Jump to content
TJ09

2017-02-14 - Valentine's Day!

Recommended Posts

I think you may have struck gold - a moment of true inspiration! xd.png I'd say submit them for Halloween dragons but after this my concepts/art isn't going anywhere near DC so I couldn't bring myself to encourage anyone else! tongue.gif

I have a couple of dragons that I'm working on right now. I swore to myself no more dragons that has multiple colours after an incident with the first completed design, yet I still went a head and made another one >..>

Share this post


Link to post
To be perfectly clear, just because I felt it necessary to disclose that Tazzay's history of tracing was an initial cause for distrust doesn't mean that I'm saying I necessarily assume that only Tazzay is potentially the problem?

Fair enough, it was starting to look like you were blaming one person for something on another's account is all. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Magnetic fields, yo

I know we rambled about this off-forums, but pls, some highlights. (Posted with permission~)

 

[21:07:30] <Paradoxangel> Resonance between pearl and antlers only

[21:07:38] <Xylene> do metal objects get stuck in their antlers? what about jewelery? what about wires or idk getting stuck to their antlers?

[21:08:08] <Xylene> okay but is it that one pearl

[21:08:13] <@Tehpikachu> the pearl isnt metal tho

[21:08:25] <Xylene> or is it anything made of calcium

[21:08:47] <Xylene> er... I mean anything like... calcium carbon-something. BASICALLY would other pearls getstuck

[21:08:51] <Xylene> what about pearl necklaces

[21:09:10] <Xylene> what about if they get their antlers locked together, do the fields get mixed and just launch both pearls into the stratosphere

[21:09:12] <Xylene> Pls

[21:09:26] <@Tehpikachu> maybe it's just their pearl, cos the new hatchling desc says they conjure it up themselves

 

Please. I know you can just handwave and say 'magic' but think of all the hilarious and glorious possibilities.

 

It's a delightful yet on-topic discussion: How do the Pearl + Antlers work?

Share this post


Link to post
user posted image

*snipped*

Except for the fact that if you line up the horse the back, neck, and face line up almost exactly? Like, 80% of this area lines up more than the legs do on the "traced" images.

 

It's hard to see because the image is so dark, but if you put it in gimp or some other project and line it up right and slide the opacity around, you'll see what I mean.

 

The muzzle on the art is longer, though.

 

That looks way more traced than the legs do on the adult - because they don't, really. They're not even the same shape. You can't line up the whole leg at once, and you can't line up both legs to one image. THAT would be tracing.

Share this post


Link to post
I have a couple of dragons that I'm working on right now. I swore to myself no more dragons that has multiple colours after an incident with the first completed design, yet I still went a head and made another one >..>

But multiple colours = good. Rainbows, for example. biggrin.gif

 

(Lol at Xylene and Paradoxangel and the Magnetic Pearls of Doom!)

Share this post


Link to post
Except for the fact that if you line up the horse the back, neck, and face line up almost exactly? Like, 80% of this area lines up more than the legs do on the "traced" images.

 

It's hard to see because the image is so dark, but if you put it in gimp or some other project and line it up right and slide the opacity around, you'll see what I mean.

 

The muzzle on the art is longer, though.

 

That looks way more traced than the legs do on the adult - because they don't, really. They're not even the same shape. You can't line up the whole leg at once, and you can't line up both legs to one image. THAT would be tracing.

You know, if you trace even a portion of an image, or trace a part and then move the source image and trace another part, it's still tracing. If you trace multiple individual parts of different images to create a single whole, it's still tracing. Unlike what I assume is the case with the original Cermorvus sketch, I have entire streamed video files showing I did not trace the horse and solstice. =)

Share this post


Link to post
and you can't line up both legs to one image. THAT would be tracing.

So it's not tracing to trace parts of various things and combine them to try and throw people off the trail and convince them you're drawing everything from scratch? Cool, I'll just go franken-trace a bunch of limbs from different pictures, make a dragon from it, and submit it to TJ since that's totally okay.

Share this post


Link to post

Except for the fact that if you line up the horse the back, neck, and face line up almost exactly? Like, 80% of this area lines up more than the legs do on the "traced" images.

 

It's hard to see because the image is so dark, but if you put it in gimp or some other project and line it up right and slide the opacity around, you'll see what I mean.

 

The muzzle on the art is longer, though.

 

That looks way more traced than the legs do on the adult - because they don't, really. They're not even the same shape. You can't line up the whole leg at once, and you can't line up both legs to one image. THAT would be tracing.

I was colouring in GIMP when this started and I lined up that horse to check when I saw this post. It is remarkably similar... But if Odeen says that's referenced and not traced and we believe her (why wouldn't we?) it does prove the point that horse poses are so generic it's very easy for a referenced image to look like a traced one!

 

BTW, Odeen - beautiful art. wub.gif

Edited by Aurae

Share this post


Link to post
But multiple colours = good. Rainbows, for example. biggrin.gif

 

(Lol at Xylene and Paradoxangel and the Magnetic Pearls of Doom!)

 

21:15:12 Paradoxangel Technjically

21:15:19 Paradoxangel Pearls can form around anything

21:15:33 Paradoxangel Its a pearl formed round a highly specific resonation metal

 

To round off the convo.

Share this post


Link to post
You know, if you trace even a portion of an image, or trace a part and then move the source image and trace another part, it's still tracing. If you trace multiple individual parts of different images to create a single whole, it's still tracing. Unlike what I assume is the case with the original Cermorvus sketch, I have entire streamed video files showing I did not trace the horse and solstice. =)

I'm not accusing you of tracing, sorry if it came out that way.

 

I'm saying that your horse art looks far more traced than the legs on the Cermorvus.

 

It's easy to see "tracing" when someone lines up the images. Streaming is a good way to avoid it, like you have! But that doesn't mean that just because someone doesn't have proof it is traced.

 

If you didn't have a streaming video, someone could completely accuse you of tracing the horse image - the dog/dragon looks much more ambiguous. But you'd probably cause an uproar, too. Even though you know it was referenced.

 

If you say your art should get a pass then - barring the streaming evidence! - why should an image that looks far less traced not get a pass?

Share this post


Link to post
Tracing isn't against the rules because TJ personally hates people who trace, it's against the rules because of copyright infringement.

 

 

Let's say you took a picture of Rayquaza (From Pokemon), traced over it, and "reworked the concept" so that it's basically an entirely different dragon, with the same pose.

Now let's say Nintendo/Game Freak saw this and said "hey, this was traced from our copyrighted artwork!"

Whoops, there goes DC.

That's the main reason why I pulled the sprite. Even after she still said that, I was still very leery about using it and decided not to go with it at all and went with something else just in case.

Share this post


Link to post

21:15:12 Paradoxangel Technjically

21:15:19 Paradoxangel Pearls can form around anything

21:15:33 Paradoxangel Its a pearl formed round a highly specific resonation metal

 

To round off the convo.

Since they conjure the pearl themselves, what if it's not formed around metal, but around a small piece from their own growing antlers? Therefore, it's DNA specific.

Share this post


Link to post

Oohh those are good questions Xylene. I'd love to know more about that myself.

Share this post


Link to post

I've been neutral up to now. I think the idea that the images were traced is entirely subjective, and it would not have arised if there was not a history of tracing. To illustrate, I have aligned the images of the female Hellhorse adult and hatchling to the same images used here. They, too, appear very similar, but Hellhorse dragons are obviously integrated into the site. The images are listed as links to avoid clogging up the forum.

 

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

 

 

Don't mind the little peeping dragon on the second example.

 

As you can see, these could have been concluded traced as well if the judge were determined to deliver that verdict. I'm not insinuating anything, but I don't think this was exactly fair to the original artists.

Share this post


Link to post

Here are a couple of examples I have of reference photos being used to make art:

 

user posted image

 

There's no denying I looked at these while I was working - however, If you were to try to line them up, they may come close, but they would never be able to fit completely because I was just looking at them.

 

Versus:

user posted image

 

There are several congruencies here, especially with the black horse which I found on the first page of Google by searching "rearing horse". Even the mouth and nostril on the sketch's head fit perfectly with the mouth and nostril of the black horse. The angle and length of the arms/hands fit a painting of a robot dinosaur in Tazzay's DA favorites. That doesn't even take into account the use of a licensed stock photo for the S2 sprite. Licensed stock is not free to use; you have to pay for it.

The two horses look super similar in yours too, though. There's only so much flexibility with horses.

 

Also I feel a pose can't be copyright? I mean:

 

user posted image

 

I just doodled that really quick--it fits the spine of the heartstealing dragon perfectly--but does that make all the other major differences irrelevant? I realize similarities between different pieces are a very open to interpretation subject, but if it's just parts of poses scattered across several different references...

 

Edit: typo.

Edited by angelicdragonpuppy

Share this post


Link to post

I've been neutral up to now. I think the idea that the images were traced is entirely subjective, and it would not have arised if there was not a history of tracing. To illustrate, I have aligned the images of the female Hellhorse adult and hatchling to the same images used here. They, too, appear very similar, but Hellhorse dragons are obviously integrated into the site. The images are listed as links to avoid clogging up the forum.

 

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

 

 

Don't mind the little peeping dragon on the second example.

 

As you can see, these could have been concluded traced as well if the judge were determined to deliver that verdict. I'm not insinuating anything, but I don't think this was exactly fair to the original artists.

Exhibit A: Literally nothing about those two pieces lines up.

 

Exhibit B: See exhibit A, and you had to stretch the sprite to get any vague alignment

 

Exhibit C: See exhibit B.

 

There is no congruency in those. The sketch for the Cermorvus has areas that literally line up perfectly with a horse photo - down to the placement and angle of the NOSTRIL and MOUTH.

 

Edited to remove coolface

Edited by Odeen

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not accusing you of tracing, sorry if it came out that way.

 

I'm saying that your horse art looks far more traced than the legs on the Cermorvus.

 

It's easy to see "tracing" when someone lines up the images. Streaming is a good way to avoid it, like you have! But that doesn't mean that just because someone doesn't have proof it is traced.

 

If you didn't have a streaming video, someone could completely accuse you of tracing the horse image - the dog/dragon looks much more ambiguous. But you'd probably cause an uproar, too. Even though you know it was referenced.

 

If you say your art should get a pass then - barring the streaming evidence! - why should an image that looks far less traced not get a pass?

That's like saying that THIS book is okay because it only plagiaraized one sentence of a book, but the one that plagiaraized THE ENTIRE STORY is not. In reality, both are illegal and grounds to get you expelled, sued, etc.

 

The contract also states that even if any PART of the image is traced, it is grounds for removal. And if one sprite has to be removed for those reasons, related ones can and will be pulled too?

 

Say the adult wasn't even the issue here - even if its only violation was the 60 day rule, but the S2 was found to be traced from a licensed stock photo (after searching, that caribou photo is indeed licensed and would cost $60 for a five year contract for a site like DC), that is grounds for the entire set to be pulled, per the contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Exhibit A: Literally nothing about those two pieces lines up.

 

Exhibit B: See exhibit A, and you had to stretch the sprite to get any vague alignment

 

Exhibit C: See exhibit B.

 

There is no congruency in those. The sketch for the Cermorvus has areas that literally line up perfectly with a horse photo - down to the placement and angle of the NOSTRIL and MOUTH.

 

Edited to remove coolface

People make images smaller to trace them all the time.

 

You'd have to alter the size to get them to fit.

 

The dragon matches the reindeer there far more than the S2 hatchling did.

 

Just because they shrank an image and traced it doesn't mean it's invalid just because you have to size it up to get it to fit. That's asinine.

Share this post


Link to post

21:15:12 Paradoxangel Technjically

21:15:19 Paradoxangel Pearls can form around anything

21:15:33 Paradoxangel Its a pearl formed round a highly specific resonation metal

 

To round off the convo.

Since they conjure the pearl themselves, what if it's not formed around metal, but around a small piece from their own growing antlers? Therefore, it's DNA specific.

 

This sounds reasonable to me! (EDIT: I meant doing both- fusing metal + antlers to get a truly unique pearl, in both metal amount and DNA.) It would also suggest the foresight/matchmaking thing could possibly work only for the original dragon, or, perhaps, a closely-related relative who shares a lot of their DNA. o:

 

Then I end up with more questions like: How heavy are these pearls? Are they easily-stolen, or are they comparable to, say, mercury in density? What are stolen pearls used for? Do other dragons try to dissect them/crack them to get at the metal within? If a stolen pearl is whole, and assuming they're related enough to 'use' the pearl but not float it, would they carry it around in a claw or pouch? Even if they can't use it, I assume it'd be a keepsake - do you think pearls get passed on, even useless?

 

Worldbuilding/theorizing is so fun.

Edited by Xylene

Share this post


Link to post
People make images smaller to trace them all the time.

 

You'd have to alter the size to get them to fit.

 

The dragon matches the reindeer there far more than the S2 hatchling did.

 

Just because they shrank an image and traced it doesn't mean it's invalid just because you have to size it up to get it to fit. That's asinine.

Stretching and resizing are very different things, my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not accusing you of tracing, sorry if it came out that way.

 

I'm saying that your horse art looks far more traced than the legs on the Cermorvus.

 

It's easy to see "tracing" when someone lines up the images. Streaming is a good way to avoid it, like you have! But that doesn't mean that just because someone doesn't have proof it is traced.

 

If you didn't have a streaming video, someone could completely accuse you of tracing the horse image - the dog/dragon looks much more ambiguous. But you'd probably cause an uproar, too. Even though you know it was referenced.

 

If you say your art should get a pass then - barring the streaming evidence! - why should an image that looks far less traced not get a pass?

Even with streaming, people could accuse you of "eyeballing." If I looked at a pokemon and drew it the same exact way without tracing, that still doesn't make it suddenly mine.

 

It's all super subjective. If 20%+ of a piece isn't directly comparable to another, then it's probably safe. Anatomy references are a godsend, not something to be avoided for terror of being accused of theft.

Share this post


Link to post

Exhibit A: Literally nothing about those two pieces lines up.

 

Exhibit B: See exhibit A, and you had to stretch the sprite to get any vague alignment

 

Exhibit C: See exhibit B.

 

There is no congruency in those. The sketch for the Cermorvus has areas that literally line up perfectly with a horse photo - down to the placement and angle of the NOSTRIL and MOUTH.

 

Edited to remove coolface

In the first image, the right leg match up and the left leg almost does. In the second, the front right and the back left. In the third, some of the legs.

 

I'm not saying that it's a perfect match. What I'm saying is that they're close, and I could go and look at some other horse and deer images and insert them without stretching so that they'd look just the way the original examples by TJ09 did.

Edited by TheVoid

Share this post


Link to post
Stretching and resizing are very different things, my friend.

Well, that depends on how proficient the artist is at resizing tongue.gif

 

 

I refuse to believe if anyone saw an image of a stretched photograph being traced to create something you wouldn't call it tracing just because you have to "stretch" it to make it fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Exhibit A: Literally nothing about those two pieces lines up.

 

Exhibit B: See exhibit A, and you had to stretch the sprite to get any vague alignment

 

Exhibit C: See exhibit B.

 

There is no congruency in those. The sketch for the Cermorvus has areas that literally line up perfectly with a horse photo - down to the placement and angle of the NOSTRIL and MOUTH.

 

Edited to remove coolface

Exhibit A: See, I think that the rear/right-as-we-see-it leg DOES match up... It's all very subjective!

Share this post


Link to post

In the first image, the right legs match up and the left legs almost do. In the second, the front right and the back left. In the third, some of the legs.

 

I'm not saying that it's a perfect match. What I'm saying is that they're close, and I could go and look at some other horse and deer images and insert them without stretching so that they'd look just the way the original examples by TJ09 did.

You had to stretch those. The sketch DIDN'T need to be stretched. And stretching and resizing are not the same thing. You stretched, not just resized. You'd have a point if those were merely resized, but you had to stretch those.

 

EDIT: Oh, and A is very slightly stretched - I can tell from the pixel shape. B is pretty obviously stretched, imho C doesn't match up that much. Same basic pose, but there are differences that the Cermvros sketch doesn't have.

Edited by Dusky_Flareon

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.