deviant art

Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
[x]
more ▶

Featured in Groups:

Details

March 15, 2006
Link
Thumb

Statistics

Comments: 85
Favourites: 0
Views: 101 (0 today)
[x]

Let's Spread the Word...

Wed Mar 15, 2006, 12:33 AM
Yes, I'll admit it: the new designation feels almost as awesome to me as Deviousness itself did two years ago. I must have spent nearly an hour cackling with glee. =D

But no need to spread the word about that. :devilish:

____________

My week's gotten unexpectedly busy - short notice on an important model, to shoot twice this week while she's on break from University, and I've got to scramble like hell to get ready for it.  I won't have time for any major essays for a few days yet.  So in the meantime, let me just rush this one out...


As I understand it, there's still a lot of free-floating anxiety out there about the Agreement, largely for failing to understand what we've accomplished recently, and, of course, among people who never found their way to our specific campaign to begin with.

So let's all start keeping out eyes open, and spread the message where we can.  Let's try to blow out those flickering flames that burn to no purpose.


Now, if someone's still got issues with the Agreement, they might have valid points - I'm not suggesting they wouldn't.  And it's always important to listen.

And heaven forbid someone ever does actually have a reason to go to court over such things.  Pretty much no matter how the Agreement is written, that would be lose/lose for everyone involved.  And, no question, the Agreement's top priority is to protect DA itself.

But let's make sure to celebrate so many of the positive ramifications of what we've all accomplished.


First off, and undeniably, the latest version is the most substantially improved Agreement ever engaged at deviantART.  It frankly towers over its predecessors.

Legal micro-parsing aside, it is a new contract and understanding between artists and deviantART, that does indicate very clearly that we as artists are free to come and go as we please.  (I.e., one piece at a time, or even nearly completely without any bother of written notification.)  It makes clear that we're loaning out license to use our work, not intent to give it away.

Yes, the Agreement expects us to trust DA's ambitions, but it makes clear and easy an escape route if we ever feel that trust has been violated.  It even (for the first time ever) "dries up" the sublicensees' rights to our work if we ever choose to depart.  (That was the most alarming "black hole" before, and now it's gone.)

As I've said, the BIG win is that we no longer have to worry about "worst possible futures," because we are no longer locked into participation in those "worst possible futures."  We can simply relax and enjoy the day-to-DA, because we know that if we're free to leave, it's safe to stay, and see what happens.


Furthermore, if one remains nervous about the broad scope of rights afforded DA, there is a middle solution, rather than just leaving, which is to simply upload smaller versions of your work.  (You'll notice a lot of the more professional artists do that anyway, as a hedge against rippers of course.  That same hedge would make uploading to DA itself nearly risk-free as well.)  Or watermark, or both, of course anyone is free to do that.

We can think of DA as a service, for which to garner attention for our work, and play the balance between on-site and off-site presence to whatever extent suits each of us.  My point being that there's simply no reason to fret any longer.    If the improved Agreement doesn't "meet your needs," then moderate your own risk investment.

Now, some might say, "Hey Thorne, you could have taken that position all along."  And there's some truth to that.


But I did think it was unjustifiably wrong to be bound into an "all or nothing" arrangement before, and critical to fix that overtly.  I stewed long and hard before taking up that cause, but I'm certain it was a critical failing in the previous versions (for a host of reasons).

And sewing up the sublicensees makes the arrangement much less needlessly ominous.  Plus, as a statement of principle, the new Protection clause in 5 is substantial.

Much of my point here is that it's as substantial a progress in understanding as it is in legal terms.  Regardless of legal nitpicks, it serves also as a contract of our expectations of one another, that had been too vague or ill-defined before.

But let me be clear that I, personally, am going to upload larger versions of my work, because frankly my work is made to be large (2' tall prints, actually), and because I feel a new deep underlying comfort level that's even more important than the Agreement itself.

I'm gonna write more about this soon, but let me give you the broad stroke.


If there was a possible danger to be mightily concerned about last year, it was that deviantART was on course to become "just another website."

That is, there are sites all over the web that provide services, and "if you don't like them, then leave."  These sites are generally administered by people who only trivially care "what the riff-raff have to say."

In those business models, it's very easy to think, "hey, if two thousand people leave, ten thousand more will show up to take their place."  And we were right last year to wonder if that's what DA was bound to become.  (Not "right" to expect that, but damn right to be concerned.)

We, "out here," know that the difference between "those sites" and deviantART is the passion and heart of the community itself.  And that passion and heart isn't provided by everyone, but rather especially by those who feel personally invested in the promise of DA.  Enough to care, enough to pay attention, enough to assert positions and not settle for their concerns being trivialized.

By either their attention or their indifference toward our concerns, DA's administration had an opportunity to effectively choose, between respect for "two thousand of us" who have helped make this place what it is, or to merely wait for "ten thousand more of 'them'" who have not yet arrived.

The new Submission Agreement reflects their priorities, with a profound and substantial step forward that cannot be denied.

And that's why I'm going to keep trusting them with my work, for the foreseeable future.

Between those who would demand nothing from them, and we who would expect the most from deviantART...

They chose us.

:floating:
  • Mood:
Add a Comment:
 
:icondaftpunk:
Doesnt DA still reserve the right to change their agreements at will, like say, before they sell it to someone else. Or how they changed their agreement that anyone signing up for a DA account wouldnt see Ads on their pages or others pages, and that others wouldnt see ads on the subscribers page. THey later REMOVED that, and made a multitude of claims that have yet to be met. There ISNT a portfolio to my knowledge, and the only people not seeing ads are subscribers.

If the DA administration is able to get away with that, this whole thing is essentialy meaningless if theyre still able to change the agreement at will.

Is there any clause preventing this, and is there any clause stating that in the case of the site being sold, that people will have to re-negotiate a contract with the new owners because they may not agree with it and should have the option of giving this new owner rights to show/reproduce/sublicence their works how they see fit?

Seriously, it all looks, feels, and smells like a smokescreen.
Reply
:icondaftpunk:
If there is no loophole that anyone of legal stature can find, them Im glad, because I dont want my friends getting their work stolen from them in any way.
To be honest. Im hoping a reasonable DA alternative comes along because of the 'private' issues that have happened here that people are legaly bound not to talk about. I dont see a whole lot of community in the large sense. Only in small groups of people who would have otherwise found themselves on other sites and probably still meeting and talking online.

I also find it hard to have any influence on the higher ups unless youre someone of already percieved status. Ive been trying my hardest to get them to enforce policy involving people using others 3d models and textures in their works without citing, and ive pretty much gotten shoved asside whenever I try to get a conversation going about it. Im now waiting for a response from yet another higher up, and I wont be surprised if I'm told to shove it.

And the ad's thing just ticks me off, along with a lot of things some people have said in the past months since Scott's removal that just shows how much this place is more about how the changes will effect income, rather than how they will help an artist. The Party system and whatnot, the way I see it playing out, is only so they can pinpoint the more popular and essentialy more proffitable people. Easier hunting for them, because even someone with a low hit count and low post count may be realy good, and will more often than not, be in the same crowd as some other high rollers in the art community. I of course gathered this after Angelo's splurge on who the top 10 most popular accounts where, and then the ordeal of the happy-funtime party system will make everything oh so much better for everyone.

Then again, I am a sleep depraived 3d animator, we're kwazy.
Reply
:iconjustthorne:
You know I'm really interested in your POV, so don't take this as a rebuke - it's not meant as one. :)

DA reserves the right to change it - yes - but we aren't bound by any such change unless we explicitly agree to it. I.e., they would have to elicit each of our assents again, or else it wouldn't be valid. So I think that danger is less than you think. That kind of shenanigan you describe would bring down the whole legal system if it could work.

On the ads issue, I'm firmly in your camp, and not done being concerned about it. But changing a "claim" (an offered feature to a finite subscription service) is very different from changing a legal document. Still wrong, mind you, still even potentially punishable by law, but not at all the same kind of illegality.

Any new owner would be bound by the current Agreement, as indicated within it. If the new owner wanted to change it, they'd have to offer it up to individual assent again.

So, here's the overarching point. Yes, they could certainly change it again. But a new version wouldn't apply to any of us until we hit a new "I agree" or "I accept" button. Unless I'm missing a dangerous phrase which you could point out, there's nothing that gives them the right to change our contract, and therefore bind us by one we have not accepted. That's pretty much how the law works.

I understand your smokescreen reluctance - I don't challenge it for its own merits. But I really do believe we got at least something very important out of all this, the freedom to pack up and go, if we couldn't be satisfied otherwise.
Reply
:icondaftpunk:
If there is no loophole that anyone of legal stature can find, them Im glad, because I dont want my friends getting their work stolen from them in any way.
To be honest. Im hoping a reasonable DA alternative comes along because of the 'private' issues that have happened here that people are legaly bound not to talk about. I dont see a whole lot of community in the large sense. Only in small groups of people who would have otherwise found themselves on other sites and probably still meeting and talking online.

I also find it hard to have any influence on the higher ups unless youre someone of already percieved status. Ive been trying my hardest to get them to enforce policy involving people using others 3d models and textures in their works without citing, and ive pretty much gotten shoved asside whenever I try to get a conversation going about it. Im now waiting for a response from yet another higher up, and I wont be surprised if I'm told to shove it.

And the ad's thing just ticks me off, along with a lot of things some people have said in the past months since Scott's removal that just shows how much this place is more about how the changes will effect income, rather than how they will help an artist. The Party system and whatnot, the way I see it playing out, is only so they can pinpoint the more popular and essentialy more proffitable people. Easier hunting for them, because even someone with a low hit count and low post count may be realy good, and will more often than not, be in the same crowd as some other high rollers in the art community. I of course gathered this after Angelo's splurge on who the top 10 most popular accounts where, and then the ordeal of the happy-funtime party system will make everything oh so much better for everyone.

Then again, I am a sleep depraived 3d animator, we're kwazy.
Reply
:icondragonfan:
!DragonFan Mar 25, 2006   Photographer
this is very well told thorne but i agree with you i hope things will work out soon for you
i haven't forgotten about you thorne i'm still here but take things one step at a time and
don't force yourself to do a lot of things just take things 1 day and step at a time
Reply
:iconjochra:
I feel better.

Thank you.

Though I'd been ignorant for some time anyway.
Reply
:iconfangedfem:
Thank you again and again my friend - we need more people like yourself not only in this community but the world :nod:


:hug:



:heart:



-lisa
Reply
:iconjustthorne:
That's a huge endorsement and I promise you I'll keep trying to live up to it. :plotting:

Seriously, you know your support has been especially dear to me, bless you for that.

There needs to be a "hug and hold long time" emoticon. :hmm:
Reply
:iconlolly:
Me hug you long time!
Reply
:icontordo:
~Tordo Mar 17, 2006  Hobbyist General Artist
It's funny how the idea was to get the option of getting out so we can comfortably stay. :lol:

Anyway I guess is time to enjoy that. :)
Reply
Add a Comment: