2017-02-14 - Valentine's Day!

[willworkforhugs]

The artist agreement says art has to be replaced with a "suitable replacement," but since they were so new to the site, couldn't a "suitable replacement" have been an entirely new dragon instead?

 

I mean, I understand wanting to keep the general vibe, but seeing another dragon created with clear inspirations from their design and even the description and name being kept feels a lot more like someone got ripped off then the feet matching implications. I understand people probably would've been annoyed at losing that style but as has been shown, people are still just as annoyed anyway, so...

 

I know if I'd had a dragon chosen only to be immediately accused of theft and lose my description and concept to something very clearly inspired by my design, I'd be hella mad.

I third this.

[Aurae]

Love how Valentines is the day of LOVE yet all we are seeing is hate hate hate.

I don't see hate. I see confusion, yes. Discussion too, but not much hate. I've witnessed very little in the way of unreasonable behaviour in here, it's been fairly civilised for a drama.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

I'm a very new artist - just sort of learning angles and perspective (perspective is hard!) And I need to use a lot of references because I don't have enough practice with anatomy to get it in my head.

BUT that said, tracing in any form - unless you have the permission of the artist/copyright owner whose art you're tracing - is morally wrong and literally illegal. It's not about 'how similar' the overall piece of art or concept is to whatever it was traced from, it's the fact that a traced piece is not an original work. However much you 'can't copyright a pose', the legal agreement that TJ posted (I'm on mobile rn and not quite sure how quoting works here, but maybe someone else can snag the relevant bit for me) that the artists/spriters who sign it do so in the obligation that all submitted art is original. If any part of an official sprite was traced, it's not original work, it violates the agreement between artist and DC, and it can be done for infringement. TJ was well within his legal rights to pull the sprites.

And you all might remember that TJ is the one with his head on the chopping block. If he gets done for copyright infringement, we might lose a free website we enjoy - TJ could have his life ruined. Harden up. We got wonderful purple Valentine's dragons.

There is NO DEFINITE PROOF of tracing, though. Similar poses are not definite proof.

 

And I really doubt someone would sue over a part of a leg on a horse picture. Especially when, as I mentioned, DC has at times jokingly used pokemon sprites (and still is, with the Magikarp) with no issue. There is caution and then there is excessive caution. I understand we don't own the site and thus it's not up to us, but... after seeing the evidence it still all feels very vague.

 

Although to be fair they could've been invalidated simply on the "sketch uploaded before the adults grew up" thing, in which case none of the other jibber jabber would've come up. Although that would have been a rough rule to enforce mid release >___<

[Tigerkralle]

*eating popcorn* Mumbling to herself i should try to roast marshmallows in those flames.

 

So i am curious will the description changed because the pearl is in the paw not between the antlers?

 

I am a bit disappointed that we are still waiting for another member of the Pygmyfamily as an event dragon breed and our first Two-headed or Drake breed.

 

So the agreement was violated and tracing... and an ocean full of drama...

 

I remember the old Silvers and the old Two-Headed Dragons and why not a new sprite for a Holiday? Like The Bossman told us in this case no lineages were harmed. I cannot believe what happens here at the moment.

*eating chocolate* *wants to smell on a blooming rose to calm down*

[Dianacat777]

Huh. This sheds a lot more light on why what happened happened (and regardless of tracing or no tracing, the fact remains that the artist's agreement was violated due to available art) - but I was unaware that taking poses from stock photos was copyright infringement in that vein.

 

Not that this was a problem with my Valentines submission, but one of my dragon requests in DR will need a new sketch. Probably a good thing I learned that now and not sometime in the future.

Edited February 19, 2017 by Dianacat777

[DuskOfTheStars]

Love how Valentines is the day of LOVE yet all we are seeing is hate hate hate.

 

I also have a feeling if a different artist had done the original sprites no one would have complained even if they were 100% traced. No one would have bothered looking. Just because its one person who supposedly got caught now everyone who hates them are literally stalking them on every site they try spriting for and claiming everything they've done is traced. Like seriously?

If I draw a stick figure that lines up exactly with a stick figure drawn by you does this mean I traced your dang stick figure? NO it just means that coincidentally we both draw the same crappy stick figures! If you are using refrence photos, depending on your skill and eye for detail, you can get pretty close to the actual thing. Ive legit seen my dad draw stuff using refrences that look EXACTLY like the refrence art...to the point where if I hadnt seen him drawing I would have screamed 'traced'. I've also seen legit traced artwork that didnt look traced cause the person sucked at tracing

 

So unless you were legit breathing down the person's neck as they drew/traced you cant know for a fact that they did.

Wonder how many artists are going to want to sprite anything for DC now knowing that the dang drawing police are out and checking every centimeter of their sprites against thousands of refrence drawings just so they can scream 'traced' if half a millimeter of line perfectly matches up with any of them.

I'm gonna be honest here, if someone decided to sue I don't think the judge would pay that much attention to hearsay. Like 'I saw her draw it'. If you had a stream, that incontrovertible proof. But if it's your word against the accuser's...

 

That's why these were pulled. To prevent DC from bring sued. Even if they weren't traced, they were close enough and had no incontrovertible proof thst I don't think courts would accept that...

 

And while it might be fine in private, put it up where a lot of people can see it, and it's in the public eye under your copyright. In public, tracing will often be trouble without proper crediting becsuse you're taking the traced art and implicitly ciaming it's yours. When it isn't.

 

Edit: Just because it's not likely DOESN'T mean it won't happen, too.

Edited February 19, 2017 by Dusky_Flareon

[Jazeki]

From the US copyright office, for your convenience:

 

102. Subject matter of copyright: In general

(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

[...]

 

(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

 

[..]

( B ) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work

 

A pose falls under method of operation (how the animal moves).

 

(Read the whole thing over here Copyright circular.)

Edited February 19, 2017 by Jazeki

[DongaDunderson]

OH BOY GUESS WHO HAS TO PUT IN HER TWO CENTS ON EVERY ISSUE

ME

 

i understand if a whole drawing was traced that would be bad but

one leg looks similar to a picture of a horse's leg because it's a hooved hind leg in a running position?

are u kidding?

if u google "horse running" i can guarantee you with 100000000% certainty you will find numerous photos and drawings of horses with their legs in that position.

is literally every one of those pictures then copied? which horse becomes the "alpha horse" and is the only horse allowed to be on the internet?

 

that is all c:

 

EDIT: i think i have to delete my concept for mummy-esque dragons now because they have the colour blue on them and other pictures also have the colour blue so rip me i guess

(i know thats a very dramatic oversimplification but come on guys really?)

Edited February 19, 2017 by DongaDunderson

[AppleMango]

So i am curious will the description changed because the pearl is in the paw not between the antlers?

If you look at the original that Tazzay posted, it has the pearl in its paw too.

[Erytheros]

I'm also gonna interject here that if I had taken those photographs or drawn that picture, then I don't think I would have noticed that the legs of my work were nearly identical to someone else's, especially if they were applied to a dragon.

[StarlightLion]

The conflict here is about the fact that there's no real proof it's been traced.

 

Something referenced can come out looking just as traced as something actually traced - as Odeen's art showed - and Tazzay's PF post claims that she watched EEF draw it, from scratch, being referenced.

 

If the only reason TJ pulled them was from the 3 images posted, that's why people are upset, because it's so ambiguous and why would the artists come back with proof now?

 

If I was Tazzay or EEF, why would I even bother giving proof, when no matter what proof is given a huge userbase is now always going to see them as tracers based on loose evidence. I certainly wouldn't give permission to use my art out again - even if I did have proof it was original.

 

 

EDIT: That, and TJ did not say it was just about the contract breach with the sketch being uploaded or whatever - he stated it was about the tracing. If it had just been a breach with the sketch, I think none of this discussion would have even happened.

I realise I wasn't clear on this, so my fault, but: I'm not saying I know whether or not the sprites in question were traced. I don't actually know what to believe in that regard, I don't have the experience to make a solid judgement call. But TJ is still well within his rights to pull these dragons, and squabbling about how traced it looks/doesn't look is not only a waste of our time, it's ridiculous.

I don't know the first thing about Tazzay or EEF, and frankly I feel bad that their concepts were simply replaced with another artist's version. (This is not the fault of the new spriter, whose work I actually vastly like). It must be heartbreaking to have their dragon released and then pulled like this.

 

That said, regardless of whether the Cermorvus (is that right?) dragons were traced or original work, it is still TJ who would have had to pay the price if the issue was ever brought to bear. I cannot in good conscience be angry with him (in this case, still salty about the Prize raffles) over pulling these sprites. The facts remain that there is an argument to be made for tracing, whether it's true or not, and that could have been enough to hurt TJ or Dragon Cave.

And yes, TJ said more about tracing than the sketch violation, but that's because he needn't say much about that at all. It is a clear breach of contract. It's black and white, unlike the tracing allegations.

 

EDIT: Side note, completely unrelated - I L O V E the discussion of how the pearl is made/handled/etc. Beautiful

Edited February 19, 2017 by Ninjakittee

[Moonlight_Eevee]

If we're having problems with these dragons and a lot of dragons are referenced with pictures, should TJ go in and tell everyone to rework their dragons because a certain body type like the head, body, leg, tail, or wing looks like eerily similar to that of the picture?

[AppleMango]

The artist agreement says art has to be replaced with a "suitable replacement," but since they were so new to the site, couldn't a "suitable replacement" have been an entirely new dragon instead?

 

I mean, I understand wanting to keep the general vibe, but seeing another dragon created with clear inspirations from their design and even the description and name being kept feels a lot more like someone got ripped off then the feet matching implications. I understand people probably would've been annoyed at losing that style but as has been shown, people are still just as annoyed anyway, so...

 

I know if I'd had a dragon chosen only to be immediately accused of theft and lose my description and concept to something very clearly inspired by my design, I'd be hella mad.

+1

[Dianacat777]

OH BOY GUESS WHO HAS TO PUT IN HER TWO CENTS ON EVERY ISSUE

ME

 

i understand if a whole drawing was traced that would be bad but

one leg looks similar to a picture of a horse's leg because it's a hooved hind leg in a running position?

are u kidding?

if u google "horse running" i can guarantee you with 100000000% certainty you will find numerous photos and drawings of horses with their legs in that position.

is literally every one of those pictures then copied? which horse becomes the "alpha horse" and is the only horse allowed to be on the internet?

 

that is all c:

 

EDIT: i think i have to delete my concept for mummy-esque dragons now because they have the colour blue on them and other pictures also have the colour blue so rip me i guess

(i know thats a very dramatic oversimplification but come on guys really?)

I'm a little shocked at the reasoning as well, but that is a dramatic oversimplification when:

 

-the s2 almost perfectly matches up with a stock photo

-the artist in question has a history of tracing (this, I think, would be the kicker)

-the artist's agreement was violated anyway with availability of art

 

Though if this level of cribbing off references is disallowed, I'm going to seriously have to change my tactics on spriting. I'm not very good at anatomy and I rely heavily on references for things that aren't completely obvious. I had been under the impression that references were free game as long as you weren't directly spriting off them - but looking at them and mimicking what they do was fine.

Edited February 19, 2017 by Dianacat777

[Xylene]

This has quickly gone off-forums due to the ease of typing in an IRC instead, so I'll leave you with more brainstorming Para + Pika + I are doing and call it a night.

 

[21:57:43] <Paradoxangel> If pearls are the same as real pearls in formation, then you are going to get pearls that are vary wildly in size, shape (perfection of spherical form), and perhaps most importantly, color

[21:57:54] <Paradoxangel> They probably find mates based on that. Also, being pearls, if you draw real world conclusions about them, they are probably stolen/lost/(or given or discarded) frequently and then reformed

[21:59:34] <Paradoxangel> New pearls formed would inherently be different from previous pearls

[21:59:51] <Paradoxangel> Maybe they change mates accordingly as new pearls are created

[22:00:12] <XyIene> okay BUT if you can reform + create new pearls you know there's gonna be That One Jerk who makes like three unnecessary pearls and juggles them

[22:00:47] <Paradoxangel> But if we are running off magnetic-esque theory that won't work. It will only balance if there's one pearl betwixt the antlers

[22:01:09] <XyIene> Can you pls imagine these dragons making a ton of small pearls just to show off, being unable to balance them properly, and then eventually having to drop the extras because Dude. No.

[22:01:17] <Paradoxangel> Have you seen magnets hover between 2 other magnets? Like that

[22:01:29] <XyIene> but like. It sounds like something a small dragon would probably heck up. "Why can't I have TWO pearls" "THIS IS WHY, BILLY"

[22:01:43] <Paradoxangel> Im sure the immature ones attwmpt it?

[22:01:47] <XyIene> Wait are these dragons male or female

[22:01:54] <@Tehpikachu> female

[22:01:59] <XyIene> THIS IS WHY, JANE

[22:02:03] <@Tehpikachu> but i like females with male names so continue

[22:02:07] <Paradoxangel> But u know, its going to take a LONG time to form a new pearl, they will probably lose the old one by then

[22:02:45] <@Tehpikachu> maybe it doesn't, cos the s1 hatchling already formed the pearl

[22:03:13] <Paradoxangel> New pearls take time

[22:03:21] <@Tehpikachu> i dont think so, cos the desc would say that i think. it says that she formed it

[22:03:38] <@Tehpikachu> "It has conjured a shimmering pearl that it always brings with it."

[22:03:47] <XyIene> I'm fine with the oysterfacts I haven't done nearly enough research and it is Good

 

The thing I was wondering about the Metal + Antler idea is, if they're choosing a specific metal and mixing it with their antlers, they must be able to adjust the magnetic output of their antlers- basically, account for how heavy the pearl is and how strong or weak the magnetism is for varied metals. (For example, Iron, and Cobalt are magnetic, while others like Aluminum or Tin are more affected by magnetism.)

 

Since what's inside the pearl would be a mystery to dragons other than the pearl creator, the weight of pearl vs metal and the required output to make it 'float' would be difficult to figure out.

[Tigerkralle]

If you look at the original that Tazzay posted, it has the pearl in its paw too.

Yes, and also then i would like to know if the descripition will be changed. Why talking about a pearl in the antlers when the pearl clearly is in the paw?

[Aurae]

This has quickly gone off-forums due to the ease of typing in an IRC instead, so I'll leave you with more brainstorming Para + Pika + I are doing and call it a night.

 

 

 

The thing I was wondering about the Metal + Antler idea is, if they're choosing a specific metal and mixing it with their antlers, they must be able to adjust the magnetic output of their antlers- basically, account for how heavy the pearl is and how strong or weak the magnetism is for varied metals. (For example, Iron, and Cobalt are magnetic, while others like Aluminum or Tin are more affected by magnetism.)

 

Since what's inside the pearl would be a mystery to dragons other than the pearl creator, the weight of pearl vs metal and the required output to make it 'float' would be difficult to figure out.

The level of geek in these antler conversations has my approval.

 

@Tigerkralle: It was in the antlers on the old S1 and S2 IIRC.

Edited February 19, 2017 by Aurae

[hazelstormll]

this valentines situation seems to bee very difficult

[TCA]

-the artist in question has a history of tracing (this, I think, would be the kicker)

Not only does one artist have a history of tracing, they have a history of trying to pass traced work off as original for adoptable site submissions.

[Zxke]

I hope you realize nothing will be physically unique and will always have something identical or an exact replicant. Even if it's a single part or multiple parts. Nothing is entirely unique.

[Esdren]

It looks like a more complicated situation now that both sides of the story has come out.. I personally can't take sides with either parties.

 

I can understand why TJ did what he did when the possibility of tracing came up, he probably didn't have all the time in the world to decide on the action to take since the hatchlings were due to grow up soon. If the original adults were revealed to the userbase there was a possibility of backlash (regarding the tracing, regardless of how small the chance may be) against the artists that would have resulted in drama either way. I don't know. While it was unfair to Tazzay and EEF when the sprites were replaced completely, I think what TJ did was justifiable enough in terms of keeping the drama down and not blemishing the artists' names.

 

I don't think, at least to a growing artist who's only making art for themselves, that tracing/referencing or taking inspiration from something is a bad thing if they keep it to themselves or credit accordingly. (there is nothing shameful about crediting)

While I don't know if tracing did actually occur or not and I'm not stating this towards this situation specifically; I don't agree with using traces, or partially traced things in "official" situations, submission, etc and whatever. Just out of respect for the thing you're submitting/using it for and out of respect for the original inspiration.

 

This all turned to be quite a mess, I hope the heat settles down soon. ):

[Pixxelation]

To those of you in doubt of the legitimacy of the website's claims, I'd like to briefly talk about the differences between two things being in a "similar pose" and two things lining up angle-for-angle, width-for-width, length-for-length. While someone might have a similar idea as another, things almost never line up unless foul play is involved. The latter situation occurred here, which strongly suggests tracing.

 

Also, if you're still reading this, Tazzay: tracing free-to-use stock for your own personal learning experience and never posting anywhere is entirely different from tracing art and submitting it to websites as your own. You did the latter both on Tale of Dragons and here--I remember the Skull-Faced Lindwyrm quite clearly, being friends with Playdoh who unfortunately sprited your traced sketch without realizing it was traced--and it is ridiculously misleading to claim you only traced "to learn about anatomy."

[Erytheros]

The thing I was wondering about the Metal + Antler idea is, if they're choosing a specific metal and mixing it with their antlers, they must be able to adjust the magnetic output of their antlers- basically, account for how heavy the pearl is and how strong or weak the magnetism is for varied metals. (For example, Iron, and Cobalt are magnetic, while others like Aluminum or Tin are more affected by magnetism.)

 

Since what's inside the pearl would be a mystery to dragons other than the pearl creator, the weight of pearl vs metal and the required output to make it 'float' would be difficult to figure out.

See, but this is Dragon Cave. Can't these dragons just make the pearls hover with the same magic that they used to conjure them?

[DongaDunderson]

http://prntscr.com/eak869

WOAH GOT SOME TRACERS ON OUR HANDS

http://prntscr.com/eak953

SOMEONE CALL THE ART POLICE WE GOT A TRACER

http:// /eak98s

WHAT IS THIS OVERWATCH LMAO LOOK AT ALL THESE TRACERS

 

That pose was so generic that if you google "horse walking" it will match nearly every stock photo you see. By the logic being used here all the images I've screencapped need to be taken off the internet and destroyed.

This is like saying that Da Vinci should sue any work which depicts a human in the anatomical position because he drew the original Vetruvian Man, and especially considering that poses aren't protected under copyright ANYWAY, I conclude that this is more horse-dung (keepin it PG13 on this here forum) than anything that comes out of the animals depicted in the given stock photos.

 

(im only really this adamant because i liked the original ones better, and it sucks that such great designs got replaced by someone else's rendition because the self-proclaimed art police decided to make Valentines Day the target of their latest witchhunt).

[Dianacat777]

Not only does one artist have a history of tracing, they have a history of trying to pass traced work off as original for adoptable site submissions.

Well, yes, that's what I meant. It is rather damning - and even if they have changed, unfortunately that's a stigma that's hard to shake off.

 

But I would like a clarification to what extent references can be used in DC spriting, because now I'm hesitant. Like, directly lining a pose like a sketch and then adding draconic features is obviously bad, but what if you take a pose, draw a 'wire figure' with body-limbs-head-tail directly from the pose, and then sketch or sprite around that? What if you look at a reference and mimic it to the best of your ability, but never at any point trace or sprite off of it? Where's the line drawn?