Jump to content
TJ09

2017-02-14 - Valentine's Day!

Recommended Posts

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

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
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.