Home » Tuck Art » Tuck and Drawn » Images of Tuck, Valerie or any of the cast
|
| Re: Images of Tuck, Valerie or any of the cast [message #382] |
Fri, 25 October 2002 13:37   |
|
I will see what I can do with creating a few anime pics of Val for everyones enjoyment. . . now to decide what situation and who the other characters should be in the image. . . and of course the outfits. . . now this is going to be as time consuming as trying to decide what to wear when you are going out on a date. . . once the details are decided on the image will be easy. . . do I have any suggestions out there what you would like to see ?
here are some basics I think that everyone can mostly agree on for Valarie
- alburn hair maybe with some highlights being she is taking beauty school classes
- blue eyes
- a figure like any other female teen in her age group
- shoulder length hair or should it be longer now ?
- about 5' 3" tall . . . maybe a size 0 or 2
Doubt is a thief that often makes us fear to tread where we might have won --Shakespeare" --
-Vicki
|
|
|
| Re: Images of Tuck, Valerie or any of the cast [message #387] |
Fri, 25 October 2002 14:21 |
ChangelingJane
Messages: 51
Registered: October 2002
Location: USA |
Member |
|
|
| Vicki wrote on Fri, 25 October 2002 12:37 |
shoulder length hair or should it be longer now ?
|
I think she's still keeping it relatively short, so she can wear it both ways, isn't she? I'm not up to the most current chapter yet, so maybe something's changed, but where I'm at, it seems that she'd be keeping it about shoulder-length or maybe a tiny bit shorter (like I had in the pic with her and Travis). The rest of those details seem pretty spot-on. Now I just need to go back and look up the details for the other characters--I can't really remember any of them!
| KellyDahl wrote on Fri, 25 October 2002 11:52 |
I agree nice pic, and a good first try. Better then I could do by far. Though to me the first thing that came to my mind was the show 'My So Called Life'.
|
That show was the greatest! I was thoroughly hooked on it, and then they CANCELED it. The bastards! And then they ruined Dawson's Creek (I think the first couple seasons were really good). Damn "Them"! ^_^
I keep on picturing Tuck being a TV show like that... although it would more likely be on HBO because of the more adult content, which cannot be cut out!
[Updated on: Fri, 25 October 2002 14:43]
-ChangelingJane-
|
|
|
| Re: Images of Tuck, Valerie or any of the cast [message #388] |
Fri, 25 October 2002 14:24 |
ChangelingJane
Messages: 51
Registered: October 2002
Location: USA |
Member |
|
|
| erin wrote on Fri, 25 October 2002 05:12 |
Very nice. If Val looked like that in the club she would have had a lot of really confused people watching.  Nice ambiguity.-- Erin
|
Well, wasn't that the scene where he was getting all different responses from people (like the bathroom incidents), and ended up putting on a bra "in defeat"?
[Updated on: Fri, 25 October 2002 14:24]
-ChangelingJane-
|
|
| |
| Re: Images of Tuck, Valerie or any of the cast [message #392] |
Fri, 25 October 2002 23:28 |
|
Valery is a size 9 the last time i remember it being mentioned
she was 125 lbs. but that was a long tme ago and she has been gaining weight since then(tuck's been upset about this).
she was about as curvy as jill who is fairly boyish looking and very thin.
|
|
|
| Re: Images of Tuck, Valerie or any of the cast [message #394] |
Sat, 26 October 2002 00:14 |
|
| erin wrote on Fri, 25 October 2002 15:24 |
Val's hair is brown, not auburn, she's a bit less curvy than some girls but from the dimensions given in the story, she's not really as slender as I keep thinking of her. At one point, Ellen established that Val is 5'5 and weighs about 130 pounds. That's probably more like a size 7 depending one where she carries her weight. But she has been losing weight recently.
-- Erin
|
It looks like I have more in common with Vallerie than I thought, hehe. I am 5'6" weigh about 135 pounds and wear a size 7/8 but have blonde hair instead of brown (what shade of brown I wonder?) I do have blue eyes though.
I wonder as to her hair length now as I do not recall reading of her getting it cut shorter or cut at all for that matter. I do not remember her ever getting it really styled really since Debbie played with it when she was selling cosmetics using Tuck as a model. Perhaps she has let it grow longer and tied it back possibly ?
Doubt is a thief that often makes us fear to tread where we might have won --Shakespeare" --
-Vicki
|
|
|
| Re: Images of Tuck, Valerie or any of the cast [message #397] |
Sat, 26 October 2002 01:34 |
ChangelingJane
Messages: 51
Registered: October 2002
Location: USA |
Member |
|
|
| Vicki wrote on Fri, 25 October 2002 23:14 |
I wonder as to her hair length now as I do not recall reading of her getting it cut shorter or cut at all for that matter. I do not remember her ever getting it really styled really since Debbie played with it when she was selling cosmetics using Tuck as a model. Perhaps she has let it grow longer and tied it back possibly ?
|
Val got it cut before the camping trip. That was when Amy decided that she should be able to "share" Travis with her until she went back to New York. Also when Tuck/Val showed her continuing change of attitude, with her thoughts toward the gay hairdresser (it wasn't so "weird" that time around). And they put on the cute matching outfits and everything ^_^
-ChangelingJane-
|
|
|
| Re: Images of Tuck, Valerie or any of the cast [message #399] |
Sat, 26 October 2002 01:38 |
|
>I do not remember her ever getting it really styled really
> since Debbie played with it when she was selling cosmetics
> using Tuck as a model. Perhaps she has let it grow longer
> and tied it back possibly ?
tuck's last hair cut was on august 1st. and tu-val got it cut "Um, sort of the same as last time, something, you know, something I can wear either way?" so it's probably still short. he's been getting it cut fairly regularly
|
|
| |
| Re: Images of Tuck, Valerie or any of the cast [message #412] |
Sun, 27 October 2002 01:46 |
ChangelingJane
Messages: 51
Registered: October 2002
Location: USA |
Member |
|
|
Here's a picture in progress that I'm working on. The scene is at King's Island, after Mike, Kim, and Amy find out about Travis and they're in the parking lot talking things out. This is how I usually picture Val's hair being. I know the color's off (it looks blonde, not brown), but I'll be fixing that shortly...
-ChangelingJane-
|
|
| |
| Re: Images of Tuck, Valerie or any of the cast [message #415] |
Sun, 27 October 2002 10:16 |
|
| Quote: |
I seem to recall that it's long enough to put in a pony tail - so that makes it probably about shoulder length.
But it's probably not much longer.....
--
Kate E
|
The only thing of course is if the hair was worn up in a pony tail while in Eugene mode it could be longer indeed especially when Eugene/Valarie is considered a geek-ette so long hair would be permissable and possibly a status symbol (to begin with anyway)and you must remember males tie the hair back at the lower part of their hair. So hair length could be actually be well past the shoulders to the middle of her back when it was not worn up.If you consider the amount of time that has passed since the start of the story. I cannot remember either of her parents ever stressing that the hair needed to be cut. I am sure that Valaries hair is important to her and if I remember she took great pride in it's upkeep.
Doubt is a thief that often makes us fear to tread where we might have won --Shakespeare" --
-Vicki
|
|
| | |
| Re: Images of Tuck, Valerie or any of the cast [message #426] |
Mon, 28 October 2002 09:30 |
|
| iWindoze wrote on Sun, 27 October 2002 21:07 |
What does the hair color really matter??
Why not just do your pictures in the anime
style? i.e. a different color\highlight
each picture? One of the in jokes to Ranma 1/2
is in fact based on the fact that no picture
has Ranma-chan's the same color as any other-
slight variations and such..
In any case--I liked the pictures! the latest
reminds me of some of the stuff Ariel Schrag
did in her comix..good stuff!
|
If we are drawing conceptual art it is a good idea to have some baselines that we all follow (of course there are some mavericks out there in anything you do) it gives all the images some cohesion as that everyone would be drawing the same person.
We could try to have everyone draw their own idealized version of Valarie and friends but there I see a wide range of images with none of the images not even beginning to resemble the same character.
Doubt is a thief that often makes us fear to tread where we might have won --Shakespeare" --
-Vicki
|
|
|
| Re: Images of Tuck, Valerie or any of the cast [message #427] |
Mon, 28 October 2002 09:55 |
|
I think this is a worthy source for drawing images. . they give some good basics and will help you become a better artist if you will pay attention and follow the guidelines they recommend.
http://omu.kuiki.net/index.htm
Doubt is a thief that often makes us fear to tread where we might have won --Shakespeare" --
-Vicki
|
|
| | | | | | |
| Re: Images of Tuck, Valerie or any of the cast [message #2740] |
Sat, 06 November 2004 01:07 |
 stripes
Messages: 14
Registered: November 2004
Location: Canada, thank God |
Junior Member |
|
|
Valerie Tucker from Tuck squared, when she's at home...
Allover
Cursed forum is mosconfigured; upload dies with a bunch of php errors. Try at
http://hedgehog.dnsalias.org:8000/~allover/tuck/valerie-steyr-2.png
(may go down or change IP addresses randomly from time to time)
[Updated on: Sat, 06 November 2004 01:12]
|
|
|
| Re: Images of Tuck, Valerie or any of the cast [message #2769] |
Sun, 07 November 2004 21:52 |
OtherEric
Messages: 589
Registered: September 2003 |
Senior Member |
|
|
| stripes wrote on Fri, 05 November 2004 22:07 |
Valerie Tucker from Tuck squared, when she's at home...
|
Not bad. I would fix the copyright notice quick, though. Joel Lawrence has absolutly zero claim to any character Ellen introduces in her story, and espically not to a character introduced in an earlier story.
For that matter, I think Ellen is wrong in her copyright statement. Since it is a derivitive work, Joel Lawrence (and, in regards to other characters, Tigger,) has the right to deny circulation of the work, and possibly claim damages from the distribution of the work. But they should have no claim to copyright in Ellen's story unless Ellen deliberatly assigns it to them. Which may have been her intent.
Then again, IANAL. I've just read an awful lot about copyright. Anybody else have an opinion?
|
|
| |
| Re: Images of Tuck, Valerie or any of the cast [message #2776] |
Mon, 08 November 2004 02:05 |
stripes
Messages: 14
Registered: November 2004
Location: Canada, thank God |
Junior Member |
|
|
| OtherEric wrote on Sun, 07 November 2004 21:52 |
| stripes wrote on Fri, 05 November 2004 22:07 |
Valerie Tucker from Tuck squared, when she's at home...
|
Not bad. I would fix the copyright notice quick, though. Joel Lawrence has absolutly zero claim to any character Ellen introduces in her story, and espically not to a character introduced in an earlier story.
For that matter, I think Ellen is wrong in her copyright statement. Since it is a derivitive work, Joel Lawrence (and, in regards to other characters, Tigger,) has the right to deny circulation of the work, and possibly claim damages from the distribution of the work. But they should have no claim to copyright in Ellen's story unless Ellen deliberatly assigns it to them. Which may have been her intent.
Then again, IANAL. I've just read an awful lot about copyright. Anybody else have an opinion?
|
In fact, I thought about that issue. As I understand copyright law (IANAL also, of course) the picture is a derived work of Tucky Seasons, which is by Ellen Hayes, and which is also a derived work of both regular Tuck (also by Ellen of course) and of the Seasons canon, to which Joel Lawrence holds the copyright (ignoring the complication that it's arguably derived form the *whole* canon, with all its myriad authors). So the people who have the right to restrict copying of derived works of Tucky Seasons are (a) the author of the derived work, (b) Ellen, and (c) Joel Lawrence. I annotated the image to that effect (normally I'd just have stuck the silly thing in the public domain and foregone the riches to be obtained from selling it). Sorry, but the Tuck character in Tucky Seasons is inextricably a derived work of the earlier seasons (just as Tuck fanfics are inextricably derived works of the Tuck canon). This is not to say Joel Lawrence can do what he likes with them; he can only restrict copying. Just as Ellen can only legally restrict copying of Tuck-based works (morally, of course, things may be different, and of course there is politeness as well...)
More to the point, Ellen has seen the picture and raised no particular objections to its copyright attribution.
(I suppose it might be argued that the picture is *also* a derived work of Tuck Squared, which I did in fact read before drawing it, but I did not particularly base the picture on it; the idea of Tuck coming back from Jane's and integrating Valerie occurred to me independently. If Rachel wants to try to claim a share of the fabulous fortune, I suppose something could be arranged).
Allover
|
|
| | |
| Re: Images of Tuck, Valerie or any of the cast [message #2782] |
Mon, 08 November 2004 06:24 |
 |
Sir Lee
Messages: 440
Registered: October 2003
Location: São Paulo, Brazil |
Senior Member |
|
|
| Ellen Hayes wrote on Mon, 08 November 2004 08:51 |
As for whether a character can be copyrighted, I believe the answer is 'yes' to a large degree, though most of those that I am aware of are graphics-related 'characters' like Superman and Mickey Mouse.
|
I do believe that comics & cartoon characters are in fact NOT protected by copyright, but by trademark law. The most public case of plagiarizing lawsuit was DC vs. Fawcett (about Captain Marvel being somewhat similar to Superman), and AFAIK it went unresolved because Fawcett settled and stopped publishing CM. Nowadays, there is any amount of character-copying and the lawyers keep quiet -- witness just about ALL of Rob Liefeld's characters, which are highly derivative of either Marvel or DC. As long as they don't violate the "names and distinctive likenesses thereof" of the trademarked characters, everybody does character copying. Also, comics publishers tend to use the "TM" (trademark) thingy, sometimes the "R-in-a-circle" (registered trademark) symbol, associated to their characters, instead of the "C-in-a-circle".
The so-called "Mickey Mouse" copyright extension law of a few years ago, in the U.S., protected Disney's intellectual property in the form of keeping control of their older movies, which were rather close to entering public domain. That is, Mickey Mouse would keep being a Disney trademark, but "Steamboat Willie" and such would enter public domain and could be copied (and sold) without Disney's OK. And "Snow White" is still a cash cow after all these years...
Don't call me Shirley. You will surely make me surly.
|
|
|
| Re: Images of Tuck, Valerie or any of the cast [message #2785] |
Mon, 08 November 2004 11:42 |
 |
Erin Halfelven
Messages: 712
Registered: September 2002
Location: Surf City, USA |
Senior Member
Administrator |
|
|
Any single image or series of images can be copyrighted but a drawn character has to be trademarked for full protection. Even photographed characters can be trademarked, Clayton Moore got in trouble for appearing in public wearing a mask after he was fired since the studio owned the trademark on his masked face as The Lone Ranger.
The classic case was The Yellow Kid, the very first comic strip to regularly run in American Newspapers. Outcault the artist claimed ownership of the strip over the newspaper and the right to find another publisher, the courts sided with him, I believe. Mostly, I think, because the newspaper had allowed him to publish comic magazines without taking a cut of the proceeds. He went to another newspaper with his strip then later went back to his first one as I remember.
But in a later case, with the Katzenjammer Kids, the courts made a Solomon-like decision, the newspaper owned the trademark on the title but artist and newspaper shared ownership of copyrights and trademarks on the characters. The artist in that case went to another paper and started The Captain and the Kids with the same characters and the newspaper continued publishing the Katzenjammer Kids with a new artist. Same thing happened later with Bringing Up Father which begat the artist-controlled spinoff Maggie and Jiggs. All four strips were still being published forty or fifty years later in the sixties, I think. Maggie and Jiggs was one of the strips I remember learning to read on.
The case of Superman and Captain Marvel was resolved by National-DC taking over Fawcett's trademarks and copyrights in an out of court settlement at a time when it looked as if all comic books were going to be banned due to the Seduction of the Innocent flap and the House Unamerican Activities Committee. Fawcett wanted out of the business and out of the lawsuit so they just walked away from the second biggest success in comics.
The forties were full of lawsuits over characters like Superman and Captain America but very few of them ever went to a decision in the courts.
- Erin
|
|
|
| Re: Images of Tuck, Valerie or any of the cast [message #2789] |
Mon, 08 November 2004 22:26 |
stripes
Messages: 14
Registered: November 2004
Location: Canada, thank God |
Junior Member |
|
|
Just to muddy the waters some more, I make no claims at all about copyrights/trademarks/patents/trade secrets/whatever on *characters* - I just claim the image is a derived work of Tucky Seasons. Specifically because of the hair, and more generally because I envisioned Val wanting to prove something about petticoats when I drew it. And if it's derived from Tucky Seasons, well...
If characters cannot be copyrighted but only trademarked, then someone *could* legally (but not morally, politely, or, probably safely) use Tuck in some other work for profit. Of course, they'd have to satisfy a court that the other work was not a derived work of the Saga, which would be basically impossible. But trademarks have to be officially obtained and legally defended.
Anyway, all this is basically irrelevant when the authors involved are happy and no money is involved. And really, if anybody is offended by my image I'll just take it down.
Oh, by the way: it would be nice if somebody could fix the bulletin board so it could handle uploads. I can try uploading again and send in a copy of the PHP errors, but they just weren't very informative.
Allover
|
|
|
| Re: Images of Tuck, Valerie or any of the cast [message #2792] |
Mon, 08 November 2004 23:35 |
OtherEric
Messages: 589
Registered: September 2003 |
Senior Member |
|
|
| stripes wrote on Mon, 08 November 2004 19:26 |
If characters cannot be copyrighted but only trademarked, then someone *could* legally (but not morally, politely, or, probably safely) use Tuck in some other work for profit.
|
No, because characters can be owned- which is not the same as being trademarked or copyrighted. I think it has to do with having the copyright to the first appearance of the character. I am certain that, once a character's first appearance enters the public domain, the character is in the public domain. Elements of the character that first appeared in stories still under copyright are not, however. If the character is used in any of the promotion of whatever you use them in, you may still be in deep doo-doo if the character is still trademarked. And promotion can include an awful lot. (Tarzan is PD, for example, but ERB's estate will stomp hard on any violation of the trademark- making it hard for anybody to do much.)
|
|
|
| Re: Images of Tuck, Valerie or any of the cast [message #2794] |
Tue, 09 November 2004 03:02 |
|
Erin Halfelven
Messages: 712
Registered: September 2002
Location: Surf City, USA |
Senior Member
Administrator |
|
|
As Charlton comics found out back in the Sixties. Someone screwed up and the fifth Tarzan book, Jungle Tales of Tarzan, never had its copyright renewed so it expired first, in the early Sixties. Someone at Charlton noticed this and decided to come out with a Jungle Tales of Tarzan comic book. They got out a few issues before ERB landed all over them.
Nothing much could be done about them doing an adaptation of JToT, it being in the public domain. But they were warned that they better not use even a crumb of a hint of a suggestion of anything that happened in any other Tarzan book or other licensed adaptation. And as for using the name Tarzan or the likeness of the Lord of the Jungle on the COVER of their product (especially wearing leopard skin swimming trunks like Johnny Weismuller on the covers of #2 and #3!) that could make a nasty trademark suit.
Charlton Comics was a "waste" operation, it existed by publishing its comics on paper left over from other jobs (crossword puzzle books and reprintings of the lyrics of popular songs, mostly  ) and time squeezed in on busy presses (it had supposedly been started to keep those presses busy when there was nothing better to print), it didn't need to draw heat to be in trouble, they were always in trouble.
They bargained their way out of the hole they had dug and quickly ceased publication of JToT with number 4. The art and story weren't bad, in fact, they were good if not to every comic book taste (I think Sam Glanzman did the art, a skritchy, chiseled look), but as usual with Charlton, the printing looked like something done in the wee hours of the night when the bosses have already gone home.
- Erin
[Updated on: Tue, 09 November 2004 03:03]
|
|
| |
| Re: Apropos of nothing [message #2798] |
Tue, 09 November 2004 05:20 |
OtherEric
Messages: 589
Registered: September 2003 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Ah, Charlton. I think I heard somewhere that due to the way the presses worked, it was actually cheaper to be printing anything than just turning the dang things off. (For those who are more familar with old paperbacks than old comics, substitute Monarch Books. Same outfit, different names.) Lots of crap, but they would leave the creators alone to do what they wanted to and more often than you might expect a genuine masterpiece would come down the pipe.
On the Tarzan, they could have used the name as long as they used the full name of the book. Just like the collections of the Superman cartoons can use the name. But, if they want to use the art on the cover, it needs to be art from the cartoons themselves, not anything else.
I've only ever seen a few examples of the comic strips you were mentioning, so I can't help. Comic book trivia, I can do. But my knowlege of the strips is much more limited. (Now you've got me wondering.)
|
|
|
| Re: Apropos of nothing [message #2800] |
Tue, 09 November 2004 08:25 |
|
Sir Lee
Messages: 440
Registered: October 2003
Location: São Paulo, Brazil |
Senior Member |
|
|
| OtherEric wrote on Tue, 09 November 2004 08:20 |
Ah, Charlton. I think I heard somewhere that due to the way the presses worked, it was actually cheaper to be printing anything than just turning the dang things off. (For those who are more familar with old paperbacks than old comics, substitute Monarch Books. Same outfit, different names.)
|
Hmmm, from what I know of printing technology, this can't be exactly true. Printing is not really a continuous process, not like steelmaking (where if you shutdown the furnaces you have basically to rebuild them) -- you HAVE to stop the presses to change plates before printing a new publication. BUT big printing presses can be REALLY expensive, and in some cases the financial costs of having that much capital generating no revenue at all can far outweight the maintenance costs of printing some kind of low-margin stuff. So, it's better to print cheap stuff (even at a nominal "loss") than printing not at all and have no money come in...
Don't call me Shirley. You will surely make me surly.
|
|
| |
| Print Costs [message #2850] |
Fri, 19 November 2004 02:05 |
Eric
Messages: 641
Registered: January 2003
Location: San Francisco |
Senior Member |
|
|
| Sir Lee wrote on Tue, 09 November 2004 05:25 |
| OtherEric wrote on Tue, 09 November 2004 08:20 |
Ah, Charlton. I think I heard somewhere that due to the way the presses worked, it was actually cheaper to be printing anything than just turning the dang things off. (For those who are more familar with old paperbacks than old comics, substitute Monarch Books. Same outfit, different names.)
|
Hmmm, from what I know of printing technology, this can't be exactly true. Printing is not really a continuous process, not like steelmaking (where if you shutdown the furnaces you have basically to rebuild them) -- you HAVE to stop the presses to change plates before printing a new publication. BUT big printing presses can be REALLY expensive, and in some cases the financial costs of having that much capital generating no revenue at all can far outweight the maintenance costs of printing some kind of low-margin stuff. So, it's better to print cheap stuff (even at a nominal "loss") than printing not at all and have no money come in...
|
FWIW, that may explain something a guy in Las Vegas told me in trying to get me to restart a newsletter on which costs exceeded revenues so much (and for such a long time, as I waited for the light at the end of the tunnel) that I couldn't find any way out. He told me that if I had it printed in Vegas, I could get it out for an amount which I knew was less than the cost of the blank paper here in California. He didn't say so, but I assumed that it had to do with unused printing capacity.
(I'm not at all sure it's true, since the guy hasn't followed up with me and I haven't been able to reach him. But he obviously thought it was plausible, and all that was in it for him, as far as I knew, was being able to read the newsletter again -- he was a customer of the printer, not a salesperson.)
|
|
| | | |
| Re: Images of Tuck, Valerie or any of the cast [message #5449] |
Sat, 27 October 2007 23:38 |
|
Erin Halfelven
Messages: 712
Registered: September 2002
Location: Surf City, USA |
Senior Member
Administrator |
|
|
Um? I don't know where it went. I upgraded the software in July and maybe that broke the link.
- Erin
[Updated on: Sat, 27 October 2007 23:42]
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Feb 18 06:35:04 EST 2019
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03428 seconds |
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
E-mail to friend 
but that still does not tell us how long or short Vallaries hair style is. I just don't think it is very short at all and definately longer than a pixie hair cut.
But your plan for protection/retribution could probably be improved on by Tuck.