Twitter Just Got Ugly for Jake Parker
-
While I’m not surprised to see artists taking a hissy fit because lawyers went on a C&D spree, I’m sad to see that these artists seem to be overlooking the fact that this is about protecting the Inktober brand because idiots used it to create racist merchandise.
Not Jake’s fault that some people don’t understand branding which artists should learn about at least to protect themselves should their artwork ever be compromised. I’ve experienced this at my day job in the very in uncreative corporate world — the stories I can tell about all the branding violations colleagues thought were perfectly ok.
Jake did include contact information for artists to work things out so I don’t know why people are screaming bloody murder.
-
@CLCanadyArts said in Twitter Just Got Ugly for Jake Parker:
@Kasey-Snow It was inevitable that this would pop up on svs, as we participate in Inktober on here. It's just a discussion. I wasn't ripping him apart, I hope that wasn't how it sounded. Just voicing some worries.
Not at all, I was just lamenting, haha. No worries.
-
@CosmoglotJay Thank you Jay, i've just shared it.
It's a shame this is happening when you're trying to be a bit altruistic or do something good for the community but unfortunately with spotlight often there's a lot of envy around and i believe these people were already there, they just weren't apparent or didn't spoke up and just needed something like this to spark their need to express themselves about what are their thoughts on Inktober.
[Edit] I do understand both points of view but if you want to make something known in the world you have to brand it, and getting sponsors to make the word go round is just a part of it. I also believe if he is the one behind the Inktober challenge he's entitled to do whatever he wants with it.
Apart from Inktober i think Jake is a terrific artist that doesn't need to prove anything to anyone, but nonetheless it's a shame he's getting all this backlash but he shouldn't give up on inktober .
BTW using other people's IP is overrated in our culture in my humble opinion, start your own thing.
-
While I feel bad for the blowback Jake is receiving, he brought it on himself. When inktober was something newer, the term was thrown about and used freely. People were encouraged to use the "official" logo on their work. I dont ever remember seeing a trademark bug on it.
The term began use in 2009 and the registration not filed until 2017. It could be argued that the trademark should have been refused due to the encouragement of free use and generic application of the term.
I doubt this is to protect the term from being used by "racists" (do artists really want to start being offended by art they disagree with?) but has everything to do with cashing in.
Who is going to trademark "slowvember"?
-
@jimsz He coined the term, ran the challenge, runs the website, has an official logo, and official merch. Outside of random companies making inktober merch, possibly with his logo with no kickbacks to, Jake, at some point if he didn't trademark it some other company would have jumped on the trademark, Then that company could control and change it into whatever they wanted, and potentially sue people, including Jake. There are some extremely predatory business people out there..
It's a sticky situation, not sure how it can be selectively enforced. I was wondering if books had a title #inktober "john doe's #inktober 2019" or something like that, would that circumvent the trademark issue? It would be acknowledging that it is participation in a hashtag, but not official. Hashtags are how it is searched mostly anyways so it could be useful.
I don't want to see Jake get screwed, or those that participate. I hope something is figured out before people loose their accounts on commerce sites.
All my links: https://APHOTICMOTH.carrd.co/
-
@CLCanadyArts That isn't s subtitle though. So maybe something like "John Doe sketches Vol 1. (Subtitle) #inktober 2019 sketches"
-
Honestly we'll need to wait to see how some of these issues get resolved. It's too early.
If what I'm reading is true (and again, I don't know the details), Jake copyrighted "Inktober" as a word. His intentions on his blog make it appear that he's only interested in protecting the logo for the sponsors. But since there are lawyers involved, they may be interpreting it literally and now they're sinking their teeth into everything they get their hands on.
In a month from now the landscape might look completely different where only a few people are being served and anyone that didn't use the logo or had retroactive works for sale are back to business as usual.
Gotta let it play out and see.
-
@CosmoglotJay that is a real shame, I don’t know him but I really like Jake as an artist. I also hope it doesn’t affect his podcasts, his insights and advice are brilliant. I can completely understand his reason for getting sponsors for inktober. I just hope any misunderstanding get resolved for all involved soon.
-
Jake Parker wanting to make an extra profit from a property he created that he didn’t expect would grow into something so gigantic, is totally 100% valid.
We all DREAM of creating an idea that would get so huge.
People being upset that something that’s been free to use, had no guidelines, and open for everyone (including the official logo) in order to help them make extra cash no longer is and must be altered in order to fit certain rules, also very valid. I’m of the opinion that People are allowed to be upset about a change that’s affecting their ability to sell certain things.
Could there have been some preliminary work done to let the public know of these changes, sure. Did Jake expect this mess would happen? Probably not. I respect Jake for taking the time to apologize and do PR to make sure his own brand can stay marketable and other artists can still sell their art.
instagram and twitter: @artofaleksey
alekseyillustration.com -
If what I'm reading is true (and again, I don't know the details), Jake copyrighted "Inktober" as a word. His intentions on his blog make it appear that he's only interested in protecting the logo for the sponsors. But since there are lawyers involved, they may be interpreting it literally and now they're sinking their teeth into everything they get their hands on.
Copyright and trademark are vastly different things.
Another entity CAN trademark "Inktober" in addition to Jake but they can't use it in the same classification category as Jake (and of course it would have to valid and be accepted).
A trademark has to be actively enforced in order to remain valid and that will mean people being served C&D letters.
-
@Aleksey said in Twitter Just Got Ugly for Jake Parker:
Jake Parker wanting to make an extra profit from a property he created that he didn’t expect would grow into something so gigantic, is totally 100% valid.
We all DREAM of creating an idea that would get so huge.
People being upset that something that’s been free to use, had no guidelines, and open for everyone (including the official logo) in order to help them make extra cash no longer is and must be altered in order to fit certain rules, also very valid. I’m of the opinion that People are allowed to be upset about a change that’s affecting their ability to sell certain things.
Could there have been some preliminary work done to let the public know of these changes, sure. Did Jake expect this mess would happen? Probably not. I respect Jake for taking the time to apologize and do PR to make sure his own brand can stay marketable and other artists can still sell their art.
You can't blame anyone for wanting to make a buck. My position is the trademark could have been contested as being in the public domain on the grounds that the term was encouraged and allowed to be used freely for a decade without any claim or enforcement of rights.
To happily and willingly give something away and then claiming after 10 years that you own it and in fact are taking it back under threat of penalty in order to now cash in simply does not speak well of a person. I don't know Jake, I don't participate in inktober. But I find the situation fascinating since I honestly don't see how this trademark was approved.
-
@jimsz that’s very interesting. Would individuals be able to contest it at this point do you think?
-
To happily and willingly give something away and then claiming after 10 years that you own it and in fact are taking it back under threat of penalty in order to now cash in simply does not speak well of a person.
Oh, c'mon, it's a lot more complicated than that, and you know it... Jake has made multiple posts on Twitter and made an official statement to that fact, and he's working hard to make sure that everyone can still use the logo correctly and sell their art. He's not some selfish villain. He is 1/3 of what makes these very forums possible, an active participant who sometimes makes comments on our posts, and a teacher who has taught most of us here a great deal through the classes available through SVS and a monthly contest.
He's not doing this maliciously, and most of us who are on these forums know that. It's an incredibly complicated issue that none of us are going to be able to solve here with these posts. Please please please take care to avoid the disparaging of any person's character on these forums. We've blissfully avoided flamewars here, and take great care to make sure they don't flare up. An air of honesty and altruism must be present on these forums in order to help each other by offering advice and constructive criticism, so please don't inadvertently undermine that...
I'm sure Jake is getting an earful from a LOT of very angry people right now. We've seen the pitchforks on Twitter. Let's not let this place degenerate into that. Please.
Children's Illustration Portfolio: https://www.coreyartusillustration.com
Art Portfolio: https://www.coreyartusimagery.com
Mastodon: https://mindly.social/@Coreyartus
Pixelfed: https://pixelfed.social/Coreyartus -
@jimsz said in Twitter Just Got Ugly for Jake Parker:
To happily and willingly give something away and then claiming after 10 years that you own it and in fact are taking it back under threat of penalty
The only thing he’s taking away is the ability for thieves to undermine the integrity of the artist IP.
“ Inktober is and will always be free to participate in. The hashtag is free to use (as are all hashtags). Every artist is free to sell the drawings they made during Inktober if they want to. Contrary to misstatements recently made on social media, I am not trying to stop any artist from profiting from their own artwork, and I am certainly not trying to steal your work, nor receive back payments from work that has been sold.”-an excerpt from Jakes blog.
We are still free to use #inktober and to publish or sell the work we’ve done from the inktober challenge. We just can’t (and shouldn’t) sell it as if Inktober was our IP.
For example, when I make my physical book from the work I did for this years inktober challenge, if I choose to mention inktober I will not use its trademarked logo or pretend that I am associated legally with the logo, but I can and may credit or mention Jake Parker and his Inktober challenge as the kick in the butt i needed to help me make the book. But I would also ask his permission before doing so, as is right.
I have spoken
-
@Coreyartus well said!!
-
I don't have a side in this as I have never participated in Inktober. You may not like what I am saying and I am not trying to dump on Jake nor trying to have a flame war. But let's not be naive either. Some here will jump to defend Jake because they are his students.
Were artists encouraged to use the logo and phrase for a decade or so prior to registering the trademark? That is simply a yes or a no answer. I'm not saying it was wrong to do so or wrong to register the trademark. However, once you set something loose and encourage it's use with no oversight and then try and enforce legalities/rules/etc., you are going to get hammered.
If someone had an extra $600 or so laying around, they can trademark slowvember and find a use to trademark Inktober in another classification.
-
@jimsz Honestly I don't get why you're so hung up on the fact that the use of the logo and phrase was encouraged for a long time or how that somehow make Jake a bad guy here? He created something, encouraged its use. But over the years it changed into something much more than he expected and now it makes more sense to have some rules to protect it. Just because he allowed and encouraged some things in the past, doesn't mean he's obligated to keep it that way forever. Bottom line, it's his to do what he wants with. It was nice of him to allow the use of the logo and phrase this long. He's also working with artists who've received take down notices to help sort it all out. And before you accuse of protecting my teacher or whatever, I actually never bought one of his classes so I don't have any biases here. Just a person with common freaking sense.
-
@jimsz If someone trademarks Slowvember, I'm ok with that. But they will have to pay the $1,000,000 for the web domain which I own! haha!
SVS Faculty Instructor
www.leewhiteillustration.com -
