Visual and Performing Arts Portfolio

chrissie

chrissie

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Mar 5, 2000
Messages
18,476
Location
wanderer
As you may have noticed, at the bottom of the forums page included within the Archives, is a forum called Visual and Performing Arts Portfolio.
Due to requests this forum has been created in order for all of us to post our work to be viewed. This will create a separate space so that bluelighters can view our work without sifting through the normal forum.
***All users can create topics in this forum***
If you have a series of work, that is similar in style, PLEASE put them in one post. Most users will not reply in each post. It would be more beneficial to you, the artist, to post them all in one thread.
If you would like your work displayed
Please post it in the forum. This includes any work-- scans of drawings/paintings, photographs of sculpture, copies of screenplays, designs, sketches, videos of dancing... etc.
If you do not want feedback for your work
Just want a place to show it, please state that, and we will lock the post. If you only would like positive feedback, state that as well.
If you cannot host the images yourself
Please email all submissions to NeoMagic ( [email protected] )
The format for your work should be as follows
  • 72 dpi (There is no need for any higher resolution, it will not show on the web) rgb ((cmyk will not show on the web) jpeg or gif (gif compression is best for line art, and jpeg compression is best for the everything else.)
  • The images should not be any bigger than 800x600 pixels, so that people will not have to scroll through the browser in order to see the full image
  • Keep the filesize as low as possible. optimize your images! (*see below) remember, there are still people with 28.8 modems, that will not want to view your files if they are one meg. compress compress compress :)
  • To optimize an image--- You can do this by first making the image 72 dpi in the image>image size window. Then proceed to the file>save for web window. You can tweak the quality so you can get the smallest file size with almost the same quality. And remember-- jpegs are best for images… gifs are best for line art
As of now, I am unsure of uploading videos because of the size they would be. I will discuss this with admins if someone would like to. If anyone has server space that they would like to share, we welcome it with open arms :)
If you are concerned that someone may steal your workYou can always put a watermark or some sort of signature on your work, or you can look into digital watermarking (invisible to the eye). If you are still paranoid, but would like a critique of your work, you can email any one of us (beware, I am bruatlly honest :) ) and we would be happy to critique your work.
If you have any questions or problemsDo not hesitate to contact me or any of the other moderators. We are here to serve you :)
16.gif

[ 11 February 2003: Message edited by: NeoMagic ]
 
Am happy this has finally happened after all the discussions involved, kudos to all associated with this! :)
Being the jaded primate that I am though, especially with all issues involved with artwork online (it's my job - no really!), I am a little worried about one thing.
What is going to be done about protecting the copywrite for the artists and also those involved with hosting the artwork? If any infringement of copywrite occurs, from memory both parties are involved, as well as the person/company breaching the copywrite of course! The issues involved here may be alot more complex than people realise.
Although this may start out as a simple enough issue of putting up fellow BLer's creative works (which is a great thing!) it always has the potential to turn nasty if not everyone co-operates - either within our own online community or the greater internet community.
This involves content that is protected by law, and that law is now pretty clear. Is anything being done to protect the artist, the person/company doing the hosting & Bluelight in relation to the law in this matter? NOTE: This is just a concerned question, not an attack on the idea itself! I just don't want to see anyone get burnt by, what is essentially, a really great idea.
I wish I could give extracts to back up what i'm saying but i'm pressed for time, might try later to provide this. If anyone has any questions or concerns about this you can email me and i'll try and answer them. ;)
 
The legal issue is one that you, as the contributors, will have to be aware of. Common sense should tell you what is and is not acceptable to post. In other words: Post the logo you designed or the scene you wrote for school, but don't post the Playmate of the Month you scanned out of that bunny magazine.
Some possible trademark guidelines:
Trademarks & copyrights property of respective owners. No infringement of rights is meant or implied.
If you own the copyright to a picture and want it removed, please note the filename and send a message to one of the moderators with information about why it should be taken off and it will be removed, usually within 24 hours.
Not responsible or liable for any loss or damage, including but not limited to loss of profits, goodwill or indirect or consequential loss arising out of any use of or inaccuracies in any information on this site.
Adios,
Steve
 
i was always under the impression that an artists work is immediately copyrighted... and that no one can use that work unless it is altered by at least a certain percentage (im thinking 60%) but i could be wrong about all of this. ill post in legal q&a
 
Okay I have spent a little bit of time researching this issue so people are clearer on what is involved. I have done this so people are clear on the issues involved, NOT to bury this as an idea.
This has turned into a very long post but the issues/references involved are essential for anyone wanting to display their work.
The issue of copyright of original content by an artist is pretty clear and I doubt is under question:
(all reference here are from: www.bitlaw.com)
The reproduction right is perhaps the most important right granted by the Copyright Act. Under this right, no one other than the copyright owner may make any reproductions or copies of the work. Examples of unauthorized acts which are prohibited under this right include photocopying a book, copying a computer software program, using a cartoon character on a t-shirt, and incorporating a portion of another's song into a new song.
It is not necessary that the entire original work be copied for an infringement of the reproduction right to occur. All that is necessary is that the copying be "substantial and material." For more information on the amount of copying necessary for infringement to occur, see the BitLaw discussion on copyright infringement.
I think this is the copyright issue that most people are familiar with.
There are also the following issues:
The public performance right allows the copyright holder to control the public performance of certain copyrighted works. The scope of the performance right is limited to the following types of works:
literary works,
musical works,
dramatic works,
choreographic works,
pantomimes,
motion pictures, and
audio visual works.
Under the public performance right, a copyright holder is allowed to control when the work is performed "publicly." A performance is considered "public" when the work is performed in a "place open to the public or at a place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances are gathered." A performance is also considered to be public if it is transmitted to multiple locations, such as through television and radio. Thus, it would be a violation of the public performance right in a motion picture to rent a video and to show it in a public park or theater without obtaining a license from the copyright holder. In contrast, the performance of the video on a home TV where friends and family are gathered would not be considered a "public" performance and would not be prohibited under the Copyright Act.
The public performance right is generally held to cover computer software, since software is considered a literary work under the Copyright Act. In addition, many software programs fall under the definition of an audio visual work. The application of the public performance right to software has not be fully developed, except that it is clear that a publicly available video game is controlled by this right.
and this...
The public display right is similar to the public performance right, except that this right controls the public "display" of a work. This right is limited to the following types of works:
literary works;
musical works;
dramatic works;
choreographic works;
pantomimes;
pictorial works;
graphical works;
sculptural works; and
stills (individual images) from motion pictures and other audio visual works.
The definition of when a work is displayed "publicly" is the same as that described above in connection with the right of public performance.
With online content of any sort the situation becomes a little more complex. What I was trying to say before about there being more than just the owner of the work involved is mentioned here...
Copyright liability concerns for Internet Service Providers. A party is guilty of copyright infringement if they violate one of the five exclusive rights given to copyright owners under the Copyright Act (as is explained in more detail in the BitLaw discussion on the scope of copyright protection). Included in those rights are the right to prevent others from reproducing (or copying) a work, publicly displaying a work, or distributing a work. It is clear that on-line service providers will be liable for copyright infringement if they are directly involved in the copying of protected material. For example, if a service provider were to place an electronic copy of the latest best-selling novel (or a pirated copy of Microsoft Word) on their bulletin board or web site, they would be guilty of copyright infringement. In these circumstances, an ISP is no different than any other party.
However, Internet Service Providers can be found liable for copyright infringement even where they are not directly engaged in the copying of protected materials. For instance, ISPs are responsible for equipment, such as a computer operating as a server, that is capable of making copies without any direct involvement of any person. Consequently, one relevant question is: "when is an ISP liable under copyright law for the copies made by its equipment?" As one example, the newsgroup servers controlled by ISPs make thousands of copies of newsgroup files everyday. Although some of these files undoubtedly contain copyrighted materials, no ISP has yet to be found guilty of copyright infringement merely for the unknown, autonomous action of their newsgroup servers.
Nevertheless, an ISP must be aware of the theories under the Copyright Act by which a party can be held liable for infringement even if they do not directly take part in the copying or distribution of a work. Under the concept of "contributory infringement," a party may be guilty of copyright infringement when they cause or contribute to the infringing conduct of another with knowledge of the other party's infringing activities. In addition, under the concept of "vicariously liability," a person may be liable for the infringing actions of another if the person has the right and ability to control the infringer's acts and receives a direct financial benefit from the infringement. Vicarious liability can be established without the defendant having actual knowledge of the infringer's activity. Under these two theories, it is possible for an ISP to be held liable for copyright infringement, even if the ISP was not directly involved in making the infringing copy.
It is not enough for Bluelight to simply say it is not liable in this instance. Even though it is not the ISP mentioned above they are still involved because it is from Bluelight that the images are viewed, even though Bluelight does not host the images itself.
I guess all I am saying with these references, possibly not very well, is that the legal issue of copyright of 'content' has to addressed in realtion to what is being discussed here.
Bluelight and the ISP hosting the work have a moral and (limited) legal duty-of-care to protect itself and the artists involved from infringement of copyright as much as possible.
One step might be to create a very clear and understandable clause voiding Bluelight (and whoever else) from legal action if an infringement of copyright occurs in relation to works displayed on Bluelight. This might be done in a seperate screen where those wanting to display images, etc have to agree to this before uloading their content.
My main point here is that once a piece of work is up on the web it's up for anyone to exploit, no matter what copyright laws are in place - this is the reality i'm afraid! I'm simply try to make everyone involved aware of the issues for the artist, the person/company hosting the work and for Bluelight because no matter what anyone says all 3 parties are liable to varying degree's.
If you have read this far down you are a doing very well and thankyou. :) As always feel free to email me if you have any questions.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
right now im looking into digital watermarking... if anyone is that concerned with people stealing their images. if not, please post your work :) im going to move peoples work into the portfolio right now.
 
i dont want to sound ignorant, but i have to say, if anyone is really that worried about their work being "stolen" then you probably shouldnt post it on the internet. i really dont think it should be a moderators job to watch out for it. its your work and youre choosing to do with it what you will. i understand the copyright fear, thats one reason i have never bothered to put anything on the internet. but the fact is plain and simple, if you dont want the risk, dont take the chance!
i think im gonna go find myself a scanner tho :)
 
isnt there the ftp for that? is that still working? (i dont have the info b/c i have access to a server)
 
yep, but some of us can't figure it out...
*looks at self 8)
ftp's just don't seem to wanna work with me and neo was nice enough to upload some things for me...it's good to have another alternative!
 
if you need images uploaded, email them to me
i now have access to the ftp, and i will put your images up for you :)
([email protected])
just remember to optimize them for the web!
all images should be at 72 dpi (any bigger will not show up on the web… it will just turn out bigger)
Make the images to fit in the post’s window and optimize them for the web to minimize file size
You can do this by going to save for web in photoshop or image ready
(make the image 72 dpi in the image>image size window)
and then you can tweak the quality so you can get the smallest file size with almost the same quality
jpegs are best for images… gifs are best for line art
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top