License agreement on Art Station and New Grounds etc

[Jephyr]

I've been thinking about signing up on a few art-sites and just visited AS and NG.

Of course there's a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo they expect you to read and I tried.  

My main question is about how those sites use the images you post.

Here's part of Art Station's I just snipped:




I see a lot of people here using AS in particular and I'm wondering about the part where they have you grant them a royalty free PERPETUAL license even if they're not selling it — to MODIFY and distribute what people post.  

Does anyone have any problem with that?  Is that just legal-ese for maintaining the site?  

I'm curious to know what anyone here who is signed up on those kinds of sites feels about that — is that a non-issue for you?

[Pubic Enemy]

I have no sophisticated legal perspective so I may be completely wrong, but they specify that they would only do so "on the Site" or "in connection with providing the Services". So they're not granting themselves the right to modify, distribute or sell people's content outside of ArtStation.

The bit about modifying art is a bit dubious-sounding, but since AS presents themselves as the cool, hip, platform-of-choice for professional artists, it is safe to assume that they wouldn't do anything distasteful because it would be bad PR. I mean, they still might, but probably not. Maybe there's a good reason they have for including that clause that we don't know about because of not being lawyers.

[JosephCow]

I think it's a fair trade off personally. They give you a platform for your art, and in return they retain the rights to use the work on their platform. I don't know exactly how they are modifying images, but I don't think they would substantially change things for marketing or promotional purposes. I wonder if the license is ended if you remove you image from the site, or if they can still use it even after that?

But either way I think that's kind of the trade off with all of these sites. The alternative is just to have your own website.

[RottenPocket]

I read that and just understand it as covering their butts for the bare minimum requirement of being able to have a live website that hosts content. If they didn't have those terms, some idiot somewhere could have legal right to mess with them.

[Jephyr]

I have no sophisticated legal perspective so I may be completely wrong, but they specify that they would only do so "on the Site" or "in connection with providing the Services". So they're not granting themselves the right to modify, distribute or sell people's content outside of ArtStation.

The bit about modifying art is a bit dubious-sounding, but since AS presents themselves as the cool, hip, platform-of-choice for professional artists, it is safe to assume that they wouldn't do anything distasteful because it would be bad PR. I mean, they still might, but probably not. Maybe there's a good reason they have for including that clause that we don't know about because of not being lawyers.

Hi PE,

Thanks so much for responding.  I figure that they're just covering their asses too — and I know a lot of pro artists are posting their work there (and I see all three of you have accounts).

Their example does say this agreement allows them to post your artwork on Facebook for promotion.  (I don't have a Facebook account but that opens the question as to FB's policy regarding images posted there)

Maybe I'm being over cautious — but through the years I've had artwork taken and posted on various sites without my permission.

A local guy I knew recently took an image of mine I'd sent just to share with him (a small jpg) — and he printed it out full size (and the quality was quite good) and told me he was going to have it printed on mugs before I shut him down on all of it.

That's why I always add copyright and all rights reserved to my images as just one more reminder to anyone who wants to save an image and use it without getting my permission.

I think I might start adding a watermark as one more level of protection.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts PE.  BTW — I see you're sharing some pretty cool stuff on Art Station I hadn't seen before!    I'll have to check out your AS page more often

[Jephyr]

I think it's a fair trade off personally. They give you a platform for your art, and in return they retain the rights to use the work on their platform. I don't know exactly how they are modifying images, but I don't think they would substantially change things for marketing or promotional purposes. I wonder if the license is ended if you remove you image from the site, or if they can still use it even after that?

But either way I think that's kind of the trade off with all of these sites. The alternative is just to have your own website.

Hi Joseph and thanks for replying.  You're right of course — getting all that exposure is a pretty fair trade.  As mentioned it's probably just to cover their asses and protect them from lawsuits.   Maybe Facebook only takes images of a certain size and they have to crop some images to upload there.

Their agreement does grant them a perpetual license though — and the definition of that is 'never ending, FOREVER.'

Back in the day, Jason M over at ConceptArt had a long post saying they would NEVER use anyone's image for any purpose without permission and once you deleted any or your account all your images were also removed from their servers.  I liked that.

BTW — I looked at your AS page and the fertility idol — and NOW I'M PREGNANT — SO WE NEED TO TALK.  

[Jephyr]

I read that and just understand it as covering their butts for the bare minimum requirement of being able to have a live website that hosts content. If they didn't have those terms, some idiot somewhere could have legal right to mess with them.

Thanks RP.  Yeah — all that legal stuff we all now have to navigate these days.  I'm sure it's come about precisely because people have tried to sue them over copyright in the past.

As I said above I'm probably going to start adding a watermark to my work so if an image gets lifted — they'll have to get busy with the stamp and patch tools to get rid of it. 



-----------------------

To all three of you — thanks for responding — I appreciate it

[JosephCow]

Hi Joseph and thanks for replying.  You're right of course — getting all that exposure is a pretty fair trade.  As mentioned it's probably just to cover their asses and protect them from lawsuits.   Maybe Facebook only takes images of a certain size and they have to crop some images to upload there.

Their agreement does grant them a perpetual license though — and the definition of that is 'never ending, FOREVER.'

Back in the day, Jason M over at ConceptArt had a long post saying they would NEVER use anyone's image for any purpose without permission and once you deleted any or your account all your images were also removed from their servers.  I liked that.

BTW — I looked at your AS page and the fertility idol — and NOW I'M PREGNANT — SO WE NEED TO TALK.  

Hmmm yeah I guess that is what perpetual means. Not a huge fan of that if it's how it works, but I still do want to post stuff on Artstation. I still think it's a net positive because at least if my image does start circulating around without credit, people could find it on artstation or google search, or search my name in the signature and come across my work easily. And it's a good hub. You know, you can always upload just to your own site, but it's not going to get the same traffic or interaction with other people. Not that I am currently getting any attention on there, but still :P

And thanks, but you'll have get on Maury because I ain't payin child support unless you got proof!

[Pubic Enemy]

Hi PE,

Thanks so much for responding.  I figure that they're just covering their asses too — and I know a lot of pro artists are posting their work there (and I see all three of you have accounts).

[...]

After reading your story I can certainly understand why you find the license agreement so unsavory; but it really does just look like ass-covering (as you said also). Even with Facebook posting privileges, I don't think anyone realistically has anything to fear from AS using their art. Whereas random goons on the Internet will steal artwork regardless of where it's posted if they think somebody might buy something with the art on it.

Thank you for the compliment. I've been looking at your sketchbook also, and your stuff looks cooler than ever; I've certainly gotten careless about updating mine. I really only post on sites like AS and Reddit because I'm curious to see if something will be a "hit"; I have had about 10 "hits" and 80% of them were fan art. Completely different environment from forums.

[Jephyr]

Thanks to you both!

-----------------------

More tales from my archive.  

A barefoot runner blog took a foot study I'd done and was using it with out credit/permission.  They had info on who to contact and so I asked for a link and credit and the guy responded 'Oh, sorry —  I'll do that.'  I waited a few months and would occasionally remind him about it and he just wasn't taking it seriously apparently. 

So one day I got pissed and sent him a 72 hour legal notice under DCMA and it was removed the same day.  I sent him a thank you and he responded with a short pissy reply. 


 
Another time a Canadian political blogger took a caricature I'd done of a Manitoba minister and cropped off the top & my signature at the bottom— and scraped off the title and copyright info from the file.  He had a blind ICAN address so after I looked for who to contact for a bit — I just let it go.  Fortunately, the last time I checked that post was no longer available

Another website used a figure drawing I'd done to compare porn and art — and color studies I've done often seem to wind up on sites about color theory. 

Though I take it as a compliment — I also try to protect my copyrights when I'm able.

-------------------------------

That's true Joseph.  I also notice that unless an image is featured or people already have a following it's seems hard to get noticed there.  Still, as you say the trade off probably makes it worth any license risk.

As for Maury — I wouldn't be so flip about such a serious matter:

Judge:  'Can you prove your allegation?'

Me: Shows Fertility idol pic.
Judge:  'Joseph Cow, You ARE the father!'   

--------------------------

Thanks so much PE — I appreciate that.  I'd been looking for an update to your CD sketchbook so I'm glad to know where I can find some of your latest.  That first pencil is soooo cool!

I also appreciate your thoughts about AS — I feel better about it now for sure.

I hear some people saying they get a lot of commission from Reddit — but as you said those always seem to be fan art thangs.

-------------------------

Man, I can really write novels can't I?  

Anywho, thank you both again!

[Pubic Enemy]

Thanks again for your comments, Jeph. I appreciate it a lot.

[...]

I hear some people saying they get a lot of commission from Reddit — but as you said those always seem to be fan art thangs.

I'm sorry to hear you had to deal with such jackoffs. It seems to be an inevitability if anyone posts their art without a huge ugly watermark.

And yeah, I think a bulk of the commission work that gets done on Reddit is stuff like people asking for paintings of their D&D/WoW/whatever characters. I got a few commissions from there and they were all WoW/D&D related.

Of course, this depends on what kind of style you have, and where you mainly advertise (E.G. posting exclusively on the more general HungryArtists or artstore subs instead of game-specific subs).

[Jephyr]

Thanks so much PE and sorry for taking forever to reply (the usual issues encroaching on my CD Life)

Yeah — I'm guessing we all have faced that. I've seen a few select watermarks done pretty well — but I agree sometimes they look so UGLY. I'm still thinking about that though — but I'll work at making it subtle and not too fugly. : ?

On fan art: I'm so outa the loop on that stuff — I'm not sure I'd even want to try that direction. Also I see people offering miniscule prices for some really nice work on Reddit and NewGrounds. Like seriously 6$ for a fairly decent digital fan piece.

Thanks for the HungryArtists and artstore ideas though. I just checked them out again and it looks like people are doing more general artwork, ie portraits, characters designs, etc. Bonus that people are asking more reasonable prices on those subs too IMHO.

BTW — I just got home from seeing an oral surgeon for a hurtin' toof I have and when I saw their treatment plan ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) — I thought, man, I shoulda been a Dr.

Grrrrrrrrrrr

: )

Hope all is well PE

[Pubic Enemy]

Hey Jephyr, don't worry about it, you can't always have "respond to forum post" at the top of the priority list, LOL.

Regarding people offering cheap prices, I can just about guarantee that those are people living in countries where USD is far more valuable than the local currency, so they prefer to get as many clients as possible. Otherwise they would be better off with any entry-level job, unless they're pumping out at least 3 of those pieces per hour. The only other people who are going to charge so little are probably children.

About the oral surgeon visit ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$), you might like this quote from Michael Whelan's site about what he thought being a professional artist would be like: "I assumed it would involve long hours and probably not pay very well. I was right about the first thing and underestimated the second."

[Jephyr]

Thanks for understanding PE.  I agree that sometimes those prices are offered by folks where the value of a buck is many times higher or from kids. ie:  I just saw someone on NewGrounds offering fan art for 10$ and their bio listed them as US based. 

I remember when I was a kid, a friend and I drew little pictures of birds with color-pencils and went around our little neighborhood selling them to kind old ladies for a nickel.  So age is definitely a factor when it comes to pricing.  : )

I have a Whelan book with his original sketches and some of this thoughts about his process and always liked his stuff.

It's sad to think about someone at his level feeling like THAT.  (My parents tried to WARN ME.  hahahaha)

So I've been doing some research on fan art (and a LOT on AI I'll save for another time).

I had to answer a subpoena from Apple when a client of mine tried to trade-mark an image I did for him.  Fortunately for me he agree to take full responsibility for the design he had me do — but clearly some companies will guard their copyrights vigorously. 

Remember Shepard Fairey losing his battle with Associated Press over the Obama pic he did:





Hoping better things for you and all of the CD fam.

Thanks again PE

[Tribulator]

In my experience, most art sites have similar terms. They usually use your images to promote the site or your work, but not for selling without your permission.