvement…
[QUOTE=Zasz]
do you by any chance mean this one?
http://www.sorayama.net/categories.html
btw wanda… reps… and good thread, mb…
[/QUOTE]
Uhh, hmmm, nope. 
[QUOTE=Zasz]
do you by any chance mean this one?
http://www.sorayama.net/categories.html
[/QUOTE]
no, but Abee’s posting of the newest painting seem to bear a very good resemblence to sorayama’s work:
https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/gallery/files/5/9/3/LiquidSilver.jpg
I seem to recall this guy was European, maybe Dutch, German or Swedish
but maybe MA only buy evrything to an artist.
MA can not ask him to prouf he got all right for evrything.
i meam , maybe MA buy painting with the right to put it in the game at this artist…
i dont think they will take risk for thing stupid like that , to eco maybe 1k$…
how they mind to pay or not som $ for the right …
i guess they got bigger bills and other problem to deal with
[QUOTE=Etopia]
but maybe MA only buy evrything to an artist.
MA can not ask him to prouf he got all right for evrything.
i meam , maybe MA buy painting with the right to put it in the game at this artist…
i dont think they will take risk for thing stupid like that , to eco maybe 1k$…
how they mind to pay or not som $ for the right …
i guess they got bigger bills and other problem to deal with
[/QUOTE]
I don’t belive MA would take a risk like that either.
Maybe the artist had permission, maybe not but MA have probably paid to use this artwork in good faith.
MA should have all legal documents though - if they didn’t ask then they have been very careless.
For example, it would be like me taking a photo, sending them a jpg and saying feel free to use my photo in the game and them putting it into a painting.
Without documentation and my signature I can sue them.
The problem here lies with the artist, not MA. But what would go bad for MA is that the paintings have a value - people buy them, auction them etc and real money is involved.
MA are profiting in the end from the original photographers work.
I think we need a competion to locate the originals of all the other paintings
1 Like
ps. I’m pretty sure “Miss Vader” is either Salma Hayek or Julie Strain
[QUOTE=wanda]
This is generally wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Well I look for the exact copyright law text next week if I have time.
There is a law which regulates things like if you can or can not paint tie-fighter in your own picture. Or if you can use a photograph of an art exhibition without paying every single artist whose painting is visible in that photo. etc.
The law says its ok to “copy” material if its in a secondary purpose in that new material. In that chick painting its clearly not secondary, however the tie fighter in that one picture might be.
Hmm.. Im not sure of the other ones.. (Julie Strain/Selma Hayek)
But those Caprice shots are modelling photos released as part of her press/promotional package and might be considered ‘Public Domain’ material..
I dont know if public domain images are allowed to be re-processed/edited/digitized etc.. But they are for everyones use.
[QUOTE=Dash Smashing]
But those Caprice shots are modelling photos released as part of her press/promotional package and might be considered ‘Public Domain’ material..
I dont know if public domain images are allowed to be re-processed/edited/digitized etc.. But they are for everyones use.
[/QUOTE]
There is no such thing as ‘public domain’ images.
Sole copyright on any image is owned by the photographer, unless this is sold. Very few photographers sell copyright.
Even with royalty free stock photos you have to abide by agreements.
example:
If devil doll takes a photo of sveta he owns the copyright of that image.
A magazine may come along and say we want your photo.
Devil doll allows them to use it and an agreement is signed lets say - magazine publishing rights for 1 year.
Devil doll still owns the copyright - the magazine gets to use the photo for 1 year as to the requirements in the agreement.
If the magazine decide to put his photo on a website, they are in breach of the agreement, if they print the photo after 1 year they are in breach of the agreement and if they publish in a magazine in a way that conflicts with the agreement they are in breach of it.
it would be nice to hear MindArk’s point of view in this, so Marco, happy valborgsdagen day, feel free to pop up
anyways, i think MA wouldn’t do anything without checkin out the legal text behind that, so i bet they have agreement on using those pics in their game, even slightly modified…
goes to vappu valborgs party :cheer: :drink: :kos: