5 ms·

David Revoy is an extremely talented illustrator and a long time supporter of free & open source tools. He released "Chaos & Evolutions"[1] a few years ago wher

David Revoy is an extremely talented illustrator and a long time supporter of free & open source tools. He released "Chaos & Evolutions"[1] a few years ago where he shows his workflows in gimp, alchemy and mypaint, he was involved with the making of the movie "Sintel", another open source project made in Blender[2] and his blog is filled with tutorials for the Krita software (photoshop alternative for ilustrations). You can find a lot of his wonderful works on deviantart, but my favorite by far (and I urge everyone to take a look) is the graphic novel "L'heritage en couleur" [3]. [1] http://www.davidrevoy.com/article44/artworks-from-my-dvd-chaos-evolutions http://www.davidrevoy.com/article44/artworks-from-my-dvd-cha... [2] https://durian.blender.org/ https://durian.blender.org/ [3] http://deevad.deviantart.com/art/l-heritage-en-couleur-308125572 http://deevad.deviantart.com/art/l-heritage-en-couleur-30812...

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
He was involved in Sintel? If I had any money to give, they'd have it.
- kiba 10y ago
  David Revoy does have a patreon at https://www.patreon.com/davidrevoy https://www.patreon.com/davidrevoy. It's for a comic.
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    Cool.
spriggan3 10y ago
It's not clear whether David is involved in this project. Nothing against it but if you're going to use someone else's assets make sure you get at least his blessing. The author of the campaign is NOT David Revoy but some unknown guy from Russia. I personnally would not give any money to this kind of project if the original author is not clearly involved, Creative Commons or not.
- cooper12 10y ago
  They don't need his blessing because David Revoy explicitly released their webcomics under CC-BY. Although you're right about your clarification, I think the parent just wanted to talk about David Revoy in general rather than the author of the animation campaign.
  - spriggan3 10y ago
    > They don't need his blessing They are putting his name everywhere in the campaign like he is involved or something. He is clearly not. That's misleading and can be potentially detrimental to the person's reputation if the campaign ends up being a scam. Again they might have the right to use his assets, they don't have the right to use his name to get money from people like this. That's completely wrong.
    - carussell 10y ago
      If the work is CC-BY, attribution the one thing that they are compelled to do. That's the whole point of the license.
      - spriggan3 10y ago
        > It's attribution Give me a break, this campaign is misleading, on purpose, in order to get some money.
        carussell 10y ago
        License requirements are generally not well understood at large, even among activists and other people involved with copyleft/free culture/etc. There's a plausible scenario where content author B takes content author A's work, creates something based on it, adds what looks like is the necessary (minimal) attribution that you're talking about here, and then content author A regards it as an attempt to diminish the credit that is due to them. Content author B, being a thoughtful person and wanting to mitigate this response, but not wanting to allow B's own publication to hinge on establishing a dialogue with A beforehand, may look at this and opt to take a "safer" approach, which involves liberally giving credit so that attribution is well-known. (In other words, what the phrase "for good measure" means; no one can reasonably say that B was trying to diminish any credit due to A.) Now, your comments here are indistinguishable from the ones someone would have posted after looking at the facts that we have and asking themselves, "what's the worst possible way to interpret this situation so that I can infer malice from this series of events?". I don't know if this is what you did, but the point is, your output here is indistinguishable from that of someone who had. Here's where the strang-loopiness shows up and where the kicker lies: if you take exception with this line of argument, (so long as you're internally consistent) then you are necessarily compelled to be upset with your own earlier statements that you've made here.

qwertyuiop924 10y ago

He was involved in Sintel? If I had any money to give, they'd have it.

kiba 10y ago
David Revoy does have a patreon at https://www.patreon.com/davidrevoy https://www.patreon.com/davidrevoy. It's for a comic.
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  Cool.

spriggan3 10y ago

It's not clear whether David is involved in this project. Nothing against it but if you're going to use someone else's assets make sure you get at least his blessing. The author of the campaign is NOT David Revoy but some unknown guy from Russia. I personnally would not give any money to this kind of project if the original author is not clearly involved, Creative Commons or not.

cooper12 10y ago
They don't need his blessing because David Revoy explicitly released their webcomics under CC-BY. Although you're right about your clarification, I think the parent just wanted to talk about David Revoy in general rather than the author of the animation campaign.
- spriggan3 10y ago
  > They don't need his blessing They are putting his name everywhere in the campaign like he is involved or something. He is clearly not. That's misleading and can be potentially detrimental to the person's reputation if the campaign ends up being a scam. Again they might have the right to use his assets, they don't have the right to use his name to get money from people like this. That's completely wrong.
  - carussell 10y ago
    If the work is CC-BY, attribution the one thing that they are compelled to do. That's the whole point of the license.
    - spriggan3 10y ago
      > It's attribution Give me a break, this campaign is misleading, on purpose, in order to get some money.
      - carussell 10y ago
        License requirements are generally not well understood at large, even among activists and other people involved with copyleft/free culture/etc. There's a plausible scenario where content author B takes content author A's work, creates something based on it, adds what looks like is the necessary (minimal) attribution that you're talking about here, and then content author A regards it as an attempt to diminish the credit that is due to them. Content author B, being a thoughtful person and wanting to mitigate this response, but not wanting to allow B's own publication to hinge on establishing a dialogue with A beforehand, may look at this and opt to take a "safer" approach, which involves liberally giving credit so that attribution is well-known. (In other words, what the phrase "for good measure" means; no one can reasonably say that B was trying to diminish any credit due to A.) Now, your comments here are indistinguishable from the ones someone would have posted after looking at the facts that we have and asking themselves, "what's the worst possible way to interpret this situation so that I can infer malice from this series of events?". I don't know if this is what you did, but the point is, your output here is indistinguishable from that of someone who had. Here's where the strang-loopiness shows up and where the kicker lies: if you take exception with this line of argument, (so long as you're internally consistent) then you are necessarily compelled to be upset with your own earlier statements that you've made here.