|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 7, 2009 3:04:21 GMT -5
So, Archzero ordered a sword from WhiteNoise's shop: A bit later, he asked for an enlarged version of the eye in the sword. WhiteNoise responded: Awhile later, he said: Look familiar?Yup, it's the Eye of Sauron, from Lord of the Rings. This would have been fine if he had just said "Well, you don't need to ask me for that, there are pictures all over the internet." Instead, he charged him for it. Now, I have temporarily closed this shop for this investigation. He doesn't have a warning yet because the actual image theft is debatable. However, we must make sure that his pictures are all genuine, as I'm sure is procedure for something like this.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Jun 7, 2009 5:33:59 GMT -5
I admit I saw that, knowing it was from google or whatever... And it might just be me but I have doubts about the authenticity of the swords aswell. It looks too...good... to be created without using a base sword image from another source. There's too much detail on it. Are you allowed to use base images?
Anyway, he said he never made the transaction, although the charging of DBs for a stolen image is a punishable offence in itself. It's in the shop rules.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jun 7, 2009 8:53:21 GMT -5
Yes i did use a base image, but i had to change it a lot. Even though charging of stolen images is punishable, I didn't, so what are we even arguing about? No one gained or lost DB's, so why is there even an argument?
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Jun 7, 2009 9:00:01 GMT -5
Well now, you have admitted to the crime of the stealing of images and charging for it (although the transaction itself never happened). That is a 50% warning level and shop deletion. Do I have permission to serve pancakes justice, high staff?
|
|
PickleMan
Dedicated Member
{S=9}Head Programmer[M:98188]
Posts: 936
|
Post by PickleMan on Jun 7, 2009 9:06:32 GMT -5
Maybe a lesser warning?
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Jun 7, 2009 9:07:36 GMT -5
Why? Anyway, do I have your permission?
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jun 7, 2009 9:18:51 GMT -5
Now i have admitted... what? I never denied using a premade image. I was just saying i didn't charge him for it. I accept whatever the punishment is, just know that if Dark Echo wasn't staff, i may have charged him, but
1. I may have decided not to, we'll never know 2. Just because I might have, doesn't mean i did. I did nothing wrong, all you are punishing me for is maybe i might have done something.
If you really feel that deserves punishment then fine. But there's a reason we don't punish people for having maybe doing something under different circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Jun 7, 2009 9:53:11 GMT -5
Well, because you did not charge for the image, maybe you should have a lesser warning or none at all. Just don't use images from the internet again. Although, if someone wants an image which looks good with an image instead from the internet fitting the description, don't give it to them without saying where you got it from, or you could just recommend it.
|
|
PickleMan
Dedicated Member
{S=9}Head Programmer[M:98188]
Posts: 936
|
Post by PickleMan on Jun 7, 2009 9:57:56 GMT -5
I think he should be punished, because he intended to charge for an image that wasn't his. He could have charged for LOOKING for the image, but he didn't make it seem that way. You have my permission, but I suggest you ask GV...
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Jun 7, 2009 10:03:28 GMT -5
I will when he's on.... I think he should get a small warning, because he showed the image the Arch without saying it wasn't his and saying 'That'll be 50 db's', though he didn't actually make the transaction.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jun 7, 2009 10:12:56 GMT -5
FYI: I told him on chat that it was the eye of sauron and he could probably just find one but he didn't care.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Jun 7, 2009 10:16:57 GMT -5
Well, you should have said on your thread that it was the eye of sauron, otherwise we're going to think you haven't said that it wasn't yours.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Jun 7, 2009 11:11:22 GMT -5
I think he should be punished, because he intended to charge for an image that wasn't his. He could have charged for LOOKING for the image, but he didn't make it seem that way. You have my permission, but I suggest you ask GV... Well, since I have been "invited" to share my ideas about this... He didn't charge for the image. That belief that he may have under different circumstances is the logical fallacy Hypothesis Contrary to Fact, considering that those imaginary circumstances never occurred. The fact is, he didn't charge for an image. Also, I do remember reading somewhere that he said it was the Eye of Sauron in one of his posts to Dark Echo. Only because I doubted that he could have recreated that image from scratch did I consider that a subtle "this is not by me," disclaimer. Never mind, I looked and failed to see it. With that said, he can go free for now. Let it be known amongst all the users in the forums, however, that all internet images should be explicitly "disowned" if charged (e.g. "This image came from the internet, not by the fruits of my work and graphic editing programs."). Indeed, I will see if Swearingworth ever put up such a rule in one of the Graphics boards since before his disappearance...If not, I will be sure to create a new thread directed to shop owners including this rule.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Jun 7, 2009 11:19:00 GMT -5
Actually, he did charge. He asked for 50dbs, and that counts as charging. The fact that whether the transaction was never made doesn't concern it. Charging doesn't mean trading, it's asking for the DBs. O.K, he can go free, but should we add the internet image stealing thing to the Official Forum Rules? Do you agree to this rule: Don't steal images from the internet and charge people for it?
|
|
|
Post by shirogake on Jun 7, 2009 11:32:19 GMT -5
Well, you should have said on your thread that it was the eye of sauron, otherwise we're going to think you haven't said that it wasn't yours. He DID tell me it was the Eye, fool.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Jun 7, 2009 11:34:21 GMT -5
I know. But he should have made it known to everyone viewing his shop.
|
|
|
Post by shirogake on Jun 7, 2009 11:36:19 GMT -5
Was he selling it to them? I don't think so. No, he was selling it to me. I think that's about the most important thing, to actuall tell the actual buyer.
And no, the rule is unneccesary.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Jun 7, 2009 11:40:16 GMT -5
If he doesn't say publicly it wasn't his, things like this happen.Other staff would accuse him of stealing without giving credit, which he did in fact give.
|
|
|
Post by shirogake on Jun 7, 2009 11:42:36 GMT -5
He DID say it publicly, stop ignoring key facts. He said it on CHAT, and that's publicly saying it.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Jun 7, 2009 11:50:16 GMT -5
Well, not in my eyes. Because we can't view it again, but if he posts it we can, for all to see, and not swallowed up by a horde of new messages. And no-one can see it like that.
|
|