HOME | DD
mimulux — ACCUSATIONS
Published: 2011-11-15 16:45:49 +0000 UTC; Views: 456; Favourites: 23; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
ACCUSATIONS - my latest in digital artRelated content
Comments: 26
There should be a group called #DigitalPaintings on dA. Too bad I'm too lazy/irresponsible to set one up myself..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
oh i am sure there is a group like this around on dA
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There are, but it's all figurative and the texture doesn't look like real paint at all, which is the whole point. To make it look like actual 3D colored muck pasted onto a more or less flat surface. The honeycomb structure in this image for example looks like a layer of real paint with the pattern carved into it. I like that a lot and it's an effect I'm constantly after, but so far I haven't seen much of it on dA.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well .. if you have your graphic program and know how to use it... that is how you get these effects 
and thanks for the nice compliment
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Coming from a non-windows arena I use the GIMP almost exclusively. Must try and master some of ImageMagick some day too. You're right, it's hard work with lots of eye-ache at times
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the gimp is very good.. i use paintshop pro though. the X version.. for certain effects i will also use the gimp.. and for painting i use artRage studio pro. all these programs - apart from the gimp - are paid for.. but they are affordable.. i cannot afford expensive programs at all and personally i dont think it is really necessary. if you know your program you can work with it.. never mind if it comes free or costs a fortune!
ah thanks for watching my stock account
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks. I'm not sure where to go from here myself. Despite the photomanipulation tag I've been continuing to use out of habit, my latest 50 or so uploads were all created from a single blank page in the GIMP, without using any of the paint tools, an interesting challenge in itself. But I'm getting a bit bored with fully abstract, and I'm starting to miss the days when I just grabbed some iconic image off of the internets, preferably from a news site, and started giving it a digital beating. I always felt that if I modified the image enough, the copyright would eventually have to succumb to fair use. Like this one for example: [link] . It's only since I've been on dA that I've become moderately (C)-conscious. I do respect the emotions of my fellow dAers (I don't care about news sites like CNN as they have no emotions), but I do feel restricted by all the (C) issues, and the "fair use" issue has become only less clear to me than I thought it was before. But I've understood that no-one on this planet really knows what is fair use and what isn't.. Complicated
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
oh yes.. these c issues are complicated to put it mildly. that is why.. i make my own stock.. friends and husband have to endure me.. taking photos of them at all angles and poses LOL.. they dont have to fear much as i can make them totally unrecognizable.. also here on dA there IS stock that you can freely use.. there is even a group for this no restrictions stuff.. i forgot what it is called but check out my stock account.. i am a member of this group and most of the stockers there let you do whatever you want with their stock.. and IF there are restrictions.. they will let you know on the image page...
ah and thanks for the link! interesting creation!
ok.. a blank page and and no painting?? so how were your images created? sounds fascinating
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I did some reading. The (C) issues are very clear: you can do absolutely nothing with a copyrighted work without permission of the copyright owner. The moment you start modifying someone else's work without permission, whether you are planning to release it or not, and indeed even if you are planning to destroy it in a few seconds, you are in violation of the law. Fair use does not apply to art directly. There is a loophole however, which might apply to my link for example: in a non-profit context (which means you can never sell your artwork or copies of it) fair use includes criticism. In my case that might involve social/cultural criticism. It's an image of an act of war and part of a series, and while not meant to criticize that particular war or even war in general, the name of the series was "CNN War Candy", which probably says enough. Images of acts of war fed to us viewers as "candy" by the commercial news networks. But as said I could never sell the work, which is rather restricting. So Andy Warhol would have had to get permission for his Marilyn work. There's no such things as legal "sampling" in art (which includes music as well!). I strongly disagree with this since I feel it puts a brake on the creative process, but the fact that I disagree doesn't change anything. I saw a documentary about an American lawyer who has the same objections and started a kind of movement, but I forgot his name.
The very essence of the copyright system is the fact that the copyright owner wants to make a profit from the work. Coming from a Free Software/Open Source background myself, I don't really understand that. And I don't understand how my reworking of an image would negatively affect the ability of te copyright owner to make a profit from the original. In most cases where an existing work of art becomes part of a new one, interest in the original will only rise I guess. There is a shady terrain in copyright law flagged as "getting away with it". I think that this will have to be subject of further investigation
I technically lied, because so far creating an image from a blank page requires me to at least use Colorify, which is strictly speaking a paint tool and not a filter. After that, various filters can take hold of the thing and create shapes and patterns. At least the Retinex filter in the GIMP can. I use Retinex a lot. I think I should start using Emboss more as well. Retinex has a tendency to create stripes when used repeatedly, which can produce awesome results but also can be very annoying. This can be suppressed by adding some noise to the image first (trade secret - not anymore
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
oh thanks.. i am aware of the copyright terms 
well thats what i thought re the blank page LOL
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You wrote that (C) issues are complicated. They aren't. That was my point. What makes it complex is the plethora of licenses, all the little, often individual, exemptions people decide to make to the copyright they hold. There are many people who spend a lot of time writing programs and then they make them available to the public for modification with the only condition that the original copyright is retained. In many cases the only reason why they put a (C) on it is that if you put your software in the public domain someone else can put a (C) on it and then you would have to buy a license to use the very software you wrote yourself! And the reason why they do it at all is just because they love to write programs, and that's what drives them. It's called FS/OS, and yes, it's a different world and a different mindset. But the issue is definitely there, see hiphop for example, and the fuss surrounding YT videos. I never use 3d party stock btw, for the simple reason that I can't even keep track of all the half-processed stuff I have lying around of myself
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yes you are right.. sorry.. i thought i must have sounded like an arrogant cow LOL.. it is complicated.. or rather sounds complicated but isnt really... you are right
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Does this look like a good start to you?
Creative Fun License
All images on these pages are (C) 2011 Voxh Unden
Verbatim copies of these images must be accompanied or represented by a reference to the original. Presenting verbatim copies as creations of your own is unlawful and may induce protective action from the artist. Permission to copy and modify these images for creative purposes is granted unconditionally. Judgment as to whether this modification sufficiently meets the criteria of "creative purposes" is left entirely to the artist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I interpreted it as overly defensive of those who supply stock rather than arrogant. Yes, it is a lot of work to create it as you pointed out, but then it also is a lot of fun, isn't it? I sometimes miss that aspect here on dA. I've put a sort of license on my profile, perhaps I should formalize it. My preferred software license is the ISC License [link] . Only 11 lines, not counting the empty ones! I think there should be a similar one for art, if only to replace the CC monstrosity. In my opinion a good license is one which humans are inclined to read, i.e. a short one to begin with. "(C) Me. You can freely and unconditionally use this work as a part or basis for creative purposes. Verbatim copies must be accompanied with a reference to the original. Copying it verbatim and presenting it as a creation of your own is not appreciated, neither by the artist nor the law". What do you think?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well yes sounds interesting.. and i agree.. it should be shorter and less complicated. and i suppose you can word it any way you want it?? since it concerns your art.. and perhaps others will join in?? there will be a new movement???
yes creating stock is fun.. but look at some of them.. they go into real expenses to create stock.. purchase clothes.. gadgets etc.. i do understand why they ask for donations.. or that their stock is only used in a certain way - if it is for free .. if i BUY it.. then of course it is mine and i buy the rights to create with it whatever i want......
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, a new movement! I want one for Christmas!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I have more opinions _in stock_ about these issues. Perhaps later
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
looking forward to hear them or read them, rather
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
