FA+
Shop
2644 submissions
Life's A Chibi: Plagiarism
CAUTION: This pieces contains a very long text about Plagiarism. If you respect the rights an artist's have to their works and know how we feel about people stealing our art, please read.
artwork © 2015 Alex Cockburn
You just created an amazing piece of work. You put countless hours into it, perfecting every bit of detail you can until you achieved personal accomplishment. You sign and date the piece as the finishing touch. Feeling very proud of what you created from nothingness, you archive it and uploaded it online to share it with all your friends, family and fans. They too can't believe that you made something so amazing. Your piece starts to go viral and gain more impressed watchers and fans.
Later, you come across a piece online that strikes you as something you have seen before. Upon closer inspection, you realized that the image you are staring at is a copy of your own art piece you created not to long ago. The entire piece has been copied and transformed by this random person. To top it off, your signature has been removed and replaced with the other's. You read the description about the piece, coming to the conclusion that this person created the entire piece from scratch and that he claims that he is the one who made it. He also shares links to where you can buy prints of his "original work".
Something that you worked on, something that you made with your own imagination and energy, has been ripped off and stolen by a complete stranger online - a piece of you now deformed and debased. No words can describe the frustration and determination you feel in you as you, the original artist, start to put together legal actions to make sure that this anonymous art thief knows that you have rights to your artwork and to teach him the meaning of the word plagiarism.
Over the course of several week, I have several clients and fans telling me that my artwork has been copied and rendered by random others. Those "others" claim to be the original artist of my piece and refuse to acknowledged that they copied it from another source. Instead of talking like civilized human beings, they decided to go through lengths so I wouldn't be able to contact them or see more of their collect of art they copied from, aka blocking. This all ended with several reports as well as warning legal statements to those people, advising them to remove their "original artwork" from their gallery. In the end, they removed the copied pieces from online.
I got a few replies from those who stole my artwork in the past, saying "They didn't know who the original artist was", that "any artwork online can be used in any way, shape or form to their own pleasure", that "it's not stealing if it's online", that "they just want to try to be as good as the original artist ( or ) want to be just as popular." All of these excuses and reasons behind their actions are not valid nor logical. When an artist creates a piece of artwork from scratch and from their own imagination, they are the sole owner of that piece as well as the rights attached to it.
Put yourself in the artist's shoes: You made/created something no one else made before, only to realize that someone stole it from you, claiming it as their own and completely flipping you off. How would that make you feel? If your answer is "I Don't Care", then you are basically saying "Feel free to take what you want from me and I won't put up a fight. In fact, I will help you so I have nothing left and you will reap all the reward that you have taken from me." Very blunt, but that is what "I don't care" means. If your answer was anything then a brush off remark, that means you feel something for what you created - you feel cheated on and used by someone who you don't even know, and you wish for justice to make sure that you right the wrongs and what was stole from you, you wish to have back. Sounds like something from an action/vengeance movie trailer, but that is how artists feel with their own work. If their own pride and joy was stole and used poorly, they would want to fix this and want justice for their stole creation.
Some artists find that their art good enough to be stolen to be a form of “flattery”. If someone came up to me and stole something that I personally feel attached to, “flattery” wouldn't be the right word to what I would feel.
What is the difference between copying someone's art for practice and plagiarizing it?:
All young artists ( young as in children ) start out drawing by copying something from an existing image – something popular they have seen in the cartoons they watch or the comics they read. They do this to learn how to draw and the ways to draw and perfect their style. They learn how to color and use different media in order to find their own niche. This continues until they have perfected their style and became connected to what they draw.
Staring ADULT artists do this too, but there are rules and limits one must know when copying another's work since they have a better understand of the difference between RIGHT and WRONG. Yes, copying someone's image for the sole purpose to learn how to draw is harmless, BUT when the starting adult artist posts the traced and rendered version of the image they copied online, claiming it as their own unique piece without any mention on where they copied it from or acknowledgment of the original artist that help INSPIRE that piece, then there is a problem. In school term papers, you have to write several quotes from various authors and books and how to do it. Within those quotes, you say what book you got it from and/or who said it. That same rule applies in ARTWORK as it does in WRITING. Neglecting this simple rule means that you are oblivious of your actions as well as the consequences that follows, both social and legal.
If you see someone using your pieces on their website and nothing is edited ( the piece itself, your signature, date and source ), and you as the artist is credited for the original image, there is no problem and you should thank the person for respecting the artist's rights . However, if you come across a piece of your work that has something edited or rendered to it, including your signature removed or replaced, then there is an issue.
What if the person who copied my work now sells it for profit?:
There are people out there who leech off others hard work for personal financial gain. They find something they like, steal it and try to make money off of their theft. With the vast amount of digital material in cyberspace, a thief can pretend they are on an apple picking trip and the apples they plucked they can sell for their own profit. When it comes to something like artwork, something that they didn't create, it's called PLAGIARISM, also known as ART THEFT. This is a serious crime both online and offline.
Being an artist, you have rights and protection over the artwork you yourself created from your own imagination. These rights help your cause in defending your own creations from theft and plagiarism. You have your own personal copyright to it, giving you control on who can sell it and make profit on it - your own shield of artistic protection. You yourself own the original piece of artwork, marked with your signature, your watermark, everything. It is yours and no one else's, and you have the right and legal matters to protect your creations from those who wish to steal what you made and try to claim it as theirs.
You have your own rights and artists have theirs. You don't want people treading over or violating your rights, correct? Then don't tread on or violate the artist's.
What if I recognize artist's work that someone copied or sold?:
Report it to the original artist. Support the artist if needed to help take down the stolen/rendered piece in a dignified non-violent manner. Report to others who know of the artist's work that something has been stolen from the artist and you wish to help the artist protect his/her own works from being defiled on.
Whats the point of this?:
Simple: STEALING WHAT DOESN'T BELONG TO YOU IS WRONG AND ILLEGAL! Plain and simple!
If you really love the artwork someone has created, there are other ways to show your gratitude and appreciation then stealing their art and claiming it as their own. Artists are humans too. We live through our artwork. What we create is showing everyone a part of who we are as creative individuals. We use our talents to get by day by day. If you like what we create, please do the right thing: don't steal our artwork, don't sell it without our permission, don't render it and say that its yours. If you wish to have the artist do something for you, ask or commission the artist. DON'T STEAL THEIR WORKS.
artwork © 2015 Alex Cockburn
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 763 x 788px
File Size 442.2 kB
Listed in Folders
That's all too true in real life. Last time I had a table at the Montreal Comicon the guy who had a table in front of me had this fanart poster of some game character that he'd "gifted" with enormous boobs. The majority of the men who walked past my table didn't even see it as they turned to see the dynamite hooters like it was some sort of eyeball magnet.
IF this happens again this year I'm gonna yell "BOOBS!" every time it happens.
IF this happens again this year I'm gonna yell "BOOBS!" every time it happens.
O-kemono?
I love you for this.
I don't see the appeal in art theft. people will see through it so quick and you only sere to ruin your own chances at actually contributing something meaningful. you want to be an artist? pick up the pencil, draw, and practice, just like every other artist does. Maybe take some classes if you're struggling. but for god sakes, just stealing something someone else did and claiming it was yours is sub-human.
i just don't understand the point of it? what do these people want? recognition? respect for their talents? well if you don't put in the time to actually create your own piece of artwork, then you don't get to reap the benefits of being it's creator. so the whole damn thing is counter-intuitive.
I love you for this.
I don't see the appeal in art theft. people will see through it so quick and you only sere to ruin your own chances at actually contributing something meaningful. you want to be an artist? pick up the pencil, draw, and practice, just like every other artist does. Maybe take some classes if you're struggling. but for god sakes, just stealing something someone else did and claiming it was yours is sub-human.
i just don't understand the point of it? what do these people want? recognition? respect for their talents? well if you don't put in the time to actually create your own piece of artwork, then you don't get to reap the benefits of being it's creator. so the whole damn thing is counter-intuitive.
i'd like to add that there are a few people these days who have been trying to replicate my style of drawing.
HOWEVER!
They are doing their own works.
They are NOT tracing or just copying and altering existing images.
said work, while bearing some similarities, is still uniquely there own.
This is an example of "imitation is the highest form of flattery."
Kudos to these guys. I hope they continue to develop as artists and look forward to seeing what they will do in the future. ^^
HOWEVER!
They are doing their own works.
They are NOT tracing or just copying and altering existing images.
said work, while bearing some similarities, is still uniquely there own.
This is an example of "imitation is the highest form of flattery."
Kudos to these guys. I hope they continue to develop as artists and look forward to seeing what they will do in the future. ^^
Yeah, I feel that reference can be a fine line, too.
Like, I've seen artists flat out copy the pose / lighting / species / facial express / setting,
and in that case I think that this isn't okay. The frustrating thing is,
that legally, heavily referencing an image isn't usually considered copyright infringement.
In a lot of cases it isn't even illegal to use explicitly copyrighted characters in commercial art,
as long as it can fall loosely under parody or transformative. IE: If you draw Zelda in a really unusual
watercolor style that is clearly recognizable from official zelda artwork, the work is considered transformative of the original content, and isn't technically a problem (unless nintendo sues you, haha.) I'm speaking Canadian law, I'm not sure about the US.
I'm not going to lie, as someone who with very little formal art training,
I have learned a LOT from heavily referencing images, particularly in the days before video tutorials.
Generally I just reference lighting and color palettes; I've never gone so far as to copy a character / entire scene;
but I can totally see how less informed young artists , and unprofessional adult artists could make this mistake.
That being said, it is a really lame move to obviously copy a painting and then sell it.
I mean, proper artists have a hard enough time making a living as it is.
It really sucks that your art was stolen; it's really difficult to hold people accountable on the internet,
and I hope you figure it out. :x
Like, I've seen artists flat out copy the pose / lighting / species / facial express / setting,
and in that case I think that this isn't okay. The frustrating thing is,
that legally, heavily referencing an image isn't usually considered copyright infringement.
In a lot of cases it isn't even illegal to use explicitly copyrighted characters in commercial art,
as long as it can fall loosely under parody or transformative. IE: If you draw Zelda in a really unusual
watercolor style that is clearly recognizable from official zelda artwork, the work is considered transformative of the original content, and isn't technically a problem (unless nintendo sues you, haha.) I'm speaking Canadian law, I'm not sure about the US.
I'm not going to lie, as someone who with very little formal art training,
I have learned a LOT from heavily referencing images, particularly in the days before video tutorials.
Generally I just reference lighting and color palettes; I've never gone so far as to copy a character / entire scene;
but I can totally see how less informed young artists , and unprofessional adult artists could make this mistake.
That being said, it is a really lame move to obviously copy a painting and then sell it.
I mean, proper artists have a hard enough time making a living as it is.
It really sucks that your art was stolen; it's really difficult to hold people accountable on the internet,
and I hope you figure it out. :x
but... i copy and take art all the time.... >.> granted i dont try and draw or resell it... still cant draw any humanoid figures even with how many different styles there are, i can get the lines for basic body down right but... cant get the shape afterwards to come out proper x.x
A very insightful piece and extremely well written. I particularly appreciated your distinction between practice and plagiarism.
Much of my art is inspired by another artist, trying to learn the process through imitation. There are countless art books for this very purpose, including step by step tutorials. You learn from those who came before you. But utilizing these resources in no way means you've created something 'original.' And there is a distinct line between replication and duplication... The latter being a serious offense.
Time and again, I've seen this issue play out on the web. Particularly in relation to line-drawings... People coloring a B&W drawing and then claiming them as their original work. Uh, no. Far too often I've seen my friend's art presented in this way, and they haven't a clue it's been ripped off.
I've even seen some of my writing out there with a new name... So yes, I completely understand.
Thank you for sharing this.
Much of my art is inspired by another artist, trying to learn the process through imitation. There are countless art books for this very purpose, including step by step tutorials. You learn from those who came before you. But utilizing these resources in no way means you've created something 'original.' And there is a distinct line between replication and duplication... The latter being a serious offense.
Time and again, I've seen this issue play out on the web. Particularly in relation to line-drawings... People coloring a B&W drawing and then claiming them as their original work. Uh, no. Far too often I've seen my friend's art presented in this way, and they haven't a clue it's been ripped off.
I've even seen some of my writing out there with a new name... So yes, I completely understand.
Thank you for sharing this.
a lot of people, "famous" GEMA/ASCAP etc. artists have stolen melodies of my songs and made their own song out of it.
I can neither stop them from doing so nor can I claim correct copyright. Reason: In Germany you must pay your lawyer up front, always....and I do not have the money for this.
Even worse since the "prooving" side is my side. I have to bring all the evidence....
I can neither stop them from doing so nor can I claim correct copyright. Reason: In Germany you must pay your lawyer up front, always....and I do not have the money for this.
Even worse since the "prooving" side is my side. I have to bring all the evidence....
I'm really happy that you talked about both sides of the medal. I entierely agree with you, and i am also happy you talked about the learning part. It is a taboo, but tracing can be good to learn how to draw, but it is a tool for learning, and is not meant to be published or claimed as one's own other than the original artist it was based on. There where a few times where i was inspired to make a picture very similar to someone else's that was worth posting. In that case, I contacted the original artist and asked for permission, as well as putting a link to the original picture and credit to them in a disclaimer. I think the lesson isnt "dont trace/copy ever", but more "never steal and/or make money off someone else's creation, and never do anything without direct conscent and authorisation of the artist". Its very important to help new artists better themselves while still respecting moral and civilized rules of art ethics and intellectual proprieties.
I agree fully with this! It makes me so mad to see that people plagiarizing an artist's own work for their own enjoyment.
I always, always make sure that I give proper credit to my friends' characters whenever I draw them or use them in a fan-fiction that I'm writing.
I always, always make sure that I give proper credit to my friends' characters whenever I draw them or use them in a fan-fiction that I'm writing.
I've caught several people doing that on this site. They'd basically trace over someone else's work, add something "unique" to it, and claim it as original. Some of them were reasonable and agreed to credit the owner as what they'd based their work on, others apparently think everyone other than themselves are idiots and lied, despite my having evidence to the contrary.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is thank you, not only for an attractive piece that will draw attention to the issue, but for the eloquent description below outlining exactly what goes on. I sincerely wish you could pin this to the front page of this site for a while, as well as a few others.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is thank you, not only for an attractive piece that will draw attention to the issue, but for the eloquent description below outlining exactly what goes on. I sincerely wish you could pin this to the front page of this site for a while, as well as a few others.
As a beginning artist I have folder from dozens of artist I feel inspiring be due technique I love... this artist included. Chibi has a whole different level of complexity that real life drawings don't have to deal with and 
o-kemono does it in spade. That being said I don't actually post any work I feel remotely resembles another artist in fear of being called out on it.
I do wonder how much reference material could be used and still be considered original art...
o-kemono does it in spade. That being said I don't actually post any work I feel remotely resembles another artist in fear of being called out on it.I do wonder how much reference material could be used and still be considered original art...
Can I get your opinion on something?
After reading you're post I was reminded that a few years back my sisters and I used to print off line arts off google to color (since none of us could draw)
We did post up the colored pieces
BUT
All over our page we kept saying we didn't draw and all we did was color
We never edited signature blocks and when we knew the original artist we always gave credit.
We did add our mark for the coloring thou...
(If I can recall the passwords) do I need to go delete that account?
After reading you're post I was reminded that a few years back my sisters and I used to print off line arts off google to color (since none of us could draw)
We did post up the colored pieces
BUT
All over our page we kept saying we didn't draw and all we did was color
We never edited signature blocks and when we knew the original artist we always gave credit.
We did add our mark for the coloring thou...
(If I can recall the passwords) do I need to go delete that account?
I see that all the time. people say original line art by (original skilled artist) and colored by (coloring book fan)... names thrown in for comedy, not insult. even seen sketch by one, inks by another, color by a third, and with permissions all around, background and effect filters by a 4th. your best bet is to always say that you dont own the orininal, and if you know who dos, ask permission but ALWAYS credit where you can. if you dont know who, then say so but never claim it as your own unless you buy the full rights... but even then it is best and polite to credit the artist
Well said. I've been through this a few more times than I'd like to remember.
My approach has always been to have a calmed civil discussion, over coming in with fists swinging, that others have stolen my works. it's simply politer and defuses a situation.
When it comes to being blocked or ignored however, bold legal actions that go over websites and directly focus on the person themselves have always been the direct way to end thieves.
I've never had someone making money off my works... but for those artists who's lives exist on the product of creating and pouring themselves into their art, I can sympathize your stance.
I wish you Good Fortune
My approach has always been to have a calmed civil discussion, over coming in with fists swinging, that others have stolen my works. it's simply politer and defuses a situation.
When it comes to being blocked or ignored however, bold legal actions that go over websites and directly focus on the person themselves have always been the direct way to end thieves.
I've never had someone making money off my works... but for those artists who's lives exist on the product of creating and pouring themselves into their art, I can sympathize your stance.
I wish you Good Fortune
So I'm going to post the unpopular opinion:
There is a point where poses have been done so much it repeats its self. My opinion on this is you don't really own a pose and if you run across an image that seems copied but artist has drawn something without even knowing your art existed is purely fair game. Also before anyone says anything, I have seen this before this happens alot.
Tl;dr:
Poses shouldn't be copywrite claim and I dont think they are.
There is a point where poses have been done so much it repeats its self. My opinion on this is you don't really own a pose and if you run across an image that seems copied but artist has drawn something without even knowing your art existed is purely fair game. Also before anyone says anything, I have seen this before this happens alot.
Tl;dr:
Poses shouldn't be copywrite claim and I dont think they are.
You covered that pretty well. I've had that bit pulled on me a few times myself, but the worst confrontation I had with an artist directly cribbing my work was to explain to him the difference between a direct act of plagiarism and an "Homage." I usually go by the "50%" changes rule before I question the artist's sources or intent.
This is the most awesome message ever, cause I hate art theft as I know just ho damaging it can be. As one of the oldest members of DA, is proof of this. Because someone who stole his art blamed him for art theft, and won. When he had not stolen a thing, and well he went quietly than changed the way his style entirely just to still be able to draw.
I know how hard it is to change an already perfect style, especially to even to create a style that stands out as your own. So this image and message are heartfel as well awesome. ^^
I know how hard it is to change an already perfect style, especially to even to create a style that stands out as your own. So this image and message are heartfel as well awesome. ^^
Interesting points and passionate language. I too disagree with the idea of having my stuff stolen, but when it comes to the whole idea of originality... even when I pick up a pencil and create my own stuff I can't help but constantly feel guilty that I'll be accused for stealing just because of the number of influences within my works.
Pardon my differing perspective, as often times I find the line of influence and copying blurred, to the point that I need to keep a low profile so I don't get struck down by large companies or passionate artists. Particularly with the whole Space Marine controversies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_marine , as well as those memes involving multiple characters (often 3) being mashed together. And of course that Sonichu thing, which is just silly.
In my mind, originality is my major issue. When does a work become so mixed in influences that it warrants originality? At what point does a mutant begin to differ from a clone? What can I call my own? Or, in a very specific scenario where a corporation or government becomes so influential as to determine what information people are exposed to, does everything you make become public/company property?
I'm bothered by the idea that my own hands were never mine to begin with, as well as the loss of sources in a setting where information is distributed so broadly that finding an original becomes problematic. Perhaps I'm just overthinking this, considering the occasional dopplegangers I see around this place.
Pardon my differing perspective, as often times I find the line of influence and copying blurred, to the point that I need to keep a low profile so I don't get struck down by large companies or passionate artists. Particularly with the whole Space Marine controversies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_marine , as well as those memes involving multiple characters (often 3) being mashed together. And of course that Sonichu thing, which is just silly.
In my mind, originality is my major issue. When does a work become so mixed in influences that it warrants originality? At what point does a mutant begin to differ from a clone? What can I call my own? Or, in a very specific scenario where a corporation or government becomes so influential as to determine what information people are exposed to, does everything you make become public/company property?
I'm bothered by the idea that my own hands were never mine to begin with, as well as the loss of sources in a setting where information is distributed so broadly that finding an original becomes problematic. Perhaps I'm just overthinking this, considering the occasional dopplegangers I see around this place.
Hey cool, a furry who actually understands how this works. That's like... super rare.
Nice little piece and description. Anyone who traces art isn't trying to learn jack shit, especially if they post it for online kudos or money. Construction lines and methods simply cannot be learned by tracing. Nope, nada.
Plenty of people do studies of existing works, or photos that don't involve tracing and this really does help people understand methodology of building images. The principle difference is emulation versus duplication. Like walking down a worn path at your own pace and in your own way.
The simplest way to look at copyright is it's just that, a right to copy. Mechanical duplication of work can involve the high and low tech, from $3,000 scanners to just some guy tracing.
Nice little piece and description. Anyone who traces art isn't trying to learn jack shit, especially if they post it for online kudos or money. Construction lines and methods simply cannot be learned by tracing. Nope, nada.
Plenty of people do studies of existing works, or photos that don't involve tracing and this really does help people understand methodology of building images. The principle difference is emulation versus duplication. Like walking down a worn path at your own pace and in your own way.
The simplest way to look at copyright is it's just that, a right to copy. Mechanical duplication of work can involve the high and low tech, from $3,000 scanners to just some guy tracing.
It isn't just art, photography as well, many photographer's have their photos ripped off, stolen, and un-acreddited far too much. And if that wasn't bad, artists are some of the people doing that. Not all but, the handful doing it and not crediting the photographer. People may assume since we'll it only took them a seconds to take the photo, that there is no harm done.
That is unfortunately not the truth, it falls under infringement and copyright theft just as much. That photographer used their money, their time, and their gear/supplies to take those pictures. If someone wants to own such photographs they are more then welcome to get their own equipment and go outside to hunt for beautiful scenery and life to capture in the lense.
We live in a world of competition, where everyone feels that one is more important than the other, yet that is only just another fallacy. Because we're all in this together and all on the same level even though there's many who don't visualize it that way.
That is unfortunately not the truth, it falls under infringement and copyright theft just as much. That photographer used their money, their time, and their gear/supplies to take those pictures. If someone wants to own such photographs they are more then welcome to get their own equipment and go outside to hunt for beautiful scenery and life to capture in the lense.
We live in a world of competition, where everyone feels that one is more important than the other, yet that is only just another fallacy. Because we're all in this together and all on the same level even though there's many who don't visualize it that way.
FYI, whenever I drawn someone else's character, I always ask for permission from said character's creator. And, by the same token, when I render that character in the style of another artist, I always give that artist credit, whether he/she is still alive or not. Just to let you know...
Well, from that condition.
EVERYTHING we do, is based from something others we saw or heard. No one had purely created.
The first artists based their arts from nature.
Rome in antiquity based his society from others nations to decide what to take.
In Québec, they took the system of education from a old in USA.
Everything we say is from something we saw or heard, no one pure word is not from us.
We speak in a language of others and no our own.
Many artists based their arts from something others, inspiring.
Video games are same, if I talk about Rise of Nation, that was a game completly fusion of Age of empire and Civilization.
Sooo many games are created by something others was made.
I saw some artists draw their art and getting money by looking from others pictures by the term "inspiring".
That is nice, but if we do what you say is seem everyone must say everything we took to create it, every "ingrédients". The problem is that, same you, I'm sure you base your art from someone, indirectly or directly. The difference is sure a part of peoples try to don't and other do it with no care.
However, I'm sure something is wrong from what I understood.
So what the person must do to don't make "plagiarism" if he create something news by taking many old things created by others artists?
Technicly, the Creator of Rise of Nation is plagiarism, same if the game is good by some elements and this is different of others things, they have many parts from others games.
That is the great question of artists, what this the limit frontier between "INSPIRATION" and "PLAGIARISM".
EVERYTHING we do, is based from something others we saw or heard. No one had purely created.
The first artists based their arts from nature.
Rome in antiquity based his society from others nations to decide what to take.
In Québec, they took the system of education from a old in USA.
Everything we say is from something we saw or heard, no one pure word is not from us.
We speak in a language of others and no our own.
Many artists based their arts from something others, inspiring.
Video games are same, if I talk about Rise of Nation, that was a game completly fusion of Age of empire and Civilization.
Sooo many games are created by something others was made.
I saw some artists draw their art and getting money by looking from others pictures by the term "inspiring".
That is nice, but if we do what you say is seem everyone must say everything we took to create it, every "ingrédients". The problem is that, same you, I'm sure you base your art from someone, indirectly or directly. The difference is sure a part of peoples try to don't and other do it with no care.
However, I'm sure something is wrong from what I understood.
So what the person must do to don't make "plagiarism" if he create something news by taking many old things created by others artists?
Technicly, the Creator of Rise of Nation is plagiarism, same if the game is good by some elements and this is different of others things, they have many parts from others games.
That is the great question of artists, what this the limit frontier between "INSPIRATION" and "PLAGIARISM".
Very explanatory. And I feel sorry for that fox with all his originality there as an artist, and why that sneaky raccoon is deliberately copying the original artist's work and trying to profit off of it. I can betcha after this event, the fox files a lawsuit against the raccoon for plagiarism and is seeking damages to his own reputation as an artist. What that raccoon is doing is clearly considered deliberate plagiarism or first-degree plagiarism. And we know plagiarism is another word for copyright infringement.
If someone copied my work or ideas and claimed they were his or hers, I would be super-duper angry. Plus, as an artist myself, I draw in my own style and so it looks like I have creativity and doesn't look like it's copied from another artist's work, letalone a screenshot or anything. Plus even artists have the right to defend their own style. And tracing is obviously considered a form of art theft, plus it's an excuse to be a copycat and create confusion over whose work is whose. I know there are a lot of fan art and other drawings that are referenced and stuff. Referencing in most cases is okay, but only meant for practice; and then on the other hand, the artist should consider creating his or her own ideas himself/herself and otherwise show the public he or she has his/her own skill and of course his/her own style to make it more obvious whose work is whose. And I do believe there are a lot of great furry artists that are even working hard to defend their own style so they can make it more obvious whose work it is and to avoid the "copycat" stereotype.
If someone copied my work or ideas and claimed they were his or hers, I would be super-duper angry. Plus, as an artist myself, I draw in my own style and so it looks like I have creativity and doesn't look like it's copied from another artist's work, letalone a screenshot or anything. Plus even artists have the right to defend their own style. And tracing is obviously considered a form of art theft, plus it's an excuse to be a copycat and create confusion over whose work is whose. I know there are a lot of fan art and other drawings that are referenced and stuff. Referencing in most cases is okay, but only meant for practice; and then on the other hand, the artist should consider creating his or her own ideas himself/herself and otherwise show the public he or she has his/her own skill and of course his/her own style to make it more obvious whose work is whose. And I do believe there are a lot of great furry artists that are even working hard to defend their own style so they can make it more obvious whose work it is and to avoid the "copycat" stereotype.
Comments