Stolen from [Flisky] and [Nioniel].

.YOUR ALBUM COVER

Instructions:

1 - Go to "wikipedia." Hit “random”
or click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
The first random wikipedia article you get is the name of your band.
_{Harlem's American Gangster}

2 - Go to "Random quotations"
or click http://www.quotationspage.com/random.php3
The last four or five words of the very last quote of the page is the title of your first album. (Make sure you hit the new random quotations button at the bottom.)
_{A Pile of Junk}

3 - Go to flickr and click on “explore the last seven days”
or click http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days
Third picture, no matter what it is, will be your album cover.

4 - Use photoshop or similar to put it all together (http://www.picnik.com/) works well, online.

5 - Post it!

This is what I got:


I actually like it! ^^

Hey Guys! I'm sorry I have to cut some of conversations short, but my cousin's wedding is tomorrow so I need to be alive for that which means I need to get some shut eye time.
I probably won't be on for about a week because I'm going to Camp until the 3rd. Talk to you all later! I hope your weeks are good! :]
With <3 Phoenix

Thanks for the birthday wishes, my friends!

[the mad hatter2], [Draymond], [Deus Ex Taco], [The Dizzy Raven], [Ghost the Hybrid], [Wolf the Plow]

And special thanks to [Iske] who wished me a happy birthday in Dutch!
gelukkige verjaardag...

Also special thanks to [Eyden13] who made me this nice banner and even gave it to me early!

FOR CAMELOT!!!!!!!!

Thanks, [Lirerial]! From Holiday Greetings

This is a conversation about Copyrights and it helped clear some foggy air for me so I'm posting it here for future reference. :)

2009-12-29 [*Phoenix*]: So I can do the prop and vehicle ones? *eyes light up*
So I can do the prop and vehicle ones? *eyes light up*

2009-12-29 [Nioniel]: If they are not copywritten items (things that are the intellectual or artistic property of other artists) then you may photograph them and claim them as your own. Things within this category are nature, animals, etc.

2009-12-29 [*Phoenix*]: so would my Pontiac be considered copyrighted if I took a picture of the entire car?
so would my Pontiac be considered copyrighted if I took a picture of the entire car?

2009-12-29 [Nioniel]: YES! If you are not the creator of the object, if another person, another artist created the object, such as a vehicle, figurine, jewelry, toys, CDs, paintings, books, brand-named musical instruments, hardware, tools, the tread pattern on tires, flatware, electronics, EVERYTHING that YOU DID NOT CREATE, sans things naturally occuring in nature such as rain, snow, sleet, hail, dirt, pets, bugs, clouds, leaves, trees, lakes, mountains, the sun, moon, stars, the human body (assuming that it's yours, no one else's may be submitted under your name without a model-release form), snakes, lizards, etcetera...I don't know how to explain this any better!

11:05:08 (17h ago) [nehirwen]: Eh..making a photo of an object isn't claiming you made the object. O.o
And as long as the piece/thing you make a photo of is a public thing it's OK (buildings, cars, statue in the park, stuff you bought, whatever).
There are some photos you could make you're not allowed to make a profit of though. (like photos of the Eiffel Tower I believe).
But we're not making any money here, so it's OK.
The Pontiac would be perfectly fine to submit.

13:12:08 (15h ago) [windowframe]: Presumably statues in museums (still public, right?) and statues that were made before copyright even existed are also fine. <_< But be careful with statues in museums because some of them are on loan from private collections, and you're supposed to take photos of those ones. (it should tell you on the plaque if it's from a private collection). How about other forms of art in museums? Paintings, photographs, etc. ?

13:31:48 (15h ago) [nehirwen]: Well, paintings and photographs aren't that interesting for the reference pictures, it's better to actually visit the museum if you want to learn techniques or whatever from those (or look them up online). It would be silly to make a photo of a photo and submit it as 'your' photo anyway, imo. x)

13:53:06 (14h ago) [windowframe]: And you can think of no other use for paintings and photos than learning techniques from them? :P I can see why you might want a painting in a photomanip, and for the same reason why you might want a framed photograph - not for the content of that specific photograph, but because you wanted a painting/photograph on the wall of the manip you were working on, etc. Or perhaps for the same reason for your drawing. You're drawing a corridor, and you want a painting on the wall, but the perspective is giving you a problem so... dun dun DUUUUN. You go find a reference. Shocker. :P

13:55:49 (14h ago) [Nioniel]: Neh; making/taking a photo and then putting it in the public domain is. We may not be recieving payment from people that use the photos we submit, but the people that use them may be making money off of them.

Because the photos that we are adding to Reference Pictures are ones that we are putting into the public domain, which then become freely usable by anyone, it really is not okay for us to do that. Read up on copywrite laws, patents, intellectual property and such. Things, especially symbols that are trademarked, such as the "mustang," on cars is the creator of that symbol's property.

Just because some things are in the public eye, that does not mean that they are in the public domain. You can't take and submit pictures of Pizza Hut. Everyone knows what Pizza Hut is, but it is illegal to take a photo and to attempt to put it in the public domain. Taking a photo and saying "hey, everyone, look what I did while I was at Pizza Hut" and then displaying the photos for all to see is fine, so long as you're not saying "alright, I took these photos, so now them and all of the content in them are free for all the world to use." The ability to point a camera at something that is copywritten does not give anyone the right to claim it as their own, which is why these things are unacceptable. Go onto a search engine and search for images that are free for use. There will not be many, and many of the ones that are out there have fine print on the web pages stating that the creator of the artwork still needs payment before others can use it as their own.

I really don't know what else I can say that would help you all to understand. I know that I have had this conversation on this site before, perhaps if I can find the wiki that it took place on, I could copy/paste the explaining that I did there.

14:18:51 (14h ago) [Nioniel]:
<sup>If you buy a card with someone's artwork on it, you own the card -- not the right to make copies of the picture on it. If you buy a cassette tape with a song recorded on it, you own the CD -- not the right to play the song in the background on your TV advertisement (or web page). If you buy a book, you have the right to read it, loan it, or use it to prop up the wobbly leg on your table; but you don't have the right to photocopy it, write about the characters in the story, or even draw pictures of them, unless the copyright holder says you can.

Only the copyright holder has that right to copy and/or distribute copies of the thing they've created.</sup>

- taken from Copyright and Intellectual Property

15:06:41 (13h ago) [windowframe]: Neh; making/taking a photo and then putting it in the public domain is. We may not be receiving payment from people that use the photos we submit, but the people that use them may be making money off of them.

Surely that's their problem, not ours? They're the ones using them incorrectly, and as long as we state somewhere that they shouldn't/can't be used to make money, then I don't see what the problem is on our part - we told them not to, and they ignored us. Blaming us for that is like someone blaming a bank for running up a huge credit card bill. In all the cases I've read of, say, car companies getting uppity about their cars and logos it's because someone is attempting to use photos for profit, and that's the person they go after - not the person who took the photo, or made it available, just the one trying to use it to make money.

I'm not sure about making non-profit photo manips with the images (though that probably counts as transformative use rather than derivative use, so that should be fine too), but I think using them as references counts as Fair Use as long as they don't then try to sell the art.

And pizza hut buildings aren't necessarily copyrighted. Their logo is. Which I'm sure Nehi knows. Obviously the part about 'anything you own' was wrong, but the rest is either right or sits in a huge grey area. For instance, some statues in parks are apparently copyrighted. But if it's a replica of a Donatello, then... tough? And as for books - I'm pretty sure I could take photo of the inside of Pride and Prejudice and not be breaking copyright since... it's in the public domain now. Not all books are copyrighted.

Perhaps the reason you feel you can't get us to understand is because we're not actually all talking about quite the same thing. And the fact that we're disagreeing with you doesn't mean we don't understand, it just means we disagree. :P

20:39:22 (8h ago) [Nioniel]: ^*shrug*

I'm beginning to get fairly frustrated with the conversation, and rather than become snippity, I'd prefer to simply leave it at this;

I enjoy being one of the people that contributes to Reference Pictures and deals with the Reference Pictures Submissions, badging and so on. Having spent a lot of time learning about copyright laws and what is and is not allowed to be added to the public domain by the general public, I do not feel comfortable adding certain images into our database/the public domain. There are a few other people that also work in Reference Pictures, and should the general opinion of other people running it be that these things are fine to be added, then they can add them. I know what my understanding of the law is, and I do not want to be considered liable for what others may choose to do with the photos in question being added. That said, I will happily continue to add photos that are in no way in question of violating any copyright laws.

This conversation was in no way intended to be taken as any sort of slight against anyone, hopefully everyone involved understands that I am just looking out for the general welfare of the contributors, the Reference Pictures workers, the site, and those who may choose to use the photos in inappropriate and illegal ways should they be added, despite our warnings.

21:27:14 (7h ago) [windowframe]: Well that's pretty useless, since now a decision won't be reached and everyone will remain unsure as to what content they're allowed to submit or not. :/ I'm sorry you're frustrated that we don't agree with you, but there's no need to take it personally. ;) It's better for everyone if you can continue to try and patiently explain, with your extensive knowledge of copyright (which I at least acknowledge I don't have - obviously, I can't speak for the others), why the examples above (or just the original car question, since that would be simpler) definitely wouldn't count as Fair Use. Or is it just that Fair Use can be a bit of a boundary blurrer, so you'd rather stay away from it altogether? :P

21:29:50 (7h ago) [Nioniel]: :)

I'm not taking it personally, I just don't see how we could reach a good conclusion when we feel differently. I don't mean to sound irate. Perhaps if you all read the wiki page that I linked to, that may make things a bit more clear. I'm sorry, I need to get offline right now, but when I get back, if there are still questions about the topic or things left to discuss, I'd be more than happy to jump back in with a fresh look at the whole thing.

The entire situation can be a bit confusing.

XD

21:34:18 (7h ago) [windowframe]: I've read them. :) (long before you linked them them, too :P) And because this shouldn't be a matter of how we feel - it's law we're talking about, right? it's technically objective, not subjective - there IS actually a right and wrong answer. XP

Basically, from my point of view, the key question is: since we're providing on a non-profit basis, resources for students of art (and by 'students of art', I mean anyone who's practicing drawing/painting/etc :P) to use as a learning tool for non-profit learning, can we class say, a picture of a Ford car as Fair Use?

23:07:17 (5h ago) [Nioniel]: *disclaimer*
^{Words that have been capitalized, are in bold, or are italicized are not meant to be taken to be in a yelling tone. They are simply put into such formats so to emphasize the importance of certain parts of the explanation. The intent of this explanation is to help everyone concerned to be fully informed and aware of theirs and other artists’ legal rights. This is not an attack on anyone, who, at any time, may have attempted to or have succeeded in submitting photos to Reference Pictures or Reference Pictures Submissions that violate copyright, intellectual property, or any other laws.}

Alrighty, after stepping away from the conversation for a bit so that I could think about the best way to explain the laws concerning such things, I have come up with the following.

There are antiquities which pre-date copyright owners, however, the vast majority of those antiquities (ie; the Statue of David, etc.), which are not themselves covered under obvious copyright/trademark/patent/intellectual property/corporate privilege laws, are often considered, for the purposes of intellectual property, the property of the owner (ie; the Museum that owns the Statue of David). So, while an artist could re-make, for example, the Statue of David, and do whatever they want with their ONE UNIQUE WORK OF ART, no one could mass-produce replicas of the Statue of David without licensing agreements from the Museum that now owns said statue.

A unique work of art is protected under a very specific clause, called the Work of Art Clause. So, for example, I could take and make a painting of two, licensed properties, owned by different copyright holders, and sell it (ie; the Millennium Falcon in a space battle with the Klingon Bird of Prey). However, I could not make prints of that for sale OR for free use. I could not even legally make a digital copy for any sort of distribution. Anyone who bought my ONE UNIQUE WORK could not lease it to, for example, a film studio where it would only appear in the deep background of a single set without my (the artist’s) permission as well as the permission of both legal copyright owners of the original licensed works.

Permission always must be in writing from the appropriate legal owner(s) of the material(s). For free use, photography or any other form of artwork, all relevant owners of the property must consent to the use of the property. What we are creating in the EPRM/Reference Pictures here on Elftown is a cache of public domain photographs. As such, we must be exceptionally cautious about what is put in as others who are looking for stock images may use it without our knowledge or express consent. It does not matter what disclaimers we put on, here on the site. If it is in this particular public domain wiki, we are liable for how it is used and/or distributed by any subsequent artist, advertising agency, etcetera. Therefore, it is our responsibility to be vigilant about even the possibility of potentially protected works being put into the Public Domain through us.

Therefore, when we find things even potentially objectable, we will not add them. Though this may upset some people, we are looking out for them, us, and Elftown as a site and community of artists, who, being artists themselves, ought to respect and appreciate this decision. No artist wants their works of art stolen or used without their permission. Many artists on this site have disclaimers below their works of art either in their houses, or on their wikis, stating, in no uncertain terms, that their artwork may NOT be used, copied or distributed by others without their express permission, and these works are not technically copywritten, though they are protected under Intellectual Property laws. Therefore, if anyone did steal your artwork, you could legally sue them and win. Now, since works of art such as HP Notebooks, the Guggenheim, etcetera are protected by far more than the Intellectual Property laws, no one should believe for even one second that the owners of the rights to those things would not come after them legally (and win), prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law. For example, CBS/Paramount Pictures traveled as far as Germany and Australia to bust actors who were selling unlicensed photographs of themselves in their Star Trek roles. The corporation won. They have the reach, the will, and the law on their side.

Hopefully everyone understands better now why I have refused and will continue to refuse to add certain photos to Reference Pictures. Should anyone have any more questions that this and the full reading of Copyright and Intellectual Property do not cover, please feel free to message me privately and ask. The clauses that I reference above are free to read on the internet, sorry, I’m not going to link them, but they should be easy enough to find.

Perhaps, after we settle all of this, it would be prudent to create a wiki, which should then be linked to Reference Pictures Submissions that states all of the legal criteria for putting things into the Public Domain, so that, before people submit their images, they have a chance to be absolutely sure that what they are submitting is legal, and should they choose to attempt to submit something that is unacceptable, instead of rehashing all of this over and over again, we could simply refer them to such a wiki. If I have the approval to do so, I will create the page, submit it for all establishment members’ (that care to be involved) approval, ya’ll can stamp it with the “Official ET” header and we can link it to the appropriate wikis.

Just an idea.

: )

<sup>p.s.

So, no, the car is not for Fair use.</sup>

23:14:52 (5h ago) [windowframe]: "please feel free to message me privately and ask." No, they should ask them here, so everyone finds out the answer. :) Or, if you create the wiki, maybe there :P. You don't need anyone's permission to create a wiki like that by the way. :P

However, you didn't answer my question! :P *prod*
If it counts as Fair Use, then we don't need owners' consent, right? Can our purpose not count as Fair Use, and if not, why not? :)

23:23:00 (5h ago) [Nioniel]: :)
Sorry, I didn't want to clutter up this page with too much of this stuff if we're putting a wiki up regarding all of this. Then we could simply direct people to that wiki and keep a F.A.Q. area where their questions may be posted and answered.

Um..

Yes. If it counts as Fair Use, the owners' permission is NOT required. However, the list of things that ARE considered to be Fair Use is so short, and really does mostly apply to things that occur in nature, plant life, animals, etcetera. I would make sure that I was 110% certain that the thing I was posting was Free Use before putting it anywhere in the Public Domain.

23:38:44 (5h ago) [windowframe]: Fair Use can't apply to things that aren't copyrighted anyway, so how can it apply to plant life, animals, etc? :P

Fair Use covers teaching resources, how official does that status as 'teacher' or 'student' have to be? Cause, y'know, we could just bung up a sign-up page somewhere for people to list their names and then go 'yey, look, they're students!' <_<


Also, aaaaalso. Surely the first step in any legal proceeding about copyright infringement is to politely ask/demand that whoever is using an image they should takes it down. So... I don't really see a problem with only being 90% sure and then just taking it down if asked. :P But then, I'm not a fan of copyright anyway. <_<

23:41:23 (5h ago) [Nioniel]: You know what I mean.


Erm...I don't know. I don't think that it would be a good idea. Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I think that the idea that I suggested was a good one. Providing people with a clear explanation on the topic and being discriminating with what we accept.

23:42:48 (4h ago) [windowframe]: Agree with the first part, not sure about the second. :P Go make the wiki already! :P

23:44:48 (4h ago) [Nioniel]: Working on it, keep an eye on it if you like; Works of Art and You.

What's on my mind today? Well, I realised that I hadn't posted one of my ramblings in a while so I might as well even though my mind's racing at a mile a minute. I was just reading Taylor Swift's Journal on her website (http://www.taylorswift.com/mainsite.html) and I realised that she's funny. She made me laugh many times. I would love to just sit down and talk with her for a little bit. It would be so much fun!! I think it's cool that she's down to earth for being one of the fastest rising stars in the world. She had a tour in London! LONDON!!! Come on! How cool would that be, visiting London to sing songs for millions of adoring fans!?!? I also learned that she is a straight A student when she was in high school and also being home-schooled on tour. That's amazing! Pretty, awesome, smart and cool. What more can this girl do? She becomes my role model more and more everyday. Everytime I click her name on my i-pod I began to love her even more. Here's to you Taylor! I love you and I'm going to shut up now......

This is cute! Thanks to the wiki that sent this!


Thanks [Iske], [Deus Ex Taco], & [The Dizzy Raven] for wishing me a happy birthday!!!

I dedicate my candle to:
^Everyone check it out!!!

(In my mind, I can see Your face
As Your love pours down in a shower of grace
Some people tell me that You're just a dream
My faith is the evidence of things unseen)


In my mind's eye, in my mind's eye
In my mind's eye, in my mind

You know what I'm going through
I know this is true
'Cause You stood in my shoes
Desire's inside of me
But it's hard to believe
In what you cannot see

Can you catch the wind?
See a breeze?
Its presence is revealed by
The leaves on a tree
An image of my faith in the unseen

{chorus}
In my mind's eye
I see Your face
You smile as you show me grace
In my mind's eye
You take my hand
We walk through foreign lands
The foreign lands of life

In my mind's eye, in my mind's eye
In my mind's eye, in my mind

In my mind I'm where I belong
As I rest in your arms
And like a child I hold on to you
In my moment of truth, yes I do

We can ride the storm
Endure the pain
You comfort me in my hurricane
And I'll never be alone again

{repeat chorus 2x}

In my mind's eye, in my mind's eye
In my mind's eye, in my mind

In my mind I can see Your face
Love pours down in a shower of grace
Life is a gift that You choose to give
I believe we eternally live
Faith is the evidence of things unseen
People tell me that You're just a dream
But they don't know You the way that I do
You're the one I live to pursue

Can you catch the wind?
(Can you see God, have you ever seen Him?
I've never seen the wind
I seen the effects of the wind
But I've never seen the wind)
Can you see the breeze?
(There's a mystery to it)

{repeat chorus}

In my mind's eye, in my mind's eye
(I see You there again)
In my mind's eye, in my mind's eye
(I know You'll meet me there my Friend)
In my mind's eye, in my mind's eye
(I know You're there, I can touch You there)
In my mind's eye, in my mind's eye
(I want You there, I need You there, I see You there, I know You care)
(And I believe, and I believe, and I believe)

~~~~Mind's Eye by DC Talk

12 Ways to Tell You Love Someone

TWELVE:
When you have been talking to them late at night and when you go to bed you still think of them.

ELEVEN:
You walk really slow when you're with them.

TEN:
You feel shy whenever they're around.

NINE:
You smile when you hear their voice.

EIGHT:
When you look at them, you don't notice the other people
around you, you just see him/her.

SIX:
They're all you think about.

FIVE:
You realize you're always smiling when you're looking at them.

FOUR:
You would do anything for them, just to see them.

THREE:
While reading this, there was one person on your mind this whole time.

TWO:
You were so busy thinking about that person, you didn't
notice number seven was missing

ONE:
You just scrolled up to check & are now silently laughing at yourself.

If you love someone and feel some of these things, stick this in your diary......

Does what you call someone decifer how much you love them? Brother? Sister? Soul Mate? Friend? Lover? Spouse? There are so many words out there that tell you how much you love someone. "I love you as a friend." Yes, I admit I've used that sentence, but if you have the guts to say, "I love you as a friend" why not just say "I love you"? They're just three little words. Yet we have to segregate types and levels of love. Love is love. I believe there is no other way to love. What is love? A strong desire to be around someone? Is it a bond between husband and wife? Can I love my best friend as much as I love a boyfriend? 1 Cointhians 13 explains most of that. God called us to love becuase he is love. Why do we segrate it into "levels"? Can't we love everyone for who they are even if we don't like them because God TOLD us to?

just a thought..........

Today's message for the day is:
Many people come and go,
Some soon to be graduated,
But do not linger on the sadness,
But notice what's left to gain.
*Remember: You soon will be in their shoes-remember your friends you will be leaving and those who have gone on before you.

The Phoenix

I have been beaten, battered,
burnt, tattered, and shattered,

Left to die, in a fiery pain
but through the flames I come back again.

I come back stronger, brave and fierce,
my words and wisdom sharpened to pierce.
I tell them of a world that is great
as I free myself from the worldly states.

I bring the rhythm, I bring the beat,
reviving myself with a musical heat.

You formed me first, and threw me away.
Now I am the Phoenix, and I am here to stay.

Written by [Mystereality]