If Larissa commissions me for something again, I'm making her pay me in cake.
Quote:
You left number 4 off of your quote. Ethics are a systematic approach to the question of values. As a system, ethics are subject to internal, rational consistency. | 4.(usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions. |
Laws are written out. Yes, lol. You think that means they are coherent? Really? Laws are more relative than ethics because they are a mixture of ethical positions and many other societal values, including religious values, ethnic values, gender values, general pragmatism, etc.
That's why there are so many organizations in medicine, law enforcement, etc. to police ethical concerns in various practices. You have it backwards. You study law to know what you can do. You study ethics to know what you should do.
You don't believe in absolute right or wrong? Fine. That doesn't rule out determining the best approach to dealing with a situation. And it doesn't rule out rejectig things that are obviously bad.
I based my farce comment off of this:
Quote:
|
Those are his ethics. I have no idea if his ethics and mine are the same. That's why we don't enforce ethics - we enforce laws/rules. Ethics and values are personal (/cultural), laws are codified and easy for all to observe. |
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
Ethics are societal. Morals are personal. Values are cultural (although you can slap values at the beginning of either of the other two, this is where I put it).
lols are not allowed.
Since we are talking individual beliefs on right and wrong we are talking morals.
My artistic morals line up more with FrozenDeath, but not just for reasons of moral high ground. I feel you learn faster when you do things the harder way.
Juggertha does copies sometimes, and to the best of my knowledge it is all legal. At worst it is universally unenforced law.
So if someone's morals are different than yours, and theirs are legal, there is nothing you can really do about it other than state your opinion. Check that box for this thread.
You know the only thing I really hope that people take away from this thread is that there is a difference between using reference and copying. Honestly I see it a lot where people don't actually realize that they're lifting from someone else. They think what they're doing falls under the use of reference.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
Quote:
Ok. I think that's a fine goal for this thread.|
Originally Posted by FrozenDeath
You know the only thing I really hope that people take away from this thread is that there is a difference between using reference and copying. Honestly I see it a lot where people don't actually realize that they're lifting from someone else. They think what they're doing falls under the use of reference.
|
I am curious, FD, about some of the references you posted earlier. Previously (in the other thread) you had mentioned that you used 3 reference shots for the stadium, but you only posted up one here. Did I mis-remember that? (very possible)
Also, when looking at your 'Judge' and the judge from the photo reference, I can't help but see a whole lot of similarity.
I use these examples only because you posted them up here as your example... so, when looking at that judge, and seeing the obvious change in his face (skull) and arms (but minus hands), do you feel that that was enough of an edit to classify it as a "reference", or does it still seem to skirt near what you would say is a "copy"?
I asked this question in my first reply, and I wish people would have talked about it more (I think Suichiro touched on it a few times though in response to another piece posted) - how much needs to be changed to make it your own?
10%
30%
50%
What's your ((for all of you)) magic number?
Sorry, been meaning to reply to this. I agre wit hthe first two paragraphs, so let's just move onto the next...
Quote:
But that's the thing, if you did draw Juggs, or I drew Mel... could we also be stepping over some line?|
Originally Posted by Suichiro
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.
|
A few months back I did up a gift art piece for someone I had previously drawn for. He basically said 'thanks, but no thanks' and that any art not given prior approval was a big no-no to him. I was pretty shocked and disappointed, but I took the piece down right away. I thought his guidelines were out of whack with my own, but I also felt that that character was his, and he had some rights to it.
So, does the creator get to control how his or her concept is being used?
Can I stop you from drawing Juggertha? Or am I within my rights to at least ask you not to? (hypothetically speaking)
This is related to the car a bit as well - could Porsche sue an adult film company for misusing its image (for example)?
Didn't Volkswagen refuse to give permission for use of their car as "Bumble Bee" in the "Transformers" film? Citing they didn't want to be endorsing guns and violence or some such? Is that similar?
Quote:
Oh no, my bum is sore! I thi k I've been spanked! |
Originally Posted by Swissy
Anyway, without wanting to derail, I reiterate that this topic is great and interesting read (in my eyes). Much better than the sugar-coated *"showing off my commissions - look how much money I spent"-type threads.
I'll go back to lurking now. |
Personally when I find threads uninteresting I just skip reading them, I see no reason to snark at them from other threads. You're mileage obviously varies...
All in all though I could care less if you find commission threads interesting or not but I would like to point out that my own personal commission thread has nothing to do with showing off how much money I spent... I try to snag deals whenever I can
*And for the record, I much appreciate any and all non sugar coated commentary on the commissions I have bought. I find many here have a much better eye for detail than I do and their comments and citicisms have pushed me to be more precise and demanding of what I want from artists in future commissions...
So feel free to jump in and be all non sugary if you wish - I promise there are no pricetags on anything.*
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Suichiro
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.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Suichiro
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.
|
When I was thinking about how I was going to respond, I sat and stared at my quoted passage blankly for a good fifteen minutes. As it rolled over to after midnight, I was haunted by the memory of one of my favorite webcomics:
Xkcd #386
(I <3 xkcd)
I find your answer perplexing, given how many artists I know work from references - including an art professor at a major university who teaches Anatomy of the human form, and all of her assignments use references - none of them are live models. You learn to draw the human form by drawing the human form. You learn to do it right by looking at the real thing. Not everyone has access to a model (or models) to work out the solutions to a particular piece they are going to work on. Sometimes taking a picture of yourself in your underwear works, and that's fine and good for portraits (if you are the same general shape and gender of your subject). For the rest of the time, you need a good reference and you can't always find a stock piece in the right pose, or the right lighting, or whatever. Sometimes you leaf through your favorite art book (or deviant art) and see how other artists solved your particular problem. (Tough to find stock photo models doing mid cartwheel flips like spidey - and often expensive, easy to find ridiculous McFarlane poses all over the intrawebz for free. Free is important when you are just drawing Sipdey for your own amusement/practice and then want to show it off to friends when it comes out good.)
Anyway, it's after midnight, I can form no coherent thoughts other than "I disagree, but mostly in the 'intellectual debate' sense, not the 'oh my god I hate your face' sense". Tomorrow is i17, and I'll be too busy trying to get my real work (stupid real life and it's stupid deadlines) done for the day so I can roll up my demon summoner and eat Longbow faces.
So: I mostly disagree with you, and I'm too tired to justify my position clearly so I've just sort of been rambling on (this is why I lurk most of the time - my forum time is when my brain is too mushy to do real work, and I embarrass myself).
Yeah.. good night.
Quote:
Don't mind me |
Originally Posted by Caemgen
Oh no, my bum is sore! I thi k I've been spanked!
<snip> |
I just prefer proper art-related C&C in art forums and I'm a believer in "post-mortems". But it's a personal preference. I'm not here to dictate and impose my views.
And I do skip threads that I find uninteresting!
Agreed, my comment was a little narky. I guess I was trying to promote healthy art discussions threads, but did it in the wrong way.
No worries, I responded snark for snark so we're even
But you really are welcome to come pick apart anything in my thread - I actually like other peoples views and opinions so autopsy away!
Quote:
Depends upon context, as I said.|
Originally Posted by Juggertha
But that's the thing, if you did draw Juggs, or I drew Mel... could we also be stepping over some line?
|
Quote:
| So, does the creator get to control how his or her concept is being used? |
Quote:
| Can I stop you from drawing Juggertha? Or am I within my rights to at least ask you not to? (hypothetically speaking) |
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.
Quote:
| This is related to the car a bit as well - could Porsche sue an adult film company for misusing its image (for example)? |
http://www.virtueverse.net/wiki/Massacre_Melanie -the original Fire/Dark Corruptor -
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=115217
The Guide to BURN
Just to add a quick note about the Porsche thing... I think it is important to remember that a car is a car, not a work of art. End of the day it is an item. Can Porsche stop a movie from having it in a scene? I doubt it's any more likely than Black and Decker could stop one of their hammers being used in a scene. Yes, there is a lot more creativity used in the design of a Porsche but an item is an item...
Somewhere up there someone suggested VW (I think?) wouldn't allow one of their cars to be used for a character in the transformer movie? I SUSPECT it was more along the lines of them not wanting to be involved and thus not cutting deal on cars for use in the movie and such... I'm not sure they would have had grounds to STOP it if the movie makers insisted. If they did have that right I would assume the basis would be that it wasn't being used as scenery but as a chracter... I'm pretty sure the porno movie would be using the Porsche as scenery... At least I hope so!
Mainly, I believe car makers have a lot more power over the use of their logos and names than of the actual cars. Sure, they own the designs in the sense another company cannot make a car shaped exactly the same way and such but for film and art and such use of the car as part of scenery would almost assuredly always fall under fair use...
Anyway, just wanted to contribute something a bit more on topic
Quote:
I'm curious about this. I'm guessing you're not talking about the links I posted earlier about Disney - got some new links for this stuff?|
Originally Posted by Suichiro
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.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Suichiro
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.
|
To each their own.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Caemgen
Just to add a quick note about the Porsche thing... I think it is important to remember that a car is a car, not a work of art. End of the day it is an item. Can Porsche stop a movie from having it in a scene? I doubt it's any more likely than Black and Decker could stop one of their hammers being used in a scene. Yes, there is a lot more creativity used in the design of a Porsche but an item is an item...
Somewhere up there someone suggested VW (I think?) wouldn't allow one of their cars to be used for a character in the transformer movie? I SUSPECT it was more along the lines of them not wanting to be involved and thus not cutting deal on cars for use in the movie and such... I'm not sure they would have had grounds to STOP it if the movie makers insisted. If they did have that right I would assume the basis would be that it wasn't being used as scenery but as a chracter... I'm pretty sure the porno movie would be using the Porsche as scenery... At least I hope so! Mainly, I believe car makers have a lot more power over the use of their logos and names than of the actual cars. Sure, they own the designs in the sense another company cannot make a car shaped exactly the same way and such but for film and art and such use of the car as part of scenery would almost assuredly always fall under fair use... Anyway, just wanted to contribute something a bit more on topic |
I'm guessing that if a car was used in a 'general sense', that'd it'd be fine, but if it was somehow 'the focus of attention', that they might be able to object. Companies are sensitive to how they are presented/projected - they like to keep a tight hold on their image. It wouldn't surprise me to hear of lawsuits regarding a product's/company's image being damaged by ABC movie.
/shrug
Quote:
Yeah which is why I think it possible VW may have been able to nix it being used since it was more a character but if a porsche was just being used as scenery in a porn they couldn't stop it? *shrug* No lawyer, just slightly educated guesses. |
Originally Posted by Juggertha
Here in Korea, they often blur out brand names on certain shows. I have no idea why, but I'm guessing it's related to permissions and such.
I'm guessing that if a car was used in a 'general sense', that'd it'd be fine, but if it was somehow 'the focus of attention', that they might be able to object. Companies are sensitive to how they are presented/projected - they like to keep a tight hold on their image. It wouldn't surprise me to hear of lawsuits regarding a product's/company's image being damaged by ABC movie. /shrug |
The blurring of logos may also have to do with not wanting to give out free advertising/ upsetting competing brands who do advertise on the show.
Quote:
LOL!| Ok. I think that's a fine goal for this thread. |
Regarding my image:
Yes the legs on my judge are very similar. That's intentional because I used that judge as reference--I liked the general attitude of his pose and approximated it pretty closely on the legs. So how much of the source image do I have to change in order to make it my own?
Irrelevant. I'm not editing anything. The drawing IS my own, I just used reference to inform some of my decisions.
This picture documents a moment in time at the Olympics. The guy isn't posed. He's just sitting there. And there's nothing particularly novel about his pose, I just liked it. There were tons of other shots of judges sitting around and many of them were pretty much the same. There's no artistic issue with my using him to inform my drawing. The only possible issue is if the photographer objected to me using the picture for artistic reference.
But in this case, what am I taking away? A partial pose. It's untenable that people could claim a posture just because they captured it on film. It would be somewhat different if I was actually using this photo for a photomanipulation, that would be a different can of worms because I would be taking something tangible. And it would be much more objectionable if another artist drew this scene and then I used their picture as the basis for mine--going so far as taking specific line placements. That's what I see and object to a lot.
I did remember having more reference for the rink. When I went back to the folder for my piece, there were only two. The other one is a completely different angle and I don't think I took much inspiration from it, so I didn't post it here.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
Quote:
The terms being tossed around are somewhat confusing. Copying is the actual process right? If it's copying for a good purpose (e.g. learning, illustrating something with permission to do so, etc.) then it's just copying. If it's copying without permission or credit in order to benefit from someone else's labor, then it's swiping.|
...it kinda threw me off a bit. I posted that pic with the original reference because I knew I had not credited the original artwork, and I was looking for which would have better described the error of my method. Maybe I should have asked the question better. Was it: A) Swipe B) Copy C) Improper use of reference D) Edited enough to pass without crediting Heck, it could probably fall into E) all of the above category. |
Personally, to me the phrase "swiping" in this context is a joke. It's like the people who are less judgemental about stealing use the term swiping to make it sound less severe. Stealing/swiping/lifting all equal theft.
To answer your question, I'd say mostly A. Technically B too.
Pyro, you keep saying you're not an artist. Nobody just IS an artist. It's not some inate thing. It's just work to build a skillset to make pictures/sculpture/whatever. I have no doubt you could draw like that image you copied. You just have to decide if you want to and start practicing. You can do it if you want it.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
Well this discussion seems to have wound down, so I thought I'd throw in a few more examples as an endnote. I took some photos.
First is my collection of artbooks/comic books/anatomical reference/etc. above my workspace. I don't want people thinking I'm anti-looking at other people's work. I think it's really important to be inspired by other artists for many reasons. For me looking at this stuff, it's a reminder of how far I have to go, what has already been done, and why I want to do art in the first place. I actually think this shelf is pretty puny for a collection, but these days I download a lot of stuff online. And there are two more stacks of books out of sight--on top of my computer and underneath my tablet on the desk.
That small space with action figures in it is the superhero graveyard. A place for cool action figures when my kids have lost interest in them:
In the last year I started buying little statuettes to use as ref. For example, this Phantom Lady:
I use this as a ref for pinup work. Not so much to draw and use in a composition, but as an example of an idealized female body. When I'm doing a curvy female pinup sometimes I'll look at this as a baseline. It also is helpful if I need to do a character in a similar pose which isn't uncommon.
The Adam Hughes design Catwoman statue actually isn't that great for my use as reference because the proportions are very long and there isn't actually that much definition in the musculature. What it's really good for, though, is reference for how to render shiny materials like latex. I can hold it up and turn it around and get a quick approximation of how a femal body might look clothed that way (ie. where to put the highlights).
I picked up this green lantern today at free comic book day. The pose and the definition of the musculature I think will be really helpful doing male characters. Also the arms are in two different, common pose positions.
In contrast:
This superman action figure was relatively inexpensive, but has pretty insane detail in the muscle definition. It's much more stylized and distorted, but still somewhat useful because everthing is there.
And then the best possible situation, where you want to draw some hottie and have an actual hottie dressed as the character:
The picture distorts things for some reason. She was actually 6'8" tall in that costume. She towered over me. Note the pre-hormonal fixation with the paper mache axe on the part of the two thugs.
Blacklisted
"I'AM SATANS FAVORITE CHILD!!"
The links "The Death of Captain Marvel" and "Ms. Marvel # 50" posted by Bindweed, make me think this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics
–plural noun
1.(used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2.the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3.moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
As for my judgement of right and wrong based on law as a 'farce', again, I'd like you to quote me on that. I'd like you to quote me where I said that law determines absolute right and wrong. I don't think it, so I doubt that I said it anywhere.
Here's a personal value I have that I'll share - I don't believe in an absolute right or wrong. There are many things that I view as right and wrong, but I don't feel that my opinions are absolute.