Suichiro

Amerikatt.

Depends upon context, as I said.


Basically, no. Once you release art into the wild, you essentially lose all control over it. Though there's a large difference between what is morally right and what it's legally right. Those change heavily based upon region and culture. Which is why it's impossible to answer the question in an all encompassing answer.

No, you can't stop me.

Legally, you don't own the Juggertha that exists in the CoX universe, NCSoft does. You retain the rights to the use of the Juggertha character as it may exist outside of the game, but when it comes to a legal stop of the in-game character, only NCSoft has any legal right to make me halt. Even then, I'm allowed legally to draw Juggy whenever and however I want, but there are limitations on how and where I can use and display said art. I cannot take credit for his creation, use him for profit purposes and beyond a certain point of parody, I cannot use the art to engage in harmful behavior.

But legality is a pretty fragile thing. When you have enough power to re-write the laws, they no longer apply to you. Look at what Disney does and the complete mockery they've made of the entire copyright issue altogether. That's a situation where 'might makes right,' which many people don't agree with. Morally, that's completely irresponsible, though again, you can argue about stance that as well.

Socially, I may garner backlash from 'improper' use of Juggy, depending on the context and environment I use him. If my peers dislike how I behave, then I'm subject to their opinions and views. But this is not a legal binding decision and ultimately has no effect on me, if I ignore it. Once again, you can't stop me from doing what I want with him.

This type of "moving of the goalposts" is exactly why you need to have a strong personal stance on how you use art and what your own code of ethics is. Because if you rely on other people to make your judgments for you, not only can they be proven wrong by any number of other debates, but they fluctuate to the point where you may as well not have ANY ethics at all. When nothing can be 100% clear, I will choose a set of personal behaviors and stand by them. Because at least I believe in *something,* even if it's ultimately as useless as everything else.

Most likely, they could legally find a way to. Many things are possible within the legal system if you have the right amount of money and power. Would it be right to do so? No. Once Porsche made a good product and put itself at the top of the pack, it subject itself to being referenced within other works. Unlike a living being, it's ultimately a car and a tool that we use within our normal lives. Being in the background of a graphic porno movie is well within the acceptable use of it. It's being referenced for *exactly* what Porsche wants it to be synonymous with, sex, power and allure.

Stock photography by it's very nature was done for the express purpose of reference. In it's creation, the artist has given you permission to copy it for any use you want in creating new works. That's like me going outside with a stand that has cupcakes, with a big sign saying "Free cupcakes, have some!" Nobody can steal them when I'm freely giving them away.

When it comes to how much I'll respect the artist for using stock photos as references, I will always give more credit to the one not using reference. They put 100% of their own work into the piece, unlike the one who copied from a ref. No matter what you do, when you copy something, it's never entirely yours.

You forget all the explanations about creative tools and the difference between them and referenced works. Words and language are a tool, not a creative work. I realize you're trying to be funny, but this *was* gone over.

This is a proper example of acceptable use of reference. While having copied the pose from a photograph, Juggy took the photo himself, thusly having supplied himself with his own references. It would be the same as 'stealing from himself' which you can't do. Everything in the picture has been brought to the piece by Juggs himself, so this is perfectly acceptable.

Now, he did use a pre-existing copyrighted character, but within the context of the picture, he's making reference to the Doctor Strange character. If he instead said "this is my original character" then we'd have a different situation. The situation gets more gray when the character being copied isn't a widely known character and people start thinking it belongs to you, when you don't credit the source. In those cases, it's best to always give the source material, to avoid potential problems in the future. This is the role that context plays within the work. If you didn't know who Doctor Strange was, you may very well think that it's an original character. The fault would lay somewhere between the artist and the viewer, though the artist can always control what the viewer sees, so in my book the onus is on them.

This is also the answer to your problem of the sports car. When you're referencing it, you're trying to show the view that "this is a specific model car." If you said "this is my car that I designed" then things would be very different. This is the same as creating works with specific people within them as well. Adding a celebrity into your work is showing the viewer that you were trying to render a particular person. As long as the viewer recognizes the subject, it's not an issue. If you say it's a specific subject you were trying to render, the viewer won't think it's your original creation even if they aren't knowledgeable about them. If I drew Juggs and you drew Mel, nobody would claim we were stealing each other's characters here, because the context here on the forums is clear. If you did it elsewhere, where that information isn't so clear and also didn't say that it was someone else's creation, then things get muddy again.

This is an example of art theft. You flat out copied a majority of the lines and the pose from the original. Frankly, I wondered how you managed to do such fantastic work when you were just learning how to create your own art, but I never thought you'd taken a pre-existing image.

I would have had a lot more respect for you, had you posted that you took the pose from something else, when you first posted this. Not being upfront about it is what the majority of the problem is. Because in doing so, you attempt to claim credit for the entire image, when it's not entirely yours. The "theft" that goes on is recognition. You stole the original artist's recognition for all the effort they made to create the original.

If you had posted the source in the beginning, I would have been informed and not attributed the queen entirely to your work. It still would have been marred by copying, but you'd be taking credit only for what you added. Sadly, now I'm wondering what else you might have taken from other pieces too.

There we go. That's what this all boils down to. You refuse to post a stance on your own values. Yet you're trying to tear down someone else's. That's not respecting other people's values, it's just trolling for a confrontation. If you really want a serious discussion instead of a constant ribbing of each other over inane things, step up.

Everyone who's posted their particular stance on the subject here has opened them selves to criticism, but displayed a valid position on the argument. You haven't. Dissent isn't an opinion, it's a reaction.

The most amusing part of this whole thing is that this behavior is what you can't tolerate from anyone else. If anyone disagrees with you, you blow up and try to label them as a misfit, yet you do the exact same thing. Nobody here is an angel. You're not free from hypocrisy and sin either, don't try to rationalize it like you are. You live in a mighty big glass house.

Once more, if you wanna have a serious discussion and not an argument, then meet your opponent on equal terms. Prove that you're not just being a belligerent troll and take a real stance. At the moment, you're not in a debate, you're the guy in the corner yelling "NO U" over and over again.

Really, this is a case where within the confines of a 'professional world,' there are too many deadlines, too few original ideas and too little room to expand within, so anyone within the business must make the sacrifice of morality in order to succeed. That's a pretty common thing for business, in general. But just because it's one of the evolved traits that make the business operate more smoothly, does it make it 'right?' No.

There's plenty of examples of immoral ongoings in the business world, this would only be one more on an already large pile. It doesn't justify the actions, it just makes it well tolerated. There's a pretty big difference there.

In addition, there's a lot of people who want to say that "your morals aren't anyone else's." Well, of course that's true. Nobody's morals are the same, unless you've been fed yours by an external force. But if you wish to interject that your own morals are equal to that of the dissenter's, then theirs are also equal to yours. Everyone in the world has their own moral compass and because morals are just a particular variation of opinion, everyone's in the world is correct. No matter how extreme, or how terrible you might think they are, the are just as right as you are.

I was really hoping you'd take the time to reply openly to my critique of your work without you 'taking a stand' too. It works both ways, Juggy. The moment you tried to dictate where I can and cannot voice myself, you forever ruined any chance of me taking you seriously.

At this point, you're just looking for a confrontation. Which, as much as I'd love to slug it out with you once more, this is BW's thread and I actually respect him, so I won't. Sorry.

It's a sliding scale of respect. There's no straight binary answer here, as each infraction of my values decreases my respect for the person or the work involved. It also depends upon other factors, such as equal opportunity to work and ability to learn. A 6 year old doesn't have the opportunity to have a lifetime of experience like a 55 year old would, so they cannot be judged equally. Someone with no arms must develop new additional skills and cannot be judged equally against someone in perfect condition. Every situation is different, so no true all-encompassing truth could be had. But on a general basis, assuming relatively equal ages, ability, etc:

Yes, because it's still a creative venture that requires you to invest skills in it, so long as you're dealing in original works. IE, you bring everything to the table yourself. If we're talking about manipulating things in the character creator, no. It's not original art, because you're using someone else's assets. It's still a *creative* venture. It still requires skill and effort to make a good costume. But it's NOT original. It could be considered an original creation within the context of the character creator, but if no context is specified, it's only original if you brought all the parts to the table yourself.

Yes, because you started with someone else's idea and work. The more original parts of the project you bring into the work, the more original it becomes. The more I respect the person who did it, because of the added work and effort they put into it. But it will always be marred by the touch of theft. If someone happened to design something that was the same as a pre-existing work, I can respect that because they're only similar by circumstance and not design.

No. You did not bring those parts of the work to the piece yourself. You benefit from someone else's work, so it's not original. It can still be a showcase of great talent and awe. But it's, again, tainted by someone else's work. If you designed the assets yourself, then it's entirely original because nobody else worked on your piece.

This may make some people think that my views extend into the extreme thought that all 3D programs and graphic editors are also 'theft' because you didn't write the program and tools yourself. No, that's not true. A program is only a tool, as a pencil is. Only elements that make it into the final piece would be subject to that judgment. I can make a bitmap image in countless different programs. Pixels are a medium, not a work. 3D modeling is a medium as is cloth. Specifically arranged pixels (like a specific picture) is a work that can be copied or 'stolen.' Specific 3D models that are created by someone is a work that can be 'stolen.' A dress or a shirt is a specific arrangement of cloth that's design can be 'stolen' too.

Photomanipulation is copying, plain and simple. It's like photography. You never brought all of the elements into the art yourself. What you *did* bring was layout, cropping, setup, contrast, etc. Those can be quite impressive on their own and worthy of praise. But that final work will NEVER have the same respect that a fully original piece of art had. No matter what you do, you still took an element from something else to make your final work. This also applies to other things, like collages and fashion.

No. It's not original because even if you completely redrew the scene, you still benefit from another person's work. You took their layout, spacing, theme and camera angles. It could be a very good work and have a lot of skill and talent pumped into it, but it will never be 'original.' Original means that it's 100% original effort. If even 1% is taken from someone else, it's not entirely yours. The more of your own work you put into the final product, the more respect and praise I would give you. But, that would not change the fact that it was never entirely yours.

This is why you use context. Something could be original within the realm of photography. While the elements will not be your own, they can be your own original use of them. Within the realm of photomanipulation, it can be an original technique or attempt towards an idea. This assumes that within that genre, we ignore anything that makes it unoriginal. This is typically how we speak of our comparisons, but the reality still lays underneath it all.

I posted nothing but the truth here. Sorry, Juggs, but that's how the reality of this is working. Also, I already made my case previously and even posted examples. More than anyone else did so far.

To be more fair, *I* do. BW only followed up on what I pointed out, he didn't do the finger pointing. But nobody makes for a more well thought out case.

Mod 08 came in and erased all the posts that had anything to do with the examples and proof in the previous threads, so there's no history to go back to now. Going back to that thread is now a moot point because of it.

Pssh. Gender means nothing to me aside from good looks and a more supportive fashion industry. Call me whatever you want. I don't care.

Psssh! As IF.

Chastity belt. Enraged Neko. 'Nuff said.

No, I don't have it backwards. In this particular example, we're dealing with copying and referencing works that already exist. Within that scenario, copying someone's technique is what the offensive behavior boils down to. Technique is personal to every artist and it's an amalgam of particular behaviors of that artist develops over time. There are many generic art techniques that you can make use of, but it's the particular ones used in a pre-existing work that should be hands off. What you're speaking of is 'style' which is a method of applying a particular technique, but not the exact technique used on the work.

If you crib a particular technique from an artist into brand new works, it's not exactly the same. You deconstructed it and applied it in your own style, even if you think it's a 'straight copy.' I could steal any artist's method of rendering hair, drawing muscles, or applying shadow, but the art would still be mine. But if you copy art without modifying it, you're stealing the subject, the method and the technique of the artist. If I copy a line drawing of a pony line-for-line, I added nothing to the art. I directly took the effort that the other artist made in creating that piece and that's why it's wrong. Even if I add my own elements to the picture after the fact, it's still plagiarism.

If I instead copied the style of the drawing and drew the same pony in a completely different pose, angle and layout, then I didn't copy that artist's effort. I'm deconstructing his style, but I still had to put in all new effort to do so. That's what makes copying art 'wrong' IMO, and it's an important distinction. The less work you do and the more effort you steal from someone else, the more wrong it becomes. Whatever you wish to call it, technique, style, application, it's all the same. It's the work that an artist puts into the picture.

I copy stuff sometimes myself. When something strikes me as a funny idea, I'll take something and modify it to my own ends. Take my Dragonberry and Mel pic:


I really liked Bruce Timm's picture of Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy, but I thought it was a cute idea to replace them with Mel and Deebs. Even though I redrew the picture myself, changed elements of the picture and had it colored differently, the fact remains that there's a large portion of the picture that I did not put effort into. Those parts are not mine, those parts are Bruce Timm's. The poses, the layout, a majority of the exact line work, they're all his techniques he applied in this picture. I do not consider this a piece of my art, because it's not. I did not want anyone to think that it was, so I branded the picture itself with a reference to where I got the original image from.

To some people, this would be "my" art, but I contend that it is in fact, not. Perhaps some of it is, but not all of it. Recreating Bruce Timm's style in order to redraw the parts I modified was not wrong, but directly taking his lines and methods in the parts that I did not change was. If I were to try and pass this off as mine, I would be rightly subject to scorn and anger.

Where does the line between parody and copying lay? Personally, I believe that parody makes reference to the original. By it's nature, it's a reaction to something pre-existing and therefor it's never thought of as entirely original. Copying on the other hand does not make reference to it's origins, trying to be passed off as an original. This is something most artists despise and rightly so.

Dadaism LOVES that you hate it.