Christina Reagan

Internet Studies

Writing Assignment 2

10/11/2011

Navigating Copyrights in Art

            In terms of social websites (aside from the obvious ones that were ruled out in the guidelines) I knew I would end up writing this paper about DeviantArt. DeviantArt is a website where users submit pieces of art (digital, traditional, writing, photography, et cetera) to be critiqued and generally viewed by other users. I have been a user for almost 6 years, so I know a little about the community, even without being active on the forums.

            There are obvious issues with copyrights on DA, such as art theft, which is simply when someone finds something in someone’s gallery, uploads it into their own, and says they did it. There was no altering or working off of it – just straight plagiarism. Now, this is a serious issue, but a stickier one is the use of bases I believe. A “base” is a piece of vector art that are made for other users to draw over. These bases made be completely made up, but are usually traced from other pieces. The pieces they trace over are usually from animes or manga (Japanese cartoons and comics respectively), or even from other peoples’ work on the website – and usually without their permission.

This is a good example of a base. Yes, they're naked, but the point is to customize everything, including clothes. This person was also kind enough to divulge their reference (Lucky Star).

            It is plain to see why this leads to controversy on the website. There are users on both sides of the argument. Users against bases say it is “cheating”, while those who are for it say it is “practice”. Others are against the use simply because they are more often used by those with very little skill, so most are aesthetically unappealing.

Pictured: Controversy

            Aesthetics aside, you are left with the question of who owns the final used base. There is the user who drew over the base, then the user who made the base, and lastly, the person (user or otherwise) who made the original picture (if they traced it). In most cases I have seen, the user who utilized the base will link back to the base, but very rarely will the user who made the base even mention where they traced it from. I have seen users have walls of text about “rules” to use their base, but absolutely no mention of where they got it from.

            DeviantArt tries its best to outline the copyrights of each user and it does an okay job of it (although, it suggests that when you are not sure “you should seek the services of a qualified attorney”). The issue with DA’s copyright policy is its fair use section. It explains fair use, suggests asking a lawyer (again), and links to 3 articles detailing fair use. Two are vague and formal, while the last is more specific, but the section titled “When are you likely to get sued?” would probably deter the user from doing anything on its own.

Could you imagine getting sued for this?

            This is where Lessig’s idea to deregulate amateur creativity comes into play. Most work on DeviantArt is made by amateurs, but there will be instances where the amateur will have an amazing idea that they might not be able to use because it would be infringing on the original creator’s rights. The chapter DeviantArt linked to detailing fair use has a whole section on what fair use is and is not. Some of the unfair uses seem arbitrary (such as the use of 15 seconds of a 72 minute Charlie Chaplin film). The same can be said for amateur users, who may want to practice using a base, but happen to forget to link back to the original. According to Lessig, that would not be necessary because their final product is just that – theirs. In the same manner, the base creator would not need to say what their reference was, simply because it was an amateur creation. Neither party should be worried about the ramifications of their work by Lessig’s logic.

            DeviantArt’s terms of service and copyright policies may be short, but they are also not legally binding. The links they give to explain the legality of artworks, on the other hand, are long and arduous. The fair use chapter they link to, for example, has 4 different sections, each with sub-sections. Speaking honestly, the average user on any given day would not waste their time to read it. Even if they did read it, it can only give estimations and generalizations; neither of which would actually help them decide whether it was legal to use.

            Lessig does not outright say it, but under our current legal system, the motto is currently “It is better to ask forgiveness than permission.” Even if we could ask permission, the answer would likely be a resounding “no”, which is why most people are technically criminals, having downloaded a number of things.

            That is why this legal system, and DeviantArt along with it, needs to be simplified. Even DeviantArt’s moderators do not want to go through the hassle of the legal jargon that comes with copyrights. Why else would they say to consult a lawyer so often? The laws need to be simplified so that anyone can understand what the boundaries are of using another person’s work.

            Until then, DeviantArt will do like many other sites and take as much action as they can without becoming involved legally (either ask them to take a piece down or ban the user). Copyrights are too much of a headache for the average person, although they are in place to help them. In DA’s case, it would benefit greatly through the simplification of these laws and the deregulation of amateur creativity. If even just those two goals were met, it would be a load off of the moderators’ shoulders as well as the users.

The original picture, in case you were wondering.