First moments in heaven

[Susan Cook]

7 hours ago, LRJW said:

Also, why would children be welcomed by their parents in heaven?  Did they all die in a mass explosion at the same time?  If not, wouldn't the kids be adults?  

 

Ridiculous.  

 

I can't wait for this stupid system to be over already!  

Just put all the above in the same pile with Santa Claus and the Easter bunny and jack o lanterns etc etc 😂😂

[Shawnster]

7 hours ago, jayrtom said:

Since on this site they're selling high resolutions of the image and even with a signature of the author, could it be that it was the brother that painted it originally that is selling? (hard to believe though)

Im going to go out on a limb here and say no, your suggestion is not possible.  Bethel owns the original painting.  It's not like they would give the artist the painting when the artist left Bethel. 

 

The painting would have to be duplicated in exact detail to precisely match the image in our publication.  

 

Occam's Razor would apply here. What is the simplest answer? 

[M.J.]

Regardless of the title,  it looks to me like an Earthly paradise scene.  I could easily believe a Witness made it, and someone copied it and posted with a different title.

[Friends just call me Ross]

7 hours ago, jayrtom said:

Since on this site they're selling high resolutions of the image and even with a signature of the author, could it be that it was the brother that painted it originally that is selling? (hard to believe though)

They seem to be selling at the astonishing rate of more than 1 per hour.

With only six left in stock, they'll be sold out before the sun comes up tomorrow.   

[jayrtom]

3 hours ago, Shawnster said:

Im going to go out on a limb here and say no, your suggestion is not possible.  Bethel owns the original painting.  It's not like they would give the artist the painting when the artist left Bethel. 

 

The painting would have to be duplicated in exact detail to precisely match the image in our publication.  

 

Occam's Razor would apply here. What is the simplest answer? 

Occam's Razor >>> The simplest answer that satisfies all requirements, but not simpler than that

 

The fact is that it wouldn't be possible to just copy the small image on a tract (I think it isn't even available on a digital form, without scanning) and get higher resolutions as it seems to be the case (we can zoom on the site and it seems good)

Also, the colors are different (more greenish and less yellowish) which indicates some post processing of the original (not on a scanned image) or that the original is like that amd the yellowish version is due to the type of paper of the tract

 

So, I'm still confused with the situation... won't say the supposed author stole the original but there must be another explanation

 

I guess someone who knows the contact should worn bethel to shut down this site - They're making money with the image!!!

[M.J.]

An ex-witness painter, now believes in going to heaven? It happens

 

[Myew]

8 hours ago, jayrtom said:

The fact is that it wouldn't be possible to just copy the small image on a tract

???

Anyone with a basic computer scanner post 2001, when the tract was released, had the capability of scanning tiny images at thousands of dots per inch. (My dad had an online business where he sold antique/vintage magazine articles, he's been scanning them since '97)

The image uploaded to the commercial website is noticeably upscaled and altered compared to the sharpness of the original from the tract. Back in 2001, there was a sprite upscaling filter which I was very familiar with which this upload looks very close to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_gallery_of_image_scaling_algorithms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hqx https://web.archive.org/web/20131205091805/http://www.hiend3d.com/hq2x.html

It's even far easier and better nowadays, all you have to do is drop an image into a neural network AI upscaler, but it looks like this image is a fair bit older.
http://waifu2x.udp.jp/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVPrFU6_SEA
 

The most likely answer is that someone, not a witness, scanned and uploaded images from our publications to try and make money. It happens, this type of scenario is very common in poorer developing countries. It's not our problem to worry about, the branch deals with it as they see fit. This is why we have this article about the terms of service.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2018364

 

Edited August 25, 2020 by Myew

[jayrtom]

9 minutes ago, Myew said:

???

Anyone with a basic computer scanner post 2001, when the tract was released, had the capability of scanning tiny images at thousands of dots per inch. (My dad had an online business where he sold antique/vintage magazine articles, he's been scanning them since '97)

The image uploaded to the commercial website is noticeably upscaled and altered compared to the sharpness of the original from the tract. Back in 2001, there was a sprite upscaling filter which I was very familiar with which this upload looks very close to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_gallery_of_image_scaling_algorithms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hqx https://web.archive.org/web/20131205091805/http://www.hiend3d.com/hq2x.html

It's even far easier and better nowadays, all you have to do is drop an image into a neural network AI upscaler, but it looks like this image is a fair bit older.
http://waifu2x.udp.jp/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVPrFU6_SEA
 

The most likely answer is that someone, not a witness, scanned and uploaded images from our publications to try and make money. It happens, this type of scenario is very common in poorer developing countries. It's not our problem to worry about, the branch deals with it as they see fit. This is why we have this article about the terms of service.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2018364

 

Thanks for the explanation but still there is a mystery 😉

 

Why the tract photo being cut on the woman's legs but the image being sold is complete?

 

Unless there is another image on a different publication (which could explain also the greenish tint)

[Myew]

There's no way to know at this point unless people with a complete physical collection care to leaf through all of their indexes. Maybe these images were available online in the Watchtower at one point before it became JW.org, on watchtower.org or whatever it was named? I found that this article was in the Watchtower before it was made into a tract, so it might be there in the original if someone can look, the images for these older publications are not on JW.org or wol.jw.org. Either way, we know that Watchtower has the original copyright, not any individual.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2001521
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102001150

[kejedo]

23 hours ago, jayrtom said:

Since on this site they're selling high resolutions of the image and even with a signature of the author, could it be that it was the brother that painted it originally that is selling? (hard to believe though)

This one says it is by an unknown person.

[jayrtom]

16 minutes ago, kejedo said:

This one says it is by an unknown person.

Yes, that's correct. This sentence confused me...

Quote

This is a great photo reprint by an unknown professional photographer (NOT a cheaply done homemade inkjet print). Any autograph depicted is a reprint of the original signed print. 

 

[Shawnster]

6 hours ago, M.J. said:

An ex-witness painter, now believes in going to heaven? It happens

 

But said ex-Witness painter doesn't have access to the artwork he or she created for Bethel.  Said ex-Witness painter would have to recreate the painting.  In effect, said painter would have to counterfeit or forge the painting.  Such a painstaking process for so little of return when it would be easier to simply create an entirely new painting.  

 

The idea that an ex-Witness would exactly recreate artwork once created for Bethel sorta falls apart when examined.  Where is the gain?  What benefit does said ex-Witness achieve?  It's not a hot seller.  This artwork is never going to make millions.  If this supposed ex-Witness is that good, then it's still easier to create a new piece of art.  I mean, the website in question isn't in any way attacking Witnesses.  It's not like this benefits apostates in some way, either.

 

No, the simplest answer is someone scanned or copied our artwork and is now attempting to sell copies online.  They found a nice piece of art and stole it for their own purposes.  I'm not entirely sure you would even get what you paid for if you did buy a copy.  I mean, sure, that's probably what will happen, but I'm not 100% convinced.  

 

Someone digitally copied our artwork and put their name on it and is now trying to sell prints and make money.  

 

And color shifting happens all the time when you scan or copy an image.  That's why designers get paid to color correct photos and artwork.

[M.J.]

I missed the post where we determined it was authentic Branch material,  oops

[Dages]

52 minutes ago, M.J. said:

I missed the post where we determined it was authentic Branch material,  oops

Same. It could be something the Slave acquired the right to use.

Like we did with the 2016 paradise video.

[.Ivan.]

It is determined, T25, old tract, rear cover

[jayrtom]

5 hours ago, .Ivan. said:

It is determined, T25, old tract, rear cover

If you notice on the bottom, the tract image is cut on the woman's legs. the seller version is complete. So it is clear it was not a scan of that tract

 

Seller                                                                                                               Tract

Edited August 26, 2020 by jayrtom

[jayrtom]

14 hours ago, Shawnster said:

But said ex-Witness painter doesn't have access to the artwork he or she created for Bethel.  Said ex-Witness painter would have to recreate the painting.  In effect, said painter would have to counterfeit or forge the painting.  Such a painstaking process for so little of return when it would be easier to simply create an entirely new painting.  

 

The idea that an ex-Witness would exactly recreate artwork once created for Bethel sorta falls apart when examined.  Where is the gain?  What benefit does said ex-Witness achieve?  It's not a hot seller.  This artwork is never going to make millions.  If this supposed ex-Witness is that good, then it's still easier to create a new piece of art.  I mean, the website in question isn't in any way attacking Witnesses.  It's not like this benefits apostates in some way, either.

 

No, the simplest answer is someone scanned or copied our artwork and is now attempting to sell copies online.  They found a nice piece of art and stole it for their own purposes.  I'm not entirely sure you would even get what you paid for if you did buy a copy.  I mean, sure, that's probably what will happen, but I'm not 100% convinced.  

 

Someone digitally copied our artwork and put their name on it and is now trying to sell prints and make money.  

 

And color shifting happens all the time when you scan or copy an image.  That's why designers get paid to color correct photos and artwork.

I'm not saying it was the author who put the image available but you're forgetting that he could have done it at home and send a copy to bethel retaining the original.

If I was working to bethel doing graphics I would retain the originals on my pc unless told to not do it (I don't know if that indication exists or not)

[Shawnster]

14 hours ago, Dages said:

Same. It could be something the Slave acquired the right to use.

Like we did with the 2016 paradise video.

The Organization only purchases rights usage to the material we cannot create on our own due to time or other factors.  I'll have to watch the 2016 video again to see which portions were stock videos but they were probably images of wildlife, astronomy, or something to that effect. 

[Shawnster]

1 hour ago, jayrtom said:

I'm not saying it was the author who put the image available but you're forgetting that he could have done it at home and send a copy to bethel retaining the original.

If I was working to bethel doing graphics I would retain the originals on my pc unless told to not do it (I don't know if that indication exists or not)

How old is the publication?  Bethel has only used remote workers in relatively recent years.  Likewise, digital artwork is relatively new.  

 

Why are we going through all these hoops and contortions to present some theory on how a worldly organization is using our artwork out of context when a more simple solution makes sense? 

 

They are using our artwork illegally. 

 

No, I don't have an explanation as to how the worldly website has a full frame version of the artwork.  Perhaps it appeared in a Watchtower.  We do recycle our artwork and use it again.  

 

 

[Dages]

2 hours ago, Shawnster said:

The Organization only purchases rights usage to the material we cannot create on our own due to time or other factors.  I'll have to watch the 2016 video again to see which portions were stock videos but they were probably images of wildlife, astronomy, or something to that effect. 

I'm talking about this one : 

https://www.jw.org/finder?srcid=share&prefer=content&applanguage=E&locale=fr&item=pub-jwbcov_201605_11_VIDEO&docid=1011214

the music is not from us : 

 

 

[M.J.]

18 minutes ago, Dages said:

I'm talking about this one : 

https://www.jw.org/finder?srcid=share&prefer=content&applanguage=E&locale=fr&item=pub-jwbcov_201605_11_VIDEO&docid=1011214

the music is not from us : 

 

 

Most absolute coolest song!!!

PERFECT for that movie scene.

 

What style of music would this be classified?

[Dages]

5 minutes ago, M.J. said:

Most absolute coolest song!!!

PERFECT for that movie scene.

 

What style of music would this be classified?

"Epic music", it's serious  

[Shawnster]

1 hour ago, Dages said:

I'm talking about this one : 

https://www.jw.org/finder?srcid=share&prefer=content&applanguage=E&locale=fr&item=pub-jwbcov_201605_11_VIDEO&docid=1011214

the music is not from us : 

 

 

Ah, I thought you were referring to a visual, since the discussion is also about a visual.

 

Interestingly in the link you provided, the Society does not include a credit to the creators of the music.  

[Luigi62]

4 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

Ah, I thought you were referring to a visual, since the discussion is also about a visual.

 

Interestingly in the link you provided, the Society does not include a credit to the creators of the music.  

The music may of been/ is free.

[McKay]

1 minute ago, Shawnster said:

Ah, I thought you were referring to a visual, since the discussion is also about a visual.

 

Interestingly in the link you provided, the Society does not include a credit to the creators of the music.  

Audiomachine makes “off the shelf” music that you can purchase the rights to. They don’t require credit to be given in their license agreement.

 

Actually, this was the last time you’ll see a video where the music isn’t ours. Apparently, some got offended at the use of “worldly” music being used (because Audiomachine’s music has also been used in movie trailers, violent video games, etc) so the GB decided not to use “off the shelf” music anymore. 

 

Personally, I thought this music was perfect for the video.