You might have read the weekly report post by @Sooz. It has an update about the new welcome screen for krita that @sh-zam is working on.
One of the pages in the welcome screen would have some of the featured images picked from the #featured tag here on the krita-artists.org. To implement this we would need redistribution rights of the images. We are still working out the technical details and implementation and at this stage. So if we pick some of the existing images we would ask for permission from respective artist of the image beforehand.
I propose adding this to the terms and condition of this website, stating that some of the feature images might get picked up to be displayed on the Krita application welcome screen and if the user is okay with that. Of-course we will individually ask permission later too. But just to be on safer side we would need to ask this in the Terms too.
I am writing this post to gather opinion from the community member about this proposal. What do you people think about this and what do you suggest.
Based on my interaction with @sh-zam on IRC, we would most probably be curating and selecting images periodically and asking for permission on individual images so this will be redundant but it will be a additional safeguard to ensure that we won’t do anything without permission.
It could be tricky to use the featured image like this.
I mean, for all featured images, you just can’t consider by modifying ToS that they can be used in Krita splashscreen.
Also for new featured image, it could be complicated too.
Maybe the simplest way is to add CC-BY tag: if #featured and #cc-by then it could be used in splashscreen; admin put #featured tag, and user can put the #cc-by tag he if agree to see his artwork being used for splashscreen
Yes we know that we can’t get permission automatically or retrospectively for artwork posted prior to the change. Hence I suggested sh-zam to not pull the image automatically but to manually curate the images periodically, where we can contact the author individually and ask for permission.
But you are right, some artists might not be okay with having their images on krita screen and it becomes complicated since Krita is sold on stores. CC-BY tag idea is good. This will be in addition to any artwork we choose manually and ask for permission on email or message here.
Curating manually also opens the door for taking into account other sources such as twitter and reddit. it will be then good representation of artwork from krita community as a whole.
So I think there is no need for the change in TOS after all.
I think it could be useful to put something like user agree, by adding #cc-by tag on their artwork, he can be contacted by Krita’s team for an agreement to use artwork for Krita’s splashscreen if #featured
Also, having something in ToS could incite user to put their artwork under #cc-by license
After we know that most of users don’t read ToS but that’s an another problem…
That is the technical detail and I do not know about it. Sh-zam might know. I think it will be similar to how cropped thumbnails are added to featured images. There is a MR on invent.kde.org which shows initial implementation.
Interesting. I personally have no problem with it, but I’m not a commercial artist and see how some might have issue with it. Then there is the technical details of size shape cropping etc. etc. as mentioned by @Grum999 above…
It’s not for the splash screen, it’s for the welcome screen. We’re trying to improve what is called ‘onboarding’, that is, trying to get new users comfortable in the scary new program, and the current screen already does that with a link to the manual and the new document page. Sharaf’s going to make that look a lot nicer, and one of the things we wanted to allow was showing off what others had made with Krita. So as far as I know we don’t necessarily have to crop.
I hate this licensing stuff, and also that I’m raising a cautionary objection here to be careful, but, in the case that users have also published their images on other platforms (at the same time), those users should definitely check if they collide with rights they might have granted to the other site.
DeviantArt is asking for a hell of a lot of rights to users’ images since it’s part of Wix (you do retain copyright and have some leverage, if I understood correctly, but I didn’t read it all because I had a headache), and I would imagine DA is not alone in that.
On artstation all my artwork are under CC-BY because I put this information on my bio
On twitter I don’t take time to provide a license
And here too, I don’t put any information.
I see there’s cc-by tags so I should have too update all my topics in #artwork:finished-artworks, I think just to be clear about license. But I’m very lazy
But in all case, put a license on your art is always a good thing to protect it.
That’s the same for Krita’s source code, GPL v3 license protect it.
Without any clear license it’s not possible to use an artwork in Krita I think.
Having a license, especially a BY-CC license is a simple way to tell “Ok you can use it”
A BY-CC-ND or BY-CC-NC might not be Ok for what is asked here:
Krita is sell on store, then BY-CC-NC can’t be used
Krita probably modify artwork to put it in gallery (crop/resize), then BY-CC-ND can’t be used
CC0 and BY-CC or BY-CC-SA are Ok
If a user post a BY-CC licensed image on an another site, the other can’t decide the image license is not a BY-CC: only the author of an artwork can decide under which license the artwork is; if license is in violation of website, the website have to remove it, not to change the license.
I know that I can define my own license (my pic, my rights, my rules ) and publish my images under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0, my concerns go in the direction of those who may have neglected to define their rights or, probably unintentionally because just clicked away the terms and conditions, granted any platforms rights that could be problematic.
The point raised by @Michelist about any rights that may have been granted to other organisations by agreeing to various website T&Cs is obviously something that should be investigated.
However, I believe that those rigths are usually unfettered rights to reproduce the work for their own promotional purposes and to store the work on servers across the universe.
I doubt if they claim unique restricted rights.
As a separate issue, I thought that the purpose of the CC license was to protect the rights of the creator in a way that they specify, e.g. -BY-NC-ND.
Doesn’t the creator have the right to create a private custom license for use by a particular individual or organisation? e.g. for use by krita in a welcome screen?
As a theoretical example, if I post artwork here that I state as CC-BY-NC-ND, I’m sure that I can enter into an agrement with a T-shirt maker to print my artwork on T-shirts for sale, for payment of 25% (or whatever) of the profits.
If I can’t do that then I’ve effectively destroyed my own rights over my own work by using a license that is supposed to protect my rights over my own work.
For me it sounds weird…
If you post an artwork on website 1 with a license A and post the same artwork on website 2 with a different license B, the problem is more a problem for author than anything else.
After, as @raghukamath said, authors will be contacted for agreement then I suppose this kind of problem is not a problem
All the CC-BY license, except maybe the CC0 protect the artwork from being used in a way the owner of rights (usually the author) decide.
To be really simple, I create something:
If I put it CC-BY, I forbid anybody to use my artwork without providing credentials about my original artwork; if this is respected, no need for my agreement
If I put it CC-BY-ND, I forbid anybody to modify it and use it in anyway (paint over, add text, crop it, resize it, …) without my agreement; I’m still owner of right and can still give agreement for a specific derivated usage
If I put it CC-BY-NC, I forbid anybody to use my artwork for commercial purpose without my agreement; I’m still owner of right and can still give agreement for a specific commercial usage
And as long as terms of a BY-CC of a license are respected, there’s no need to contact author; even if contacting author for information purposes is recommended, because it’s always a pleasure for an author to be informed is work will be published
@Grum999 The points I made were in response to your earlier reply:
I was saying that it shouldn’t be a problem because the creator can enter into a separate license agreement with another individual person/organisation to bypassd the -BY, -NC or -ND that was stated in the initial CC publishing.
The initial release of -BY-NC-ND still applies to everyone else.
The CC license should not be a limitation on the creator to do what they want with their work.
You would also have to be cautious about the sensitivity of others. Some artwork might be objectionable to certain audiences. (I’ve seen that on another app’s webgallery. There was a big blow up about it.)