[Miles]

http://blog.novedge.com/2007/04/an_interview_wi.html

[michaelplogue]

Hmm.. That's odd... I don't recall giving anyone permission to post any of my images on somebody else's web site.......

http://www.novedge.com/Gallery.asp?gid=74

[dd_]

i emailed them a couple of mths ago too cause they have a couple of my c4d ones and i know i didnt say yes to that. didnt get a reply though. so you aint alone.

[VisualImpact]

yeah mine too. not good.

[devista]

yeah mine too. not good.

+1

[dd_]

i went through all of them and it seems they have loads of users piccys there
even some screen shots of work

[ivox3]

wow ... someone was busy 'right clicking and saving'.

[michaelplogue]

I've been contacted by NL regarding this issue (and I expect that if you haven't, you will be). Apparently, NL "granted permission" to their distributors to copy any artwork in the NL gallery, and post it on their own websites. This 'permission' was given with the condition that they only copy those images that have been attributed to the original artist.

My response was that NL most certainly did not have my permission to distribute my artwork without my permission - attributed or not. Further, I insisted that they remove and delete any of my art from their gallery (which they didn't have permission to post in the first place), and ensure anyone else who had been "granted permission" to copy my works deleted their copies as well.

I will no longer post any of my works on this forum, since doing so - in NL's mind - gives them the right to do whatever they want to with my art.

[JCAddy]

Wow.....***edit*** Although they did include your name and a copyright on the images, it is still wrong to give the go ahead on posting someone elses images on some random site. Especially when there isn't a disclaimer anywhere in the gallery or on this site about it.

**edit2** There is something here. http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4284

[rivoli]

hey michael, I totally see what you mean.
but just to be fair to nl, I also have a couple of images on the main site gallery, and I must tell they never failed to email me asking for my permission to have them shown there.

[mverta]

It's interesting...

Most of my work comes from rep/word of mouth. But I gained 5 new steady clients this year just from people browsing the MW gallery and seeing my stuff, and or contacting me because of an image they saw on some forum that I usually hadn't heard of, and certainly hadn't given permission to link my art to/post about.

Of course, none of those "unpermitted" posts cost me a single dime; in fact, they made me a great deal more dimes. Because who's going to hire me if they don't know who I am or what I've done? Distributing royalty-based work? Where it costs me revenue? Now that I have an issue with. But free press? Knock yourself out. Not every image I produce belongs in the Louvre under guard. I'm a principled kinda guy, but don't see any reason to shoot myself in the foot.

_Mike

[Thomas An.]

Same here. They have always asked permission and as a matter of fact have given them the ok to go ahead even without asking for future images. The moment something is being posted on a forum it expected to propagate to the web (inevitably). That is also the reason why it is a good idea to always include a signature (name, date etc) on the image itself. It just makes things easier.

[ivox3]

Agreed. It'd be one thing of any particular image was a 'sold' work to a separate copyright holder, ....but if that was the case , then I'd have to assume the image wouldn't / shouldn't be in the main gallery to begin with...

Advice: Don't allow for an image to be placed in any online gallery type setting if your not comfortable with the idea of people seeing it, ..grabbing it and using it.
This isn't condoning usage without permission, ....it's just saying let's not be naive here -- it's gonna happen. ...again, not condoning the activity.

If the image needs protection, ......then that's what paid sites like iStock, flickR etc.. are for.... Small resolution, heavily watermarked images until you give up some $$$.

btw: Those paid sites do take quality CG work --- if you didn't know.
Presently, ..there's just a handful of CG artists who are making a small killing w/ rendered images -- for those who are interested. ( ....not even Maxwell's, but average raytrace/scanline. )

[paxreid]

Agreed. It'd be one thing of any particular image was a 'sold' work to a separate copyright holder

I agree with everyon'e assertion that it is kind of like free advertisement,but not everyone want's to be used as NL advertising campaign.

I do think that NL infringed on the rights of the artist, regardless if you think it is a good idea to have 'free advertisement' or not. NL is benefiting without compensating the artists..they are parading images to show off their product (i.e. advertise). At the very least, permission should be asked...if it were any other company they would be legally bound to enter into an agreement to use your art for their purposes. (imagine that microsoft wanting to use one of your images to promote Vista in online advertising..and without asking just use it. Would you be sue? or just say..well at least they gave me credit!..I would bet 100% would sue for compensation)

[glypticmax]

I never show anything I sell or do for customers.
Just tests and learning experiments.
One of which is in the Gallery.
But, they misspelled my nome du plume