From: DaveS
, 137 months, post #141 |
I agree with the most of the above posts that say that they love
chronicstuss' work and the art he commissions from the various
artists... but they are a bit formulaic.
Three that stand out because of a twist: 1) the latest one, The
Prisoner, because the male shapeshifter ends the story in a female
form; 2) The Sorority, because unlike the other ones, the
shapeshifter gets caught because he is careless and is outsmarted;
3) The Friend, because even though the shapeshifter gets revenge
(part of the formula) he comes of as semi-sympathetic and not
totally cold blooded.
Plot twists are a good thing.
|
From: Tal
, 136 months, post #142 |
Looks like Chronicstuss has started posting a new comic!
Page 1
http://chronicstuss.deviantart.com/#/d5s8q8b
Page 2
http://chronicstuss.deviantart.com/#/d5s8qub
|
From: Alias
, 136 months, post #143 |
I wouldn't call the Friend even semi-sympathetic. It's one thing to
get revenge on an organization actively pursuing you (like The
Device), it's less justified to just decide to kill the head of the
project when you could just walk away free and clear.
A plot twist there would have been if Alfred had acquired the
formula and injected the doctor with it. Maybe it'd kill him, maybe
it'd work on him.. I think it'd be more fitting than just
strangling him.
This new one seems to be along the same lines as the Prisoner, I
hope there's something new here to make it interesting.
|
From: guest (DC)
, 136 months, post #144 |
I just found these.
What happened to the older comics mentioned?
If they look as good as this would love to read them.
|
From: Alias
, 136 months, post #145 |
Chronicstuss has this thing about displaying previous comics once
he commissions a new one. They're all pretty much locked away in
his vault, and yes people have asked him to see old comics and been
denied.
He typically has a different artist do each one, so the look varies
but it's usually pretty good artwork.
|
From: guest (chronicstuss)
, 136 months, post #146 |
Eventually I will repost my older works so people can view them.
But I do not like archiving old works for reasons previously
mentioned. As for the current work, I'm glad people are interested
in reading it. I can't promise anything terribly unique (there is a
basic formula) but it is more lighthearted than some of my other
stories. I can promise you though that the art will be solid. I've
been lucky to work with some very talented artists.
|
From: DaveS
, 136 months, post #147 |
Back when Chronicstuss allowed the artwork he commissioned to be
downloaded from Deviantart, I and others saved some of the series.
But then someone went and ruined it by putting some of the artwork
on a pay site, essentially distributing it and seeking a profit
while neither Chronicstuss (who paid for the art) nor the artists
get anything in return. That's probably the reason why there's no
DL option on the current series.
Some off the artists like Autumn-Sacura
(autumn-sacura.deviantart.com/) and salo-art
(salo-art.deviantart.com) have the work they did for Chronicstuss
on their own DA pages. Just look through their galleries.
|
From: guest (Florida Paul)
, 136 months, post #148 |
I'd like to applaud Chronicstuss for commissioning these works.
It's obvious that many people enjoy them. I disagree with DaveS
that the artists get nothing in return when their work is
re-posted, however. First of all, they've already been paid for
their work. Secondly, they get free exposure of their work that
will lead to further commissions. I think it's in any artist's best
interest that his/her work gets the widest exposure.
Yes, it may seem that these pay sites are ripping off Chronicstuss,
but I think that would only be true if Chronistuss had his own pay
site. As it is, has anyone lost money? The artist has sold the
work. He cannot make anymore money for it. Does Chronicstuss expect
to make money from these works he's commissioned? I'd be interested
to see his business plan.
You may also look at it this way: these paysites are providing a
venue for these works. That does not come without cost. There are
many 'free' sites, I know, but these are maintained by those who
are either passionate about this art, or are getting income from
the clicks.
I would also like to remind everyone that the great artists of the
Renaissance never owned their work; they all worked on commission.
Copyrights and intellectual property are modern inventions
primarily created to limit the dissemination of knowledge after the
invention of the printing press.
|
From: cj
, 136 months, post #149 |
Making money off of someone else's work without compensating the
source originator(s) is stealing - if you disagree, please give me
a few examples.
" the great artists of the Renaissance never owned their work; they
all worked on commission."
Yes, and if you went around copying their work and selling it - you
can bet that they'd want a piece of the profits. Not to mention
back then that it was much more difficult to copy the work of
another without have to actually work yourself.
Your argument that the paysites have costs is moot. They do NOT
have to carry the content in the first place.
It sounds to me like the problem was the site's choice to offer the
work of others for a fee, WITHOUT consent or compensation to the
artist or owner.
Let me put it this way. If you paid for something nice and decided
to share it with your friends, and then one of those friends
decided to make some money off it without offering you a cut, and
more importantly without asking your permission - how long would
they remain your friend? Would their actions have upset you?
|
From: guest (Florida Paul)
, 136 months, post #150 |
"Making money off of someone else's work without compensating the
source originator(s) is stealing" - I didn't say or imply that, and
besides, the artists have already been compensated, true? Well, not
Chronistuss, except for getting his name in lights. He produced it,
wrote the scripts. What does he get out of it, right? Well,
recognition for one thing. There’s a ton of pay sites that are
looking for talent. I’m a software developer. You know there are a
lot of apps you can download for free. Why? Because some guy is
showcasing his talent. Because he’s hoping somebody sees what he
can do and pay him big bucks to do it. You go on Deviant or
Renderotica and there’s a crapload of free art, and artists looking
for commissions. Same thing. So you’re saying what if somebody
downloads his free app and sells it to somebody. I say caveat
emptor – let the buyer beware. He could have gotten it for free if
he searched for it. I don’t see how it actually harms the guy who
wrote it. He didn’t lose any money, did he?
Artists copy each other’s work all the time. They did it during the
renaissance they do it today. Don't you think they sold them, too?
The only problem that arises from that is when one tries to sell a
forgery, which is really just a kind of fraud. That doesn't take
money out the pocket of the artist being forged, either, just the
hapless purchaser.
As for the rest ... let me put my cards on the table. I think
intellectual property rights is silly. The only way it can be
enforced in this internet era is through massive government
intervention, and I, personally, would not like to see that happen.
Even though it's already happening - look at how music and movie
downloads are being attacked. I understand the dedication this site
has to intellectual property, and you really don’t know how happy I
am to see people with principle out there, but I think you’re
confusing the ends with the means.
We’re all finding our way in this new world, evolving new
paradigms. You have Femur over there selling stuff – and giving a
lot away. Infinity Sign who gives it away after, what a year?
Brilliant! What will we settle into? I haven’t the foggiest, except
that if you let people find their own way through this they’ll come
up with a pretty elegant and clever solution.
As for your final question, my first thought was that I’d be pissed
that I didn’t think of it. My second thought was, this is kind of a
straw man argument. I tried thinking of a real world example and
the best I could come up with is somebody selling tickets to see my
house. Then I realized that’s what your point was. Somebody selling
tickets to see the art work. Kind of like what the Guggenheim does.
|
From: cj
, 136 months, post #151 |
"besides, the artists have already been compensated, true?"
Perhaps - but not the way that I see it. They were offered
compensation by Chronistuss for a certain project with a certain
outcome. Did the 3rd party even consult them and offer to present
their work, or did they just do so without permission... and did
they offer the artist a fair compensation for selling access to
their work?
"... Don't you think they sold them, too?"
Yep, but they had to put a fair amount of work into it, so they
were really getting paid for their own work - perhaps based off of
someone else's idea, but it was their own work - not an exact
duplicate that took almost no work at all on their part.
"... The only way it can be enforced in this internet era is
through massive government intervention"
Or a really determined artist with anger management issues. :-)
"but I think you�re confusing the ends with the means."
How so? If someone was selling my work without my permission (or
worse without any credit to me at all), I'd be quite upset. I'd
expect to be making a fair cut of that profit for my work. Sure
they may have expenses to deal with to offer and accept payments
and such - but it's not their work that they are selling, they're
only providing a service (that I never asked for or agreed to). Now
if they'd asked.. maybe I'd have agreed to let them do whatever for
no compensation.
"Somebody selling tickets to see the art work."
Brilliant answer! Well, the artists (or what-have-you) are allowing
that to happen... unless they're no longer with us - then they
could probably care less about any compensation we could give them.
Still, that is a wonderful answer.
|
From: guest (Florida Paul)
, 136 months, post #152 |
What was in the contract between Chronistuss and the artist? It
seems to me you don't even need a 3rd party if Chronistuss uses it
in a way the artist doesn't like, or didn't anticipate. If the
artist sold all the rights to the work to Chronistuss then it's
Chronistuss' problem; the artist is entirely out of the picture
(get it? out of the picture?)
Now let's assume we're talking about free content. Your point is
that if someone can figure out a way to make a buck out of that
free content the original artist deserves compensation. I believe
with the current set of laws we have he would be legally entitled,
so in that sense you're absolutely right. I appeal to older law,
before copyrights and intellectual property. Has the artist
suffered any financial loss? Remember, he was offering this content
up for free. No harm, no foul. One can even make the argument that
he benefits having his work exposed to paying customers. A better
class of people, from the artist's point of view; those who will
actually shell out for his work rather than free riding. Potential
patrons.
Or how about this: what if the pay site just provides a link to his
free work on Deviant? What if that's what they do, just have links
to all this free content? But you have pay to gain access to the
links the pay site owner has conveniently laid out for you. Don't
you think that some people wouldn't mind paying for that
convenience rather than spend hours searching this stuff down on
their own? Now what's the big difference? The artist can remove his
stuff at will - but why would he if he wanted the world to have
access to it for free? And if he does pull it down because someone
is making money pointing to it, well, sounds like he's being a dog
in the manger to me.
|
From: cj
, 136 months, post #153 |
"What was in the contract between Chronistuss and the artist?"
Or agreement (if no actual contract). We don't know - so our
arguments are merely academic.
"One can even make the argument that he benefits having his work
exposed to paying customers."
Only if they were properly credited as the artist / originator of
the work. I have not seen the pay-stie or material in question -
but from your discussion, I assume that the artists were properly
credited. So this is just a reference point for other instances.
"what if the pay site just provides a link to his free work on
Deviant?"
It's a ticket to the Guggenheim. :-)
|
From: guest (Florida Paul)
, 136 months, post #154 |
2nd point is well taken. I get annoyed at caps that don't credit
the original artist - questionable ethics and I want to find more
of their work!
I think its important to keep an open mind and think outside the
box. The internet continues to evolve and those pernicious pirate
sites are part of the ecology of the internet. If we want to limit
or eliminate them the best way is to make them unprofitable rather
than with brute force. In the meantime, artists with anger
management issues will just have to do.
|
From: CopyKen
, 135 months, post #155 |
The Comic by Chronicstuss has an update!
Page 3
http://chronicstuss.deviantart.com/#/d5t0k5p
Page 4
http://chronicstuss.deviantart.com/#/d5t0kc9
|
From: guest
, 135 months, post #156 |
man, I really hope this story gets more creative than
chronicstuss's usual stuff... like a lesbian hookup or some fun
duplication. his comics have great potential, they're just really
predictable.
|
From: Alias
, 135 months, post #157 |
Just an early prediction here, but..
Click to show spoiler
V fhfcrpg Pnffvr jvyy or Snfg Grqql va qvfthvfr
|
From: CopyKen
, 135 months, post #158 |
@Alias
Hmm.. that prediction feels like something I can agree on too
;D
|
From: CopyKen
, 135 months, post #159 |
The Comic by Chronicstuss has a small update this week.
Page 5
http://chronicstuss.deviantart.com/art/Fast-Teddy-Page-5-352386192
|
From: trifajar
, 135 months, post #160 |
Where is the other Chronicstuss' comic?,
there is only one comic left at http://chronicstuss.deviantart.com/
|