Hugh Syme is at it again

[MinistroRaven]

I think he should contact Hugh Syme and ask him WTF.

He said he did and it's waiting for his reply. 

[SeRoX]

So why does DT insist to work with him?

1- No matter what he is a huge name in the art/music industry, we are talking about a man who created some of classic cover art of Rush, Def Lappard and Aerosmith. So DT itself is one of best in their genre and they just wanna work with a huge name. That's why they don't look for another unnamed or freelance artist that possibly make a better cover art.

2- DT simply like Syme's work, his style and outcomes. And don't care if it is AI.

[Kyo]

The latest update from Orion says this:

"at this point, Hugh has stated that it was a mistake, and he had forgotten he'd already used the piece in my album.

Obviously, there are other very big issues here, but we have to wait and see what resolution is offered."

[BlackInk]

I'm not saying I don't believe him, but I'm guessing that's what he would say either way.

[Stadler]

But what else was he supposed to do? He had the artwork first, but due to release dates and "band seniority", everyone who buys his album without looking at the credits is going to assume he stole from Dream Theater. Furthermore, when you shell out the big bucks for artwork as a smaller band, you tend to assume that something like this will not happen to you because the artist is reputable. Yeah, it's on him that he worked without a contract but I would not be shocked if DT also worked without a contract with Hugh. And lastly, he's really just crowdfunding advice. Maybe no one in his direct network knows what the best course of action is.

It's silly to imply there's nothing wrong with telling a customer "I'm currently working on artwork for the new Dream Theater album" but not mentioning that they'll be using the same artwork you're currently offering the customer. Ethically it's such an obvious problem, the legalities of the individual contract/agreement are practically irrelevant. Once this goes public, the damage to Syme's reputation is done and it's all on him.

Respect, but those are YOUR reactions. Me?  I'm not a "call-out" kind of guy.  I handle my shit direct.  Maybe it's my age, but I think going to social media with things like that is bullying.  I do.  It puts all parties directly on the defensive, because now "perception" is the only thing that matters, when for me, the ONLY thing that matters is the deal(s) cut between the individual parties.  If "Orion" didn't think to cover that eventuality, well, we live and we learn.  That's the risk of DIY. 

I'm not assuming anything about the order of things, or who did what, or why.  Hugh Syme's reputation isn't the least bit tarnished in my eyes by this.  I either like his art or I don't (and I do, by the way; Grace Under Pressure is one of my favorite covers by any band, ever.  Might be my favorite by someone not named "Roger Dean".). If I'm wrong, and his reputation is hit, presumably that's part of his business model; he can look at the decline in requests and deal with it accordingly.

And don't say "well, he doesn't have the resources of Dream Theater"; I get questions ALL THE TIME about things like this, even from strangers in airports and what not.  I think it is highly, highly unlikely that this guy was able to record an album, get artwork from a guy like Hugh friggin' Syme, and he doesn't know ONE lawyers SOMEWHERE?   

[Kyo]

Portnoy has clearly stated they wouldn't have used the artwork if they had known. I think we can retire the "it's a you problem" defense now as this outcome obviously bothers both artists involved. Or is any of you going to say that to Mike's face? I'd pay money to see that!

Same goes for the "If Orion didn't think to cover that eventuality, well, we live and we learn" defense, because, again, the other artist is also bothered by this duplication.

Seeing how Syme himself has allegedly called it a mistake, even he seems to agree that this shouldn't have happened, regardless of any legalese or lack thereof.

Or maybe you think they're all wrong and should've known better? It's certainly a take.

[Evermind]

Respect, but those are YOUR reactions. Me?  I'm not a "call-out" kind of guy.  I handle my shit direct.  Maybe it's my age, but I think going to social media with things like that is bullying.  I do.  It puts all parties directly on the defensive, because now "perception" is the only thing that matters, when for me, the ONLY thing that matters is the deal(s) cut between the individual parties.  If "Orion" didn't think to cover that eventuality, well, we live and we learn.  That's the risk of DIY. 

I'm not assuming anything about the order of things, or who did what, or why.  Hugh Syme's reputation isn't the least bit tarnished in my eyes by this.  I either like his art or I don't (and I do, by the way; Grace Under Pressure is one of my favorite covers by any band, ever.  Might be my favorite by someone not named "Roger Dean".). If I'm wrong, and his reputation is hit, presumably that's part of his business model; he can look at the decline in requests and deal with it accordingly.

And don't say "well, he doesn't have the resources of Dream Theater"; I get questions ALL THE TIME about things like this, even from strangers in airports and what not.  I think it is highly, highly unlikely that this guy was able to record an album, get artwork from a guy like Hugh friggin' Syme, and he doesn't know ONE lawyers SOMEWHERE? 

Respectfully, Stads, as I see it, it's not a question of lawyers or legality. Yes, the Orion guy didn't have any legal contract where it was specified that the art Hugh Syme produced for him was for his use only. It's completely legal for Hugh to do what he did.

But I mean, and don't look at this from the lawyer's perspective—we've already established Hugh did nothing illegal—if you, as a small artist, shell out a grand sum for a well-known guy (and yes, I assume the amount of money was quite grand. I don't know the number but I assume Hugh's services cost quite a bit) in the industry to do the art for your album, you would expect him to create some unique art for you, and not rehash it for another band (or not rehash his previous output for your album to fit your vision). I know, I know, apparently that's not the case, and when you assume... but that's just it, I hope that'll be something to take away from this situation for all the aspiring bands and musicians here.

And I do think—pardon me Stads—that labeling this approach, as in highlighting the problem via social media online, as "bullying", is incorrect. It's good that the Orion guy brought this up, I think. That's basically how the "review" system works for the shops and restaurants and all that. If you keep it "direct", under wraps, in your PMs, people wouldn't know that this is how Hugh works nowadays and people should know this before shelling out the money to him. I think it's good to know you can't expect your artwork to be exclusive before you pay the money for it. I mean, I guess it should be obvious but it really isn't if you're not a lawyer I suppose? Definitely not obvious to me.

Now, that being said, apparently Hugh responded to the Orion guy saying it was all a big mistake (saw it in the Reddit thread), so hopefully the Orion guy enjoys his free publicity and that's that.

[MirrorMask]

So why does DT insist to work with him?

1- No matter what he is a huge name in the art/music industry, we are talking about a man who created some of classic cover art of Rush, Def Lappard and Aerosmith. So DT itself is one of best in their genre and they just wanna work with a huge name. That's why they don't look for another unnamed or freelance artist that possibly make a better cover art.

2- DT simply like Syme's work, his style and outcomes. And don't care if it is AI.

The unboxing of the deluxe edition made that clear. They were clearly in awe of all the artwork that Syme created, and they liked the style. As I previously said, no one has to be an expert of everything, for them the art is good enough and they don't have time or interest to do a deep dive into the actual techniques needed to create the artwork, they look at the finished work and they're not required to care if it took 100 hours by hand, or a copy and paste from a clipboard library. Just like people are not required to take a crash course on the science of audio devices to be able to detect the difference between a .WAV file, a CD player or a vynil. If for them an album sounds fine, it's fine, no need to be the audiophile police on them. We all like passionately something the general public doesn't care for.

Also, great post Evermind!

[T-ski]

The latest update from Orion says this:

"at this point, Hugh has stated that it was a mistake, and he had forgotten he'd already used the piece in my album.

Obviously, there are other very big issues here, but we have to wait and see what resolution is offered."

Find it odd Hugh wouldn't have labeled this "art" as used in some sort of fashion.

[MinistroRaven]

Someone mentioned earlier in the thread, I can't remember who and I'm too lazy to check, that no one cares what Hugh did. But judging by the comments here, on Reddit, and on Facebook, it looks like a lot of people actually do.

[impolybius]

There's nothing "nasty" about calling out when someone is objectively incorrect, especially when they are trying to play "gotcha" on things that aren't "gotchas."  When someone is wrong and disrespectful here, they are likely to get called out for it.  And it's not your job to further derail the thread.  If you have questions or opinions about that, you are welcome to take them to PM.

Just to clarify—I wasn't trying to "gotcha" anyone. Honestly, I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I simply pointed out that self-plagiarism is also considered plagiarism, which you disagreed with, saying it didn't fit the definition at all.

I wasn't trying to be disrespectful—my initial post was made in the same spirit as yours: calling out something I believed to be incorrect. As I said, it's not that important to me that we agree on this, so let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Back on topic—nicely handled by MP. The fact that he's in the comments, seemingly from his personal profile, shows exactly the kind of personal follow-through this situation deserves. Hopefully, the three parties can come to some sort of resolution. And ideally, at the very least, this will make Syme realize that he needs a system in place to track whether he's used the artwork or not—which should be a no-brainer.

[Stadler]

Portnoy has clearly stated they wouldn't have used the artwork if they had known. I think we can retire the "it's a you problem" defense now as this outcome obviously bothers both artists involved. Or is any of you going to say that to Mike's face? I'd pay money to see that!

Same goes for the "If Orion didn't think to cover that eventuality, well, we live and we learn" defense, because, again, the other artist is also bothered by this duplication.

Seeing how Syme himself has allegedly called it a mistake, even he seems to agree that this shouldn't have happened, regardless of any legalese or lack thereof.

Or maybe you think they're all wrong and should've known better? It's certainly a take.

You're misunderstanding me. 

I'm not judging what Portnoy or Syme did. That's on them.  If they concede it's wrong, or they'd've done something different, then more power to them.  It's THEIR CALL.  That's my point, it's THEIR CALL, not ours, and whether I agree with it or not, is my business (and I'm not going to say; it's not relevant).

It's not relevant if Syme's and Portnoy's statements are consistent with some of the comments here; that's just happenstance.  Most of the comments I'm seeing are consistent with those made well before Mike made his statement.   Mike could well have just said "wow, sucks for them" and he'd have been just as right, because it's HIS call. 

And even with all that, there are STILL comments that I feel are out of line, or at least VERY presumptuous.  Someone said they should never work with Hugh Syme again.  WTF?  Someone else said Syme ought to retire because of this.  WTF?  That's their call, and their call alone, and ought to be based on their internal position as an artist and as a band. We've got nothing to say about it, except don't buy the material with the artwork.

My beef is what it usually is in these circumstances, and that is with fans assuming they know what's what, and assuming that they know what's the right call and right step forward. They don't, and I stand by that. I am very very aware that "legal" isn't the only criteria; my only point with that was that there IS recourse if the parties so choose, and the "legalities" are the only thing that we as outsiders can speculate about, or demand they do.  Anything else is gravy, and we have no say in that.

[Stadler]

Respectfully, Stads, as I see it, it's not a question of lawyers or legality. Yes, the Orion guy didn't have any legal contract where it was specified that the art Hugh Syme produced for him was for his use only. It's completely legal for Hugh to do what he did.

But I mean, and don't look at this from the lawyer's perspective—we've already established Hugh did nothing illegal—if you, as a small artist, shell out a grand sum for a well-known guy (and yes, I assume the amount of money was quite grand. I don't know the number but I assume Hugh's services cost quite a bit) in the industry to do the art for your album, you would expect him to create some unique art for you, and not rehash it for another band (or not rehash his previous output for your album to fit your vision). I know, I know, apparently that's not the case, and when you assume... but that's just it, I hope that'll be something to take away from this situation for all the aspiring bands and musicians here.

You nailed it. I agree with all of that, but especially the "assume" part. That's my only complaint. This notion that some fan sitting in his mom's basement knows what all the parties SHOULD do.  I dislike that like some people dislike Trump. 

And I do think—pardon me Stads—that labeling this approach, as in highlighting the problem via social media online, as "bullying", is incorrect. It's good that the Orion guy brought this up, I think. That's basically how the "review" system works for the shops and restaurants and all that. If you keep it "direct", under wraps, in your PMs, people wouldn't know that this is how Hugh works nowadays and people should know this before shelling out the money to him. I think it's good to know you can't expect your artwork to be exclusive before you pay the money for it. I mean, I guess it should be obvious but it really isn't if you're not a lawyer I suppose? Definitely not obvious to me.

Well, it IS bullying.  The review system blows.  My local bar in Philly has a review out there that the bartender and owner are "racists" because they turned the jukebox off after someone put in money to listen to certain songs. I know the owner personally (his wife was our real estate agent) and I don't know the bartender, but I know her boss personally.  Been to his house.  They are a lot of things, but "racist" isn't one of them. They turned off the jukebox because the local game was on.  But they now have that data point out there, and it's wholly unsubstantiated and undocumented. 

I'm not saying the Orion guy is lying; he's clearly not.  But he's clearly looking at this as "opportunity".  He's waiting to see what resolution is offered? I never heard of Orion before.  What exactly are his damages?

Now, that being said, apparently Hugh responded to the Orion guy saying it was all a big mistake (saw it in the Reddit thread), so hopefully the Orion guy enjoys his free publicity and that's that.

Well, he's still talking about an offer of "resolution", so one could argue he's not running out the clock on his 15 minutes.

[Stadler]

Someone mentioned earlier in the thread, I can't remember who and I'm too lazy to check, that no one cares what Hugh did. But judging by the comments here, on Reddit, and on Facebook, it looks like a lot of people actually do.

That was probably me; I didn't say NO ONE cared, I said I DIDN'T care, which isn't the same thing, but I do think this seems more like a tempest in a teacup than anything else.

Who was the band from whom John supposedly copped a lick for either ADTOE or DT12?  Was that "Trivium"?  Or something like that?   That kind of blew over quick, didn't it?  And I don't recall John actually acknowledging anything there.

[cramx3]

Hopefully this ends their working relationship.  The AI was bad enough, re-purposing? Acts like he didn't know? I'm sorry, but if you are an artist, you usually know your works.  Granted, I guess if he's just using AI it isn't even his art anyway so probably has no clue. Guy is a joke at this point IMO. Glad MP isn't happy because there is no reason to be OK with this from the both bands involved (and their fans).

As for airing the dirty laundry on social media.  This is already public stuff. The Hugh AI art has been a big negative on this album release cycle for a lot of people. It's clearly worth mentioning, if not by the band themselves than someone else who might have noticed.  It needs to be addressed and looks like it is.   

[ganpondorodf]

If it gets DT to start using an artist who actually wants to put in some effort and not just continue to get 'work' because they were good 40 years ago, then this is ultimately a good thing

[wolfking]

The latest update from Orion says this:

"at this point, Hugh has stated that it was a mistake, and he had forgotten he'd already used the piece in my album.

Obviously, there are other very big issues here, but we have to wait and see what resolution is offered."

That's extremely poor.  Time to retire Hugh.

[Progmetty]

I seem to remember this happening before, with something from D/O being very similar to some Haken related artwork.

[Northern Lion]

That's extremely poor.  Time to retire Hugh.

No. Hugh creates A LOT of art and perhaps he's not as organized as he should be (I know a lot of artists that aren't). This is an easy mistake to make.

Is it embarrassing? Yes. Will it be costly for him? Probably. Has it tarnished his reputation? Yes. Will he learn from it and do better next time? Most likely. Does this make him a bad artist or dishonest or need to be fired? Absolutely not.

[Northern Lion]

So why does DT insist to work with him?

1- No matter what he is a huge name in the art/music industry, we are talking about a man who created some of classic cover art of Rush, Def Lappard and Aerosmith. So DT itself is one of best in their genre and they just wanna work with a huge name. That's why they don't look for another unnamed or freelance artist that possibly make a better cover art.

2- DT simply like Syme's work, his style and outcomes. And don't care if it is AI.

This exactly.

[Northern Lion]

I seem to remember this happening before, with something from D/O being very similar to some Haken related artwork.

I don't recall this, but I'm not saying it didn't happen. What I do recall was a newspaper seamingly stealing the cover art idea. But I don't remember the resolution.

[HOF]

Noone else thinks that's nuts?

It is, but that's not just straight coffee either. It's espresso, milk, various sweeteners, etc. Still kind of nutty, but more like paying $6 for a milkshake than for a cup of black joe.

[The Curious Orange]

I'm not that bothered, but if AI is being used to create work, or give a polish to work, that's fine, but an actual human being should be involved at some stage to count the number of fingers, or ensure that reflections match the thing being reflected, or in the case of the Parasomnia front cover artwork, that the patterns of light on the floor match the frames of the window. It's when creatives just assume that because AI did it, it must be perfect that I have a problem. If Syme had drawn some of these things at art college, his teachers would have told him to go back and do it right.

[SwedishGoose]

I don't recall this, but I'm not saying it didn't happen. What I do recall was a newspaper seamingly stealing the cover art idea. But I don't remember the resolution.

It has happened before and it will happen again.... unless

- Dream Theater starts to order original artwork with all contents bought exclusively

Do you remember the unicyclist on A Dramatic Turn of Events?
The same image was bought by Hugh and by the designer for Circus Maximus. None of them bought exclusive rights to the image. Probably because it is much more expensive.

As far as I understand Hugh has not created new images for Dream Theater but has shown them images from his library.

It's the same as with the unicyclist.. noone bought the exclusive right just the right to use the image in question.

This is standard procedure. Exclusive clauses are expensive as no more sales can be done from that image.

There is definiteley no reason for anyone to be upset unless exclusitivity was bought by someone.

[cramx3]

It has happened before and it will happen again.... unless

- Dream Theater starts to order original artwork with all contents bought exclusively

Do you remember the unicyclist on A Dramatic Turn of Events?
The same image was bought by Hugh and by the designer for Circus Maximus. None of them bought exclusive rights to the image. Probably because it is much more expensive.

As far as I understand Hugh has not created new images for Dream Theater but has shown them images from his library.

It's the same as with the unicyclist.. noone bought the exclusive right just the right to use the image in question.

This is standard procedure. Exclusive clauses are expensive as no more sales can be done from that image.

There is definiteley no reason for anyone to be upset unless exclusitivity was bought by someone.

Is it because its an exclusive right or because its a public fair use of the image?

[HOF]

I'm not that bothered, but if AI is being used to create work, or give a polish to work, that's fine, but an actual human being should be involved at some stage to count the number of fingers, or ensure that reflections match the thing being reflected, or in the case of the Parasomnia front cover artwork, that the patterns of light on the floor match the frames of the window. It's when creatives just assume that because AI did it, it must be perfect that I have a problem. If Syme had drawn some of these things at art college, his teachers would have told him to go back and do it right.

Maybe at art college he would have been told to correct it, but I don't think it's the case that real human artists always draw things correctly either. Sometimes intentionally or unintentionally maybe, but I'd guess there is lots of human art that breaks rules like the direction of light and shadows.

[JeopardousRaven]

I would have happily shelled out the money on a physical edition of the album if it had legitimate artwork. I refuse to spend money on an AI prompt.

Look at the new Blood Incantation album. That band probably has about 1/50th the budget of Dream Theater for this sort of thing and yet their album artwork has been consistently fantastic. And because they clearly care about the presentation of their music, I happily purchased a physical copy of Absolute Elsewhere.

I had really hoped that with MP back in the band, there would be a bit more attention to detail on things like this but clearly not.

[Stadler]

I'm not that bothered, but if AI is being used to create work, or give a polish to work, that's fine, but an actual human being should be involved at some stage to count the number of fingers, or ensure that reflections match the thing being reflected, or in the case of the Parasomnia front cover artwork, that the patterns of light on the floor match the frames of the window. It's when creatives just assume that because AI did it, it must be perfect that I have a problem. If Syme had drawn some of these things at art college, his teachers would have told him to go back and do it right.

Maybe at art college he would have been told to correct it, but I don't think it's the case that real human art always draws things correctly either. Sometimes intentionally or unintentionally maybe, but I'd guess there is lots of human art that breaks rules like the direction of light and shadows.

Here's the thing: unless someone has asked Hugh (or Mike) and gotten an answer - which I'm not aware of - we have only to speculate.  And "speculation" says more about US was people than it does about Hugh Syme as an artist.

We choose what we believe.  I choose to give the benefit of the doubt to the artist - especially someone like Mike, whose career is chock full of nuggets, details, and specialities.  I choose to believe that it's part of the Dreamscape, that it's meant to create a sense of discomfort, a sense that "something is off here" without being blatant or obvious. Subliminal, if you will.  Yeah I know there's controversy now, but I choose to believe that one or two "bad" things don't completely negate all the good things; he - Syme - has some world class covers in his career, and the "intent" of these things is well within his - both Hugh's and Mike's - wheelhouse.

[hefdaddy42]

No. Hugh creates A LOT of art and perhaps he's not as organized as he should be (I know a lot of artists that aren't). This is an easy mistake to make.

No it isn't.

[Herrick]

I would have happily shelled out the money on a physical edition of the album if it had legitimate artwork. I refuse to spend money on an AI prompt.

Look at the new Blood Incantation album. That band probably has about 1/50th the budget of Dream Theater for this sort of thing and yet their album artwork has been consistently fantastic. And because they clearly care about the presentation of their music, I happily purchased a physical copy of Absolute Elsewhere.

I had really hoped that with MP back in the band, there would be a bit more attention to detail on things like this but clearly not.

Well shit, I didn't know they had a new album out or if I knew, I forgot. Herrick shall check it out.

And this whole recycling artwork or whatever it is, is pretty lame. I don't care if it's perfectly legal and no one is at fault and everyone is a good guy and no one should tell anyone what to do, and no one cares what I think. It's still very lame and a bit pathetic.

[wolfking]

No. Hugh creates A LOT of art and perhaps he's not as organized as he should be (I know a lot of artists that aren't). This is an easy mistake to make.

Is it embarrassing? Yes. Will it be costly for him? Probably. Has it tarnished his reputation? Yes. Will he learn from it and do better next time? Most likely. Does this make him a bad artist or dishonest or need to be fired? Absolutely not.

You just summed up my thoughts on why he should retire.  A professional artist who makes artwork for top tier bands should be more organised and have everything in order.  Plus, this is not an 'easy mistake to make,' it's downright unacceptable and with the caliber or artists he works with, you damn make sure something like this doesn't happen.

How does he not see a significant piece of his artwork and not know that he's already used it for another artist?  How does he at least have something in place where the artwork is tagged or something once used and distributed to a customer.  Poor form from him and essentially double dipping.

[Northern Lion]

You just summed up my thoughts on why he should retire.  A professional artist who makes artwork for top tier bands should be more organised and have everything in order.  Plus, this is not an 'easy mistake to make,' it's downright unacceptable and with the caliber or artists he works with, you damn make sure something like this doesn't happen.

How does he not see a significant piece of his artwork and not know that he's already used it for another artist?  How does he at least have something in place where the artwork is tagged or something once used and distributed to a customer.  Poor form from him and essentially double dipping.

All I know is that every professional artist I have personally known is very disorganized with stuff, paper and art supplies and tools everywhere. Half the time they couldn't find the pieces they were currently working on. I think it just comes with the territory of being an artist. If anything it gives me a reason to give Hugh a pass rather than condemn him.

Of course I'm just guessing based off artists I have known.

[wolfking]

All I know is that every professional artist I have personally known is very disorganized with stuff, paper and art supplies and tools everywhere. Half the time they couldn't find the pieces they were currently working on. I think it just comes with the territory of being an artist. If anything it gives me a reason to give Hugh a pass rather than condemn him.

Of course I'm just guessing based off artists I have known.

Let's just hope DT doesn't feel the same way.

[Northern Lion]

Let's just hope DT doesn't feel the same way.

Well, I think it's quite likely that DT will use Hugh's art for all the rest of their albums.

This incident will get resolved, blow over and then back to business as usual. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

[wolfking]

Well, I think it's quite likely that DT will use Hugh's art for all the rest of their albums.

This incident will get resolved, blow over and then back to business as usual. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

I have no doubt this will be the case, one way or another.  Probably won't even hear of it again until DT's next album.