Jump to content
TJ09

2017-02-14 - Valentine's Day!

Recommended Posts

Even if you had a video proving you didn't trace, i'd legitimately like to see you do what you did with your horse drawing on DC and see you try to get away with it. Those are extremely similar.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Exact stock sentences line up all the time. I can't remember the name of that site that checks for plagiarism in school papers, but even it allows for certain percent of matches, because there's only so many ways to say certain things. Just as there's only so many ways to draw certain angled legs.

 

Can you imagine someone writing a 500 page original novel and having it shot down and them accused of theft because ONE sentence perfectly matched someone else's? Pfft.

Share this post


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

To be fair, something could be traced, then stretched so it doesn't look traced.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Really at this point, it's being assumed that EEF traced everything and who is to say she didn't throw 60 bucks at the the stock photo to reference it? There is no proof outside of the overlay of several images.

 

Edit: That's turnitin, ADP. And I remember that I used to get up to a 20% match allowance because references.

Edited by Jazeki

Share this post


Link to post
Exact stock sentences line up all the time. I can't remember the name of that site that checks for plagiarism in school papers, but even it allows for certain percent of matches, because there's only so many ways to say certain things. Just as there's only so many ways to draw certain angled legs.

 

Can you imagine someone writing a 500 page original novel and having it shot down and them accused of theft because ONE sentence perfectly matched someone else's? Pfft.

Slightly OT, buuuut.

 

Once upon a time in a poetry project I wrote a shape poem that was literally just "circle circle circle" over and over again in the shape of a circle

 

 

It came up 100% plagiarized because of some obscure book with the word "circle" repeated over and over again on a single page rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Even if you had a video proving you didn't trace, i'd legitimately like to see you do what you did with your horse drawing on DC and see you try to get away with it. Those are extremely similar.

I wouldn't do what I did with the horse on DC, because the horse photo is CC stock that requires artist credit when used. Their DA is Chunga-Stock, btw.

 

I also avoid using artwork as referential material for exactly that reason. Artwork is not stock. If someone were to accuse me of tracing the two paintings that I linked, I would just produce my references and streams.

Share this post


Link to post
I wouldn't do what I did with the horse on DC, because the horse photo is CC stock that requires artist credit when used. Their DA is Chunga-Stock, btw.

 

I also avoid using artwork as referential material for exactly that reason. Artwork is not stock. If someone were to accuse me of tracing the two paintings that I linked, I would just produce my references and streams.

Shouldn't you edit your original post to include that, then....? The artist credit, I mean.

Share this post


Link to post

I was going to stay out of it, but after seeing multiple people post variations of "if it had been traced off of art..."

 

Photography is art! Full stop.

 

Photographers put just as much time and consideration into the photographs they take as digital and traditional media artists do. So tracing off a photo or a video still is just as big a deal as tracing off a drawing, or a 3D render, etc, etc.

 

I'm not going to put out an opinion on whether or not the accused traced, but please stop devaluing photography.

Share this post


Link to post
Slightly OT, buuuut.

 

Once upon a time in a poetry project I wrote a shape poem that was literally just "circle circle circle" over and over again in the shape of a circle

 

 

It came up 100% plagiarized because of some obscure book with the word "circle" repeated over and over again on a single page rolleyes.gif

That's horrible and hilarious at once xd.png

Share this post


Link to post

I just want to add in that Tj is saying the dragon cave contract was breached whether it was traced or not.

 

People are throwing around " copyright infringement " when it doesn't apply here. It doesn't matter if the elk was traced because copyright infringement would be someone using the elk itself. And honestly only the photo owner could say anything about it. Not everyone is Disney. My printmaking teacher in college would regularly use random google images without a care where they came from. He uses photos and that was his style. They've altered enough that it doesn't matter. In short I would be defending the generic pose people because they are right. You can't copyright a pose and even tracing isn't enough to matter. What does matter is that the drafon cave agreement was breached and the sprites were pulled for that reason.

 

Short dumb sentences because I'm on my phone at work with nothing better to do.

Share this post


Link to post
I second that and add my thanks to them, the event was very entertaining - even if I did get stuck in the Bush of Entanglement! xd.png

Long live the victims of the Bush of Entanglement! Even at its worst the thought of us all trapped in the bushes together was more amusing than anything X'D

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't do what I did with the horse on DC, because the horse photo is CC stock that requires artist credit when used. Their DA is Chunga-Stock, btw.

 

I also avoid using artwork as referential material for exactly that reason. Artwork is not stock. If someone were to accuse me of tracing the two paintings that I linked, I would just produce my references and streams.

But if you had no streams and your references lined up enough and/or people could find things that they did match up with, you'd be in the same boat as EEF and Tazzay could easily be in now. Yes, they might have traced, or it might be complete coincidence.

 

Honestly, this whole mess is why I never post my art/writing/crafting projects, ANYTHING creative really, anywhere online. It's SO easy for someone to provide some evidence and say "BUT YOU COPIED!" when you really didn't and often there's no way to prove it.

Edited by Aurae

Share this post


Link to post

Just found TJs post in all this drama. Glad he did what he did over this. I would have been sick if I was left with a traced dragons. I get reference photos, I really do. I'm an artist myself but there's a difference in references and traced images stitched together. I hope people learn from this in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
I was going to stay out of it, but after seeing multiple people post variations of "if it had been traced off of art..."

 

Photography is art! Full stop.

 

Photographers put just as much time and consideration into the photographs they take as digital and traditional media artists do. So tracing off a photo or a video still is just as big a deal as tracing off a drawing, or a 3D render, etc, etc.

 

I'm not going to put out an opinion on whether or not the accused traced, but please stop devaluing photography.

Thank you so much for saying that. Anytime I see someone suggest that photography is not art, I refuse to acknowledge the rest of their argument. If I saw my photography replicated or used, they would be getting a cease and desist.

Share this post


Link to post
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.
I guarantee you that if you take two books vaguely in the same genre you'll be able to find similar phrases and situations in them, maybe even identical sentences, totally by chance. How small a portion of something can you really consider in a vacuum? Those original pics aren't even showing one whole leg matching any one picture. Is a single foot enough? one claw, toe, or hoof? No one could claim with a straight face that the sentences 'She quickly crossed the room and opened the door' or 'He waited silently, not even daring to breath' have only appeared in one book in the history of literature. Of course *copying* them isn't okay, but their mutual existence doesn't mean that either instance is copied. Edited by Sycamore

Share this post


Link to post
Long live the victims of the Bush of Entanglement! Even at its worst the thought of us all trapped in the bushes together was more amusing than anything X'D

Indeed! It was hilarious even though I was so frustrated at being stuck in there for hours. xd.png I think I even tried to attack it with/feed it a mushroom at one point...

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

So many points of views and various opinions are being posted on the subject on both sides of the fence. But, despite all of it, I personally trust that TJ wouldn't have pulled the original sprite set out of spite and would have came to the decision to replace the original set as a last resort and with regret. Some people are carrying on as if he is enjoying the whole ordeal and took the decision lightly. I think not! The guy is vastly experienced and has the backing of other sprite artists. I'm sure they know the rules better than most of us in terms of tracing and image copyright infringement. I totally trust in their combined judgement. Replacements sprites were provided and if you simply preferred the old set then I'm afraid that you just need to accept the new set because putting pressure on the situation isn't really helping the forum community spirit whatsoever!

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

EDIT: And all of this without even going near the sketch being uploaded and readily available on DeviantArt. That is blatant violation of their contract and enough on its own to warrant pulling the sprites

Edited by Ninjakittee

Share this post


Link to post
'He waited silently, not even daring to breath'

I sure hope that line only appeared in one book, because that is not the word you use.

 

Also, I do like how nobody seems to be addressing the other issue I pointed out, which was the inarguable breach of the 60 day rule in the contract they signed. Plus, assuming the the stock WAS paid for, it was not credited, which makes its use still infringement.

Share this post


Link to post
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 second this

Share this post


Link to post
I sure hope that line only appeared in one book, because that is not the word you use.

 

Also, I do like how nobody seems to be addressing the other issue I pointed out, which was the inarguable breach of the 60 day rule in the contract they signed. Plus, assuming the the stock WAS paid for, it was not credited, which makes its use still infringement.

I think the 60 day agreement is being ignored by some because it was VERY OBVIOUSLY a breach. Inarguably. It applies for all concepts. All. Not just secret Holidays, but regular dragons from DR if they get that far.

 

As for the paid bit, I think that one is obvious to those who bother to properly use them. Most other people simply don't know.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm still in full support of Tazzay and EEF. This is honestly ridiculous. All of this trouble because of generic poses and accurate anatomy? What else was supposed to happen? Have a completely broken leg on an official sprite?

 

As an artist myself, I'm constantly drawing similar, if not identical poses for several of my pieces. I've referenced several pictures as well, be they photography or hand-drawn images. How else do you expect people to learn and expand their skill-set? I'm one of those people who can eyeball an image and get it pretty close to exact. But I didn't trace. (Kind of hard to do when everything is in pen or pencil and the reference is on the screen.)

 

Literally every professional artist uses references for every piece of work. I've even watched artists take stock photos of cityscapes and just photoshop it into their digital pieces, trimming it down and/or altering the hue.

 

Like many have pointed out: almost all of DC dragons have 'copied' poses/anatomy from something else. Be it another dragon or a stock photo. Should every single one of them be taken down then?

Share this post


Link to post
I sure hope that line only appeared in one book, because that is not the word you use.

 

Also, I do like how nobody seems to be addressing the other issue I pointed out, which was the inarguable breach of the 60 day rule in the contract they signed. Plus, assuming the the stock WAS paid for, it was not credited, which makes its use still infringement.

I think no ones addressing it because they're not arguing about it. The S2 hatchling could have been pulled on its own. The sketch might well have been an oversight, we'll probably never know if it was a deliberate breach. However, saying that a horse-leg is traced, that is something we can all have an opinion on! tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post

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.

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.

Edited by Alrexwolf

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.