• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Plagiarism: No action because it's just "heavily referenced"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

CaptainCool

Lady of the lake
So I just filed a new ticket. Now I'm curious what's gonna happen and how long this is gonna take.
One thing is for sure though and I am sorry for saying this, but if the result of this makes clear that the FA staff doesn't care about copyright when it comes to photography I will consider leaving the site, or I will at the very least stop uploading my shots.
 

-Sliqq-

Silo
Ain't gonna lie, but those shots are good asf.

It's not like getting paid for doing this right? Or am I missing the whole point entirely?
 

CaptainCool

Lady of the lake
Ain't gonna lie, but those shots are good asf.

It's not like getting paid for doing this right? Or am I missing the whole point entirely?

Thanks!
You mean if I make money with my photos? No, I just do that for myself.
 

CaptainCool

Lady of the lake
A

AnthonyStark

Guest
The funny thing is, is that people are getting all uppity and jumping at each other's throat over things that shouldn't be an issue in the first place.

If I were to re-draw "heavily reference" a photo from Time Magazine or some other giant corporation with paid photographers, and it was caught, I could get into legal trouble. Just stating that I referenced it from their photo does not mean I can legally get out of it and I'd probably be laughed at.

Even if all they did was just click a button and post the image online without any edits, it is still their photo and they are still protected by laws, no matter what you want to say.

Really, all the person had to do was ASK if they could reference the photo. It really isn't that hard to do and if they were told no, then they need to suck it up and move on.

There is a big issue and I hope it gets solved in a proper manner and the idea of "heavy referencing" being allowed will bite the dust.
 

AshleyAshes

Arcade Snowmew Of Doom
Take a look at this photo. Then take a look at the related court case. The image on the right by Prince was determined to be sufficiently transformative to be 'fair use' under copyright law. Yes, you can heavily reference a photo without the photographers permission and not violate copyright law. Transformative art being fair use is HEAVILY established in copyright law legal precedence and anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant as to how copyright law works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cariou_v._Prince

compare.jpg
 

Stratelier

Well-Known Member
ITT: People complaining about copyright infringement while using forum icons cropped from other images without permission.

I think that may fall under fair use points #3 and #4.

But, meh, I've taken to using avvies based on my own art for some years now, what do I know?
 

Volkodav

Dad****er
Fact remains that this shit wouldn't fly if it were art
Why is it any different for photographs?

Can I please go eyeball Zaush's and Blotch's art now and gain a lot of followers?

edit: back in my day we called this sort of thing "tracing" or "copying", but ever since deviantart got more popular they changed it to a more public-friendly term: "referencing" lol
 
Last edited:

Volkodav

Dad****er
Hm. Well i get what you're saying from the start, but even in art schools/classes they show and tell you how to draw 'exact' either from still life or photos, students can even be docked points for not being exact. Or is this teaching method just wrong from the start? Sorry if i'm asking weird questions, this interests me cause i see the world a bit different, i can pull images from memory so i tend to use refs sparingly.. ^^;;

Sorry bro, was on my phone last night and I didn't see this.

You're referring to life-drawings I believe, where the teacher sets up plates or fruits or whatever and you sit in a circle and re-draw it, yes?
This is quite different from ganking a photograph that someone spent time getting just right, not asking for permission, eye-balling it line for line (or as it's called these days, "referencing") and then laughing at the photographer when they confront you about it.

Referencing should be looking at images to get an idea of how something looks a certain way, how to draw a certain angle, that sort of thing. Nowadays people call it "referencing" when the correct term is tracing/eyeballing.
Like I said previously, if you can immediately tell which image someone "referenced" from, there's a good chance that it crossed the line from simple reffing into eyeballing. Honestly, it's not that difficult to ask someone for permission. CC seems like a cool guy and would probably let you eyeball his photos with permission, but to just gank his photos and then laugh at him when he's upset over it? Not cool, very disrespectful.

Sometimes people will do life-drawings based on photos they took or saw in a magazine (example here, I believe Kenket drew these from a live dog or photos she took): http://i.imgur.com/XEY1HX6.jpg
and personally I don't really care so much about that, but when you can easily ask the photographer with the click of a mouse "hey, mind if I use this".. why not???
 
Sorry bro, was on my phone last night and I didn't see this.

You're referring to life-drawings I believe, where the teacher sets up plates or fruits or whatever and you sit in a circle and re-draw it, yes?
This is quite different from ganking a photograph that someone spent time getting just right, not asking for permission, eye-balling it line for line (or as it's called these days, "referencing") and then laughing at the photographer when they confront you about it.

Referencing should be looking at images to get an idea of how something looks a certain way, how to draw a certain angle, that sort of thing. Nowadays people call it "referencing" when the correct term is tracing/eyeballing.
Like I said previously, if you can immediately tell which image someone "referenced" from, there's a good chance that it crossed the line from simple reffing into eyeballing. Honestly, it's not that difficult to ask someone for permission. CC seems like a cool guy and would probably let you eyeball his photos with permission, but to just gank his photos and then laugh at him when he's upset over it? Not cool, very disrespectful.

Sometimes people will do life-drawings based on photos they took or saw in a magazine (example here, I believe Kenket drew these from a live dog or photos she took): http://i.imgur.com/XEY1HX6.jpg
and personally I don't really care so much about that, but when you can easily ask the photographer with the click of a mouse "hey, mind if I use this".. why not???

Well still life drawings are just objects, but i've had art teachers before that had us go off photos too. i dunno, it seems easy to just go ask someone if they can use a photo they've taken. i wonder if the person might have thought it was just some random photo? there are some people on fa who just take other people's or stock pics from google and post them like it's facebook or something. (not saying cc did that, just offering an idea)
 
Take a look at this photo. Then take a look at the related court case. The image on the right by Prince was determined to be sufficiently transformative to be 'fair use' under copyright law. Yes, you can heavily reference a photo without the photographers permission and not violate copyright law. Transformative art being fair use is HEAVILY established in copyright law legal precedence and anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant as to how copyright law works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cariou_v._Prince

The effects of and legal precedent set by Caribou v. Prince are still being determined. Before the initial ruling was overturned by the Second Circuit, appropriation artists who merely re-drew a photograph often lost to the photographers they based their work upon. Despite having greater additions to the images in the case you've linked, derivatives such as this and this, based off of this photo (Dennis Morris v. Thierry Guetta), or this based off of this photograph (Glen E. Friedman v. Thierry Guetta) were not considered transformative enough to be protected under fair use. Another similar case is Art Rogers v. Jeff Koons, and several of the other lawsuits Koon lost. The only case he won was because he added the photograph he borrowed to a much larger peice, merely than making a direct copy of it as he had before.

Transformative works typically require a change in composition and cannot borrow too heavily from the orginal, as determined by a court analysis. They are expected to add to the original, and typically different enough that a layman can see it is a vastly different piece. Cases in which the appropriation artist won were more along the lines of using a Louis Vuitton bag as a part of a much larger painting (Plesnet v. LVMH) and cropping, enlarging ect. the original while superimposing multiple things on top of it (Hoepker v. Kruger).

The unorthodox Caribou v. Prince is being re-visted in a pending lawsuit. Thierry Guetta is attempting to appeal the rulings he had previously lost by citing that case, while Dennis Morris is filing in opposition on the grounds that the ruling is not actually precedence and has made no material change in law. If Morris loses, and the Second Circuit's interpretation actually does become precedent, than dozens of other previous rulings may also be contested and overturned. If he wins, it will re-affirm the prior precedent wherein transformative work required heavier alteration than seen in Caribou v. Prince and ruling on the Sid Vicious photograph will stand.

Until the dust settles, this makes it a little difficult to cite Caribou v. Prince as the end-all-be-all rulings for appropriation art.
 
Last edited:

Eggdodger

Mourning Dove
I knew Prince did music, but I had no idea he tried his hand in art, too =v


...Anyways. Hope this swings your way, CC. I don't like that guy's attitude.
 
Can we sue artist who does realistic drawing like these?

If the image was directly reproduced from a film still or photograph (assuming directly from the LOTR series), the copyright holder of the source material absolutely could. They may or may not win, depending on whether or not it meets the criteria for transformative fair use work. The judicial system typically considers if it supersedes, adds to the original and/or alters the expression, meaning or interpretation of it. Take, for example, the lawsuit over the Obama Hope poster or how Damien Hirst was sued for infringement after sculpting a 20ft enlargement of a limited edition toy. Both cases were ultimately settled out of court. The first involved a split of an undisclosed amount of the profits made, and the second required the artist to donate to two different children's charities.

Lawsuits are filed over these sorts of subjects all the time, though they typically occur when the appropriated piece is generating a sizable income. Some of these cases spend years, even a full decade, in litigation. More reason as to why settling out of court is so commonly seen.
 

Mikazuki Marazhu

I hate you all
Lawsuits are filed over these sorts of subjects all the time, though they typically occur when the appropriated piece is generating a sizable income. Some of these cases spend years, even a full decade, in litigation. More reason as to why settling out of court is so commonly seen.

So for CC's case it's just a matter of permission because I don't see any form of profit from the piece in question.
OK so say the person/admins took down the piece from their FA.. What now? What is CC trying to gain? Respect? To prove a point? Does CC want to take this up to the law and sue the artist for money?
 

PheagleAdler

Well-Known Member
edit: back in my day we called this sort of thing "tracing" or "copying"

Maybe I'm just being picky here, but I always thought tracing was literally tracing. Putting the image under your canvas and tracing over it.

Funny, cause the rest of us seem to get along just fine and even if there's an argument at least come to some agreement or walk away not hating eachother. There are more open minded people i've seen on these forums than you wouldn't believe. The majority of which are more than willing to change their opinion on something if shown facts and good arguments. Which is more than i can say for you, sir.


I can change my opinion, but it takes hard facts and evidence, having biased information doesn't sway me one bit. And with the drama that goes on 'round here you can see why I would be skeptical about most things.
 
Well, the guy did atleast link the photo. If he was truly trying to steal it he would not have mentioned it at all. However,if you asked him to take down the image and he declines-that's not very good.

Typically when someone references a photo for an illustration the proper way to do it is to change the posing and/or species/color when you are making your actual illustration,rather than just making the same animal in the same pose as the photo. They just took your photo and turned it into a different medium.

As for the Pokemon example you gave, from what I can tell the person is not tracing over the Sugimori art and is just trying to copy/draw it themselves. Some of them have slight alterations. Kids on deviantart and shit do this,and Ken Sugimori probably doesn't care. The art has been used for over a decade,depending on which picture you are using.

If hes not making a profit on them its likely not going to bother him (Sugimori) or Nintendo/Game Freak that much. Like I said,kids do this.
 

CaptainCool

Lady of the lake
However,if you asked him to take down the image and he declines-that's not very good.

I didn't ask him to take it down.
"I would have liked it if you had asked me for permission to use my photo as a reference, but hey! Thanks for liking it I guess!"
That was my comment on his piece. To which he replied
"HA! That's cute. Permission..."

I have no problem with people using my photography for references. In fact, I am glad when it helps artists to figure out how to draw something.
But if they are actually copying it I'd just like them to at least ask me.

So this is essentially about two things:
First , that guy behaved like a dick and I refuse to let shit like that fly.
Second, I want the FA staff to accept copyright claims for photos just like they would do it for drawn artwork. I will not let them treat photography like some kind of second grade art.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Stratelier

Well-Known Member
...but even in art schools/classes they show and tell you how to draw 'exact' either from still life or photos, students can even be docked points for not being exact. Or is this teaching method just wrong from the start?

Sometimes I think this method of teaching art IS flawed. I mean, I learned a lot more about character structure from one year playing Spyro the Dragon than I did from three years of high-school art classes. Sure, the class was cool, the teacher was cool, and I got good grades in class assignments/projects, but I didn't really learn anything about how to draw something until I found something I was passionate about on my own.

Well still life drawings are just objects, but i've had art teachers before that had us go off photos too.
Oh yeah, and the last day of the year we spent clipping photos from assorted magazines specifically to create sheets of random images for next year's use.

Maybe I'm just being picky here, but I always thought tracing was literally tracing. Putting the image under your canvas and tracing over it.
I agree, the term "tracing" has a very precise definition and does not encompass broader cases of copying (eyeballing, etc.).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GemWolf

Imma wolf with style
Such an awful fuss over such a simple little sketch! He liked your photo and wanted to draw it - should be flattered by this not offended. He did link you the image. People on YouTube link original artists to music they use in a home made video all the time. They didn't need to ask permission because they acknowledged the original owner, and are not making money of the video.

This artist did not make any money with this drawing, and he did link you - seriously, what a cry baby.
I would be flattered if this were me.
 

Stratelier

Well-Known Member
They didn't need to ask permission because...
Legally speaking that is never true; if you didn't acquire written permission in advance, you're in trouble should the owning party decide to prosecute.

...but whether or not they do is the big question mark.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top