/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3135159
pic related amount of fucks I give

Probably used the same reference.

>copyrighted poses

Wait spidey is a girl now ?? I mean his name is spiderMAN

>>3135159
Okay?

What do you think about sampled music?

>>3135159
Didn't get what you wanted on /co/ and posted on /ic/ instead, anon?

>>3135159
He changed the hands, head is different, more defined anatomy in the marvel one in fact an improvement.
>but but I copyrighted this pose

>>3135192
When did this push of contrarians start that are trying to normalize art theft?

>>3135170
Look at the knee and the ankles. There's the exact same brushstrokes there. The artist painted directly on top.

>>3135159
a serious face for such a playful pose.

>>3135183
false equivalence

>>3135159
Same photo reference with a generic pose...
>>3135175 image has the same color as your picture OP. Bash him!

>>3135195
A reaction to anons posting non-troversies like OP.

also:
>art theft

It's not art theft if it's not art, anon. Yes, I am implying.

>>3135247
Then it's just regular theft.

are her clothes supposed to look like body paint?

>>3135175
What gave you that idea? That's Mary Jane in the cover.

>>3135195
"art theft" has been happening for thousands of years. Get used to it scrub.

NGMI

>>3135367
So has mostly every other type of crime. Doesn't mean we should now all become little contrarian edgelords defending murderers, rapists, robbers, thieves etc.

>>3135159
>giving a shit about superhero comics
It's not as if they're fine art in the first place

>>3135377
>comparing someone using reference and inspiration to killing or raping someone

Get the fuck out of /ic/ you stupid drama queen.

Nobody cares.

>>3135159
99% /ic/ plagiarism claims are retarded bullshit.

this one is the exception. it looks like an amateur bullshit copy and they even dare to make it a cover?

>>3135159
> reverse cover
> Venom reads as Money
> Pottery

I don't mind the pose at all but paint-over and keeping the heel is pushing lazyness on a new level. Guys are supposedly paid to make original covers, the kind that makes cool kids buy the comic with the variant cover. It devaluates its value if it's a copypaste - even if said value is already low, it's a variant cover, you want it precisely because it's original.

The Korean artist seem to be very inspired by Marvel (pic related), wonder if he's flattered or if he tried to find a Korean lawyer. Anyway that's no reason to make a fuss about it, when they used the king of Spain for an House of M cover, now that was funny.

>>3135159
Left one makes my cdick go HHHNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGG

>>3135159
>maybe if i trace and then flip the image nobody will notice...

>>3136170
It's not just flipped, it's tilted.

>>3135159
in addition to being an actual overpaint theft, the design of the monster webbing looks noisy and gross. who did the original?

>muh successful and paid artists don't draw every single line from the ground up ;_; it's not fair everyone should grind fundies like me for years only to produce shitty work no one cares about ;_;
Keep crying while others keep getting paid and producing work

>>3135159
> original art she's smiling
> in marvel's progressive art the girl makes a bitch face
Why does marvel always make their females so shallow and annoying?

>>3136198
because they are all beta SJW faggots and that is the default expression all women look at them with.

>>3136184
At this point I really can't tell if you are trolling or seriously mentally challenged. No anon, painting over copyrighted artwork of other artists is not a legitimate workflow that most pros use and neither is it something companies encourage them to do, considering the controversy and potential lawsuits they might have to deal with. Or maybe you are just really dumb and confuse concept art that stays in-house with a fucking magazine front cover illustration.

>>3136248
that's certainly not a paintover and most probably isn't a trace either.

is just a lazy, amateurish copy made for someone with lesser craftsmanship, which also happens to miss the point of the original.

i wouldn't expect any better from western comics, anyway.

>>3136276
Except it IS a paintover, there are exact brush strokes left over from the left that the artist made no/very little attempt to cover/change.

>>3136276
>that's certainly not a paintover and most probably isn't a trace either.

Are you fucking blind? The brushstrokes on her knee, ankle and thighs are the exact same as in the original.

>>3136276

>>3135217
She enjoys the power unapologetically, but she is still resentful. Like that guy girls used to look down until he picked the weights and things changed for him.

tl;dr: It works.

>>3135210
pro comic artists use lightboxing, or they use to
tracing is common amongst faggot in marvel

>>3135418
>using reference and inspiration
that's not what the op is though

>>3136359
Lightboxing is mostly used for your own underdrawings you dumbass, not sure why you drop that term as if that's somehow a morally ambiguous method of working.

And yes, tracing is common in western comics, but usually they trace porn or photos for figures within panels. This is a COVER ILLUSTRATION being a paintover of another artist's work. That's a completely different level of being a lazy hack and I honestly have no idea why you are so desperately trying to defend that guy. Illustrators don't work on a fucking concept artist's or comic book artist's deadlines. Their job is not to crank out somewhat readable images asap, no matter the process.

>>3135418
I didn't even say that you retard. I just pointed out the absurdity of you defending a crime being committed because said crime has happened for thousands of years so people should have gotten used to it by now. Your argument is utterly moronic. Theft has been around for as long as the concept of personal property has existed and we still punish thieves. So I'm not sure why you think thieves who happen to steal artwork should be above any criticism, let alone punishment.

>>3135159
Who is the original artist? Looks like this shit doesn't seem to have any consequences, but this shit at least needs to be called out by him on social media. Did anyone contact the original artist? Would be cool if he at least gained a little bit of following from this.

>>3136432
Send it to Bleeding Cool, they love this sort of 'story'.

>>3136288
you can trace it and then tweak it with the liquify tool afterwards, I always do that.

>>3136402
it's not a crime though lol, what's the charge?

Its called choobing in some art circles.

>>3136436

He stole... our hearts <3

>>3135170
Pose, and color scheme, and shoe gimmick. It's pretty obvious, dude.
Props for them slightly changing the hand position and the expression though, I guess.

>>3136436
Copyright infringement? Are you legitimately retarded? If say DC comics made it a standard practice for their illustrators to copy paste Marvel covers and paint over them with minor changes to turn Daredevil into Batman etc, do you really think Marvel / Disney wouldn't sue the shit out of them? The only reason why shit like this rarely gets pursued is because most artists can't be bothered and don't have the money to hire a lawyer.

>>3136288
seriously why bother with fundies anymore? no one gives a shit

>>3136859
Go ahead and do it then and let's see how far your career will go without anyone giving a shit.

obligatory

>>3136859

Marvel comics are doing so badly they're putting comic shops out of business

It just happens that Marvel is in a cushy position with it's films, so they prop up their zombified comic division to avoid embarassment.

A lot of these people have jobs at Marvel because they have friends there or fit into the clique, so they just get a free pass. There's absolutely no quality control going on there anymore. If they tried to pull this shit on this level anywhere else they'd be out the door in a heartbeat. So yeah, if you have friends in high places do whatever you want, but it's never pretty when the floor drops out from under you.

>>3137014
>comic art traced from movie stills

why does this make me so fucking sad

>>3136277
>>3136284
fuck, you're right, it IS a paintover. this shit must be illegal

in my deffense, i didn't imagine professional artists could be so unproffesional. and the most evident problem is that he copied another guy's work, and made it much worse

>>3137336
I don't know why, but this post made me especially angry at the artist.

Sauce on the original artist? so much better than the right

>>3135159
It's not even a complete paintover. If you look at the brush strokes, you can tell that he's actually kept parts of the original picture (feet), while simply recoloring other parts (legs).

>>3135159
The real question is how did they notice? You must be as autistic as /ic/ to even notice details on such a level especially when's mirrored and tilted a bit, painted over and some parts redrawn.

>>3137358
Maybe you're just blind.

>>3137344
Lee JeeHyung

Star Wars comics are the worst

Just traced from movie frames

>>3135159
Good artists copy, great artists steal.

>>3137535
Smart people understand what this quote means, retards use it in situations like this.

>>3137358
It's literally the exact same pose. Anyone who has seen the original image would have been able to tell even if it's flipped.

>>3135159
Commercial art is not fine art, the result and marketability of the product are all that matters.
And you can't quite expect originality when you've chased away all your best artists and writers with far-left politics.

>>3137563
>Commercial art is not fine art, the result and marketability of the product are all that matters.

A company still has to think about liability and avoiding negative press. This shit IS illegal after all. If any notable comic publisher was shamelessly stealing Marvel covers in the exact same way, you can be sure they'd get sued over it. The only reason why shit like this often flies is because smaller artists who are stolen from either never realize it or don't have the money and time to go to court over it. Regardless of that, I'm pretty sure no big company actually condones this type of behavior, unless it's for internal concept art. I mean, just imagine the same hack decides next time instead of stealing from someone's obscure Artstation, he's gonna copy paste the newest Wonder Woman cover. Not only would that be embarassing as fuck for Marvel, but it could lead to a very hefty lawsuit.

>>3135210
damn

>>3135210
why aren't people calling him out on it ? does the original artist even know about it? he should be flexing if he is unaware.

>>3138834
get a life losers, this is standard practice and becoming more accepted every day

>>3137563
You would think that avoiding potential lawsuits would also matter to these publishers

There's enough evidence here to call plagiarism, if the original artist wanted to pursue

>>3138834
>thinking there is justice in this world

>>3138845
>justice
LOL it's pictures, get over yourselves

>>3138838
>>3138845
>>3138850
>this is how people that will never make it think

>>3138862
>worrying about shit others do that has no impact on you
N
G
M
I

>>3138838
>>3138845
>>3138850
>>3138868
>people that would turn professional victims if their works were used

you're probably shit enough that the idea of being stolen from doesn't occur to you.

>>3138873
Fact: nothing will happen or change because of this
Fact: that artist will still work in the industry, marvel will defend him
Fact: this kind of practice will become increasingly accepted as more art/photos inundate the internet so no one will care if two poses are the same

/ic/ is filled with retarded dinosaurs that think art is only acceptable if you drew every single line from imagination. Keep drawing your boxes, maybe someday anyone will care about you autists.

>>3138876
>probably not able to draw anything from imagination
>i'll just invent that they're delusional as an excuse!

>>3138878
My points still stand, keep crying your impotent tears of rage on this autist containment zone while other people are living off their art.

>>3138916
>their
is this guy even sentient?

>>3138876
You do realize that 99% of illustrators working for Marvel DON'T actually do shit like this, right? That's the whole reason why every time an artist gets busted for stealing art, people make a big deal out of it, because it happens so rarely.

You are the one who will never make any money with his art because you have no valuable skill whatsoever to offer to anyone. Why should anyone pay you to take someone elses art and change it a little instead of just hiring the actual artist? What value do you offer to a client if you have no imagination, no drawing ability, no design skills and no technical skill? If they know all you do is open up photoshop, copy paste someone elses work and flip the canvas and they are okay with that worlflow, why do they need you? They could just have an intern do it.

>>3138937
I have known many artists in the industry and also editor from the 70s and from recently years and the tracing/reference from photos for poses etc. is normal and totally accepted.

In the past from magazine photo now from google photo.

>>3136170
basically me

>>3138943
shh stop confirming our secret

>>3138942
>artists
stopped reading there. even if you are what you say which is already unlikely with your level of english, you don't know "artists", you know people "good at photoshop". there is nothing behind the works, no conviction, certainly no pleasure, probably not even decent technical ability. it's hollow, there's nothing. And you are as trash as them from condoning it.

>inb4 muh definition ov art is nut yurs

>>3138948
Still art retard, people have been using this technique for decades. Check your autism, none of this matters.

Anyone remember when comic book artists were the ones being ripped off by untalented fags? We live in Bizzaro World now.

>>3136844
I know this sounds reaching, but wouldn't that be just Fair Use? You're completely transforming and repurposing the artwork, after all

Tho I'm not sure how this would apply here, but I feel like it makes more sense for it to applies on the more minor stuff like Greg Land tracing an old lady's face

>>3138957
now the untalented fags are the comic book artists. And the only reason is that they got away with it too much, now some consider it the "norm" like this fag right here>>3138951

it's sad, but it's only going to get worse as they get unchallenged.

>>3137014
Holy shit ahah

I'd not mind retracing that much but come on it looks so awkward and bad how can anyone defend this

>>3138957
It's impressive how garbage of a copy it is. ""art" is so much cancer.

>>3137358
>>3135170
>>3136276
FYI: if you can't tell it's a paintover, you certainly lack any observational skill necessary for the craft, therefore you're NGMI.

>>3139080
You have to fucking put it back to how it was originally you retard. It's easy to tell if it's in the same fucking placement. It's both fucking flipped and rotated.

>>3139080
LMFAO
so this nigga just put another layer on it
set opacity
and CALLED IT A DAY

>>3139085
N-no rules just t-tools

>>3138942
taking references (or tracing them, if you're into that) from random google photos is perfectly fine

copying the whole composition from a better artist is bullshit, but still legal

overpainting another guy's work, is just asking for legal trouble and being outcasted from the industry

>>3139107
What if the artist got permission?
>thinking.jpg

>>3139080
oh cooool...so I don't have to try and draw hands by myself anymore?!!

>>3139143
find a reference
flip it horizontally
paint over it

>>3138957
You are totally missing the point. The comic panel is like 1 inch by 1 inch. That is too small to ever hang in a museum. Lichtenstein elevated the comic panel by painting them at a much larger size that a gallery could hang, and introducing subtle artistic variations on the original to create a new overall artistic message. He recontextualized the comic image from a throwaway graphic that little children would look at for less than a second into a powerful artistic statement on pop culture, America, the art establishment, and the nature of human artistic expression itself.

So, no Lichtenstein wasn't "ripping" anyone off. And if you can't understand what he was actually doing (which is really quite basic, not saying he's my favorite artist or anything), then you really need to educate yourself in art history and art theory. History and theory are equally as important to an artist, if not more so, than the artistic technique. Any monkey can make a picture, it takes a true artist to make art.

>>3138966
You can copy a pose, you cant copy someone's lines and brushstrokes.

>>3135175
are you fucking stupid

>>3138966
I remember Feng in some of his videos saying that photographers can successfully sue you even for using a cloud or a tree in an image that is otherwise completely different, which is why he always uses his own photos. In this case, there is only 1 major element in this painting, the human figure, and it is completely stolen.

>>3139216
Any link to that particular video?

>>3136184
>paid
but for how long? Marvel comic book sales are pretty shit right now across the board

>>3139169
>So, no Lichtenstein wasn't "ripping" anyone off.

He quite literally was though. At the end of the day, tt's just a copied comic book panel. Everything you associate with it and all the things you think he achieved with it are inside your head, not inside the actual image.

>>3139220
No idea, must have been quite a while ago, I haven't watched Feng's design cinema vids in at least 2 years. But I remember him saying it all the time whenever he would use photos for photobashing or texturing. He always mentions he takes his own photos and if you use google, you should be careful that the photo element isn't fully visible in the end result.

>>3139228
implying he gets paid according to popularity then yes, otherwise it's a non factor.

>>3139169
He literally badly copied the originals without even asking the artists nor by ever giving their names

His "work" is pretty much like all those DA anime vector traces.

>>3139169
He got infinitely more money out of his copies than the actual artists.

>>3139169
Comic book artists of that time had much more artistic skill than the people that were pushing pop art crap. The fact "art intellectuals" like yourself can't even acknowledge that shows how worthless your supposed knowledge on art is if all you got is "muh social implications". I can tell several ways how the originals have stronger composition and pleasing design than what that Lichtenstein hack made and you'll just go back to "muh social implications".

>>3139349
But he badly plagiarized something for kids, called it high quality art, and it worked, surely he deserves all the praise he gets.

>>3139893
What does that say about morons like you who were fooled into believing some shitty comic panel for kids has some deeper meaning just because it now hangs in a gallery?

>>3139896
That was sarcasm. Tough I'm pretty sure some people seems to genuinely believe that.

>>3139896
>>3139898
You fucking plebs don't know shit about art

>>3139900
> ""art""

You mean being pretentious and money laundering?

>>3139902
>everything I don't understand is money laundering and pretentious
Retards here read through Loomis and suddenly think they're artists.

>>3139905
> literally spewing /ic/ buzzwords as "argument"

>>3139907
meant to reply to this:

>>3139902

>>3139908

>>3139911
missed the point of the post retard

>>3139920
> the point
> no u

He's right about Lichtenstein and the Pop Artists. They were reacting to the Abstract Expressionists and the trend in the art world that basically shoved aside all figurative work in favor of abstraction. The Pop Artists took these low grade consumer products that people get then throw away and turned them into works of art. They completely recontextualized fine art and commercial art. It's one of the reasons they started doing things like stenciling, working in series, using actual commercial products without significantly altering them, screen printing, etc. It's just a continuation of the questioning that Duchamp started with his ready-mades.

>>3141181
> turned them into works of art

So they made them pretentious and as such deserves all the praise while the original actual artists should get nothing, sure.

>>3137544
This

>>3139169
>oy vey, it's not stealing when the chosen do it

>>3135159
Nice paintovers

Where can I find paintover artists like this to commission ?

>>3136288
No one cared when Greg Land did it. Only artists.

Normies still give him their money.

If you don't give a shit about the opinions your fellow peers and hardcore art enthusiasts then you can be cheat and prosper.

>>3138937
> Why should anyone pay you to take someone elses art and change it a little instead of just hiring the actual artist?

It's cheaper and faster to get the paintover. And you're getting a more guaranteed result same reason why people purchase YCH's.

>>3138876
>Fact: this kind of practice will become increasingly accepted as more art/photos inundate the internet so no one will care if two poses are the same


AGREED

In the year 2020 do you know how much art will be on the web. Even internet famous artist like Sakami has 500+ images in her gallery

NO ONE WILL CARE if you ripoff images especially older art. Especially as some of artists will die off.


B-BUT MUH 100years after the artist is dead copyr---- no one cares

>>3142028
>it's okay to steal art as long as no one will get me in trouble for it

>>3135223
how?

Imagine trying to defend this in court.

>>3142042
It's true and you know it.

>>3143373
It's okay to steal art work as long as no one knows about it? That's your fucking defense?
>Well, yeah, I committed a crime, but no one knows about it so who cares.

>>3135405
kys my man

>>3135183
photobashers of the music world.

>>3136292
you don't have that kind of playful carefree pose with such a serious face. She should have a menacing smirk.

>>3143541
>menacing smirk

all you fucking weaboos need to seriously choke to death

>>3143578
>he says on an anime website

>>3143586
kys you fucking newfaggot cancer

>>3143625
Wow how eloquent. I bet you don't even know what legendary artist drew that piece.

>>3139169
I'm not ignorant to art history, art as self expression, the context of what Roy did etc etc. You can know all these things... and still call him a fucking hack. Maybe you're the one who's misinformed? Narrative art is a real artform that has outlived pop art a billion times over. for fucks sake pop art can't even compete with kitsch which does what it does 1000x better and more authentically.

Time has sussed things out, we don't celebrate comic art removed from it's context, we celebrate their narrative/characters with movies so huge it makes me sick. It's the biggest thing ever and it's no thanks to Roy.

>>3143625
>He doesn't know what usuka is

>>3143639
>>3143677
>the newfaggots assume i dont know exactly what im talking about

i recognize that shit but youre still cancer for the
>ACKTSHULLY ITS AN ANIME WEBSITE
bullshit you retards hide behind every single time

>>3143696
>he's trying to call other people newfags
>when he doesn't even know about the Day of the Usuka

>>3143747
>he cant fucking read the posts that he replies to

>>3143748
>brings up anime and how much he hates it when he replies to something completely unrelated to anime
>calls others newfags because they called him out on it
>doesn't know what Usuka is
I think I comprehended your post just fine.

>>3143755
>doesnt know what usuka is

even though i said that i did
it couldnt be that youre a retard ignoring things intentionally just to be a fucking faggot could it hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
i really think you dont

>>3143756
>calling out someone for missing the point
>while missing the point
You brought up weebs for no reason. There was literally nothing anime related in the comment you replied to. People called you out on it. You got pissy.

>>3143760
> literally nothing anime related
>menacing smirk
>teleport's behind you
>*super haxadragon bankashi ultra laser hyper friendship beam!!!!!!*
>FORBIDDEN TECHNIQUE
>*cuts you in half*
>*satisfied smirk* Heh....nothin personell kiddo

>>3143763
I don't remember any of that from the post. Anon, you are aware that people's grins can creep out or make other people feel threatened, right?

You chose to bring up anime. That was your decision.

>>3137014
Those guys probably still have some kind of skills, aren't they ashamed? WHy don't they just simplify their style if this is too hard for them and they have deadlines they can't do without tracing? Muh realism

>>3143791
Because nobody cares, you retards need to get this through your skull. As the information progresses, this will only become more normalized.

>>3138838
everyones does it =/= it's a good thing. But maybe you're just someone with no soul that only wants money idk

>>3138942
Idc if it's accepted it's still shit. What's the next step, comics with tracing only? It has no soul, if you want realism that much do something else, comics should try to do what other medium can't.

>>3143807
>>3143814
No one gives a shit about you. These artists will still get paid, still find more work, and continue to produce works millions enjoy with zero knowledge of how it was produced. What have you done?

Autists here get triggered because it's a direct affront to the cult of grinding fundies that the losers here latch onto desperately.

>>3143795
You can repeat this as much as you want, but it won't make it true. Yes, obviously people don't care if you copy some photo for a panel in a comic book, but if you steal from an artist who is more popular than you are and you are found out, your reputation WILL be destroyed. There is a reason why most of these hacks only trace from photos or fairly unknown artists.

>>3143795
"nobody cares" is not debating. If you don't want to talk don't start.
I say I care because it's impacting the quality/originality of the art itself. You know, that thing you're supposed to like
But if you wanna read copypaste shit fine

>>3143818
I'm pretty sure it would benefit even those ignorant millions if art was less formulaic. I'm not telling you to shit on a wall and call it real art. Just saying it's sad.

>>3143833
>I say I care because it's impacting the quality/originality of the art itself.
And who are you? What's going to change? Are sales going to dip because you're so autistic you care that a panel wasn't drawn 100% from every line up? No, you are nobody.

>>3143831
>but if you steal from an artist who is more popular than you are and you are found out, your reputation WILL be destroyed
Which is why no one does this you retard.

>b-but if you do this other thing, then SURELY things will happen!
Fucking morons can't wrap their heads around the fact that this is a changing medium, and as technology progresses so will the standards of the medium. You imagine retarded scenarios like this to make yourselves feel better as you grind boxes for the umpteenth time.

>>3143835
Of course nothing's going to change. Let's just stop talking then I guess.

>>3143818
You are the one who sounds like the bitter loser actually. You are clearly unskilled at art, very resentful at those who try to get better and you have somehow convinced yourself into believing that even someone like you can make it if you just start stealing shit.

Well, I'm sorry to say this, but you can't. You have no valuable skill to offer to these companies at all. Keep in mind, these artists you look up to as fellow thieves and hacks usually still have fairly strong fundamentals. Sure, they trace a photo here and there for some figures in a panel, but that's not 100% of their workflow. Unlike you, they still know how to draw and chances are, they grinded the fundamentals far more thoroughly than anyone on /ic/ did.

>>3143841
>These artists will still get paid, still find more work, and continue to produce works millions enjoy with zero knowledge of how it was produced.
All facts

>your entire post
Strawman drivel. Again, literally making things up to make yourselves feel better. You don't know shit about me except for the FACTS I just espoused, yet you have an entire story about me laid out in your head. LMAO, do you realize why you did that? Do you see how pathetic you are? Keep crying about these artist who have already made it, it's the only thing you can do.

>>3143837
>Which is why no one does this you retard.

Exactly my point you dumb fuck. If audiences were genuinely okay on a fundamental level with this "progress in technology", like you claim they are, they wouldn't mind if you stole from their favorite artist either. You keep repeating "nobody cares", but even you just admitted that people would in fact care, it's just the fact that the victims of this art theft are usually unknown that it can fly. That alone should tell you everything about the legitimacy of this process.

>>3143845
>You don't know shit about me except for the FACTS I just espoused, yet you have an entire story about me laid out in your head

If you advocate that fundamentals are not needed on any level, then I have to assume you followed your own advice, thus you are an individual with no valuable skill to offer whatsoever. That's not in my head, that's literally what you are saying about yourself through your own posts. And I also merely stated facts here. I can't think of a single professional comic book artist who doesn't have at least somewhat decent fundamentals.

>>3143848
>Exactly my point
Everytime a retard says this you can be sure some backwards mental gymnastics is to follow. You are trying so hard to create a scenario where people give a shit, and this is some serious thing you can't even think straight.

>If audiences were genuinely okay on a fundamental level with this "progress in technology", like you claim they are, they wouldn't mind if you stole from their favorite artist either.
They don't you moron, you could trace over the mona lisa and no one would give a fuck. You could sell that traceover with a filter, and no one would give a fuck. The only people who care are those who think they can get some money out of it, and they certainly don't give a fuck about "artistic integrity", but rather the potential money from a lawsuit.

>>3143853
>They don't you moron

Literally 20 minutes before you answered to this same thing with "Which is why no one does this you retard." Are you seriously too dumb to keep track of what you said less than half an hour ago? Do you have legitimate brain damage or something?

And yes, you could trace the mona lisa and no one would care, you could however not trace the latest Sakimichan image and no one would care either.

>>3143857
Try reading again retard

>>3143837
> if you steal from an artist who is more popular than you are and you are found out, your reputation WILL be destroyed
"Which is why no one does this you retard."

>If audiences were genuinely okay on a fundamental level with this "progress in technology", like you claim they are, they wouldn't mind if you stole from their favorite artist either.
>"They don't you moron"

I can't tell anymore if you are just really fucking stupid or if you're just trolling.

>>3143814
>What's the next step, comics with tracing only?
You havent read some modern Marvel

>>3135159
So two different artist used the same image reference... How uninteresting.

>>3144091

More like you haven't. I can name under 5 artist who are tracers.

>>3137358
Anyone who spent more than half a year doing digital drawings, can tell that it's the same image.

>>3145834
I've been drawing for years and have never seen the image on the left and I doubt most people have too. Also, no one has posted the original image of the comic either. It's all same been fixed already and told to you. I'm sure anyone here wouldn't be able to tell if something was painted over or not without having seen the original shortly before or told about it.

>>3145841
You do have to account for the massive amount of autism and schadenfreude-driven strength of will here. Even if someone had the slightest hunch that something might have been remotely referenced, they would go to great lengths to seek the truth of the matter.
Remember that it was /ic/ who ousted Crab Mullins years ago as yet another westerner photobasher, by recognizing a single wave in his painting.

>>3138937
>You do realize that 99% of illustrators working for Marvel DON'T actually do shit like this, right?

Where is your source for this?

>>3143428
>Well, yeah, I committed a crime, but no one knows about it so who cares.

Yes.

>>3137014
Not trying to protect Greg Land but the beloved Adam Hughes copied Audrey Hepburn in most of his catwoman illustrations. How come nobody give him shit for that?

>>3147978
i knew he referenced her heavily (on purpose? i think if you asked him if it was supposed to look like her, he'd say it was) but i haven't seen evidence of tracing. even in your example, it's definitely just reference use.

>>3145541

Go ahead I dare you. Also 3D Poser doesn't count.