HOME | DD
jsrgomez β Myself for You
Published: 2013-01-09 13:22:58 +0000 UTC; Views: 15965; Favourites: 416; Downloads: 464
Redirect to original
Description
This Lego work is named "Yellow"The Art of the Brick Exhibit by Nathan Sawaya
The posting of this photo has approval from Mr. Nathan Sawaya, and the photo is owned and taken by myself.
Related content
Comments: 126
Awesome! I'm just glad they are yellow bricks instead of red.
π: 0 β©: 0
@ Skelly-Bone: Valid reply, except before you say stuff like that, perhaps you should think about the value of photography when you're taking a picture of someone else's work.
π: 0 β©: 0
hi Guys! just read the comments. Yeah this is my shot and I took it myself. Just see the camera data if you don't want to believe. And I also posted it in the link attached by one of the comments.
I just want to be anonymous in that blog but now it was all revealed that I own that blog. hahaha!
π: 0 β©: 0
People he didn't steel this. He took a photograph of it, people do it all the time and do people b*tch about it? No.
π: 0 β©: 2
hi Guys! just read the comments. Yeah this is my shot and I took it myself. Just see the camera data if you don't want to believe. And I also posted it in the link attached by one of the comments.
I just want to be anonymous in that blog but now it was all revealed that I own that blog. hahaha!
π: 0 β©: 0
FAQ #306: Does "Crediting" let me use whatever I want? FAQ #157: Can I use things created by other people in my submissions?
He still can't post it.
π: 0 β©: 2
"The posting of this photo has approval from Mr. Nathan Sawaya"
Thinking that Mr. Nathan Sawaya is the maker of this, he'd be allowed to because he hasn't only credited, but has been given permission to.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, and when I originally commented on it in January, that wasn't there.
π: 0 β©: 0
why is everyone busting a nut on this dude? o.o if he wrote were it's from and who the artist is i don't see it as a problem at all. Giving credit atleast eh either way this is pretty epic
π: 0 β©: 1
Because it's DEVIANTART --> A SITE WHERE YOU POST YOUR OWN ART.
It's true, it's great art, seriously terrific, but what's the point in making a 'photography' section at all if all you're going to do is take pictures of other people's work? And to then give it a new name and everything. The least he could do, out of respect, is give it the name given by the maker and the maker's name beside it. And then in the description maybe post something about 'using this for my blog' or whatever. Not take credit for the fact that he took a picture of someone else's work. Whoopediedoo, so what now if I take a picture of dΓ©jeuner sur l'herbe and post it on deviantart I can be credited for my amazing photography skills? You can find millions of pictures of this on google if you're interested.
THAT is why people are busting a nut on this dude.
π: 0 β©: 0
Even though you posted who made it in the description, posting something like this just devalues what other DA users see of you.
π: 0 β©: 0
He could have taken the photo, or not.
Here's a very similar photo from a blog post: [link]
I don't know how to confirm whether or not these photos are the same (pixels? editing? What), but there are other photos in his gallery that are similar/same as the ones on the same blog post.
π: 0 β©: 2
hi Guys! just read the comments. Yeah this is my shot and I took it myself. Just see the camera data if you don't want to believe. And I also posted it in the link attached by one of the comments.
I just want to be anonymous in that blog but now it was all revealed that I own that blog. hahaha!
π: 0 β©: 1
ooh woops...Sorry man, I got a little too excited snooping around, heh.
Thanks for replying 
π: 0 β©: 0
They're the exact same.
π: 0 β©: 1
After comparing the two closely, yes I believe they are the same as well.
But now I think he owns that blog. In one photo in his gallery, "Wanderer" ([link] ) was sumbitted in October 2012. In the blog, the same photo (same title) was posted on December 2012.
Here, the blog photo was posted 6 days ago.
π: 0 β©: 0
You guys seem a bit hot under the collar, these seem to be photos at art galleries, judging from the rest of the uploads...
Don't know if that's disallowed regardless.
π: 0 β©: 2
The problem is he didn't take the photos.
π: 0 β©: 4
"hi Guys! just read the comments. Yeah this is my shot and I took it myself. Just see the camera data if you don't want to believe. And I also posted it in the link attached by one of the comments.
I just want to be anonymous in that blog but now it was all revealed that I own that blog. hahaha!"
π: 0 β©: 0
Yeah, I find no link between the two accounts, no mention of each other, so might be I'd still sing another tune.
π: 0 β©: 0
I saw the post above me, and welp, kinda proves me wrong. Unless it's the same person, since the sculpture's named the same, instead of the official "Yellow".
π: 0 β©: 0
I googled the sculpture, and I'm hard pressed to find an exact replica of this photo.
Considering all the other photos are gallery shots, I'd have to disagree with you.
π: 0 β©: 0
Seems like legit photography to me.
π: 0 β©: 1
Just to further justify this:
"Photography / Conceptual Β©2013 ~jsrgomez"
Everyone needs to check the category before jumping to conclusions, this is his PHOTOGRAPHY he never took credit for the actual piece presented in the photo.
π: 0 β©: 0
anyone who has ever googled seached lego images has seen this.
post your own work from now on please, it devalues your profile when you post things you didn't do, even if you give credit in the description.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's the photo he took.
π: 0 β©: 1
there is facebook for stuff like that
π: 0 β©: 1
DA is full of photos, they all belong on facebook?
If I take a photo of a park bench does that mean I can't post it because I didn't make the bench?
π: 0 β©: 1
anyone can post anything they like, but a park bench is something built to function. and you can do many things with said park bench. you can have a model pose on it, you can sit on it yourself, you could take photos of an elderly lady feeding pidgeons, you could take a parkour shot, or if you like the bench then you could snap a plain photo. the bench is built to function, but someone's sculpture usually is not, this is a plain photo of someone's work. not all photos belong on facebook, but plain shots of other's work do.
π: 0 β©: 1
So people who take photos of say modern art sculptures that aren't by them (Putting it in the photography category)and saying who it's by are stealing? It's some good photography and earned the maker of the sculpture allot of new fans, there aren't any downsides to it really, and anybody saying he used it to get more watchers, if he didn't put the name of the sculptor in the description then yes, he would get more because of this, but he did so anyone watching him because of it obviously didn't read the description so it's their fault not his.
π: 0 β©: 1
i never said stealing, i said it devalues the user. but it is a dishonorable trick. some people on DA don't post things that they shouldn't because they KNOW it's wrong. your friend here has gained false fame for this and he should feel ashamed of himself. you can't trust anyone to read the fine print, because honestly how many times have you read the terms and conditions all the way through to anything? my guess it not very often. besides, I DID read the description, therefor this makes your arguement against me being angry at your friend invalid
HONEST users do not post any work that is not theirs to post. any watchers he gained from this were not deserved. this is a place to show what you can imagine and how you see the world, not what you see that someone else has worked hard on. HONEST artists frown upon what's been done here. you can have the most beautiful painting in the world and it could be yours, but if you take another's work and put it next to it the wonderful painting is devalued to very little.
think on my words, and help your friend learn from his mistakes.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not his friend.
π: 0 β©: 1
i apologise for mistaking you as his friend, it certainly seemed that you were though
π: 0 β©: 1
I love Nathans works ^^ I like this one too 
π: 0 β©: 0
I think it's about the photography, guys. Nevertheless, it's not right. It's kind of like taking a picture of a painting and posting it. You shouldn't do that.
π: 0 β©: 1
It says who it's by in the description, it's not like stealing.
π: 0 β©: 3
Uh yeah it is. If you want to post something like this on a site where you chat about all the cool things you've seen in the world then sure, go ahead. But this is a site where you post YOUR art and YOUR creations.
It was probably unknowingly done. Nevertheless I think the poster should take it down because obviously it is offending a lot of people. You wouldn't like it if I took one of your creations, posted it on my account and said in the description 'by Skelly-Bone'. It'd be ok in a journal or something like that, not used for a submission.
π: 0 β©: 1
They took the photo, they never said they made the sculpture in it, it's even in the category for "photography"
π: 0 β©: 1
That's what I said. Do you honestly think your reply is a clever one? Think it over again.
π: 0 β©: 1
I know, if someone took a picture of my art and put in a photography category I wouldn't really mind, "YOUR art" it is his art since he took the photo, and he created the photo.
π: 0 β©: 0
You said that seven times to seven different comments, exact wording and everything....
And it's not that he's stealing, it's something else. Think of it this way.
Say an AMAZING but not well known artist made an incredible painting. Then, someone else took a picture and posted it on their profile. Granted, they gave credit, but I believe that, if you're a photographer, it doesn't really count if all you're doing is taking pictures of the art of others, regardless on it you credit or not.
π: 0 β©: 1
I hadn't heard of the artist who made this until now, I searched the artist up and now I'm another fan of their art.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>