The articles I've read really are vague on that point, unfortunately. I'd love to know what the process was. I'd be surprised if it was a straight-up filtering or downsampling. There are differences in some of the details (proportions, angles, placement) that make me think it was probably done from scratch as pixel art.
Offline
Brooklyn, NY
Bit Shifter wrote:
The articles I've read really are vague on that point, unfortunately. I'd love to know what the process was. I'd be surprised if it was a straight-up filtering or downsampling. There are differences in some of the details (proportions, angles, placement) that make me think it was probably done from scratch as pixel art.
This doesn't seem like something you achieve by throwing a filter on a photo in photoshop, and anyone who has done pixel art will tell you that after looking at the image for 5 seconds. While I can't speak for the artist, it seems unlikely that the original photo was used as anything but a reference.
It's the photographer's failure (or more likely, refusal) to understand this process that drives the legal action being taken here. And since, as Bit Shifter said, this debate never even happened due to the monetary dynamics of "Fair Use," it's pretty obvious the legal system is what's ultimately at fault here, and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.
Any system which places the burden of proof solely on a defendant by default is inherently corrupt. The fact that an incumbent need only raise his/her proverbial fist in protest of a perceived infringement is patently absurd. It serves only to discourage further creative work and entrench and monopolize past work at the expense of future artists and individuals.
Last edited by Zen Albatross (Jun 24, 2011 5:43 pm)
Offline
buffalo, NY
Dear Jay Maisel,
Thank you for ruining someones life over something trivial. How do you sleep at night? Oh yeah, on giant piles of money with many beautiful ladies.
Offline
nɐ˙ɯoɔ˙ʎǝupʎs
Bit Shifter wrote:
The articles I've read really are vague on that point, unfortunately. I'd love to know what the process was. I'd be surprised if it was a straight-up filtering or downsampling. There are differences in some of the details (proportions, angles, placement) that make me think it was probably done from scratch as pixel art.
Forgive me. Even with the serious nature of this thread and the fact that it is a serious thread regarding a topic I care about, I cannot help but post this image...
Offline
Liverpool, UK
https://twitter.com/#!/waxpancake/statu … 3614945280
Looks like he sent a Cease and Desist and sued at the same time.
Offline
Brooklyn NY US
10k wrote:
Hahaha YES. Jay Maisel has evidently not seen enough shops in his time
Offline
FlashHeart
So - letter writing campaign?
Let's tell Mr. Meisel how ungentlemanly malicious litigation is.
Offline
Whitley Bay, England
In the name of science, I tested if it was actually just a shop, or a recreation.
I got the highest quality version of the original art, and scaled it down to 100x100 pixels (the resolution of the Kind Of Bloop art). This is what I got:
So the Kind Of Bloop art is definitely original, not just a modified picture. Unless there's some insanely awesome filter nobody knows about...
I know it's pretty obvious that it isn't a shop, but I just thought it would be nice to see how different a shop would look. Fairly different, it seems...
Offline
San Francisco :P
calmdownkidder wrote:
I got the new artwork for the album sorted.
you forgot the "big" inbetween "a" and "cunt"
Offline
Sweeeeeeden
TraceKaiser wrote:
In the name of science, I tested if it was actually just a shop, or a recreation.
I got the highest quality version of the original art, and scaled it down to 100x100 pixels (the resolution of the Kind Of Bloop art). This is what I got:
So the Kind Of Bloop art is definitely original, not just a modified picture. Unless there's some insanely awesome filter nobody knows about...
I know it's pretty obvious that it isn't a shop, but I just thought it would be nice to see how different a shop would look. Fairly different, it seems...
You're missing something, the color reduction. It's possible that with color reduction, you could come somewhere close to the Bloop cover, although you'd still need a lot of work. That would just provide a convenient starting point. I think the artist at least used the original as a guide below the canvas if you look at how similar they are in shape. See below, where I superimposed the Bloop cover over the original. I applied an edge filter so you can see the original better.
Certain details match up perfectly, which is what leads me to believe that he drew the cover over the original. Look how the lighter skin tones match up almost perfectly in the two images. Same with reflections on the trumpet shades on Miles' jacket. What does not match up perfectly, obviously, is the pattern on the tie. 
(And no, this does not change the legal argument in the slightest. I'm just trying to objectively describe how I think the cover was mde anh why I think so, for those who are curious.)
The original comparison for reference:
Offline
Nomad's Land
nitro2k01 wrote:
Certain details match up perfectly, which is what leads me to believe that he drew the cover over the original. Look how the lighter skin tones match up almost perfectly in the two images. Same with reflections on the trumpet shades on Miles' jacket. What does not match up perfectly, obviously, is the pattern on the tie.
err, you mean it's kinda like throwing shitty vocals or raps on other people's chiptunes? ;P
It breaks my heart that a project I did for fun, on the side, and out of pure love and dedication to the source material ended up costing me so much - emotionally and financially.
that, of course, is a very valid point. also i don't believe it's right to squeeze 40.000 bucks out of someone for a piece of derivative art. but at the moment, these are the rules, and at least the same rules should apply to everyone.
Offline
Godzilladelph
Yeah, i really don't understand how anyone could consider this a 'shop. You can tell just by looking at Miles' tie alone that this was hand drawn. This just goes to show how technologically inept and out of touch the current judicial system is.
Also, would any pixel artists out there like to be commissioned to pixelate some of these? http://tinyurl.com/5w5xbft
you'll remain anonymous. I'm planning on making prints of them and reselling them.
Offline
Nomad's Land
SKGB wrote:
Yeah, i really don't understand how anyone could consider this a 'shop. You can tell just by looking at Miles' tie alone that this was hand drawn.
eh? i think the whole point was that it isn't hand-drawn. hand-drawing would be take put the original in front of you and recreate it from scratch. posterizing, pixelating and then some manual correction is not hand-drawing (though still a work of art imo)
SKGB wrote:
This just goes to show how technologically inept and out of touch the current judicial system is.
that's very true though.
Last edited by irrlichtproject (Jun 25, 2011 2:13 pm)
Offline
Godzilladelph
well, it definitely looks like the rough outline could have been traced, but the palette choices and artwork in general def look drawn / sketched in a pixel editor. Anyone who's ever done a bit of pixel art would probably say the same.
Just trying to say that this definitely was not just some "photoshop effect" applied over the photo, and if the original photographer believes this, it's maybe time he take a couple beginners courses in digital art and photo manipulation.
Offline
TraceKaiser wrote:
So the Kind Of Bloop art is definitely original, not just a modified picture. Unless there's some insanely awesome filter nobody knows about...
I know it's pretty obvious that it isn't a shop, but I just thought it would be nice to see how different a shop would look. Fairly different, it seems...
Lowering the resolution doesn't prove the cover isn't a modified image. There's many filters that will get a similar result.
But things like the texture on the tie prove that it was redone manually, or at least that some parts were.