
Open Source Motion Comic Done Entirely with Blender, Krita and GNU/Linux - zlatan_todoric
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/pepper-and-carrot-motion-comic#/
======
rootlocus
David Revoy is an extremely talented illustrator and a long time supporter of
free & open source tools. He released _" Chaos & Evolutions"_[1] a few years
ago where he shows his workflows in gimp, alchemy and mypaint, he was involved
with the making of the movie _" Sintel"_, another open source project made in
Blender[2] and his blog is filled with tutorials for the _Krita_ software
(photoshop alternative for ilustrations). You can find a lot of his wonderful
works on deviantart, but my favorite by far (and I urge everyone to take a
look) is the graphic novel _" L'heritage en couleur"_ [3].

[1] [http://www.davidrevoy.com/article44/artworks-from-my-dvd-
cha...](http://www.davidrevoy.com/article44/artworks-from-my-dvd-chaos-
evolutions)

[2] [https://durian.blender.org/](https://durian.blender.org/)

[3] [http://deevad.deviantart.com/art/l-heritage-en-
couleur-30812...](http://deevad.deviantart.com/art/l-heritage-en-
couleur-308125572)

~~~
spriggan3
It's not clear whether David is involved in this project. Nothing against it
but if you're going to use someone else's assets make sure you get at least
his blessing. The author of the campaign is NOT David Revoy but some unknown
guy from Russia. I personnally would not give any money to this kind of
project if the original author is not clearly involved, Creative Commons or
not.

~~~
cooper12
They don't need his blessing because David Revoy explicitly released their
webcomics under CC-BY. Although you're right about your clarification, I think
the parent just wanted to talk about David Revoy in general rather than the
author of the animation campaign.

~~~
spriggan3
> They don't need his blessing

They are putting his name everywhere in the campaign like he is involved or
something. He is clearly not. That's misleading and can be potentially
detrimental to the person's reputation if the campaign ends up being a scam.

Again they might have the right to use his assets, they don't have the right
to use his name to get money from people like this. That's completely wrong.

~~~
carussell
If the work is CC-BY, attribution the one thing that they are compelled to do.
That's the whole point of the license.

~~~
spriggan3
> It's attribution

Give me a break, this campaign is misleading, on purpose, in order to get some
money.

~~~
carussell
License requirements are generally not well understood at large, even among
activists and other people involved with copyleft/free culture/etc. There's a
plausible scenario where content author B takes content author A's work,
creates something based on it, adds what looks like is the necessary (minimal)
attribution that you're talking about here, and then content author A regards
it as an attempt to diminish the credit that is due to them.

Content author B, being a thoughtful person and wanting to mitigate this
response, but not wanting to allow B's own publication to hinge on
establishing a dialogue with A beforehand, may look at this and opt to take a
"safer" approach, which involves liberally giving credit so that attribution
is well-known. (In other words, what the phrase "for good measure" means; _no
one_ can reasonably say that B was trying to diminish any credit due to A.)

Now, your comments here are indistinguishable from the ones someone would have
posted after looking at the facts that we have and asking themselves, "what's
the worst possible way to interpret this situation so that I can infer malice
from this series of events?". I don't know if this is what you did, but the
point is, your output here is indistinguishable from that of someone who
_had_.

Here's where the strang-loopiness shows up and where the kicker lies: if you
take exception with this line of argument, (so long as you're internally
consistent) then you are _necessarily compelled to be upset with your own
earlier statements that you 've made here_.

~~~
spriggan3
It doesn't matter what you think. I advise anybody not to give a cent to that
campaign until it is made clear whether the original artist supports it, or
not.

~~~
kdmitriev
Everything below "production process will include following steps" makes it
clear that original artist is not involved. See also this text - "The money
collected from this campaign will go for production of one motion comic video,
based on the «The Potion Contest» episode".

CC-BY license doesn't require approval from original author. But in this case
there is an acclamation anyway -
[https://twitter.com/davidrevoy/status/768197367833038848](https://twitter.com/davidrevoy/status/768197367833038848)

~~~
carussell
Here's a more in-depth nod of approval from the original artist:

[http://www.peppercarrot.com/ar/article380/motion-comic-
proje...](http://www.peppercarrot.com/ar/article380/motion-comic-project-by-
nikolai-mamashev)

------
boudewijnrempt
Also see [http://www.peppercarrot.com/en/article380/motion-comic-
proje...](http://www.peppercarrot.com/en/article380/motion-comic-project-by-
nikolai-mamashev)

