/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

fuck photographers and fuck jannies

>>4533905
Fuck them if they're not pussies they can sue the artist and see how that goes for them :^)

> Giving credit to reference pics are not cool anymore?
Copying the entire composition, lights, poses, props, colors of professional photos then making bux on patreon without even giving a fucking credit to the photographer.

I hate intellectual property, so fuck you and your credit

>>4533905
Yeah. Pointing a camera at things ain't hard.

>reference pics are not cool anymore
What did he mean by this?

It's like playing a popular song on a fucking banjo then say "I made this!" then get rich by copying someone else's work and claim it's your own creation while 80% of it belongs to someone else already.

But when someone is using "their" artwork they get mad about art theft.

>>4533905
To be fair this guy stylized the hell out of the metrosexual pic and created something very manly, based and homopilled

>>4533969
>But when someone is using "their" artwork they get mad about art theft.

hypocrisy isn't an argument anon

>>4533905
Photographers themselves do this like no tomorrow.

>>4533905
this isn't a very good example, it's transformative enough to stand as its own work
>>4533969
this on the other hand is just a blatant paintover. People are mostly unable to empathize with artists of other media, video producers rip off graphics/drawings and music left and right.
This guy (professional painter) literally names "I printed this off Google" as his photo credit. https://youtu.be/xf1z83YSS-M?t=360

It would have cost him zero dollars to drop a link or say a website name, cos fuck the guys who photograph and upload pics of props and models

>>4533977
The artist is a woman. Not op but I definitely recognize the artist

Commie normies itt

>>4533905
It's been like that for a very long time. Even musicians steal tracks without giving credit. It's just part of the trade.

>>4533977
Sure there is no problem with the result aestethically, I just pointed out how morally flawed are artists these days becase even though the anatomy is like 70% different, it plagiarized the entire concept.

>>4533984
I am not arguing anything bruh. If you steal a red bike then re-paint to blue and someone steals it from you then yes you are a victim of theft, but that does not change the fact that you are a thief to begin with

>>4534012
I would not say it's transformative enough. If the artist would copy only the pose then I would say oookay that's one thing, but as I said earlier it copied the entire concept, light, minor parts of anatomy, even the color of that damn rag too. When I looked at this artwork, I immediately recognized the photo it was "based" on. It would not be a problem, my problem is how the artist takes a dump on the photographer.
I have no idea if this particular piece will ever end up in an artbook or anything, but most "artists" on deviantart make a living by producing art books and commissions by copying nearly everything from photos without giving the photographer any credit.

Using reference is one thing, but without naming the photographer is borderline art-theft. These pics are just few representatives of this issue.

>>4534023
I think it's more like a moral problem. Stealing was always part of basically every business I can think of. The laws regarding intellectual property are fucking confusing in every country.

>>4533905
>NOOOOOO NOT THE HECKING PHOTORINOOOOO GIMME CREDIT FOR POINTING A CAMERA AND PRESSING A BUTTON

>>4533905
I don't see the problem.
These two pictures are not the same at all.

>>4533905
Pic on the right is wannabe cool and soulless. Technically excellent but void of substance.

>>4534067
>implying the photographer didnt select the model, worked with him through a pose, didn't set the ambiance, lights, etc etc
>LOL photography is pushing a button
Guess how I know you're an ignorant swine ?

>>4533905
I can't draw using references, i don't know why but it justs annoys me.

>>4534075
If you don't see the problem then you are part of the problem. It's not about being the exact same.
On this attached pic are the drawings of comic book "artist" Greg Land, who has an infamous reputation for being an art thief. His works are not the same either, but still nearly exact copies of existing copyrighted media. The pics I attached earlier are nowhere close to this level of fuckery, but they are on the same vein. Do you get it now?

>>4533905
well:
Light, color, and pose is something licensed? ask the question, who has the rights of a certain pose, because your "draw from imagination" is based in things that you see every day, if you draw a girl walking because you saw a girl walking today, you'll give credit to that girl because she has the legal rights of her walking? answer who has the rights of EVERYTHING? your "drawing from imagination" is copying from your brain things that you saw in your life

>>4534105
not unexpected from americans

>>4533905
I understand that it's morally wrong to not give credit where credit is due, I should mention my references but I won't
It just doesn't look good, like I post my picture on twitter then I will have to mention the ref I used for the nice arms then the ref for that peach ass?
It downplays my shit and I need my clout.

most people don't mention ref, I watched a very popular artist stream his process, he popped up some feet ref copied almost 100%, didn't mention shit though

>>4534105
Well, that's what the great masters did their entire life, are you calling them hacks? they always used a model, and they added things to their works, always using a model, /ic/ retards never read a book? Do you want to create a new human pose or form or something? what a fucking retard

>>4534120
This isn't about legality so your argument is moot.

>>4534012
You're nuts if you think this is "transformative enough"

>>4534124
using different references for body parts in a Frankenstein way is transformative enough IMO. I agree with >>4534120, that's a natural creative process, no one can copyright hands or butts

If you do photo studies trying to replicate a piece as reference in its entirety, then you gotta at least pop a website name to not be an asshole. There's no law against being an asshole, but remember that moment when someone copies your shit without crediting, that they could have easily given you a shoutout and new followers, but chose not to, and that you did the same thing.

>>4534120


It's not about what is licensed and what's not, you are just an asshole if you make a fucking copy of the exact same pose, exact same lights, exact same colors then take credit for everything yourself and act like you composed everything. Again, it's not a debate regarding law and licenses.

>>4534124
Obviously you should not mention the reference for minor parts, but if you copy an image that is recognizable such as my examples (I posted them for a reason) that calls for a credit. It really does not take long to type the name of the original photographer. That's the least you can do if you copied at least like 50% his/her own work without permission.
I know most people don't mention the ref, but that does not make the lack of credits a nice thing to do. Just because everyone is an asshole does not mean you should be one too, and no one cares if it does not look good on your twitter. As I said earlier, referencing is one thing, but ripping off the whole concept is borderline art-theft.

>>4534148
It's not about using models and poses you fuckwit, it's about making nearly exact copies of existing art pieces. You are clearly not a bright one lol

>>4534148
Models can only hold a pose for so long and often models would not be brought in until the final stages to add the finishing touches.

>>4534167
>"you are just an asshole if you make a fucking copy of the exact same pose, exact same lights, exact same colors then take credit for everything yourself and act like you composed everything"
ok do something against that moralfag, come on, why are you shilling here? post it on twitter and make a shtfest if you care so much about it
>"Copying the entire composition, lights, poses, props, colors of professional photos then making bux on Patreon without even giving a fucking credit to the photographer!"
again if you care so much about him (or you are the cucktographer) ruin the career and reputation of the guy if you think that he's soooo wrong, do it

>>4534186
Moralfag is not an insult for me, since art is my entire life and I am one of those who still attach morals and passion to art pieces instead of money.

It makes me chuckle how fucking retarded you are, honestly. How the fuck would I ruin anything when the "artist" did not break any laws? I am not looking to ruin anyone's reputation since I am not taking part of dramas and I would not be able to ruin any deviantart celebs anyway since their fanbase don't care about art theft, they don't even know what does art mean let alone art theft lmao.
Wooo I have different view on something then I must be a shill, go back to redddit if you can't contain your autism kek

>>4534211
>"how fucking retarded you are"
>he knows that the artist did nothing legally wrong so in fact, nothing wrong, the behavior is limited by law.
>"I am not taking part of dramas"
>wants to start a drama about morality
Well, what's the point of your thread? you need people to share your thoughts because you're a lonely fat fuck without friends? that's why you need approbation from 4chan?
>plebbit space
lmao

Nobody in the history of art EVER credited reference you seething beg

>>4534238
/thread

>>4534233
I already clarified like 3 times what is my point, explained clearly with examples, simplified so mentally challenged people can understand it, too bad you did not fall even under this category :D

>>4534238
I don't give a shit about "no one ever" and "most people". These are not excuses. If the reference pic is nearly identical to the result and you don't mention the original creator then you are a disrepectful little shit. Imagine your own artworks serving as a base for someone else's income. If you are fine with that then I am sorry for you

>pic: bruh it's just reference

>>4534238
This, no one fucking cares OP stop being a faggot

>>4534262
The people you're arguing with are probably themselves guilty of plagiarizing other's work.

>>4534186
>>4534211
Anon has a point, what is the purpose? What's the use of saying "person X is bad"/"copying is bad" when there's no way for artists to protect themselves against it?
Either accept it as a fact of life or raise awareness to a bigger audience than this board.

>>4534313
I think the purpose of this thread is to mobilize this board against these art thieves.

>>4533905
Thats the wonderful thing about art. You can copy as much as you want and only switch a couple of things around to ger away with shit unless you're a photocopier.
People at the mall do not have a right to not be drawn by me.
Try and stop me from using photos you upload to free, publicly accessible websites.
I don't even need a hi def image most of the time because Im drawing bodies and poses, not faces.
We dont live in the early 1900s anymore.
Everyone can take a decent photo.

>>4534262
why are these guys so creatively bankrupt they have to copy other pieces and pass it off as their own?

>>4534313
>>4534343

Lmao what is the purpose of any thread apart from discussion? Seriously, go on, tell me what else is the purpose of any thread.
I never said copying is bad, again, you don't even care to read what I have to say yet you throw questions at me. If you can qoute the part where I said copying is bad then I am giving you 0,070 bitcoins.
I said not giving credit is the problem (moral not legal) not the copying, I said it now for the tenth time now at least

No wonder you don't get the purpose of my thread and dismiss me so easily when you don't even read what I have to say.

>>4534324
>>4534304

Nope, I don't want to mobilize or raise awareness or anything. I just wanted to hear what fellow artists have to say, but it's hard to discuss anything when
>The people you're arguing with are probably themselves guilty of plagiarizing other's work.
and when my thread gets constantly derailed to something I never said or claimed. Been a while since i have been on this board, now its really just a refugee camp of plebbit and voat

>>4534364
Ask all these creatively bankrupt basement dwellers in this thread

I'm out. have fun arguing about something I never said retards. And have fun saying shit like "huhhh everyone does so its not bad"
"Everyone is hanging themselves, so it's good and i have to follow"

>>4533905
Worth noting that photographer spend hours editing the photos and some even use photoshop to paint in elements or adjust the pose.
So even though people think they are just a photographer some are actually digital painters who use their own original photos as a base.

>>4534012
>it's transformative enough to stand as its own work
I'm betting a Federal Judge would think differently.

>>4534023
>Even musicians steal tracks without giving credit.
Most of the time they ask, pay royalties and/or buy a license to use a sample but we never hear about those deals because it is done behind closed doors. When musicians outright steal they get shit on and have to take the music down or be sued into oblivion.

>>4534067
Some of them paint over their own photos you brainlet.

>>4534262
>>4534304
No use in arguing with a bunch of retards, there are deranged faggots on /ic/ who will call outright theft and tracing "reference" because they don't want to admit they are a thief stealing from a real artist.

>>4534389
Yeah I can see there is no use arguing, but that never been my intention in the first place.
I see I struck many nerves with this post and you are right, they would even call one pixel difference "trasformative enough".

>>4534386
>Nope, I don't want to mobilize or raise awareness or anything. I just wanted to hear what fellow artists have to say, but it's hard to discuss anything when
>>The people you're arguing with are probably themselves guilty of plagiarizing other's work.
>and when my thread gets constantly derailed to something I never said or claimed. Been a while since i have been on this board, now its really just a refugee camp of plebbit and voat
I like how you quoted my other post to continue your point. I wasn't fully serious when I said that you wanted to mobilize us, but that could've been something a positive outcome of this thread. Anyway, have a good day. These art thieves might make a couple of bucks but at the end of the day we didn't get into this for the money.

>>4534162
>>4534401
it's not my fault that to anon's /beg/ eye the gesture and body angle in OP's post look the same, that you miss that the guy in the painting has bulkier pecs, deltoids and biceps, and that the hue is leaning towards green in the photo and magenta in the painting. Yes, the veins on the arm are similar, and so is the background (a non-descript photo studio background), and the color of the cloth is "red" in both. But there is a lot of skill required to transform the photo serving as inspiration into that painting.

>>4534470
It takes skill to make an 1:1 copy of a photo with oil paint too, still does not mean you are not an art thief. Skill has nothing to do with this and with this so this argument won't save yourself or anyone. You must be blind or retarded if you can't see the plagiarism on this piece. Yeah just because they have the same pose, same veins, same minor anatomical parts, same lights, same background and same cloth color, nearly same same same everything are totally just "inspiration". Lmao do you really lie to yourself this bullshit? How can you face the mirror when you copy 80% of an image, modify some body parts then call it yours.
And for the 11th and the last time I tell to all of you so your downsyndrome-ridden ass can maybe understand: copying is not the problem, claiming as your own and the lack of credit is. I feel sorry for you all, being in this mental state for struggling with basic comprehension must be painful...

>>4534458
Unfortunately this board is not suitable to raise awareness for shit. Just look around how hard they are trying to justify their lack of creativity. You are right, I didn't get into this for money like the artsit who made the first picture, she started to draw gay porn just for the sake of money... imagine being this sellout.
Godspeed to you all fellow artists (not for you mental midgets)

>>4534518
>literal definition of seethe

>>4534518
I don't really care much for the argument going on here, but let me ask you one question. Is it really a wise use of your time arguing about morals on this site of all places?

>>4533932
imagine being an artist and hating intellectual property.

>>4534556
>>4535203

This is how >>4534518 you know you are right.

>>4533905
You picked a horrible example. There are a ton of digital artists who do the whole reddit copy photos 1:1 thing, but this piece is just using it a a reference for the pose and idea. No shape is actually copied and as such it is transformative. The photographer would not have a case here.

>>4534105
Oh sweet jesus its like a devient art

>>4534105
Tracing other artists is pretty bad. Copying the poses and faces is fine. I wouldn't notice/care as a reader since comics are all about deadlines anyways.

>>4533905
>>4533921

Derivative works aren't protected by copyright.

>>4534105
pyw

>>4535453
Yes they are.

>>4535462
no they dont, an example is dota, it is a new genre but lol and HOTS are copies from the same gameplay but still not the same, this is the same

camerafags can hangthemselves, jesuschrist preparing some light and take a picture is not that hard.

>>4535473
Derivative works are covered by copyright, for example If you draw Mickey Mouse Disney can't take it and sell your piece without your consent.
Yes the art thiefs work is still protected by copyright even though he just copied a photographers work.
You won't get much in court because monetary damages will be hard to prove.

>jesuschrist preparing some light and take a picture is not that hard.
Fine art photographers will photoshop their images and are more like digital painters.

>>4535491
I don't think you understand what derivative means. Shitloads of cartoons look similar to Mickey Mouse, as long as it's different and doesn't look like Mickey Mouse, it can't be protected as COPYright.

But Mickey Mouse is also a trademark and Disney will rape you up the arse because they have money anyway. Had money.

>>4535496
>what derivative means.
Can mean anything from fan fiction of copyrighted characters to making original stories with original characters that are "inspired by" stuff.
I watched a vid by Leonard French talking about it. (copyright lawyer)

>>4533940
the ability to read properly will enhance that statement's meaning

Why is everybody discussing copyright laws AGAIN when all I wanted with my post is for people to give credit when doing derivative work or taking inspiration?????? GRRR!! *stomps foot*

>>4535491
>Derivative works are covered by copyright, for example If you draw Mickey Mouse Disney can't take it and sell your piece without your consent.
That's not how it works, at all.

>>4533905
look what you've done OP >>4536310

>>4535206
>implying that faggot or half of /ic/ will ever produce anything worthwhile enough to be considered art beyond "technically"

>>4535637
So OP makes a mistake and I'm the one lacking proper language skills, huh?
Hail Chomsky.

>>4535280
This. OP picked the worse possible example. This artist clearly used this photograph as an actual reference.

>>4536500
What's the difference between "reference" and "inspiration", and do you think they need to credit its source?

>>4535790
Why do you think companies ask permission before selling fanart as official merch?

>>4534084
>that
>technically excellent
NGMI

>>4533905
sauce on that guy?

>>4533905
As long as it's not traced I do not care. I think it's polite to list reference images for other artists but it's not necessary. Most musicians don't list chord changes, if you know, you know, and if you don't, oh well.

>>4533969
It's called jazz, sweaty. You just solo over the same set of chord changes everyone else knows. 80% of the song is already there.

>>4536509
On here it literally depends on whether /ic/ likes the artist or not. It's an artist it likes, it's "inspiration" and "influenced", if it's an artist they hate they're a "plagiarist", "swiper" and "rip-off artist". If it's an extremely popular artists that /ic/ hates they're a "hack".

In this particular case you can see she referenced the pose and the composition and the colour scheme, the angles and style are however different, so I would argue transformative enough to be an original piece of work. But, because you can tell it is from a reference and which ref it is the artist could have said so. However, this certainly is not the same case as tracing like: >>4533969
The artist has used enough of their own artistic muscle to claim the piece as their own.

For inspiration its taking certain elements and then creating something new that has the DNA of the inspiration in it, but the artwork is completely new. Like Adam Hughes when you look at his work you can tell he's inspired by Alfonso Mucha, especially when he does his art nouveau inspired pieces. At this point in time everybody just copies and borrows from Mucha now, it's a style all of its own. People continue to emulate it and no one bats an eye. Only if it comes to something like tracing, see: the Shepard Fairley plagiarism essay to see examples.
For reference for example if you wanted to draw a picture of a mermaid and you wanted to know how light bounces off fish scales for example you would look up pictures of fish scales and then you would incorporate that into your picture. Many artists already have the kind of idea of what they want to draw and then in order to finish it (or if they don't know what to draw) they will do studies beforehand from references and then they apply what they've learnt until into the current piece.

In the workplace no one gives a shit.
>Copy to your hearts content.
>Deliver a product.

>>4536859
The ref, the picture or the artist?

>>4534105
oh god this had me laughing so much I can't breath

>>4533905
wow literally who cares

>>4533932
ok commie

I don't get it guys

Why don't artists just take pictures of themselves or someone they know and trace that? You can't reverse search a picture that only existed on my phone for the 15 minutes it took me to sketch.

idk guys what's so hard about this?

>>4540757
It leads to stiff.non-dynamic poses if you don't exaggerate them.

>>4533905
>Giving credit to reference pics are not cool anymore?
It was never cool. The only person on your pic that might be worth giving credit in your pic is the model. It took a lot of time, effort and willpower to build his work of art body that artists might use for references and inspiration. But faggot with a camera can eat a dick, their work has less merit than some Harry Potter homo fan fiction. They aren't creators, they are just servants, a tool, soulless drones.

>left: mega faggot, smells like vape juice, commiefornia, blow, and homelessness
>right: based gay-bro. Smells like sunshine and lavender. Handles cleanup after topping you.

these are completely different images op...

>>4540757
Do you have model looking friends of both genders who are willing to pose nude for you at any given moment's notice? I guess you're more chad than me then.

>>4540829
What's even worse is the jewery on stock photo sites. They're selling single use commercial licenses for hundreds of dollars for a fucking snapshot of a painting.

>>4540829
>their work has less merit than some Harry Potter homo fan fiction.
Unironicly this

There is literally nothing wrong with tracing other than that it results in shitty bland artwork, same with xerox copying
People that care about method are tasteless faggots by default

>>4540855
>>4541173
The first comment stung. The second comment is twisting the knife. Let me just say, don't come for me GODDAMMIT you haven't even read it yet!!!!

>>4533932
You will understand its importance the day you will create your own thing. (And a bastard copies it, say that he did it & even receives 1000 bucks & followers while you demain unknown and invisible)

>>4533990
>they do it too
NOBODY SHOULD DO IT

>>4534023
>It's always been like this
Oh I got my art stolen, better say that instead of taking action to stop it.

>>4534233
If you find a new way to do a crime that hasn't been addressed by the law, it doesn't make it harmless.
The law also allows smart & greedy individuals to do wrong stuff.
The law doesn't cover everything.
(By the way, art theft is copyright infringement or violation of intellectual property)

>>4534238
False.

>>4540446
People who get their art stolen.
Just because you don't doesn't mean that everyone else don't. You're not the center of the universe.

>>4541189
So there is something wrong.