The Excuse Network

The Excuse Network of deviantART!

Everyone is doing it!
No, everyone is NOT doing it. If everyone was doing it, I would be too as I am included in everyone as are the members of all those anti-theft groups on deviantART. Unfortunately, it does look like everyone is doing it when you search an image in TinEye and come back with 20 results of the same image replicated verbatim by 20 different "artists." (example: original stating cannot be used at all versus tineye results... yes, the artist knows) Just because some schmucks got away with it doesn't make it right for you to do or try the same thing... Of course, some people just believe that laws and rules should be broken and actually post their thoughts on this as an excuse for why they stole art...


It's free advertisement!
deviantART perpetuates this myth on almost a daily basis. If deviantART states a report is invalid and you argue the point, one of the admins will undoubtably point out that "most companies like to have their work used as it is free advertising." No! If you are going to advertise for a company, you will put up an advertisement... not tell everyone the work is yours, attempt to hide identifying features, or deliberately leave ZERO credit to the original artist, artwork, or company. People, it isn't advertising when you don't advertise it! And it isn't advertising when you steal it! Robbers don't publicly advertise that great 55 inch flat screen TV they stole the other night, so I find it very hard to swallow that it is advertising when an "artist" willfully takes and posts art they know is not their's and hides the evidence! You can read a thread about stamps being "too small" to be copyright infringement as well as fourteenthstar stating that companies like to have their worked used without permission because it is advertising... Just look at this. Was this free advertisement? The watermark was removed and the original artist not mentioned. No, not free advertisement. It is theft.


It isn't hurting anyone!
Just because it isn't hurting you or you wouldn't care if your art was taken doesn't mean it isn't hurting/bothering someone else. Surely, if I stab you in the eye, it won't hurt me, my neighbor, my aunt, that guy 3 cities over that I don't know, or anyone else. But it does hurt you. But perhaps you should have seen it coming since I was freely advertising the knife in front of your eyeball... And for the record, it does hurt innocent people (take KobayashiHisa as an example, "I am very passionate about what I do here on dA because I have had my work stolen before. It sucks by the way. I have never thought my art was that great, but when I started seeing adverts with my comics and OCs on Cafepress and Zazzle, I died inside... DMCA's will get them to take it down, at least the ones you know of. You can get your money back. But you will never get that happiness and sense of accomplishment back. That security of owning something you worked hard on is gone. Pride turns to pouting. It really hurts guys...")


Posting your work is a calculated risk.
This is true. It is also true that more people die from car accidents than shark attacks www.prweb.com/releases/2005/06… . Ironically, nobody blames the people who die in a car crash and then tell their family that it was a "calculated risk" and that they should just "get over it." Life is a calculated risk. If you drink too much water, you will drown yourself chemistry.about.com/cs/5/f/blw… ... but you can't live without water! If you put stuff in your mouth, you could choke www.healthline.com/galecontent… ... but you can't live without nourishment! What is someone to do? Just because there is risk involved doesn't give everyone else a green light to take advantage of the situation. And telling the victim they should have seen it coming and need to get over it is just mean and heartless.


I was told by -insert idiot here- that it is okay if I do -insert idiotic idea here-!
Just because some random person that you may know, or that your sister's brother's aunt's cousin's son twice removed wife knows told you it is okay doesn't make them or it right. If all they did was "tell" you it was okay and offer no viable proof that taking without permission was okay, you need to rethink your actions. Do you ever notice that when a "troll" approaches a "thief" that they generally link some kind of proof (ToS, another group blog about copyright, a copyright website, the DMCA, the original work stating it isn't to be used, etc)? We do that BECAUSE we want you to SEE and UNDERSTAND the law/policy and KNOW that we aren't here to bite you in the ass for no reason.


If the artist doesn't want me to use it, they can tell me to remove it.
If the artist is dead, not available online, on vacation, has moved email accounts, has moved accounts period, etc, how are they to know? Hence the need to contact them for permission first. If there is no (cc) or alternative permission given for the piece in question, AND you can't get in contact with the artist, YOU CAN'T USE IT. It couldn't possibly get any simpler than that. Copyright is active the moment the work is finished. And, since it is copyrighted, you need permission to create derivative works!


I gave credit, so it isn't a big deal.
Crediting doesn't let you use whatever you want (FAQ157 and FAQ306). Take this slightly extreme example: You see Little Timmy riding his rad new blue bike, and your son wants it in red. You don't have the money to go buy a red one for your son, so you take Little Timmy's rad new blue bike, slap Timmy's name on it, paint it fire-engine red, and give it to your son... GUESS WHAT? The police don't care that you gave credit to Little Timmy for being the owner of the original bike. You still STOLE IT! You took it without permission, which is wrong regardless of the fact that you put Little Timmy's name on it. Same with art. You can take it, you can alter it, but without the original artist's permission, you are just stealing it.


I am not taking the original art; this is a digital copy/photo.
What? If I create a piece of art on a piece of paper, scan it in and color it digitially, it is still COPYRIGHTED to me. I can make 5000 copies of that piece of art. It doesn't matter. It is still my original art, and a copy of an original art is called a DERIVATIVE WORK (fyi) and per copyright law, only the COPYRIGHT HOLDER has the legal right to make or create derivative works of their original art. Guess what... That means YOU CAN'T TAKE THE COPIES EITHER. Just like a person who paints on a canvas and sells it in a physical store, if they make 5 copies of that painting, you can't walk into that store and leave without paying for it just because it wasn't the very first rendition of that painting! Furthermore, you can't take a picture of someone's art and claim it as your own either. That doesn't even fall under fair use, and companies that make movies or music have to get PERMISSION from the original author of anyting they capture in their programs before broadcasting it. Yep, when you see a painting in the background of your favorite TV show, the produces had to get permission to use it. And so do you.


I found it on Photobucket, so it is free to use!
This plus Imageshack, TinyPic, Google, etc... And also the reasoning of not "seeing" a (c) on the image or site, not being able to contact the artist, seeing other people using it, etc... NEVER good excuses! First, just because another site has it doesn't mean it is free (those people may have PAID for the RIGHT to use/alter it). Second, just because more than one person has it displayed or altered doesn't mean it is free for you to do the same (ever thought about the artist having more than one account or having given permission to those individuals???). Third, just because you alter it doesn't mean it is okay (there is a rule for most STOCK images, but not just any old image). And finally, all work is copyright the SECOND it is completed in a tangible media to the artist who created it. Just because you don't SEE the (c) doesn't mean it isn't copyrighted. If the artist doesn't specifically state that it is free to use, that it is in the public domain, or that you can use it upon meeting certain conditions, YOU CAN'T USE IT! (Really, you can't, and we will find you if you use that excuse: prince-kaje.deviantart.com/art… & iamheretowarnyou.deviantart.co… & neowereld.deviantart.com/art/B… ... Oh dear.)


The way I am using it makes it Fair Use (or De Minimus)!
No. No it doesn't. Most people don't have a clue WHAT fair use is or what de Minimus is. To put a very fine point on Fair Use, it is a legal decision made by a judge in a court of law after you and the copyright holder have presented your arguments. If your use of their art is ANYTHING like the original artist's intended use or actual use (or is making a profit while the original artist is also trying to make a profit), it isn't fair use and you will lose your legal battle and have to pay damages. For de Minimus, it is even simpler. For it to be de Minimus, legally you cannot be using the "heart of the work" AND the portion of the work you are using is SMALL. The "heart of the work" is that part that makes it identifiable to the public and gives the work its character / meaning / purpose... No one uses someone elses work and DOESN'T use the heart of that work. The heart of that work is what caught your attention and drew you in. Many common "hearts" of a work include the character in full, the character's clothes, the character's face or head, the character's distinct style, etc. Same for backgrounds. C'mon, if you can't use the part that grabbed your attention and sparked your interest, you aren't going to use it. So I dare say that anyone claiming de Minimus is lying because they wouldn't be using a work without the part that makes it unique and special.


And, of course, we have the really ill people who will use the excuse, "I didn't know I didn't make it!" HAHAHAHAH. Funny. Really, we know you knew. We aren't that ignorant.


You may enjoy these as well if you don't necessarily believe that copyright infringement is really a big deal...