Proper use of reference

Adam Who?

Ansel Adams. Famous for nature scenery photography. Did a lot of photos of the American national parks. I suggest you google him and look up his incredible images.

I was talking with my Figure Illustration teacher just a couple hours ago about how much nicer it is when you can take your own reference pictures. I'm doing a portrait of my sister, and it was really easy to bring my reference sheet together in Photoshop for exactly what I wanted because I had taken pictures of her in the rough setting/composition that I had previously sketched out. Just moved some things around to take my artistic license to make the composition stronger (like taking out tangents, making some elements bigger/smaller than they were in real life), and I'm all set with a nice photo-reference of everything in the places that I want them.

We discussed which elements of the photos I'll emphasize, and where I'll take out the emphasis in my actual piece. And she also said, as mentioned above, that its really nice to not have to worry a stitch about copyright issues when you've taken your own pictures.

Just a quick 'thanks for the answers', its interesting to just see where people put the art/not art, original/copy line when its not easily recognizable as one or the other.

Mostly I've been trying to draw a distinction between using reference and copying/stealing from other artists. I also thought I'd mention that there are artistic considerations as well that can influence how one's work is received.

Boris Vallejo uses a lot of reference in his work. He will often have models come in and dress up in costume to pose for a painting. A long-standing criticism of his work is that it looks exactly like that--instead of a barbarian standing with his axe and overlooking a battlefield Boris' work often looks like a bodybuilder dressed as a barbarian imagining he's at a battlefield.

Aside from the issue of stealing, if you're going to use reference you want to make sure that the resulting drawing blends in with the rest of the composition. You want to absorb the details of the reference and then state it in your own voice.

I am not sure if this is a counter example to Boris, but I would like to mention Gil Elvgren, one of my new favorite artists. (Pino is the other one.) Elvgren worked extensively with references, too. Here you can see some comparisons of his references and final paintings:

http://underpaintings.blogspot.com/2...l-elvgren.html

Although he copies his references closely, he isn't cheating or stealing because he shoots his own photos and pays his models. What I really admire about Elvgren is that he really knew how to make his painting better than his references. The same can be said about Andrew Loomis as well. So many artists copying from photo references only hope to be as good as photographs, and I have been guilty of this.

There are numerous examples on DA where someone would post a photorealistic study, and everyone comments they thought it was a photo and the artist would be all flattered. As amazing as their technical execution might be, this doesn't really involve making creative artistic decisions. I think Loomis said in Creative Illustration that he didn't take it as a compliment if someone told him his painting looked just like a photo. I think copying references exactly has its place when developing basic observational skills. But to grow and progress further as an artist, I believe he or she should learn to make critical decisions on their own.

Btw, the swiping link Juggurtha posted was really interesting. Is that something accepted as the norm in the comic industry, or do people still poke fun when they get busted swiping like that even if there are no legal consequences? It is hard for me to imagine a comic artist who swipes and fails to conceal their original source all the time having a good reputation among other artists. If I were a comic artist, I would aspire to be the one that gets swiped often, because that would really say something about your creative skills.

I was just looking the link that Juggertha provided, leading to the "Death of Supergirl" cover for Crisis on Infinite Earths. I, too, have seen several covers and promos that have borrowed from the George Perez original, and to be honest, when the original is that iconic, the subsequent piece is really an homage, isn't it? Art in the comic book industry is consistently self-referential, possibly because it is shared by a body of consumers and creators quite unlike any other medium I can think of. For example, I would have assumed that, aside from younger readers who have yet to be exposed to Marvel's "first graphic novel", Jim Starlin's original 1984 cover to The Death of Captain Marvel would have been instantly recognizable as the source for Sana Takeda's 2010 cover to Ms. Marvel #50. In situations like this, artist and editor are inescapably as one with their readership when it comes to referencing the 1984 piece in homage to Starlin and the iconic image he created.

I remember that during the 1990s, however, there was something of a hullabaloo over Rob Liefeld persistently "referencing" other artists' work - he defended it by citing "homage", but his detractors far outnumbered his supporters, and they labelled it plagiarism.

The line between homage and plagiarism can be a fine one. In my opinion there has to be a reason for homage - iconic comic book covers have attained their status because of some landmark in a character's or the company's history, so editors (and it's usually the editor, not the artist, who will call the shot) will want to draw on some of that cache to promote their latest "landmark" issue. That's what the Ms Marvel guys were trying to do when they drew on Starlin (heh.. see what I did there?). And, if you want to tease your audience that inside these covers is a book of monumental importance that you will want to buy one copy to read and one copy to collect, what could be more iconic than Action Comics #1 - possibly the most referenced comic book cover in history? You can call it cynical and unimaginative marketing, but it probably still counts as homage.

If, as an artist or editor, you choose to reference a less famous piece, possibly cross-media (I remember a very effective Kevin Maguire pointilism cover for Justice League Europe which paid very nice homage to the promo poster from The Exorcist), then the onus is upon you to declare what you have done. Most editors and artists do this as a matter of course.

When you use unfamiliar sources, and don't declare what you've done, especially if there's no apparent contextual reason for the reference, then you certainly do lay yourself wide open to claims of plagiarism. The act of reference itself is the same as if you draw Goofy as the Mona Lisa, but one goes without saying, the other doesn't.

I know this terribly long-winded drivel doesn't respond to the wider question posed by the thread, but in this specific area, I just wanted to chime in on this particular aspect, regarding comic books.

As for photo and other sources... If I use stock photos, for example, I credit the source (especially as there are so many good people on DA who provide such things), because although I would be creating a piece to represent something entirely different, it's at the very least common courtesy to do so. If I had Megan Fox come and sit on the end of my bed in lingerie and stockings for $10,000 an hour whilst I photographed her (I made that rate up, in case you're wondering... ), would the proper etiquette be to credit her when I offered my portrait to Sotheby's for auction? I don't think it's common practice for live models to get credit in the same way. Had Megan Fox offered me her own photos of herself in lingerie and stockings, then I should credit her.

To recap:
1. This is a long post, offering no wise insight to this difficult discussion, and you've probably given up reading some time ago, anyway.
2. No, I'm not going to PM you with Megan Fox's phone number, or e-mail you any photos of her in lingerie and stockings.
3. Time for my medication, obviously...

And of course, Starlin was paying homage to Michelangelo's Pietà

Something occured to me in the course of this discussion. People keep bringing up the comic industry as an example of copying being prevalent or even "no big deal." Well let's say, just for the sake of argument, that it does go on all the time. Let's say that the editors at Marvel want the product produced quickly and are encouraging artists to copy things in order to turn the work out at a fast pace (I still have no reason to believe this is the case).

Marvel owns the artwork. The presumably own the artwork for every magazine they've published. In that case, they are within their rights to rip themselves off all day long despite how crappy and uncreative that is. There would only be a stink if the copying was of some other company's material and they made an issue of it.

I have the right to cannibalize all the work I've ever done if I want. It's mine. It has no bearing on whether it's right or wrong to lift things. Likewise, comic companies are free to steal from themselves. That doesn't lend weight to the idea that it's okie dokie to lift from other people.

FD: I doubt Marvel (for example) could get away with that kind of practice (or would even want to); editors and artists have professional pride, by and large, and would reference another work if they felt there was some use in it (tapping the cultural weight of an earlier iconic cover, as in my examples, maybe, or for satirical purposes, perhaps), but probably not willy-nilly. And because of the relatively tightly-knit community of creators and many readers with the shared understanding such a, er, tightly-focused and often singularly committed group* posesses, this all works quite well, I think. Although it might seem to happen more often than in other media, the community is such that it often seems able to more effectively police itself than, say, Hollywood.

Marvel may own the comic book, and the likenesses of the characters, but the original art belongs to the artist. I don't want to even think about how you'd untangle that in court, were it ever to come to pass. It puts me in mind of the story of how DC once tried to sue Time for using Superman on its cover. The legal wrangle was bitter enough and important enough it was eventually escalated up the legal chain on both companies, until both files landed on the desk of the senior corporate lawyer for Time-Warner, who realised he was suing himself.




*Are we talking geeks or nerds? Or both? And is there really a difference?

Obviously FD doesn't have the kind of contact within the industry as some.

A publisherdoes own the final products, but most of the artists themselves keep the art. They sell it online and at conventions.

They freely swipe from each other. And as I said, unless it's a BAD copy or so obvious that it's painful, it's almost always seen as an Homage, not a omgtheft.

And yes: they DO want their inkers and pencillers to work *as fast as they can*. They LEARNED from the start of Image Comics and their perpetually late schedule. Mostly. There are still exceptions of course but an editor is going to hire someone who can get the work done on time, and adequately well.

Unless the image was actually taken FROM the original piece: stolen page physically and printed to benefit another company, there's no legal issue unless as Bindweed said, there are stupid lawyers doing stupid things.

The artists rarely have anything bad to say about another swiping a pose, though they often DO comment about it again when it's BADLY DONE. Or so often done that the artist is "known" for it.

But take a deep breath: they do it and they think it's okay to do it. Professional artists of ANY kind do it. And yes, there are still plenty of artistic pursuits which REQUIRE copy-ability: advertising and movie posters particularly. Hell a friend of mine attended classes by the guy who made all those iconic 80s and 90s action flick posters, and he taught how to do it EXACTLY LIKE HE DID. Why? In order to get a JOB doing that. It's a valid use, in a huge market.

If you don't like it, don't do it. But stop trying to assert your morality on everyone around you, dear. It's not gonna happen.

Bindweed--

Yeah I don't know the specific legality of a publisher reusing artwork. I'm just throwing it out there as a consideration. I personally don't buy this view certain people are forwarding that lifting is endemic to the industry. But since I'm not part of that industry I don't have anything to confirm or refute it, other than people's opinions. I'm not that interested to go digging any further.

LOL wow.
If the cops don't come after you, you ain't doin nothin wrong. That's priceless. Also, the cops are well versed in copyright issues right?

My values are my own, just like your values are yours. I don't judge Christians (or Muslims, or whatever) on their values because there's little chance that people will change their core values. I don't comment on your values, because they are yours! It's not my place to judge them.

What I can easily comment on though is the application of said values - and that's what a lot of my posts have been about.

You seem to be intent on having everyone conform to YOUR ideal - and it's not going to work. I don't have to comment on your values, and if you notice, almost no one else has either.

People have been commenting on (and asking questions about) the issue and how it relates to their own lives. And you know what, that's ok. It's ok that not everyone falls into your specific pattern of thought. It's ok that not everyone addressed your values - because we're all bringing something different to the table.

You asked me to provide evidence that not everyone judges theft/swiping/copying the same way. Take a quick look back at some of the posts here -heck, ignore mine all together and look at everyone else's - and I think you'll find your proof.

If you think my examples are 'worthless' (nice), so be it. But at some point you have to recognize that your opinion is not the only valid one on the block.

I never said my opinion is the only valid one on the block. But by refusing to share your opinion, you prevent it from being judged at all.

I'm not asking you about your deepest religious revelations. I'm asking you if you value creativity. If you share the same concept of originality. Very simple questions. You could even respond yes or no to them. All this drama is about you refusing to be pinned down. You want to be free to criticize but not give any insight into you own values. You're just here to argue and discredit. You really think it's not obvious?

Almost no one has commented on my values. That's fine. No one has to. The only reason I'm pressing you about it is because you're rejecting them without giving any reason why other than a tired academic argument that everyone is different and we should respect them all being different and not talk about our values. This when you won't even say that your values are different than the ones I listed. For all I know, you could believe exactly the same thing as I wrote but you won't admit it--just because.

I didn't ask you for evidence that not everyone judges theft/swiping/copying the same way. I asked you for a concrete example where it was unclear whether something was theft or not. Your whole stance is about greyness...let's see something grey.

By the way, don't you ever get tired of cherry picking and twisting words around?