4 ms·

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 ble

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.
        spriggan3 10y ago
        It doesn't matter what you think. I advise anybody not to give a cent to that campaign until it is made clear whether the original artist supports it, or not.
        kdmitriev 10y ago
        Everything below "production process will include following steps" makes it clear that original artist is not involved. See also this text - "The money collected from this campaign will go for production of one motion comic video, based on the «The Potion Contest» episode". CC-BY license doesn't require approval from original author. But in this case there is an acclamation anyway - https://twitter.com/davidrevoy/status/768197367833038848 https://twitter.com/davidrevoy/status/768197367833038848
- rootlocus 10y ago
  I'm also confused about the involvement of David Revoy with this project, although it seems he isn't involved at all. I wasn't endorsing the campaign owner, I'm just sharing the love for David Revoy himself. If someone wants to support David, the best way would be to use his patreon page!
boudewijnrempt 10y ago
We had David Revoy over to our place last weekend for the Krita sprint (https://krita.org/en/item/new-builds-to-test-krita-sprint-to-end-soon/ https://krita.org/en/item/new-builds-to-test-krita-sprint-to...) and he was very enthusiastic about this project, saying that Nikolai was really good at drawing. He loved the trailer! The campaign definitely is blessed by David. The campaign is also endorsed by Konstantin Dmitriev, the person behind the Morevna project who gave Synfig a new lease of life. So I had no hesitation to promote his campaign on the Krita website: https://krita.org/en/item/pepper-carrot-comic-goes-animated/ https://krita.org/en/item/pepper-carrot-comic-goes-animated/.

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.
      - spriggan3 10y ago
        It doesn't matter what you think. I advise anybody not to give a cent to that campaign until it is made clear whether the original artist supports it, or not.
        kdmitriev 10y ago
        Everything below "production process will include following steps" makes it clear that original artist is not involved. See also this text - "The money collected from this campaign will go for production of one motion comic video, based on the «The Potion Contest» episode". CC-BY license doesn't require approval from original author. But in this case there is an acclamation anyway - https://twitter.com/davidrevoy/status/768197367833038848 https://twitter.com/davidrevoy/status/768197367833038848
rootlocus 10y ago
I'm also confused about the involvement of David Revoy with this project, although it seems he isn't involved at all. I wasn't endorsing the campaign owner, I'm just sharing the love for David Revoy himself. If someone wants to support David, the best way would be to use his patreon page!

boudewijnrempt 10y ago

We had David Revoy over to our place last weekend for the Krita sprint (https://krita.org/en/item/new-builds-to-test-krita-sprint-to-end-soon/ https://krita.org/en/item/new-builds-to-test-krita-sprint-to...) and he was very enthusiastic about this project, saying that Nikolai was really good at drawing. He loved the trailer! The campaign definitely is blessed by David. The campaign is also endorsed by Konstantin Dmitriev, the person behind the Morevna project who gave Synfig a new lease of life. So I had no hesitation to promote his campaign on the Krita website: https://krita.org/en/item/pepper-carrot-comic-goes-animated/ https://krita.org/en/item/pepper-carrot-comic-goes-animated/.