Filling a need for a missing map

[Bizelplyx]

I like this map a lot. The only problem I see is the compass direction. The map should be turned 90 degrees to the left for it to be correct. As the King's Road through the forest runs east and west direction, not north and south.

[Merriman Lyon]

Wow! Awesome work! And it really does fill a need - I'm right in the middle of a campaign I wrote as a spacer between the H1 and H2 modules, set primarily in Harkenwold. With your permission, wmtenery, I'd love to use this map in place of the rough piece I threw together.

Bizelplyx, in looking at the master map of the Vale, the King's road is east-west through the forest, however, it runs north-south where it passes through Harkenwold and the forest comes nowhere *near* Harkenwold on that map. I'd be more than willing to accept that wmtenery's map is simply more current/detailed than the master map and shows how the forest has expanded down the road to engulf the town.

[wmtenery]

Removed per later discussion.

[Schley]

To be honest, when I initially read this thread I was livid. As a creative professional I spend quite a lot of time making sure that the work I produce is original and high quality. When the thought occurs that someone would Gimp or Photoshop my work into there own piece, especially when 100% of the new piece comes from my original, I begin smoldering at the ears a bit. It's one thing to be inspired by another artist's work but here I must say that you have crossed a line into the realm of theft. Even though you're not selling the image and you discuss how it was made, it still leaves the impression that the majority of the work is your's when clearly it is not. As a result I must object.

You wouldn't collage another artist painting into a new piece without even touching a canvas with a brush and then claim that it's now your "painting" would you?

Why not create your own map with your own art in the "style" of Fallcrest? I dare say it might take a bit longer than four and a half hours though.

Additionally, if you begin to post Gimp brushes taken directly from my work for distribution then it may be Wizards of the Coast your hearing from instead of me.

I'm not demanding that the map you produced be removed because I believe this thread can serve to educate new artists and cartographers about the topic of infringment. The fact that you posted my Fallcrest map without a copyright or authorship note also bothers me but I'm sure you can fix that with a quick edit.

Mike

[wmtenery]

1. I was extremely up front about how it was constructed, why it was constructed and what it was being used for.

2. I have an in depth understanding of copyright law. Derivative works, even collages of others works are covered under this law. I draw your attention to the artistic works of Andy Warhol and countless others.

3. The gimp brushes I said I was working on to supply to the community were not the ones I used for this project. I am working on my own sets because I want to get my own style and look. I never had any intentions of publishing brushes from your work. Evidence of this fact is the set of brushes I have since published here for buildings that are in no way derivative of anything you have done.

4. Having said all that, I have owned and operated a game publishing business for many years and worked with dozens of artists whose works adorn my books. I am sensitive to the rights and desires of the authors and artists. Simply because you have a problem with it. It has been removed from here and the original hosting site.

If you have any problem with any of this I avail you of my email wmichaeltenery@yahoo.com. I would be happy to discuss any of this or anything further.

Thank you,

- W. Michael Tenery III

[Schley]

Seriously?
Are you really trying to justify your map by claiming that you're familiar with copyright law and are sensitive to the rights of artists?

If you don't feel that there is any problem with the manner in which you built the map than I'm not sure what else I can say to convince you that doing your own work is far superior to simply hacking anothers. I too am familiar with copyright law and if you'd like to debate the issue I'd be happy to read any reference in US law that allows for distribution of works derived 100% form another piece without any novelty in context.

As for Warhol, his art took other published works and re-interpreted them in a new context. There's a big difference between his work and yours.

[wmtenery]

Sorry didn't see the intervening post, respectfully removed post.

[Schley]

Here's a link to a fairly in-depth article on derivative Works over a Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_works

Here's a link to great Ninja Mountain podcast episode about the topic as well:
http://ninjamountain.blogspot.com/20...ith-linda.html

Hope this helps clarify the issue.