Proper use of reference

I've been meaning to make this post for a couple weeks, and the other morning I saw another example of somebody lifting from another artist, so I'm going to jot some thoughts down here. Maybe it will serve as the basis for thoughtful consideration.

Any discussion of art can quickly become complicated and subjective with different definitions of what art is, based on different things that have happened in different contexts. To try to keep things simple, I'm going to offer some basic assumptions that I will be using. Basic values regarding my own art and that of other people:

1. That I value creativity.
2. That I value the skill and knowledge developed by artists to produce high quality work.
3. That I understand a large part of an artist's work is making choices about how a subject is represented.
4. That there is very little that hasn't already been done by someone else. Originality in creative fields isn't about always producing something never before seen. It's about an artist taking their knowledge, skill, perspective and influences and approaching a subject in a way that makes it fresh and distinct to them.
5. That there should be truth and understanding to how images are created, especially in the digital age, because without that understanding, points 1-4 quickly become moot.

So if anyone reads this and disagrees with any of those points, this post isn't likely to be all that meaningful. There are people who feel entitled to take any image and use it any way they want, regardless of how the artist feels about it. Personally, I don't find that attitude prevalent or acceptable to people with a strong investment in supporting the arts or developing as an artist.


So what is using reference? Say I had to draw a car. Maybe off the top of my head I could scribble some generic looking thing that passed for a car. Now if I was asked to do a specific kind of sports car I wouldn't be able to. That's where reference comes in. No artist can be expected to have accurate knowledge of everything they may need to draw. It's not much different than an author that is writing about a certain place and time. In order to make that narrative more compelling and believable, the author will probably do a lot of research to give specific and details to make that scene believable.

Ideal reference would be drawing from life. If I needed to do a sportscar, the best thing would be to sit down in front of one. The reason this is the best situation is that the car isn't filtered through someone else's perceptions or aesthetic choices. It's in the raw and I just have to use whatever skill I have to translate it into art.

Drawing from life is going to be impractical most of the time, so the next best thing is going to be photoreference. This is where it starts to become a bit dodgy. First of all, many photographers don't want people using their work as a basis for something else. Secondly, if someone has taken a picture, they've made certain choices about framing, lighting, perspective, color, etc. When you use their image as ref, you incorporate those choices into your own. Personally, to avoid this I will either shoot my own reference, or use multiple images from different sources so that I have the information I need but it's not tied down to a specific set of values.

The worst type of reference to use is the work of other artists, and this is the sort of thing that leads me to post on the subject. When a big name artist like Adam Hughes draws a character, they are taking the what they've learned about real world anatomy and filtering that knowledge through their artistic perspective and personal taste. If you use them substantially for reference, there is no way not to inherit some of these qualities. If you're careful, you can learn from their example and not be a knee-jerk imitator. But you need to be actively drawing in other ways so that drawing like them isn't a "natural" way.

Taking it a bit further, some people think that if they copy another artist and admit it, that this is "using reference." It's not. It's simply copying or just flat out ripping off another artist. The reason is that so much of the quality of the derivative piece comes from the artist being copied. You get people saying that they "swiped a pose" from someone else. Usually this means that they took the pose, the sillhouette, and a large part of the original anatomy. In other words, the things that are hard to draw. They are swiping the original artist's ability and then making superficial changes. It's disingenuous theft and I see it a lot.

Reference is a really good thing to use to improve your work. I just hate to see it when people are confused about what that is. Or worse, don't care. In my opinion, people should be using reference almost constantly if they can to produce better work. But the way they should be doing it is by deciding what they want to do and then fleshing out that idea as much as possible on their own. Then, when they've reached the point where there are problem areas that are beyond their ability to visualise/address--they get reference of those specific areas and use it to improve the quality of their image (and learn the anatomy, etc.)

That's a far cry from seeing someone's finished work and duplicating elements to skip over the burden of actually having to develop and flesh out your own ideas.

I would just like to do a quick chime-in (as I have in the past) and say that doing things like master copies also shouldn't be confused with reference use. Copying master works is INVALUABLE in the learning process. It brings vast levels of understanding to study in-depth the process of a great artist, and to ingrain the skills by physically replicating them.

Yes, there are situations where copying is valuable. There are situations where creativity and originality are not actually given much priority (e.g. some types of commercial art). Also art movements that are very referential and sample a lot (Pop art, postmodernism, etc.).

Context in art is important. I was in the Museum of Modern Art in New york once and was near a sculpture called Gift by Man Ray. It's a flatiron with tacks glued in a line down the center of the ironing surface. A woman came up with her son and started complaining about how that wasn't art. The irony was that Man Ray produced that piece as part of the Dadaist movement, which was anti-art and an attack on the extant art traditions of the time.

I laid out the basic values section of my post in hopes of keeping it clear what kind of context I'm actually commenting on. Pretty much the normal context people experience here or on DA.

I think the real key here, to put it simply, is that it's fine to copy something for it's reference value, but not for it's technique value.

If I draw a cat, you can copy my cat to make sure that the head is shaped right, the proportions are right, the tail is thick enough, etc. But if you copy my choice of poses, the way that I render fur, or the style that I apply value in, you're taking my *technique* instead of my reference. The same is said for a photograph. A photograph is just a fancy copy in one sense, but the artist's investment in angle, layout, timing and development is all their technique they've added to the subject. If you copy that directly, you're simply stealing effort from them.

At the heart of the issue is a problem with artists trying to steal technique from other artists without proper acknowledgment or citation. When try you pass something off as your own, you do everyone involved a disservice. It hurts you to copy someone else in this manner, if hurts everyone else to not be honest about it.

This reminded me of some posts from James Gurney about using photo reference.

If you haven't poked around his blog before, I highly HIGHLY recommend it. I seriously don't know how the guy has the time to do it, but he posts at least once a day, if not more. And he still keeps producing so much illustration! He may actually be some sort of robot. With a bird on his shoulder.

You know, for some reason I thought it was you, FrozenDeath, who said a while back that ANY use of reference, even looking at a live model, diminished a piece so I came in expecting to bristle up and argue. After searching, it must not have been.

I agree with everything you have to say. You covered every angle so well that I can't really add anything except one comment. I do believe that copying via reference and stating where the original came from is fine so long as you do not try to profit from it. I think that is legal and when it comes to art, I think the copyright laws we have in place are pretty good.

Suichiro, I think you have it backwards. Technique is something you can imitate all day long, and it can be a lot of fun to try someone else's. Plus, I don't think there are enough techniques out there for each to have their own. It's the creation, or image that is protected. Not the style.

Wassy, another thing about photos is they flatten the image and someone referencing them tends to have drawings that appear flatter if they are less advanced.

And I hate Dadaism.

For me, I look for consistency in guidelines. FD's OP was well thought out, and I know he took careful consideration to include many points, but I still have to wonder: are there inconsistencies?

Ok, copying someone's creative works directly is wrong... unless it's for an art assignment, or unless you are copying a 'master', or unless you have permission, or unless it's a photo (where it may or may not be ok), or as long as you use two or more references.

At some point you just have to say 'hold on, something seems off here'.

I've heard some people say that ANY referencing is wrong, and I've heard others that say that referencing is a valuable tool for all levels. For me, I suppose I waver somewhere in between.

Let's look at the statue, David. I didn't create it - it was another person's work of art. But, if I was to see it in real life, I'd feel very comfortable using it as a reference for a sketch/piece. Is that stealing? Perhaps. I am using another person's piece of art as a reference.

What about if I need to draw a car - a specific car - a Porsche! Now, I don't own one right now , so I'd have to go find one. But, if I used it as a reference, would I also have to ask permission from the designers? I mean, didn't a whole lot of people put a whole lot of effort into designing the appearance of that thing?

And what if there are no Porsche near me? I can always turn to Google and search out some pics - but as mentioned in the OP, I am now (once again?) using someone else's creative works.

But what if I use two (or more) references? Does that now allow me to skirt the issue, or does it simply mean that I am now offending even more creators?

What if I use a screenshot, that was once copied from a photo? Does it free me from responsibility, or am I now offending the tech designer AND the photographer AND the architech AND the original builder? Heck, I may even be offending NVidia. lol

What if I change some things? The color? The shape? The expression? How much of it must be changed before it no longer qualifies as a 'copy'? 10%? 40%? 80%?

Having lived overseas for nearly a decade, I've come to realize that different countries (and people I suppose) view copyright infringement very differently. No, I'm not talking about widespread bootlegging of DVDs in SE Asia, but serious legal matters. I've seen cases of big name companies suing local ones for Copyright infringement, in what appeared to be a pretty obvious case, and losing.

When I asked local lawyers about it, I was shocked to hear how different their thinking was from mine - certain shapes/patterns/whatever cannot be copyrighted, and even if said image came close to being a copy, then you still have to prove damages.

And that was with countries that had codified structures regarding this sort of thing, on the 'net, and between people around the world, the lines become even less clear.


For me, this is how I see it:
Other people's art-
-If you reference, I believe you should cite it. If you don't, you'd better as soon as called on it.
-If you are selling something for profit, or printing on a large scale, you should seek permission for referencing before you use it.
Photos-
-If I know the source, I'll source it - especially if it's Stock somewhere.
-I'll try to diverge from the original enough so that it would be recognizable, yet not exact (unless, of course, I'm trying to be exact. lol).

The next issue is, and it's one that we went over before - calling people out on copy/using references. Now, in no way am I interested in rehashing previous arguments - I'd much rather keep this a 'general' discussion, instead of a personal one - but I must say, if you're going to call people out on something, APPLY IT TO EVERYONE. No need to single one person out, no need to attack/demonize one person - but instead, have the rules apply to everyone equally.

If there's a guideline that no references are to be used - apply it to all.
If there's a guideline that no art references are to be used - apply it to all.

But therein lies the problem - what rules do we follow? Do we follow the rules of the (well intentioned) OP? what made that the definitive rule set? Do we follow something else? If so, how do we all agree on it? If this is the Fan Art and Screen Shot forum, how can it make everyone complay with one set of rules?

As you can see, the lines aren't always as black and white as they appear. Sometimes yes, but sometimes not as much. To me though, what's important is civil dialogue and discussion. As soon as things get emotional/personal, this type of topic leads nowhere.

((well, that was longer than I had intended. I hope that my post gave some people food for thought. In no way am I trying to say that one side is right or not, but I wanted to give my 2cents here - all the while hoping that this won't fall back into that old familiar pattern))

Suichiro - I definitely get what you're swinging, but what you're talking about I've only ever heard referred to in texts and lectures as style, and the actual making of what you're doing as technique.

i.e. I can do a charcoal using a reductive technique, and I can see how your piece was clearly a take on Bruce Timm's style. Or I can ... make a cast using a lost wax technique, but the figure was done in the style of Rodin.

At first blush your point sounded like artists could call dibs on an entire media or something ^.^

Mostly a semantics thing, I think. Just reminded me of a professor talking about style the way you just talked about technique, but you're both talking about the same thing.

>.>... he said he could tell when I wasn't into an assignment because I tended to ditch my style and slide right into neutral fine art stuff <.<

I say technique because it's *not* style. You can't steal someone's style from a picture because it's something that inherently encompasses more than one work, but you can steal the work they put into the picture. Think of it as a tangible object that is created by your style. You take that product, from a specific work.

Technique is the only word that fits for that product, as it's not bound by specific line, color or judgment. It can be anything from layout, subject, placement, rendering, cropping, line quality, negative space, contrast, etc. The effort an artist puts into a specific work is summed up by 'technique.' Whereas style is something that is indicative of an artist's preference towards a particular mix of skills and decisions, which by it's definition cannot be taken from one specific picture by plagiarism.

But nevertheless, this is going beyond the original intent of the thread. You know what I speak of, even if we disagree on the wording.

How do you feel about people posting personal studies and experiments (master copies, photo studies, scenes from movies, etc) on DA? People seem to use DA very differently, from those who use it like a portfolio to only showcase the best of their works, to those who post every little sketch they do. I guess I've been using it not much differently than sketchbook threads on art forums, where I wouldn't post total crap but still show things that are not polished or studies that I wouldn't consider my own work.

For me, studying from photographs as well as life is a regular routine, since my foundations are far from solid and my visual library pretty lacking. I did this lion study a couple of days ago, and I am not sure if I should post it on DA or not. The reference is from the cover of the book "The Soul of the Savanna" and I would mention it in the description, but I wouldn't want someone to think I am trying to pass it off as my own work. My goal wasn't necessarily to copy the photograph exactly, but to learn to depict fur expressively. I also accentuated the highlights to show the warmth of their bond.

I have posted stuff like this on DA before, though. When I did a cloud study after a photo I found on DA, I got the owner's permission before posting my study. But when I did a series of studies from the dvd of Corpse Bride, I didn't ask Tim Burton or whoever it belongs to. I guess I thought it was ok since a lot of (concept) artists do movie studies all the time. I am not sure why I am a little more hesitant this time...maybe because I want to start doing things I can call my own.

I don't think anyone has a problem with actual copying as a learning tool. Obviously studies of masterworks are a core part of much traditional art education. If it's clearly labelled and not used for profit, I don't think people necessarily can complain about it unless its a photomanip or direct trace or something. Part of copyright law involves fair use for educational purposes. If I'm writing a scholarly article, for example, I can include samples from other people's writings as long as it adheres to certain guidelines about length and the proper format for citation is followed. Note that this does not include modifying or adapting the source for some other purpose.

I personally don't include studies and whatnot in my gallery. Simply because, as you say, I want everything in there to be "my own."

OP, I really dislike this looking like a tit-for-tat response, but with this being a forum arrangement, it's hard to reply without it being structured as such. So, keep that in mind that if this were a face to face conversation, it'd be a lot more fluid.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

In regards to us having similar values, I'd disagree with you. Sure, if you say "the majority of the posters on this board don't like to steal or be stolen from." you'd probably get a majority agreeing with you. But what if we defined stealing? What if we asked about people's variations within that value? Is it ok to 'steal' an idea? A color scheme? a pose? And beyond art, there are a lot of gray lines. How many here have copied/pasted an image from the internet without paying?

The truth is, it's easy to come out and say 'we all have this value', but the truth is, we have different interpretations on what constitutes the details of that value.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure why you'd say that this thread 'isn't fun for me' - I've stated that this is a valuable discussion. But I've also said that this is a discussion that could perhaps be better served in a different setting.

Take a look up - do you see the 'screenshot' title to this forum? By nature, this forum goes against some of your stated values. People are encouraged to use other artists' work (ie. screenshots). So perhaps it'd be best to 'judge' (or as you say, 'call people out') according to the nature of the setting. If someone is submitting an academic work, and they've plagiarized 80% of it, I'd expect you to step up. But if some kid does a chalk drawing of Jim Lee's Wolverine on his sidewalk, perhaps you might reconsider 'calling him out'?

------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I'd state that there are a lot of gray areas in this discussion, and because of that, no one can assume the mantle of authority. If anyone is going to do so by 'calling people out', then it must be fair - there must be rules clearly stated in the forum, and the enforcement must be equal. OP, as you and I both know, many art forums do exactly that - but this one does not.

So, if anyone is going to be 'calling people out' - perhaps they should consider the context of this board, and reserve judgement for more suitable situations.


------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit: The funny thing about this is that for the most part, I agree with a lot fo what you are saying. I just don't agree with all of it (or how you sometimes present it).

So, is it possible that people can have varying opinions and values and still be 'right'?

Looks like now's a good time to remind you that you injected the whole "calling people out" aspect of this discussion. I made no reference to it in my opening post. And true to form, you're making it a big part of the exchange. To answer you, we are required to follow the dictates of the EULA. Beyond that, if I've seen that somebody ripped off another artist I see nothing about the nature of this forum that says one shouldn't comment on that fact. It's simple to compare two images. It's simple to respond if you feel like somebody is wrongly characterizing what you did. And then people reading it can make up their own minds. There's no need for enforcement or rules are any more levels of mediation--its a straightforward exchange.

I wrote my post to talk about reference. You seem hung up on the calling out thing. Let me say this--the only people that would have anything to fear would be people who were actually stealing. And the backlash would be other people's opinions, nothing more. And you've stated repeatedly that you don't care about other people's opinions of your work--it's not going to end your world. Lol so what's the big deal?

I mentioned you not having fun because you said this forum was "FOR FUN and not an academic forum."

You keep mentioning screenshots. This is the company's forums and they've set up this space for people to post screenshots. They've given permission. What does that have to do with this discussion?Obviously if I gave you a picture of mine and said "use it any way you like" there wouldn't be an issue with stealing.

And no, I wouldn't call out a kid for copying Jim Lee. My kids copy stuff all the time because that's what children do. If that kid went further in art, I'd expect that people would start teaching the importance of creativity and originality.

Just for fun, I thought some people might enjoy these links...

Swipe of the week
http://blog.adlo.es/swipe_of_the_week/2007/08/

Disney swipes itself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh84g8rC2oA

This isn't a call out post. It's a case for what is proper use of reference. I promised to make this post as part of that other discussion, but it stands by itself. I don't think it had much to do with the other discussion until you made it that way.

I've explained why I would call out a poster for stealing. Do I have to write it again? And to be clear, I've never started a post trying to demonize someone else from this community. I've made comments within the context of other discussions.