Tutorial: How you make Promo Artwork for Spaceship

adamlotus75

Sandy also tweeted the pic. The VP of marketing. Selling a new spaceship.

observer

That's a terrible job at image manipulation.  The head is too big, the arms look smudged instead of cloned/healed, and the face's tone color and shading doesn't match the rest of the body.

Bascola

observer said:

That's a terrible job at image manipulation.  The head is too big, the arms look smudged instead of cloned/healed, and the face's tone color and shading doesn't match the rest of the body.

Yes, is very bad work i agree. Neck is too long. Bad artist.But i have seen really great artists at star citizen.

Deivos

Bascola said:

Deivos said:

Bascola said:

Deivos said:

• Stealing stock/art = bad
• Person/people responsible = company
• Punishment necessary = none

So you say: No punishment for company if it steals art from artists but is ok that companies punish people when they steal their art? I will bet you money if i steal art from star citizen company and sell it they will come and punish me. If i go make t-shirt with their logo and spaceship they will punish me.

your world is wrong! I have no word in english to say how wrong it is what you say.

My point on this however was that yes, CIG is responsible for what happened. However, there is nothing that getting up in arms about this does. The "punishment" that can be legally enacted is at worst a lawsuit that the art holder can only expect to gain whatever would be reasonable to claim as lost profit (which with the way licensing the images works, only amounts to the cost of the image). Most of the "punishment" then simply becomes an internal affair for CIG in dealing with the artist, which there is absolutely nothing anyone but CIG has say over.

This is not some kid stealing apple from grocery store when mommy comes and pays for apple. I laugh when you say "only amounts to the cost of the image'

You are wrong. I work in a Art Agency. If someone steals our art to sell product we sue for everything profit they make from our art plus damages. If they sold products for 100,000 euro we get all of it and we get damages for all possible sale they could make in 1-3 year. Judge may vary on years but minimum 1 year. So if they sold 100,000 euro in 1 month we get 1,200,000 - 3,600,000 total.

This is reality in business work not some child fantasy. Sorry i mean no disrespect to you but you are very wrong!

And this is also why I am pointing out you aren't likely to get anything near that in this kind of case. This isn't art being used for official sales (yet) and the content produced can again be taken under argument with fair use or artistic license (sufficient change of content).

The reality is this is not a well protected industry and where you might win a court battle over something that is clearly monetized in the case of your example, that is simply not the case here as even as company art is was used for a semantically non-profit activity.

You simply restated a point I already made;

"The "punishment" that can be legally enacted is at worst a lawsuit that the art holder can only expect to gain whatever would be reasonable to claim as lost profit..."

You're being way too optimistic in expecting "damages" in this scenario, especially since it's an image on someone's private Facebook account and not even the SC Facebook page. If you sue the company under this scenario the cost is relegated to what was done as there is no clear line to claiming the image was intended for profit and a lot of semantics can be used to defend the idea that it was not intended as a promotional image.

That's the reality, for better or worse, of how it works.

aRtFuLThinG

Turrican187 said:

Lorgarn said:

This is just bad work and practice in general. Obviously one of their artists needs a bit of a spank on his/her hands.

I just don't understand it, they cannot create an advertisement of a Spaceship that get's them 100.000s of $$$ and the "artist" that is responsible for the main image is saving 70c cause he rather spends worktime to get rid of a watermark > stealing from the original artist.

Sandy along costs a lot of money

markel13

ahi

ps thanks

FlyByKnight

The legal departments at stock foundries live for this stuff. They will ask that the image is paid for and seek damages for back usage. It isn't a lot of money for 1 image and a mistake. If it turns out to be a repeat thing you're talking about $5000 to $10,000 per image that infringes.

That is a total embarassment if that was done internally. More than likely an artist did a mockup with the watermarked art and someone else who doesn't know what the hell they are doing ran with it before getting it finalized.

Deivos

Fairly certain we know who. XD

rpmcmurphy

From one blunder to the next. It's like the fricking Keystone Cops decided to get into game development and marketing.

Pnakotic

I'm pretty sure that new ship was designed by an artist named Jim Martin who Cloud Imperium contracts from time to time, not cut and pasted from the internet.

Babuinix

Yeap another "scandal" sponsored by goons, just another boring day in the office I guess lol

Bascola

Deivos said:

Bascola said:

Deivos said:

Bascola said:

Deivos said:

• Stealing stock/art = bad
• Person/people responsible = company
• Punishment necessary = none

So you say: No punishment for company if it steals art from artists but is ok that companies punish people when they steal their art? I will bet you money if i steal art from star citizen company and sell it they will come and punish me. If i go make t-shirt with their logo and spaceship they will punish me.

your world is wrong! I have no word in english to say how wrong it is what you say.

My point on this however was that yes, CIG is responsible for what happened. However, there is nothing that getting up in arms about this does. The "punishment" that can be legally enacted is at worst a lawsuit that the art holder can only expect to gain whatever would be reasonable to claim as lost profit (which with the way licensing the images works, only amounts to the cost of the image). Most of the "punishment" then simply becomes an internal affair for CIG in dealing with the artist, which there is absolutely nothing anyone but CIG has say over.

This is not some kid stealing apple from grocery store when mommy comes and pays for apple. I laugh when you say "only amounts to the cost of the image'

You are wrong. I work in a Art Agency. If someone steals our art to sell product we sue for everything profit they make from our art plus damages. If they sold products for 100,000 euro we get all of it and we get damages for all possible sale they could make in 1-3 year. Judge may vary on years but minimum 1 year. So if they sold 100,000 euro in 1 month we get 1,200,000 - 3,600,000 total.

This is reality in business work not some child fantasy. Sorry i mean no disrespect to you but you are very wrong!

And this is also why I am pointing out you aren't likely to get anything near that in this kind of case. This isn't art being used for official sales (yet) and the content produced can again be taken under argument with fair use or artistic license (sufficient change of content).

The reality is this is not a well protected industry and where you might win a court battle over something that is clearly monetized in the case of your example, that is simply not the case here as even as company art is was used for a semantically non-profit activity.

You simply restated a point I already made;

"The "punishment" that can be legally enacted is at worst a lawsuit that the art holder can only expect to gain whatever would be reasonable to claim as lost profit..."

You're being way too optimistic in expecting "damages" in this scenario, especially since it's an image on someone's private Facebook account and not even the SC Facebook page. If you sue the company under this scenario the cost is relegated to what was done as there is no clear line to claiming the image was intended for profit and a lot of semantics can be used to defend the idea that it was not intended as a promotional image.

That's the reality, for better or worse, of how it works.

Sorry but you don't know what fair use means. This image was commercially used on website, on public facebook (there is no private facebook) and was used in video to sell ship!



What you maybe mean is transformative work, but this does not work here:

A derivative work is transformative if it uses a source work in completely new or unexpected ways. (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994.)

This image was taken from website, watermark removed and used for commercial purpose with minimal change. This is not in completely new or unexpected ways.

There is no doubt this image was used commercially on website, facebook, twitter and video. Every judge will agree on this.

I am sorry but this is reality, your reality is dream world.

kitarad

With all the scrutiny and criticism they get without trying , doing something like this is plain dumb.

rpmcmurphy

kitarad said:

With all the scrutiny and criticism they get without trying , doing something like this is plain dumb.

Isn't it just.

Ironic as well that a company which has made $115 million from selling jpegs has a problem buying a $1 jpeg.

Herase

TheYear1500 said:

Xeno.phon said:

So what makes you think they didnt pay for that stock image (not art, stock image).

Because when you purchase the rights, you are sent an image with out the watermark.  The watermark is there specifically to stop this very thing from happening.    

But is the ring part of the watermark? maybe they wanted the image they bought, but without the ring so they Photoshop'd it out?

Not saying you're wrong, if they are stolen assists, then they should get busted for it, but jumping to the conclusion that it's stolen straight off the bat is bit of a leap when we don't know much about it

Shodanas

@ OP : sorry, but you are full of BS.

What you show proves absolutely nothing and furthermore no one raises an issue about this except you, being a concerned "artist" of course, and the usual haters on MMORPG who saw an opportunity to spite and jumped on the wagon. Oh, and DS of course who despite calling us backers "shits" multiple times on these boards is still allowed to post.

Aren't you the one who wrote that CIG asked you for a subscription on order to play the SC alpha ?

The two ladies have similarities and many differences. If you like i can send you a photo of my fiance assuming the exact same pose in front of her new toyota yaris.

Try harder next time.

Little-Boot

Shodanas said:

@ OP : sorry, but you are full of BS.

What you show proves absolutely nothing and furthermore no one raises an issue about this except you, being a concerned "artist" of course, and the usual haters on MMORPG who saw an opportunity to spite and jumped on the wagon. Oh, and DS of course who despite calling us backers as shits multiple times on these boards is still allowed to post.

Aren't you the one who wrote that CIG asked you for a subscription on order to play the SC alpha ?

The two ladies have similarities and many differences. If you like i can send you a photo of my fiance assuming the exact same pose in front of her new toyota yaris.

Try harder next time.

Can I buy the Yaris, or just a picture of it?

hfztt

Bascola said:

I am artist 

Dear Artist, please fix your sig, It is quite unreadable using the default MMORPG color scheme.

Yeah...

'nuff said.

Iselin

Shodanas said:

The two ladies have similarities and many differences. If you like i can send you a photo of my fiance assuming the exact same pose in front of her new toyota yaris.

Try harder next time.

Look at the shadows between the feet and the shoes toward the back of the shoes... look at the bony elbow protuberances... identical.

We all know that you'll defend CIG come hell or high water but I didn't know you were also blind.

Iselin

@Bascola ;

Good find. That's got to be embarrassing for them on so many levels... not to mention monumentally stupid

Bascola

Herase said:

TheYear1500 said:

Xeno.phon said:

So what makes you think they didnt pay for that stock image (not art, stock image).

Because when you purchase the rights, you are sent an image with out the watermark.  The watermark is there specifically to stop this very thing from happening.    

But is the ring part of the watermark? maybe they wanted the image they bought, but without the ring so they Photoshop'd it out?

Not saying you're wrong, if they are stolen assists, then they should get busted for it, but jumping to the conclusion that it's stolen straight off the bat is bit of a leap when we don't know much about it

No you can see watermark in changed picture. Ring is not part of it. Just zoom into the big picture you see rest of outlines from watermark. They have now deleted all pictures from website because 123rf has contacted them.

Shodanas said:

@ OP : sorry, but you are full of BS.

What you show proves absolutely nothing and furthermore no one raises an issue about this except you, being a concerned "artist" of course, and the usual haters on MMORPG who saw an opportunity to spite and jumped on the wagon. Oh, and DS of course who despite calling us backers "shits" multiple times on these boards is still allowed to post.

Aren't you the one who wrote that CIG asked you for a subscription on order to play the SC alpha ?

The two ladies have similarities and many differences. If you like i can send you a photo of my fiance assuming the exact same pose in front of her new toyota yaris.

Try harder next time.

Why are you offending me, i have not offended you? Why you call people haters? You are an angry man.

You should be angry at company stealing artwork not at people on forum discussing it like adult.

The two lady are the same. I have wrote to 123rf because we work with them almost every day and they told me thank you and someone send them all information about this last night and they have already take action.

So everything is good now. Artist will get paid and company will learn not to do next time.

hfztt

Shodanas said:

@ OP : sorry, but you are full of BS.

What you show proves absolutely nothing and furthermore no one raises an issue about this except you, being a concerned "artist" of course, and the usual haters on MMORPG who saw an opportunity to spite and jumped on the wagon. Oh, and DS of course who despite calling us backers "shits" multiple times on these boards is still allowed to post.

Aren't you the one who wrote that CIG asked you for a subscription on order to play the SC alpha ?

The two ladies have similarities and many differences. If you like i can send you a photo of my fiance assuming the exact same pose in front of her new toyota yaris.

Try harder next time.

Take a look at the official video. You can clearly see the artifacts of bad photoshopping pointed out by the OP. He is right, no doubt about that. Notice how the usual White Knight crowd is not here, I am sure they know this one is a looser case.

That said: Storm, meet Glass of Water.

Bascola

Iselin said:

Shodanas said:

The two ladies have similarities and many differences. If you like i can send you a photo of my fiance assuming the exact same pose in front of her new toyota yaris.

Try harder next time.

Look at the shadows between the feet and the shoes toward the back of the shoes... look at the bony elbow protuberances... identical.

We all know that you'll defend CIG come hell or high water but I didn't know you were also blind.

Look at position of right hand fingers, she make little V with fingers. Shoes are the same. Dress is the same. Wrinkle in dress are exactly same. Something random like wrinkle can never be the same. This is how you identify stolen artwork.

How anyone can not see this is the same image i do not understand.

Shodanas

Iselin said:

Shodanas said:

The two ladies have similarities and many differences. If you like i can send you a photo of my fiance assuming the exact same pose in front of her new toyota yaris.

Try harder next time.

Look at the shadows between the feet and the shoes toward the back of the shoes... look at the bony elbow protuberances... identical.

We all know that you'll defend CIG come hell or high water but I didn't know you were also blind.

I am still waiting for proof that said picture is stolen.

If this came from another person i would consider it to look a stretch further. Since it's coming from someone who blatantly lied about CIG asking him for a sub in order to play the alpha, someone with a very specific predisposition towards SC,  i will wait for the image owner / creator, if one exists, to come forth and state that his work was stolen.

Also,
Who is "we" ?

You presume to much.

rpmcmurphy

Shodanas said:

The two ladies have similarities and many differences. If you like i can send you a photo of my fiance assuming the exact same pose in front of her new toyota yaris.

Unfortunately you're wrong, Jim Martin has clearly taken a stock image, 'shopped Sandi's head on it, done some blending etc why else would CIG be removing all evidence of the image.

What's probably happened here is that the stock image was used for a mockup, with all likelihood of it being paid for if they decided to run with it (this is common behaviour in the industry).
But someone (probably Sandi seeing it appeared on her Facebook page) jumped the gun and used the mockup instead of ensuring all the i's were dotted and t's were crossed.

I don't think there's intentional wrongdoing , it's just incompetence.