Jump to content
TJ09

2017-02-14 - Valentine's Day!

Recommended Posts

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
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?

I do have to agree with Narvix. Almost all the dragon have some sort of pictures that were referenced on.

Share this post


Link to post

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 xd.png

 

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.

 

 

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 third this.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 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.

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 >___<

Share this post


Link to post

*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. dry.gif

 

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*

Share this post


Link to post

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 by Dianacat777

Share this post


Link to post

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 xd.png

 

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 by Dusky_Flareon

Share this post


Link to post

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 by Jazeki

Share this post


Link to post

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 by DongaDunderson

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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 by Ninjakittee

Share this post


Link to post

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?

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.