DISQUS

Not to be mean, but 27 is not young in the art world. At least not today. You have people in their early 20s selling for $10,000 and up to $75,000 in New York. By early 30s they are often just a memory. That is how the game goes. I think mid-career artists will make a come back though. The galleries don't want to gamble on fresh grads these days.

I think his point is that we have a novice giving advice on how to be successful selling art online or anywhere else for that matter. You may not want to accept it but their is a great deal of business wrapped up in art today and the traditional art market is very much a part of that. You could compare this to a pawnshop owner giving advice about the stock market. Pestering art dealers online will only lead to many doors being shut. The art dealers on Twitter are there to push their own artists and not to be hounded by hopefuls. It makes me wonder if this author has exhibited anywhere but coffee shops.

Is this the "acclaimed" artist from Youtube? The one who has had numerous exhibits but fails to mention where any of them took place? When is Mashable going to do their homework about art? This woman is not even a dot on the art world radar. Thousands of Youtube views does not make one a valid artist. Why not ask Paddy Johnson or someone of that caliber to write about art tech? Has Natasha ever stepped foot in a Chelsea gallery?

I wish Obama would make a stand against this legislation. Artists have been asking for him to make his opinion known for a couple of years now. I actually have a great concern that Obama will support it instead of knocking it down if it is passed. Mainly because Obama has not shown much respect for copyright and artist rights in general. I say that because of the support he has given to Shepard Fairey who has infringed the copyright of fellow artists at least five times that I know of. Surely someone with the internet savvy that Obama has would be aware of those violations and other allegations concerning Shepard and copyright issues. Not a popular position to have, but I think it is one worth looking into. Could the champion of art and culture end up taking our rights away?

Wait, so www.deviantart.comis connected with Photobucket. So anything an artist puts on there will be on Photobucket as well. It is nice that deviantart has watermark options but do they let users know that their works can end up being printed on Photobucket? What if you want to sell prints on deviantart would'nt the watermark get in the way? Anyone know?

Furthermore, when asked about copyright infringment in interviews Shepard Fairey will either mention that he has given money to charity as if he should not be questioned or he will say that if a "bust" happens he hopes it is a "good bust" as in the victim being OK with him making a profit off of their work.

It fails because people will not combine efforts to make a stand. For example, I commented about Shepard Fairey on your blog just a few minutes ago. His art is currently on the cover of Time magazine yet he is a known copyright infringer. It is not popular to mention that about him but it is true. Look up the shirt titled "Cuban Rider" that he was selling as a shirt in 2007. It turned out to be the work of a Cuban artist named Rene Mederos. Shepard Fairey settled out of court with the Mederos family. The problem is that hardly any media source mentions that fact about Shepard Fairey. I think that if more people went after this thief it would send a clear message to other copyright infringers. Instead we all complain about a kid on Facebook or Myspace who steals an image or article.

I have to say that copyright infringers like Shepard Fairey will glow if this bill is passed. The man already steals from political artists who are no known widely in the US. If this bill passes he could steal from anyone and not have to worry about paying much if anything in royalties. I wish more people again the orphan works bill would have the courage to speak out again artists like Shepard Fairey and even Damien Hirst in order to make it clear that we will not support artists who violate the copyright of fellow artists or other individuals. I just don't understand it. If a kid on Facebook alters the work of someone else the kid will be given the third degree by other artists but if a popular artist does the same it is acceptable. You can't say that you stand against the orphan works bill while allowing these popular artists to walk all over everything we believe in.

What a great move by this artist. It would be protected as parody from all three angles. The Joker is a cultural icon as is Obama and Shepard Fairey's HOPE poster. Though Shepard has stated that he is going to sue artists like this woman. Shepard is the real joke if you ask me. He is a copyright infringing fool.

Hate to break it to you, but I don't think everything is honest in Saatchiville. Saatchi’s site, www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk, including STUART looks fishy to me. There traffic ranking is very deceptive. Go to www.alexa.com and you will see that the largest group on the site based on country is India making up 16.5%. Most art sites and websites in general have the United States, United Kingdom and Germany as their three top countries for traffic. Saatchi has India, Thailand and Indonesia which all happen to have a market for pay-per-click services.

So my guess is that the marketing brains behind Saatchi’s art site has paid some of those companies to visit the site in order to fudge their numbers. Need more proof about Saatchi’s little white lie? The United States and United Kingdom each make up less than 0.6% of the membership. Germany makes up 1.1%. Russia only makes up 1.2%. So that means most of the hubs of the international art world are hardly represented on the site. Anyone else think that is strange? When compared to other popular art sites?

People have said it before and I will say it again, the only reason people put work on Saatchi’s site is because his name is on it. His site looks like it came from the mid 1990s. You tell me how a poorly designed site with an outdated look has become one of the top 300 websites in the world. Don’t bother. I know the answer. Millions of hands paid to visit and Saatchi’s huge bank account to pay them.

Do you think Obama is for the Orphan Works bill? I read a post about Shepard Fairey that hinted at the possibility. I put the link in the website space if you want to take a look. Shepard has violated current copyright law and Obama must have been aware of that when making him the official artist for his camp.

Also, I realize that fan art can be found on every art site like deviantART. However, deviantART is the only art site I can think of that openly states that they accept fan art and that their community is primarily for fan art. Again, that is what might land them in a legal battle since they also offer e-commerce.

I'm not so sure that deviantART is protected. The difference between youtube and deviantart is that deviantart openly states that a large base of their membership is people who create fan art. Even Angelo Sotira, the CEO of deviantART, has stated several times in interviews that the deviantART community is largely fan based. So there is a conflict in that deviantART openly states that it primarily a fan artist site but also offer e-commerce. THAT is what could land them in the fire if ever a victim comes forward after finding out that a fan artist is selling knockoffs of his or her art. Now there is legally room for parody and derivative works but I've seen art on deviantART that is nothing more than an exact depiction of a copyrighted work of art. I'ver personally reported violations and have never had a response from deviantART. If they have removed the offending art it would be nice if they would inform people that report it.

“In 2000, there was no place for artists to put their artwork online.” = Angelo Sotira from his interview with Redefine Magazine. What a lie! www.artwanted.com was already around. A few art communities were. I like deviantART but Sotiro often re-rewites history in order to make him or the site look better. The site mentioned here has just as much chance as any of them. The problem with deviantART is that their staff make bold claims and their membership numbers are deceptive. There has to be over a million dead accounts on there if not more. You can't 100% delete accounts.

Hi Angelo. “In 2000, there was no place for artists to put their artwork online.” That is what you said in an interview with Redefine Magazine. What a lie! www.artwanted.com was already around. A few art communities were. I like deviantART but you often re-rewites history in order to make yourself or the site look better. So if you can try to change the history of art sites online how do we know if your position on who founded what is true?

I seem to be having trouble posting this. DeviantART has always slacked on protection. That is why I use Myartspace now. For one, the galleries on myartspace are flash, which is hard for crawlers to take images from. You can view individual images by right clicking on them and clicking on view, but people are not able to then right click on the image itself in order to save it. I know people can still work around that if they want the image bad enough, but in my opinion it is a lot safer than deviantART or Redbubble. I think you can have traditional html galleries on Myartspace also if you have a Premium account, but I prefer free accounts so I don't know how that works exactly. I know a lot of people knock flash galleries, but they are safer and are becoming widely used by pro artists. Nothing is 100% protected from theft online, but I'd say Myartspace is one of the safer websites for artists.

You might want to check this out. Brian Sherwin from the Myartspace Blog interviewed Alex Curtis from Public Knowledge about the Orphan Works bill.

http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2008/08/art-spac...

You might want to check this out. Brian Sherwin from the Myartspace Blog interviewed Alex Curtis from Public Knowledge about the Orphan Works bill. If you read it closely you will see that Alex contradicts himself several times.

http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2008/08/art-spac...

Amy Sol is one of the hottest emerging artists on the market. I first learned about her after reading an interview she did for the Myartspace Blog at www.myartspace.com/interviews. She is probably still on that list if you want to check it out. They also have interviews with Sas Christian and other artists that are considered underground or pop surrealists.

www.redbubble.com is just a rip-off of www.artwanted.com. Very strange that Artwanted has not had much press considering they are over 9 years old. Also, it is no secret that they had trouble with people from Redbubble harvesting AW members. I honestly think people have to pay for press because if no someone would have wrote about AW by now.

I think MYARTSPACE ( http://www.myartspace.com )will blow most of these sites out of the water once they implement their shops. They have better design than Artnet and they make Saatchi's site look like a fossil.

www.redbubble is a lot better than www.artwanted.com even though Artwanted just had a facelift in site design. Myartspace is good, but they don't have their stores open yet. I think once they do they will be a hit. They obviously have the cash flow to create a good site because they just launced a free to enter scholarship competition with over $16,000 in prize money. Not bad. www.deviantart.com is always going to be the head of the serpent as far as being the most popular artsite. Mostly because it is very tough to delete your account on there. They swip your account, but your user name and page remain even though it has no content. Deceptive, but it has worked for them. When are you guys going to write about Myartspace or Artwanted?

It gets even better...

"The Artbreak service makes it possible to post images hosted on Artbreak to outside websites. This use is accepted. However, pages on other websites which display images hosted on Artbreak must provide a link back to Artbreak from each photo to its photo page on Artbreak."

So if I post my images on Artbreak and then post the image elsewhere I'm supposed to link back to Artbreak? Sorry Artbreak, but my images are MY images. Not your images!

"your Artbreak account (including feedback) and User ID may not be transferred or sold to another party. If you are registering as a business entity, you personally guarantee that you have the authority to bind the entity to this Agreement."

So if my login name on Artbreak is 'Zackharvestsemailsfromotherartsites' I can't use the same login name on another art site (or any site for that matter) from that point on? OR if I have a business name and use it as my Artbreak User ID I can no longer use it elsewhere? What are you trying to pull Artbreak?

Honestly, this is the most fishy site I've ever been on or seen. They don't even have a way to handle disputes if a buyers fails to pay, yet they are more than happy to take their payment if the buyer does pay. Maybe I'm being harsh but when a site nabs my email it had better expect a few reviews from me. Based on my searches of Artbreak it seems I'm not the only one annoyed.

I'll add that Artbreak is not a "breath of much needed fresh air" because I checked out www.myartspace.com mentioned above and it seems to me that www.artbreak.com ripped some of their design. I like art sites to be original and to have an edge. Shoddy cookie-cut versions of other art sites are just lame no matter how cheap the sell fees are.

Not to be confused with Zack, the guy who runs www.artbreak.com. Personally, I don't like Artbreak. Why? First, they have been known to rip off the design of other art sites in a shoddy way. Second, Zack (the guy who runs Artbreak, not myself) has booted people off the Artbreak forums if he thinks they are there to invite Artbreak members to other art sites yet Artbreak DOES harvest emails. Zack has openly said that harvesting emails is not ethical so why does he do it? How do I know they do it? Because I was sent an invite from Artbreak a few days ago to an email that I only have on one site and that site just happens to be another art site. I know that this sort of thing goes on all the time but I think it is very lame that Zack talks about being ethical only to do the very things he speaks out against.