A Skillshare-endorsed visual artist received a direct message on Instagram informing him that musician Chris Brown had posted his work without a single mention of where it had come from. The artist had made the image in question available to download for free from his website, provided credit is given, but Brown failed to do that.
Never straying far from controversy, this is just the latest in a series of online backlashes Brown has been on the receiving end of. Posting Don Mupasi’s visuals without credit, he wrote in the caption: “Imagination vibrate wit me.”
Speaking after finding out of the reposting, Mupasi said:
In some weird way, it does mean my work is actually pretty decent if people are willing to just grab it like that. But at the same time, it's not a huge benefit to me if somebody like that takes my work and doesn't credit me.
The artwork is part of a collaboration with a friend of Mupasi’s, who provides the audio to his visuals. What’s worse, Brown reposted the image with a different track playing over the top of it, a tune Mupasi says is “really not the kind of vibe [he] wanted for that piece of work.”
Posting on Reddit, he showed the two posts side by side, being upvoted nearly 80,000 times in the process. Radio 1 Newsbeat has contacted Chris Brown's team for comment. As of writing, no word back.
I want people to know it's me who created it. I think that's fair. If he had tagged me and just gave credit, I would have been cool with that.
All artwork: Don Mupasi / VisualDon.
The artist isn't to blame in any way for this and that's why licensing and copyright exist. He may not have protected himself as much as he could, but that doesn't make him responsible for what happened. Put any other crime in that place and you'll see how ridiculous that sounds.
"There are robbers outside, for going outside he's partly to blame for getting robbed!"
He DID take steps to protect his work. The only ones available to him. There is no system by which you can give your photos away with attribution and truly enforce that from a technological standpoint. The law exists to protect this, not some form of "security" he could put on his photos or videos.
You don't "encourage" crime by releasing your work. That's literally why the law exists, so you can show your work and STILL be protected.
Thanks for the conversation. I found it very valuable.
Matthew, see it this way. You leave your Goldwing's door open and the key in the indignation in a crowded area. When you come back to the car, it's gone. Who is the blame for the stolen car. Yes, the person that stole the car. Then the question is why? And the reason is because the car was left with the door open and the key in the ignition in a crowded area. Yep, that was your fault.
This is not even remotely the same thing. The internet is the place where people display their art, it isn't a "crowded area" on the street where you have the option of leaving the door locked. If you want to give your work away with attribution, there is no "door lock" to put on your work. You make it available and the laws that protect copyright protect it.
Posting your work online, as an artist, and allowing people to use it within the previously stated rights attributed by copyright law is NOT the artist's fault for "letting someone steal it". Period.
Watermarking does not protect your images in ANY way. We don't know if he had metadata on the file. He specifically wanted people to be able to use the file therefore cannot have download protection on it. The costs are irrelevant. He's still not wrong for what he did. There is literally nothing he could have done in this situation beyond what he did, given that he WANTED people to use the file. You're being ridiculous. I'm done debating this with you.
You mentioned. Making your work available to download and use. How would you use a free image? He never stated for personal use only. Font designers will provide their designs freely with a disclaimer that the font is to be used for personal use only and for commercial rights to contact the designer. If he provided a disclaimer with restrictions then this would have been a different story.
Perfect example of blaming in the victim Edison. The only way he could have really protected himself from this kind of theft was to not make it available for others to view.
You are totally incorrect. Theft is theft. Making excuses for Chris Brown on this site for stealing someone else's work is not going to be well received here by professionals in the field.
I work for a huge, very conservative corporation. We have guidance constantly regarding theft like this and never to even think about doing it.
I'm guessing you're excusing it because you do it.
It's criminal, period.
"Guess what, he has blame in this as well."
Right there you blamed him.
And every post has been one excuse after another for Chris Brown.
Why else would you so obstinately defend his theft?
Nothing subjective here. It's theft, plain and simple.
Yes please enlighten me. I'm old enough to be your Grandfather.
Let me clue you in.
Learn how to admit you're wrong, or learn to quietly leave the conversation.
Good luck kid.
Someone breaks into your house and steals all your belongings, it's your fault for not having better security. See how stupid that argument is, and you look for saying it.
Guess what. If you leave your door open and roll out a welcome mat and have a realtor it's STILL illegal to steal your stuff. GASP!
Clearly you didn’t take enough steps to protect your work if anyone can just snap a pic lol. You need to “be an adult and take responsibility for your actions”, I believe it was.
It’s interesting how quickly your point of view changes when it’s your work being stolen
If the artist reports the CB post for breaking the usage agreement, that photo will get taken down. You both responded after the violation was made, so your argument there is invalid. I was simply showing how easy it it is for someone to take something.
Also I’m not the one who has gotten over 20 downvotes so maybe you should reconsider who is painted in a poor light. Clearly everyone here knows you’re being ridiculous.
So you are saying that all your images on your website are free to be stolen and used without compensation in any way. Nice. I'll have a look around and see if I can't lift anything. Best part is, you admit it to be your own fault. Again, see how stupid both that argument and the people saying it are?
The point, you've missed it completely. And I've no need of mediocre landscape shots, so don't worry I wont be stealing anything.
No one insinuated anything. What DID happen was people trying to make a point that your original argument was moronic and used your own work in a hypothetical (you'll need to look that word up I guarantee it) situation to demonstrate just how absolutely stupid it was.
All I'll think about is how making a point to a moron like you is a futile exercise, and how it's the idiots of the world that blame victims for crimes committed against them. Do you know what kind of light that shines on me? It says I think victims are the victims and it's not their fault that someone committed a crime against them. Think about how that paints you. You think the criminal is justified in committing a crime because the victim was asking for it. People like you are the reason the world is so fucked.
There was no rational discord with you. You said the victim has blame. No. The victim has no blame. You do not blame someone for being on the receiving end of another's immoral behavior, ever. Zero times is that acceptable. Zero. It is 100% on the person who committed the crime.
I don't give a fuck if the person posted hi res images with zero watermarks, if the work isn't yours to use you don't take it. Simple. So again, it is people like you who think their thoughts and opinions are valid, just because they have them, that causes stupid ass shit to be debated and considered. There is no debate. There is no possibility that the victim has any blame. Zero. You have zero ground to stand on. None. Understand now? Debating in any way that the criminal isn't 100% to blame is completely moronic, and has no place.
Also, since you can't even keep your own thoughts together, "the author is also to blame for this." You said that in your original post. You stated the creator shares blame. Sharing blame is justifying, even if in part only, the actions of the criminal. By that statement alone you are saying, even in part, that it was acceptable for the work to be stolen. So yes, you in fact did say the victim was asking for it.
So kindly take that "no discourse" shit somewhere else. There's no debate here. There's no "all sides." Just one side: a thief stole something, the end. And yet here you are trying to remove some blame from thief, with flawed logic and insane thinking.
So again, because I know for a fact you aren't getting any of this so I'll use a more personal hypothetical example: you have posted your work online, thus, by your own logic and statements, if that work is stolen by anyone, you are to blame because you did not take enough precautions to protect that work. Watermarks can be removed. Signatures can be cropped off or removed, therefore, you are partly at fault for empowering people to steal your work. You did not take enough steps to protect it, therefore you are partly to blame, yes? That's your argument right?
Also, as to your last point, no. The world is indeed fucked because people like you think that every asinine thing needs to be discussed to it's fullest before any conclusion can be reached. There is no reason to discuss, think about, or debate the blaming of a victim, or to have them share in the fault of having harmful actions taken against them. All that does is create reasons in the minds of those who would commit those acts, to justify their harmful actions. This is why, and how, the thought "she was asking for it," comes to be a way of thinking. Because people actually blame the victim for giving some form of reason and justification to the perpetrator. Under no circumstance is helping someone justify harmful actions a benefit in any way. So you can take that line of thinking and just flush it down the shitter where it belongs.
Quite the tantrum that addresses nothing I've countered your points with. IT's funny because you keep talking about discourse, but then get mad when shown how your logic is completely flawed.
Also, just because you say CB is wrong, doesn't negate the fact that you also place part of the blame on the victim, which directly removes some of the blame off CB, which then counters your first point of how you "say" CB is wrong. He's partly wrong, according to your argument, which means he also is partly not wrong. A person can't be totally wrong and only partly wrong at the same time. You have to actually pick one, so either CB is 100% in the wrong, which then negates you placing any blame on the victim, or, the victim and CB share in the wrongness the alleviating some of the wrongness of CB. You can't have it both ways.
You can attack my ability to read, but as you can see, you've been literally saying CB is 100% wrong, while also saying he's only partly wrong. It's funny that you go after my ability to read, when in fact, I understood perfectly and was addressing the flaw in your arguments, that you yourself couldn't even see.
Also, since you seem to have missed it again, no, not everything needs discourse. I didn't say everything has no need for discourse, I am saying not all things need it. In fact, you agree, as you just said there is no debate CB is wrong. So in one breath you criticize me for saying there is no debate on his wrongness, while simultaneously saying there is no debate.
There's no knee-jerk anything going on. Blaming victims is wrong. It's just a fact. There's no need to have rational discord over something that simply is what it is. It's like debating whether humans need oxygen to stay alive. Why bother, the answer is yes, no matter what anyone says. And again, you actually demonstrate understanding this by saying, "there is no debate, CB is wrong."
Also, you really need to look up what hypothetical means, as well as, the word correlation. You see, sexual assault is worse than IP theft, and I never said otherwise. But there are correlations between the two, which is the line I clearly drew.
I'm sorry that your flawed arguments, and saying contradicting things doesn't work in an debate. The coin can't land on both heads and tails depending on which side you need it to be. I assumed since you talked so much about the need for debate and discourse that you would be able to understand that basic principle, but I was wrong.
Also, I'm sorry that the words, fuck, shit, shitter, and whatever other "profanity" I used hurt your precious tender eyes. That's how I talk. I use those words in everyday, relaxed conversation.
I wish you to have a good day. And this will be the last time I respond to this conversation, so feel free to use whatever wild illogical contradictory arguments you would like.
You ask what did he expect, Edison. Well, as a person who has freely shared his work, and who on occasion uses the freely available work of others, let me answer that: We expect people to use it per the terms specified. We're not idiots, though. We know there are people who will ignore those terms. So, if we are so inclined, we expect systems to be in place to correct such misbehavior when discovered. What we don't expect is people blaming us because we make our work freely available.
Would this have been picked up if someone with 100 followers had used it?
I suppose I should google who Chris Brown is? I won’t though as giving your work away, with or without small print generally ends in tears.
If his career can survive beating the $#!& out of Rihanna, I think he's pretty safe here...
Knew there would be a comment about this. I don't know why anyone still pays any attention to this abusive idiot.
World has gone to shit all right.
It makes me sad people are stupid enough to still be a fan of that abusive asshole.
Years ago I've made a nifty D7000 wallpaper that I've posted up with a watermark and a CC3.0 license, encouraging people to grab it and use it however they wish, as long as either the watermark remains intact or they credit me in some other, clear way.
And what happened? Just run a reverse image search... The D7000 is ancient history now but at a time there were thousands of photography businesses, wedding photogs, even online photography stores that used that image, with the watermark cropped out and obviously, no credit...
https://www.deviantart.com/jonboy2312/art/Nikon-D7000-wallpaper-245006245