# Is "eyeballing" a drawing stealing?



## Vo (Nov 28, 2010)

This is a request for your opinion, not FA policy.

It's the general consensus that placing paper over an existing drawing and tracing it does not constitute original work. 

But here's another situation for you (I've been there myself - though I just kept the drawing of a paused Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy show to myself): The artist simply looks at the existing drawing and redraws it, freehand, no tracing. To me this seems that it could constitute a still life drawing. Did you not sometimes redraw printed images instead of real objects in art class? Is there a difference?


----------



## Zoetrope (Nov 28, 2010)

That's a tricky question. If you eyeball a drawing, it looks pretty spot on to Ed, Edd n' Eddy stuff and you try to sell it you will be met with copyright infringement in most cases. Technically you won't be copying or tracing though, you could however be stealing the 'design' of the character.


----------



## Zydala (Nov 28, 2010)

I don't consider it a still-life drawing because it's missing the "life" part of it - as in, it's not sitting in front of you; you're not drawing from life. If I had a picture of a still-life and copied it, I'd be drawing a still-life of a still-life? Not really.

it's okay to "reference" - take elements of something you like and incorporate it into something that is new and has new meaning, or a new take on ideas. But if you're just free-handing a piece to have it look just like the original, then there's minimal thought put into the art process. It's just not worth very much. You can learn things from copying basics-wise, sometimes, but putting it up for everyone to see on art galleries is implying that it's more than just foundations work. So yeah, I think in that case, it's kind of like stealing.


----------



## Jw (Nov 28, 2010)

That's tricky. But if you change how it is represented, then you might be okay. Like a drawing of a statue is a new take on the piece. Making a statue from a drawing also would be interesting and a new approach. Copy-catting really isn't new, and you'll honestly do a worse job on it than the original artist managed, so it's more worth your while to keep creative.


----------



## Aden (Nov 28, 2010)

Technically that's a reference, and it's allowed so long as you cite your references.


----------



## Shico (Nov 28, 2010)

What Aden said.
I mean if I worked hard on drawing a dynamic action pose from scratch and saw some one else freehand it (including if they obviously applied what I drew to their own character, such as if the pose and wrinkles in the clothes are the same) I would be a bit tiffed, but if they just say "I got inspired by *insert link* they created the pose not me" then okay they at least gave me credit for the pose I took forever to figure out and was so proud of.


----------



## Kawaburd (Nov 29, 2010)

Depends on your intentions and whether you actually add any value of your own, IMO.  An impasto-acrylic rendition of Gackt with the face taken directly from like a RL-style fanart wouldn't be.  Drawing a person verbatim just to master the pose, proportions, etc. wouldn't be (though copying a *drawing* for that isn't particularly wise either).  Eye-tracing a generic pirate from a generic pirate without changing the features, or maybe just giving the coat a recolor then pimping it out as solely your own, however, would be.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 29, 2010)

If you eyeball the basic shape, then build on that it's a reference. 
If you eyeball and it is exactly the same, that's stealing. 

When I was younger I spent a lot of time eyeballing anime stuff. Kids in school gave me cookies and stuff to draw for them. I've done that with different styles to learn them, but that's not really art you should be proud of and post. If you're trying to make it look like what you are eyeballing then it isn't yours.


----------



## Xipoid (Nov 29, 2010)

Like tracing, I wouldn't consider eyeballing stealing unless you called it your own.


----------



## Saeto15 (Nov 29, 2010)

This kind of referencing is usually only "ethically" okay if you're using it to learn, i.e., not making money off of it.  Legally, if you copy too much and don't cite your source/try to pass it off as original, the original artist may have grounds to sue you if they find out.  

To professional artists it's generally a question of ethics, as long as it's not an exact copy and sources are cited.  Most pros won't do it, unless they're doing an homage.

Personally, I think it's not a very good way to learn anyway, because when you copy a drawing you're making the same mistakes the original artist may have made.  The best way to learn is to draw from life, or failing that, photos of people.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 29, 2010)

I think copy-drawing is OK, as long as it's non-profit and you link it to whoever uploaded the original on FA. Or you could just use it as practise, and not upload it at all.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 29, 2010)

http://www.conceptart.org/copyright/


----------



## Zoetrope (Nov 29, 2010)

Arshes Nei said:


> http://www.conceptart.org/copyright/


 
Don't have powerpoint. Or ppt files, so I can't actually open that. Perhaps you can summerize?


----------



## HappyBunny (Nov 29, 2010)

eyeballing a piece and reproducing it is one of the oldest ways you can teach yourself more about your art and theirs. It's called a pastiche, basically. And i think it's completely acceptable as long as you don't try to make profit on something that isn't your work, Pull a Rob Liefield, or do it for the sole purpose of completely imitating someone's style. Like the hordes of J.Scott Campbell clones that came out when he was hitting it big.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 30, 2010)

Fruxie said:


> Don't have powerpoint. Or ppt files, so I can't actually open that. Perhaps you can summerize?


 
Powerpoint viewers are free. http://www.pptfaq.com/FAQ00153.htm

Basically an actual compilation by copyright lawyers with good info to learn and read.


----------



## lostfoxeh (Jan 6, 2011)

I know art schools would have students try and repaint some of the works from "master" artist.


----------



## Jw (Jan 6, 2011)

lostfoxeh said:


> I know art schools would have students try and repaint some of the works from "master" artist.


 
There is a difference. most "masters" are long dead, meaning their work is not copyrighted in the same was as a living person.  Check out Arshes Nei's post for details.


----------



## Sigilgoat (Jan 7, 2011)

I usually pull up 3-4 images of similar poses and try and figure out WHY the form is doing what it's doing, rather than copy how it looks on an image exactly.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 7, 2011)

lostfoxeh said:


> I know art schools would have students try and repaint some of the works from "master" artist.


 
This is for study. Not some kid looking at some cool looking Wolf furry art with big hooters and changing a few colors and calling it theirs.


----------



## SGRedAlert (Jan 11, 2011)

I consider it copying it and theft still. It's still copying the original, just indirectly.


----------



## lostfoxeh (Jan 12, 2011)

oops


----------



## Willow (Jan 12, 2011)

If you're eyeballing a picture as a ref for something, I fail to see how it's theft. Now if you're eyeballing a picture and copying it down line for line, but making a few minor changes and then saying that this is a totally original work, that's stealing.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Jan 12, 2011)

The owner of Suta-Raito gets her rage on for people stealing her character's poses.


----------



## tonecameg (Jan 16, 2011)

Jack.is said:


> This is a request for your opinion, not FA policy.
> 
> It's the general consensus that placing paper over an existing drawing and tracing it does not constitute original work.
> 
> But here's another situation for you (I've been there myself - though I just kept the drawing of a paused Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy show to myself): The artist simply looks at the existing drawing and redraws it, freehand, no tracing. To me this seems that it could constitute a still life drawing. Did you not sometimes redraw printed images instead of real objects in art class? Is there a difference?


 
that's definitely stealing if you're talking about just replacing tracing with looking at it and redrawing it.  Calling a reproduced 2d image a "still-life drawing" just seems like a bullshit excuse :/  Using the image as a reference on the other hand, could be okay depending on the context (are you giving credit? do you have permission to use said reference?  are you really borrowing from the ref or are you just copying it too much? are you making profit off it without permission? etc).



Harebelle said:


> The owner of Suta-Raito gets her rage on for people stealing her character's poses.


 
not just poses man.  They pretty much steal the entire outline/lineart.  That'd piss me off too.


anyway I voted "no" without reading the post. fml


----------



## Taralack (Jan 17, 2011)

tonecameg said:


> anyway I voted "no" without reading the post. fml


 
oh fuck me too


----------



## Heimdal (Jan 18, 2011)

No, it's fine. It's just a reference.

If you actually plan on doing something with it, then the closer it is to the source picture the more iffy it will be. The picture has already been done, after all.

This makes me think of vexel art. They are very often done with photograph reference. Depending on what you're going for, the harder you work at a vexel image the more identical it could wind up looking to the photo. It can be iffy too, but it's a good thing to consider.


----------



## Spatel (Jan 25, 2011)

If you totally utterly change the characters and scenery it's fine. You're really just copying a pose at that point, and nobody owns poses. There are only so many.


----------



## MZK49o1 (Jan 28, 2011)

Jack.is said:


> This is a request for your opinion, not FA policy.
> 
> It's the general consensus that placing paper over an existing drawing and tracing it does not constitute original work.
> 
> But here's another situation for you (I've been there myself - though I just kept the drawing of a paused Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy show to myself): The artist simply looks at the existing drawing and redraws it, freehand, no tracing.


 
Unfortunately yes, this can constitute as copyright infringement as you are building off of an existing work which would make any and all pieces you base off of it, even while freehanded, derivative works, which are illegal unless you have explicit permission from the copyright holder or the image lies within the public domain/is stock. 

While yes, you cannot copyright a pose, you can copyright the image containing that pose and all aspects surrounding it. While coincidences can and do happen, this isn't about coincidence but rather someone taking a pose from another artist's work and specifically redrawing that pose. Yes, you can argue that you had no idea about the existing work, however that would fall on ethics and moral foundations, not to mention that your argument, and any subsequent ones about coincidences between poses, would be thrown out of court if prior infringements have been found. So yes, even eyeballing is technically stealing.



Jack.is said:


> To me this seems that it could constitute a still life drawing.


 
You are comparing apples to oranges here; a still life drawing is meant to train the artist's eye for observation and understanding of natural lighting, proportioning, perspectives, and etc. By redrawing another artist's work, you're learning absolutely nothing about 'still life' and are only picking up any mistakes that the artist may have made. 



Jack.is said:


> Did you not sometimes redraw printed images instead of real objects in art class? Is there a difference?


 
No and yes. 

Even in my awful art class where blatant copyright infringment is encouraged[the assigment at the beginning of every year was to enlarge an existing piece of art and then sell it without consent from the artist], we never once drew from printed images and always drew from life unless it was unavoidable, in which case the school had its own collection of stock photography that we were free to use. 

The huge difference is that neither a camera or an artist can completely and accurately capture the way light distorts and bends over distance and with or around objects. This is something you can only truly learn and understand from observing with your own eyes rather than resorting to photos or heaven forbid, other artists.


----------



## Vo (Jan 28, 2011)

Eyeballing is of course derivative, though that's not what I was asking about either. I should have clarified that too. I'm really only looking for your opinion in ethical terms, not legal -- or, if you must discuss it in a legal sense, your opinion of whether it should be legal, not a statement of whether it is.

It seems I've misunderstood still-life drawings. I only had a few mandatory art classes and this was never explained to me. I can see what you mean. Thanks.


----------

