Agenda Circling Forth - soundtrack discussion

category: music [glöplog]
wasnt that pic in the sector7 wild too?
added on the 2010-04-10 03:46:56 by Gargaj Gargaj
yup i remember seeing this pic in THREE different compos.

and one of the steps was about removing the watermark, that's ugly. It's very close to stealing...

Now maybe I actually didn't see it correctly and the one with the logo was for compositionning before actually buying the picture, in that case it's at least legally acceptable.
added on the 2010-04-10 09:38:19 by BarZoule BarZoule
Guys, the watermark in the Flowergirl picture was left in during composition to decide whether the photo of the girl on the white background would work before buying the rights for using it (and thus contributing to the photographers living as well). This is probably as far from stealing and hiding as it could get, and I applaude JCS for being so open with his steps. I know that this openess has probably cost him a higher ranking in the compo, as people seem to have gotten it all quite wrong, which is a shame.

Sometimes it feels like people prefer to be lied at in regards to who actually made what in a picture. Many well known pixelled pictures were copies of magazine covers, Boris Valejo pictures, etc., and people silently accepted that. Mind you that most of the original models were not portraied by the guys that you adore for their pixelling skills, but by a professional artist or photographer. In the case of the Flowergirl picture, the photographer of the girl even got paid for his work via iStockphoto, which is not the case for most other scene-art.

Having that photo of the girl at hands, JCS started turning it into the Flowergirl which is what you saw on the bigscreen.
added on the 2010-04-10 12:36:10 by noname noname
Oh, and Maali: please STFU already. You don't really want to compare your aesthetic talent to that of JCS', don't you? That would be quite small-minded and silly.
added on the 2010-04-10 12:46:07 by noname noname
... and like the rules explicitly say:

* Use every tool you wish, pixel, render or scan and retouch whatever, just let your creativity flow.
* You are explicitly allowed to use photos or submit collages in this compo.
* If your working stages don't look plausible, your entry will be disqualified.

obviously it would have earned a LOT more street cred if it had been his own photo - but hey. The end result is kinda striking, even if I don't like that weird pose her arms and her hair are in.
added on the 2010-04-10 12:53:25 by farfar farfar
i say: go with the music if it leads you to a vision. proper credits are more than enough for any artist who really cares about his work, especially when it happens to be an exceptional piece. from my personal experience i can say that even we insist on original work in our productions, on (very few) occasions we were forced to use (commercially) released track, just because it was the only one that perfectly fit and none of the others options were simply not working... one of those productions of ours became to be one of the most known and loved productions of ours, and i'm sure not many people have a slightest idea about the fact that our kolonija has a track from converter in its first part - however, after finishing demo, we made contact with the author and received only praise, although we never met the guy or know him in any way, so, no problem there.

and about 'copyright', these are fluid times when many things are changing and will change drastically from what everyone has got used to, but i'm sure that in any way the future brings, having your track 'stolen' by someone to make a beautiful and sincere piece (like agenda sure is) can only be a good thing for the art, and the artist.

this may be a bad thing only to slaves of the money who don't consider having any sense in their actions other than profit. those must die anyway, so why not speed thing up? :)

i like my demoscene, especially with when their 'controversies' are being questioned in such a beatiful way :)

cheers, and keep up with the good work!
added on the 2010-04-10 13:05:29 by dominator dominator
You don't really want to compare your aesthetic talent to that of JCS', don't you?

why not? unless this jcs character has some portfolio beyond photocollages that we are unaware of, perhaps... but what can be found on buttfellas' fartcity... welllll....
added on the 2010-04-10 13:05:44 by havoc havoc
God knows I copied the shit out of everything so who am I to judge, but still, isn't the plain act of removing the watermark a downright crisp violation of Istockphoto's copyrights? And in this case the model's too, as no formal legal agreement was exchanged between her and the person who made the aforementioned montage.
Or am I missing something?
added on the 2010-04-10 13:34:53 by Jailbird Jailbird
jailbird: afaik you usually get versions without watermark after paying the stock company
added on the 2010-04-10 13:36:54 by havoc havoc
havok: right I make gfx for microstock sites so I'm aware of that, and that's why was I wondering if it was purchased or not. As the latter case (modifications on the watermark) involves a very clear violation of copyrights.
added on the 2010-04-10 13:49:47 by Jailbird Jailbird
a few posts back, it was claimed he purchased them indeed. but maybe we should ask for the invoice? :P
added on the 2010-04-10 14:00:36 by havoc havoc
rowley: regarding oldskool graphics skills, please refer to this picture from 1995, then please direct me to something worth mentioning from the other person's side
jailbird: the photo of the girl was purchased
added on the 2010-04-10 14:07:25 by noname noname
Oh I missed that, my bad. *shrugs*
And in that case, I'm sorry JCS. And it's nice and encouraging to see someone being so open with the references/sources.
added on the 2010-04-10 14:10:59 by Jailbird Jailbird
having your track 'stolen' by someone to make a beautiful and sincere piece (like agenda sure is) can only be a good thing for the art, and the artist.

I think Timbaland believes all his tracks to be beautiful and sincere.
I understand your opion and partily agree, but what matters most I think is that Agenda Circling forth was not made for the sole purpose to acquiring large amounts of money, biches and bling.
added on the 2010-04-10 14:20:30 by numtek numtek
noname: aesthetic talent does not equal oldskool graphics skills, it's like saying "what a great palette choice!" about a c64 picture :)
added on the 2010-04-10 14:22:29 by havoc havoc

added on the 2010-04-10 14:44:20 by abductee abductee
why dont you stfu mister noname... the horrible color usage in that pic from 1995 makes me question his aesthetic talent even more :D
added on the 2010-04-10 15:22:27 by MeteoriK MeteoriK
ah ok. trolls win. please keep on making great contributions to demoscene like that. bye
added on the 2010-04-10 16:17:26 by noname noname
when come back. bring pie!
added on the 2010-04-10 16:27:53 by button button
Agenda Circling forth was not made for the sole purpose to acquiring large amounts of money, biches and bling.

i dispute that!!!! everyone knows we're only in the demoscene for the women.
added on the 2010-04-10 19:58:37 by smash smash
it's "bitches"
added on the 2010-04-10 20:08:23 by farfar farfar
So everyone agrees that the original work should be credited. Also, laws should be respected to the point that the ones organizing the compo do not get in trouble.

Now about the interesting part of the discussion:
There are quite a few decent Youtubevideos, where people just took copyrighted music and mixed it up with some movies/music videos. Of course, that is lower form of art, and not comparable to the Demoscene - according to some people, at least.
I disagree. Remixes are as much an original work as creating something "completely" new (whatever completely means... at least stuff like drum sounds is almost always taken from somewhere else, and the creator of the original drum sound is usually not even credited...). Since "Agenda" contained original work regarding the visuals and most likely regarding the code as well, as well as the design obviously, the creativity aspect is an almost non-issue for me: This was a very good demo, and personally disliking it for being based on existing music makes no sense to me. The disqualification is a slightly different issue - but it should only be done if actual legal repercussions are not entirely unlikely (but they are, in this case).

Also, existing copyright laws should be violated whenever appropriate. I think they are much too strict, and it's not our job to make sure that music by big-name or small-name music companies is not used in a creative way. If anything, small-name music companies are supported by this, since it exposes more people to new music, so people who just scream "this is stealing!" are missing the point by more than 90°...
added on the 2010-04-10 20:32:48 by teraflop teraflop
what teraflop said!
added on the 2010-04-10 20:45:21 by psenough psenough