Peintures du Monde tarot?

Hi

I am the "artist" for this deck and created it initially because I could not find a copy of the Delphi Tarot. My choices for the cards was different than hers of course and the process. I am aware that the back stories are not specific to some of the cards but I was more interested in a quick read in terms of the visual and for some of the cards this added depth to the reading for me such as Temperence to me she is both light and shadow for this card. I am posting to just make a few things clear. The artwork is public domain and was retrieved from the museum websites individually that were offered to the public to be used. They even give you a handy download button for each image etc.

I think it will resonate with some and not others so I am ok with people not purchasing it or wanting to etc. The only comment I feel the need to defend on is the money grabbing comment specifically. I created this deck just for me and several people in my FB group really really wanted a copy. So I went through the extra steps of creating something a bit more friendly for them, packaging, website, a little booklet etc when that was not my original intention. I have put in many many hours on this project so far and am very thankful for those who have ordered and hope they love it tremendously. But to be frank I have made in profit thus far what I bill my work clients two hours for so you see I want to make it clear this out of my passion for tarot and wanting to share it with others not to get rich. I definitely make more money in my professional trade.

Personally this project helped me kick start my own illustrated deck because I had already gone through the exercise of what each card means to me now in this moment. It has made that process much easier. If you care to take a look at them you can on my site as well under the in progress page.

Monet - I want you to know that my "money grab" comment wasn't directed at your deck but at this genre of decks in general (why I said it's "often" but not "always" a money grab). I just want to clarify that for you and others that may misconstrue my comment.

And I look forward to seeing your own illustrated deck in the future!

Hi Monet, nothing wrong with your tarot (if the copyright issue is alright, I have no knowledge in that area), I was just asking who has it and how it reads and works as tarot. I found that your deck was not talked about here on AT, and I hope you didn't take it badly that now we did talk about it a bit. It's always difficult to have a work of art discussed dispassionately by others.

I like the format, the choice to go borderless, and some card choices (e.g. the Hierophant). I'm always attracted to decks with art because I love art, but I'm also very picky... I had a problem with the Art of Life - the works of art (mostly Classical modern) and citations together with the tarot archetypes all pulled me into different directions. Your deck is much more focused and that's a thing I like.

It interested me and so I opened this thread to hear what others think.

Hi Nemia,

I have no issue at all with discussion on the deck and I think everyone should listen to their own tastes etc. There are plenty of decks out there to choose from and myself love and don't care for many as well. Like I said the only issue I felt defending was my intention in creating the deck concerning the money grabbing comment specifically. I even put in a blog post it is just not possible for everyone to like this deck. I will however defend my intentions and or character when I feel the need to do so.

I personally love it and I hope anyone who gets it loves it too. So regardless of any criticism the deck might receive this will not change for me at least as the "compiler". Like I said it is only being offered as a "product" because of a request from those I already knew and not knowing any specific numbers or possible response from the tarot community is why I chose to do print on demand vs a huge print run.

Monet said:

Hi

I am the "artist" for this deck and created it initially because I could not find a copy of the Delphi Tarot. My choices for the cards was different than hers of course and the process. I am aware that the back stories are not specific to some of the cards but I was more interested in a quick read in terms of the visual and for some of the cards this added depth to the reading for me such as Temperence to me she is both light and shadow for this card. I am posting to just make a few things clear. The artwork is public domain and was retrieved from the museum websites individually that were offered to the public to be used. They even give you a handy download button for each image etc.

Click to expand...

The first card by Waterhouse is at the Tate which states: Reproducing content from the Tate website

Website content that is Tate copyright may be reproduced for the non-commercial purposes of research, private study, criticism and review, or for limited circulation within an educational establishment (such as a school, college or university).

However, the following acts are not permitted in respect of any of the content featured on Tate’s website:
Reproduction of website content for commercial purposes, or any rental, leasing or lending of content obtained or derived from the website


There is much much more - I shortened it for a quick peek -

basically you cannot use these for commercial purposes - I assume the $40 would be commercial ...

so confused,
nicky

You may be referring to their web content. Without a direct link I am not sure. I did not pull anything from their site. This artwork is considered in public domain in the United States due to the artist having died in 1917. I specifically sought out public domain artwork and mainly used the museum released artwork and or google art when applicable. There has been no willfully copyright violation.

Monet said:

You may be referring to their web content. Without a direct link I am not sure. I did not pull anything from their site. This artwork is considered in public domain in the United States due to the artist having died in 1917. I specifically sought out public domain artwork and mainly used the museum released artwork and or google art when applicable. There has been no willfully copyright violation.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately intent doesn't matter when it comes to copyright. Copyright violations are violations, regardless.

Sadly most people don't understand the difference between public domain images that can be used for profit and public domain images that can be used for reference, study, critique, etc.

The same is with Creative Commons levels - for instance some images are free to use on blogs, etc but have to include attribution and/or a link to the artist/institution and can never be used for monetary purposes. Others are just free for whatever use.

If you got them from museum websites as you say here:

Monet said:

The artwork is public domain and was retrieved from the museum websites individually that were offered to the public to be used. They even give you a handy download button for each image etc.

Click to expand...

then you'd have to read the terms of the downloads like Nicky posted. Just being labeled "public domain" doesn't mean you can sell them.

And Google Images is NOTORIOUS for enabling copyright violations (it's an issue with creative people worldwide) because they enable the instant download and separation of the image from the attached site so many people don't ever have to visit the site that's the source of the image and see whether they're allowed to use it or not...

And again, even though you didn't reply to my previous post addressed to you Monet, even though you've made reference to my original comment a couple of times now, none of this is meant to be a critique of you as a person (I know it's hard sometimes to separate critiques of our *work* and not take it personally) they're just facts about the genre that your deck falls into...

Dee Ell said:

If you got them from museum websites as you say here...<snipped> then you'd have to read the terms of the downloads like Nicky posted. Just being labeled "public domain" doesn't mean you can sell them.

Click to expand...

Let's hope the remaining 77 cards are actually not the same 'public domain' as clearly they are being used commercially...

Anyone have this deck yet so we can see?

Thanks,
nicky

Usually museums will let you do a run of something academical in nature of 250. Funny this came up. A designer I know just got a letter from the BnF to pull the images from their kipper deck so somehow they found things out.

starlightexp said:

Usually museums will let you do a run of something academical in nature of 250. Funny this came up. A designer I know just got a letter from the BnF to pull the images from their kipper deck so somehow they found things out.

Click to expand...

With reverse image searches/alerts it's thankfully a lot easier for you to find where copies of your images are being posted around the interwebs and I'm guessing Museums (given their limited revenue and constantly fighting for funding to keep their doors open) would have a staff member monitoring this stuff since one of the only ways they can make money is through their merchandise which they can now sell online... Books, umbrellas, cards, dishware, etc, printed with images of the art they own.

An academic printing of something is very different from a commercial printing (such as this deck).

PS - what's the BnF?