# Plagiarism: No action because it's just "heavily referenced"?



## CaptainCool (May 29, 2015)

So I have a problem with two tickets that I recently got a reply to.

I reported this image because it is pretty much a copy of my photo.
The user even linked to my shot to show that he used it, but he didn't ask me.
As a reply I got that it won't be taken down because "While you own the copyright to the photo its within their right to reference and draw the bird".

So in other words, it's my image but someone else can still just copy it? And if I see any image on FA I can just use the entire thing as a reference and it's fine? That is not how copyright works.

The same admin also didn't take action against someone who uploads nothing but  copied original PokÃ©mon artwork.

"After reviewing the gallery the images appear to be heavily referenced and not exact traces."
"We don't typically handle 3rd party issues. The way we see it is if the original artist has issue with users referencing their works they can contact us and we will go through the steps to get it taken care of."

What happened to FA being a place for original artwork and not for DeviantArt kiddies who can do nothing but copy from others?

The first issue is ticket #96658, the second one ticket #97185.


----------



## Volkodav (May 29, 2015)

"It's within their right to reference and draw the bird"
Except it isn't, not without permission from the photographer.

This is disgusting:


----------



## CaptainCool (May 29, 2015)

Volkodav said:


> This is disgusting:



Haha, yeah I tried to be nice about it at first but he... Well he didn't. So what other choice did I have but to report him?

And it's true. It's not within their right, as I said that isn't how copyright works. Taking something and changing or coyping it in some way is plagiarism. Plain and simple.
When it comes to photography you can easily release your photos under different Creative Commons licenses, but on FA you release pretty much everything as "all rights reserved". And that means altering or copying it in any way is not allowed.


----------



## PheagleAdler (May 29, 2015)

It looks like he used your photo as a reference, and a loose one at that. 

You didn't draw that photo and you cannot copyright nature. You did not design the bird or tell it to strike a pose.


----------



## Volkodav (May 29, 2015)

CaptainCool said:


> Haha, yeah I tried to be nice about it at first but he... Well he didn't. So what other choice did I have but to report him?
> 
> And it's true. It's not within their right, as I said that isn't how copyright works. Taking something and changing or coyping it in some way is plagiarism. Plain and simple.
> When it comes to photography you can easily release your photos under different Creative Commons licenses, but on FA you release pretty much everything as "all rights reserved". And that means altering or copying it in any way is not allowed.



I wonder how FA would feel if I "referenced" someone else's art?


----------



## CaptainCool (May 29, 2015)

PheagleAdler said:


> It looks like he used your photo as a reference, and a loose one at that.
> 
> You didn't draw that photo and you cannot copyright nature. You did not design the bird or tell it to strike a pose.



No but I composed it, I edited it and I used just as much skill and hard work as any other artist on FA to create that image.
Or are you implying that a photo is different compared to a drawing?

Also, what Clay.. I mean Volkodav said. Does this mean I can use any other drawn image on FA as a reference as well?



Volkodav said:


> I wonder how FA would feel if I "referenced" someone else's art?



My point exactly and I pointed that out to the admin. I got no reply to that, what a surprise.


----------



## Volkodav (May 29, 2015)

PheagleAdler said:


> It looks like he used your photo as a reference, and a loose one at that.
> 
> You didn't draw that photo and you cannot copyright nature. You did not design the bird or tell it to strike a pose.


False.
Just look at Flickr for example.
Do you ever wonder why images in magazines and in websites and shit always have (c) Photographer's Name below the image?
Orrr hmmm ever wonder why stock photos exist and can be bought?
You're white-knighting for a shitty cause.



CaptainCool said:


> Does this mean I can use any other drawn image on FA as a reference as well?



Yup! I guess it does!
Get to "referencing" to your heart's desire


----------



## PheagleAdler (May 29, 2015)

CaptainCool said:


> No but I composed it, I edited it and I used just as much skill and hard work as any other artist on FA to create that image.
> Or are you implying that photo is different than a drawing?
> 
> Also, what Clay.. I mean Volkodav said. Does this mean I can use any other drawn image on FA as a reference as well?



You should know very well that photos are different from drawings. It's common sense. And I don't think you did nearly as much work getting this photo the way it looks in your gallery.

Did your modifications to the photo somehow change the design of the bird? And how can you compare that to referencing a drawn image? Even so, unless it was a blatant tracing or clear copy of the pose, situation, color, etc. I wouldn't see an issue with it. The drawing you're complaining about may be strongly influenced by your photo, but it's an entirely different medium, has very different details, it's only showing the bird's head (whereas you have the neck and very upper body).

Chances are, had he not linked to your image, and had the bird facing a different direction, you probably wouldn't have even noticed any similarities.

This is a bird, not an OC, I think you're overreacting, just a tad.


----------



## CaptainCool (May 29, 2015)

Yeah, because all I did was press the shutter button so it doesn't deserve any copyright protection, right? ^.^
Eat a dick.


----------



## PheagleAdler (May 29, 2015)

CaptainCool said:


> Yeah, because all I did was press the shutter button so it doesn't deserve any copyright protection, right? ^.^
> Eat a dick.



Like hell I will! That's your job. I never said that photos don't deserve copyright protection, don't put words into my mouth.


----------



## Volkodav (May 29, 2015)

PheagleAdler said:


> And I know what stock photos are, I know people who use them for photomanipulation. They actually use the photos, they don't just look at them as a reference.


Oh?
Are those stock photos free use? If they're not, they're breaking license laws.

Here's an example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/leendert3/12358847225/

Scroll down, look to the right. See that? (C) All Rights Reserved?
Click on that:

_You, the copyright holder, reserve all rights provided by copyright law,  such as the right to make copies, distribute your work, perform your  work, license, or otherwise exploit your work; *no rights are waived  under this license.*_

If you look at the other licensing, you can see licenses SPECIFICALLY FOR people to make derivatives of your work: https://help.yahoo.com/kb/flickr/SLN25525.html?impressions=true

This is CLEARLY not what CaptainCool had on his image.


----------



## PheagleAdler (May 29, 2015)

Volkodav said:


> Oh?
> Are those stock photos free use? If they're not, they're breaking license laws.
> 
> Here's an example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/leendert3/12358847225/
> ...



Yes, the images my friend uses are cleared to use. You're still talking about a completely different situation.


----------



## Volkodav (May 29, 2015)

Well then your example with your friend using free-stock images isn't nearly comparable to the one we have here. When someone uploads an image to FA, there is a note underneath that says (C) to CaptainCool 2015 or whatever. By default, any image that you upload, you have the full rights to.
This means that someone coming along and using your image without your explicit permission is breaking this rule. Simple.


----------



## CaptainCool (May 29, 2015)

PheagleAdler said:


> Like hell I will! That's your job. I never said that photos don't deserve copyright protection, don't put words into my mouth.



So if photos do deserve copyright protection then why the hell am I overreacting?
Photos are art. Drawings are art. So if someone "heavily references" a photo that is not ok. And look at the guys drawing! All the major feathers are in the same place, the expression and pose of the head are the same, it's just a tighter crop!
And my other question still stands: If I "heavily reference" a drawing from an artist, like this image which is not of an OC but of a random-ass striped hyena, would that be ok?


----------



## CaptainCool (May 29, 2015)

PheagleAdler said:


> Yes, the images my friend uses are cleared to use. You're still talking about a completely different situation.



No, he is not. That image on Flickr works under the same license as my image on FA. "All rights reserved".
ALL. RIGHTS. Not just some rights so you can "heavily reference" it.
You know what "all rights reserved" means? It means don't touch my shit.


----------



## PheagleAdler (May 29, 2015)

CaptainCool said:


> So if photos do deserve copyright protection then why the hell am I overreacting?
> Photos are art. Drawings are art. So if someone "heavily references" a photo that is not ok. And look at the guys drawing! All the major feathers are in the same place, the expression and pose of the head are the same, it's just a tighter crop!
> And my other question still stands: If I "heavily reference" a drawing from an artist, like this image which is not of an OC but of a random-ass striped hyena, would that be ok?



You're putting words in my mouth again...

But forget that. Let's say I took a picture of someone, any random person, and uploaded it to a photo site (like Flickr). Would I really have any basis of an argument if someone used that photo for a reference to draw a person?


----------



## Volkodav (May 29, 2015)

PheagleAdler said:


> You're putting words in my mouth again...
> 
> But forget that. Let's say I took a picture of someone, any random person, and uploaded it to a photo site (like Flickr). Would I really have any basis of an argument if someone used that photo for a reference to draw a person?


Yes you would because you took that image.


----------



## CaptainCool (May 29, 2015)

PheagleAdler said:


> You're putting words in my mouth again...
> 
> But forget that. Let's say I took a picture of someone, any random person, and uploaded it to a photo site (like Flickr). Would I really have any basis of an argument if someone used that photo for a reference to draw a person?



Not if it is used as a reference to draw _a_ person in a completely different pose and as a completely different person all together.
But that isn't the case here. The drawing is just a tighter crop, the bird in it self is pretty much the same. It isn't exactly a direct copy but all the features are identical.

As you said in a previous post, if the bird was in a different position there would be no issue because then it wouldn't be a plagiarized version of my photo!


----------



## Willow (May 29, 2015)

People use reference pictures for their art all the time. :/

And as far as I know, there's nothing against using a reference so long as it's an actual reference and not just traced.


----------



## Volkodav (May 29, 2015)

Willow said:


> People use reference pictures for their art all the time. :/
> 
> And as far as I know, there's nothing against using a reference so long as it's an actual reference and not just traced.



Thing is, there's a huge difference between referencing an image and "referencing". The latter which entails eyeballing an image and drawing it almost line for line without permission.


----------



## RedSavage (May 29, 2015)

Pheagle you're going so far as to call out photography as being substandard art to defend a dubious decision. Are there any depths you wont go to whiteknight?


----------



## AdventDanger (May 29, 2015)

This is called derivative art and is not simply a heavily referenced drawing, it's perfectly fine to draw like this as long as you don't post it without permission from the referenced artist. It's like taking a photo of a photo, just because you change the medium does not make it suddenly ok to post as your art.


----------



## Volkodav (May 29, 2015)

AdventDanger said:


> This is called derivative art and is not simply a heavily referenced drawing, it's perfectly fine to draw like this as long as you don't post it without permission from the referenced artist. It's like taking a photo of a photo, just because you change the medium does not make it suddenly ok to post as your art.



This user didn't ask for permission and scoffed at the idea.


----------



## PheagleAdler (May 29, 2015)

RedSavage said:


> Pheagle you're going so far as to call out photography as being substandard art to defend a dubious decision. Are there any depths you wont go to whiteknight?



Are there any depths YOU won't go to claim I'm whiteknighting? Or are you really just that dense of a person?

And when did I say this was substandard art?


----------



## AdventDanger (May 29, 2015)

Volkodav said:


> This user didn't ask for permission and scoffed at the idea.



I imagine he would of been given permission if he had asked prior to posting and gave proper credit. I wouldnt worry about it though, more troublesome is whoever is handling that ticket and can't see that is a friggin copy!


----------



## PheagleAdler (May 29, 2015)

AdventDanger said:


> I imagine he would of been given permission if he had asked prior to posting and gave proper credit. I wouldnt worry about it though, more troublesome is whoever is handling that ticket and can't see that is a friggin copy!



I think that's for Captain Cool to say whether or not he would have given permission.


----------



## RedSavage (May 29, 2015)

PheagleAdler said:


> Are there any depths YOU won't go to claim I'm whiteknighting? Or are you really just that dense of a person?



Dont call me stupid when you dont know, or pretend not to know, the definition of whiteknighting. Do not condescend me you presumptuous excuse of a human being. 

You literally only show up in these forums to defend FA policy. You've defended hackers. You've called out photgraphy as a half assed art. Among other ridiculous statements. Step down from yourself you prat. If ten people are telling you the same thing, you're the ignorant one in denial. Do not insult me when I only speak the truth about you, as does everyone else.


----------



## PheagleAdler (May 29, 2015)

RedSavage said:


> Dont call me stupid when you dont know, or pretend not to know, the definition of whiteknighting. Do not condescend me you presumptuous excuse of a human being.
> 
> You literally only show up in these forums to defend FA policy. You've defended hackers. You've called out photgraphy as a half assed art. Among other ridiculous statements. Step down from yourself you prat. If ten people are telling you the same thing, you're the ignorant one in denial. Do not insult me when I only speak the truth about you, as does everyone else.



You best get to steppin' you ignorant twat.

Let me be perfectly clear: I don't take too kindly to people like you, and your attitudes towards me. I know what you think I am, you've made that quite clear.

I don't recall defending FA policy, what I do know is that I am able to tell you why things happen (sometimes). I never said photography was sub-standard; anyone with half a brain can see I never uttered those words. And as far as I'm concerned, the only people I'm ignorant to are you and a few other miserable prats on the forums who have nothing better to do than insult me.


----------



## AdventDanger (May 29, 2015)

PheagleAdler said:


> I think that's for Captain Cool to say whether or not he would have given permission.



Obviously.


----------



## RedSavage (May 29, 2015)

Pheagle if the best you can respond is some recycled pseudo-gangster threat line then my point is made. You have no rational response to accusations and you throw insults instead.


----------



## PheagleAdler (May 29, 2015)

RedSavage said:


> Pheagle if the best you can respond is some recycled pseudo-gangster threat line then my point is made. You have no rational response to accusations and you throw insults instead.



Check my response again, wiseass.


----------



## Volkodav (May 29, 2015)

Can you please let us discuss this without posting


----------



## RedSavage (May 29, 2015)

PheagleAdler said:


> Check my response again, wiseass.



Nice edit. 

"And I don't think you did nearly as much work getting this photo the way it looks in your gallery."

Literally, you do not think this photo took effort in an artistic sense. Nonetheless. Everyone knows -why- this happenened. We dont need that. What you have been doing is incessantly say why it was justified. Hence, defending the choice. You've done this several times.  

Most anyone who takes offense at being called something negative. An asshole will still take offense to being an asshole but it's still true. People will still point it out as an attempt at corrective observation. If you do not take kindly to being called a WK, do not be one.

Answer this. Have you ever taken a critical stance with FA policy or 'Neer's  decisions? Ever?


----------



## PheagleAdler (May 29, 2015)

RedSavage said:


> Nice edit.
> 
> "And I don't think you did nearly as much work getting this photo the way it looks in your gallery."
> 
> ...



That's WK. And I take offense to it because it's an inaccurate observation.

And I wouldn't have brought it up at all if someone didn't compare photography to drawing earlier in this thread. Photography is an art, and I do appreciate it, but it's like comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## RedSavage (May 29, 2015)

I beg the question. Have you ever been critical of FA/Dragoneer's policy, decisions, or action? Ever?


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 29, 2015)

PheagleAdler said:


> You best get to steppin' you ignorant twat.



Come on dude. No need to go that far. Leave Red alone


----------



## Volkodav (May 29, 2015)

It doesn't matter if it's apples to oranges (in your opinion)

Someone's photography is used without their permission -- that is against FA rules.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (May 29, 2015)

Well, he even linked you as a reference...yet didn't ask permission. That's odd. 

His behavior is really rude too. That's quite disappointing. I hope this is handled soon, CC. It would seem a lot of people on the site don't understand copyright.


----------



## RedSavage (May 29, 2015)

People have been banned for "closely freehanding" art. 
Why should someone's photos be any different?


----------



## PheagleAdler (May 29, 2015)

RedSavage said:


> I beg the question. Have you ever been critical of FA/Dragoneer's policy, decisions, or action? Ever?



Of course I have, I'd rather not have to go digging through my hundreds of posts though.

For example, you know I'm still pushing for custom thumbnails.


----------



## RedSavage (May 29, 2015)

???? 
But you _can_ already upload custom thumbnails for art and writing. Unless you mean something different? 

Nonethelesa, if you can only think of one example versus all the other times, then that's still a dubious trend.


----------



## PheagleAdler (May 29, 2015)

There's plenty, do you want to go digging? 

Custom thumbnails, for regular pieces of art, they work as they always have, but since the switch to larger thumbnails, are not displayed on incoming submission messages and galleries.


----------



## RTDragon (May 29, 2015)

PheagleAdler said:


> There's plenty, do you want to go digging?
> 
> Custom thumbnails, for regular pieces of art, they work as they always have, but since the switch to larger thumbnails, are not displayed on incoming submission messages and galleries.



I really don't think you know how copyright works or how stock images are used. Basically most art i've seen on the main site recently especially macro art used real photography which i doubt any of those artist have asked permission to used.
So you really can't say photograpy is not part of art considering i actually fave a lot of photos on flickr and look carefully at the copyright since there are different kinds on what can and cannot be used.

And this is also considering since i actually watched a few stock groups on DA as well as users.


----------



## StormyChang (May 29, 2015)

PheagleAdler said:


> You best get to steppin' you ignorant twat.



And you still wonder why people don't like you?


On the topic.  I'm to understand that no artist can ever reference off a picture ever?  I thought it was policy on fa that if you reference someone's picture all you had to do was credit the original owner.  Whether that's legal or not is a different story i think.


----------



## Volkodav (May 29, 2015)

StormyChang said:


> And you still wonder why people don't like you?
> 
> 
> On the topic.  I'm to understand that no artist can ever reference off a picture ever?  I thought it was policy on fa that if you reference someone's picture all you had to do was credit the original owner.  Whether that's legal or not is a different story i think.



There's a difference between referencing a picture and eyeballing it and re-drawing it line-for-line against the photographer's permission.
This is the most recent image I've drawn. Ill show you the pictures I used for reference.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find the high Doc Martens that I used for the reference, but I did find another image that I referenced for the sole and threading colour.






See the difference now?


----------



## PheagleAdler (May 29, 2015)

RTDragon said:


> I really don't think you know how copyright works or how stock images are used. Basically most art i've seen on the main site recently especially macro art used real photography which i doubt any of those artist have asked permission to used.
> So you really can't say photograpy is not part of art considering i actually fave a lot of photos on flickr and look carefully at the copyright since there are different kinds on what can and cannot be used.
> 
> And this is also considering since i actually watched a few stock groups on DA as well as users.



Did you meant to reply to that comment because what you're replying with doesn't fit with what I said in that comment at all.

But hey, while we're on the subject: PHOTOGRAPHY IS ART, stop pretending that I'm saying otherwise.



StormyChang said:


> And you still wonder why people don't like you?



Why would I wonder? I know you guys are narrow-minded. 
And I don't mean to brag, but PEOPLE do like me. That doesn't say much about the lot of you.


----------



## Volkodav (May 29, 2015)

Went and found more art I did recently. Here's the images I referenced as well.












*Rule of thumb: If someone can look at your drawing and tell what image you used as "reference", you've gone too far and crossed the line into eye-balling*


----------



## RedSavage (May 29, 2015)

Pheagle you're kind of arrogant. You dont take kindly to criticism. You call other people narrow minded and dull (we're not). You call people stupid if they don't agree with you. 

Honestly, people act different in real life than they do online. I have no doubt people irl like you. But online, when you express yourself, you come off as someone lacking maturity.


----------



## AdventDanger (May 29, 2015)

I don't know if this applies because it's U.S. Copyright law but it was an interesting read.

http://copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf


----------



## Volkodav (May 29, 2015)

ok I think this is the last recent art i have







I hope yall get the point now.


----------



## PheagleAdler (May 29, 2015)

RedSavage said:


> Pheagle you're kind of arrogant. You dont take kindly to criticism. You call other people narrow minded and dull (we're not). You call people stupid if they don't agree with you.
> 
> Honestly, people act different in real life than they do online. I have no doubt people irl like you. But online, when you express yourself, you come off as someone lacking maturity.



Is that how it is, Red? You can just tell me you're not narrow-minded, and I'm supposed to believe it? You come off as an arrogant, pretentious jerk. Maybe you're a saint irl, but I can't see that at all from the way you treat me here.


----------



## RedSavage (May 29, 2015)

"Drawings based on photos"








Well that settles that. Im certain the admins will take proper action in accordance with US law,  correct? As the servers are based in US. 

Sounds like some admins need to brush up on their knowledge of copyright laws. 



PheagleAdler said:


> Is that how it is, Red? You can just tell me you're not narrow-minded, and I'm supposed to believe it? You come off as an arrogant, pretentious jerk. Maybe you're a saint irl, but I can't see that at all from the way you treat me here.



If you actually participated in these forums, you'd know that's false. When you only choose to trawl the site discussion forums and needlessly defend  FA actions (which proved to be erronous and unlawful this time) naturally you will only see this side of me.


----------



## Volkodav (May 29, 2015)

PheagleAdler said:


> Is that how it is, Red? You can just tell me you're not narrow-minded, and I'm supposed to believe it? You come off as an arrogant, pretentious jerk. Maybe you're a saint irl, but I can't see that at all from the way you treat me here.


Pheagle, the reason why people here are short with you is because whenever we try to have a serious discussion, you come in and disrupt it by essentially saying "NOTHING'S WRONG, EVERYTHING IS FINE, GO BACK TO YOUR BUSINESS" and try to censor any discussion we try to have because you feel that somehow, we're being unfair to the staff.
It's incredibly unfair that CaptainCool's photography was eyeballed without his permission and a staff member shrugged this off, and yet you're in here defending this despite numerous people including myself and Red pointing out why it's not allowed, why it violates copyright, and why it's not considered "referencing".
Whenever someone tells you the truth and says you're white-knighting (blindly defending something because it suits your interests/likes/beliefs), you flip your shit and lob threats at them. You've insulted numerous people in this thread and even pressured me on my own profile as well as insulted me here.
That's why people are short with you. That's why we've asked you numerous times to let us discuss this without you. That's why you keep getting called a white-knight.


----------



## PheagleAdler (May 29, 2015)

RedSavage said:


> If you actually participated in these forums, you'd know that's false. When you only choose to trawl the site discussion forums and needlessly defend FA actions (which proved to be erronous and unlawful this time) naturally you will only see this side of me.



Just because you're only narrow-minded here doesn't make it any more okay.



Volkodav said:


> Pheagle, the reason why people here are short with you is because whenever we try to have a serious discussion, you come in and disrupt it by essentially saying "NOTHING'S WRONG, EVERYTHING IS FINE, GO BACK TO YOUR BUSINESS" and try to censor any discussion we try to have because you feel that somehow, we're being unfair to the staff.
> It's incredibly unfair that CaptainCool's photography was eyeballed without his permission and a staff member shrugged this off, and yet you're in here defending this despite numerous people including myself and Red pointing out why it's not allowed, why it violates copyright, and why it's not considered "referencing".
> Whenever someone tells you the truth and says you're white-knighting (blindly defending something because it suits your interests/likes/beliefs), you flip your shit and lob threats at them. You've insulted numerous people in this thread and even pressured me on my own profile as well as insulted me here.
> That's why people are short with you. That's why we've asked you numerous times to let us discuss this without you. That's why you keep getting called a white-knight.



No, I'm not. You're welcome to voice your opinion, but you attack me because you disagree. And I am a member of this community. Sod off and PM each other if you'd prefer to discuss it without me.

I didn't even mention the staff and their lack of action on this. I've never once said there's nothing wrong. But this image issue didn't seem very black-and-white to me. When I said what basically amounted to that, you went crazy, it's like I can't say anything you don't like without getting shit thrown back in my face.

People can tell me the truth, that's fine. But there's no reason for crass accusations of 'white knighting' constantly being peppered throughout the thread. Perhaps if this stopped, you'd see a nicer side of me.


----------



## Volkodav (May 29, 2015)

PheagleAdler said:


> No, I'm not. You're welcome to voice your opinion, but you attack me because you disagree. And I am a member of this community. Sod off and PM each other if you'd prefer to discuss it without me.



Pheagle,
Not once have I ever insulted you. Not on the forums, not on your profile, not through messages, not on the main site, nothing. I have *never* insulted or attacked you.

If you're going to sit in this thread, then you're going to have to deal with us saying things that you clearly disagree with, and will eventually have to deal with being reported when you (_inevitably_) blow the fuck up and start lobbing threats at everyone.


----------



## RedSavage (May 29, 2015)

What am I being narrow minded about, exactly?


And Pheagle, how about the fact that we just proved that the FA admin was literally wrong in the eyes of US copyright law?  And we proved you wrong as well. The paragraph quoted from an official government website says as such.


----------



## PheagleAdler (May 29, 2015)

So, is this an 'adaptation' of that work then?


----------



## Volkodav (May 29, 2015)

PheagleAdler said:


> So, is this an 'adaptation' of that work then?


----------



## RedSavage (May 29, 2015)

PheagleAdler said:


> So, is this an 'adaptation' of that work then?



Fifth bullet down. "A drawing based on a photo"
Artist admits that he used photo for reference. 










Pose and angle of head are identical. Artist cites reference here. 






This is a cut and clear case of someone Drawing an image based on a photo without explicit written permission. And it's only lawful that it is removed.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 29, 2015)

I wonder what kind of harm the guy did? I mean he did link the reference.
It's not like he claims it's entirely his


----------



## RedSavage (May 30, 2015)

The point is, you need explicit written permission to reference a work as such (to specify, to the point where it merely becomes a drawing of the image). That's just the law. 
No, there's no harm in it. But say I borrowed your car for a night without asking you. I put gas back in. The car is safe. Just as you left it. But it wasn't exactly legal, was it?


----------



## Taralack (May 30, 2015)

RedSavage said:


> The point is, you need explicit written permission to reference a work as such. That's just the law.
> No, there's no harm in it. But say I borrowed your car for a night without asking you. I put gas back in. The car is safe. Just as you left it. But it wasn't exactly legal, was it?



So in that vein, I would then like to bring up the question - did Volk ask the photographers for permission to use the photos he was referencing? Because going by what you're saying, the artworks he linked in this thread should be taken down because he did not ask the photographers for permission to use their photos as reference.

I would also like to remind everyone to be calm when discussing this, I know this is a sensitive issue for a lot of people, but there's no need to resort to name calling.


----------



## RedSavage (May 30, 2015)

Taralack said:


> So in that vein, I would then like to bring up the question - did Volk ask the photographers for permission to use the photos he was referencing? Because going by what you're saying, the artworks he linked in this thread should be taken down because he did not ask the photographers for permission to use their photos as reference.
> 
> I would also like to remind everyone to be calm when discussing this, I know this is a sensitive issue for a lot of people, but there's no need to resort to name calling.




I think the line is draw in two places (no pun intended).

1. There is written permission. "Feel free to use this pic" etc. 

2. Is the image _referencing_ the image, or is it simply a drawing of the image? To reference an angle for a larger work, or for posing or muscle reference, is different than essentially free-hand copying an image.  Volk's drawings, though referenced, do not come off as clean copies. 

But perhaps I myself need to watch my wording. There is a difference between "referencing" and "drawing a photo". I think of Deadmau5's logo and his dispute with Disney. Certainly 3 simple circles could be attributes to being based off the Mickey Mouse logo, but it's obvious that the Deadmau5 head has a significant  style of its own.


----------



## PheagleAdler (May 30, 2015)

RedSavage said:


> Fifth bullet down. "A drawing based on a photo"
> Artist admits that he used photo for reference.
> 
> Pose and angle of head are identical. Artist cites reference here.
> ...



The point I was making here is that this is an animal, a living creature, there's more than one of these birds, the guy basically could have taken any picture of this bird and used it as a reference.

The only mistake clearly was that he copied the pose, which seems to be the reason this thread exists.


----------



## RedSavage (May 30, 2015)

He didnt copy just the pose. He copied the _photo_. There is a distinction there.


----------



## PheagleAdler (May 30, 2015)

He didn't trace it, but I see where you're coming from


----------



## Willow (May 30, 2015)

By that standpoint wouldn't that technically make redraws of comic panels against FA's rules too?


----------



## CaptainCool (May 30, 2015)

Taralack said:


> So in that vein, I would then like to bring up the question - did Volk ask the photographers for permission to use the photos he was referencing? Because going by what you're saying, the artworks he linked in this thread should be taken down because he did not ask the photographers for permission to use their photos as reference.
> 
> I would also like to remind everyone to be calm when discussing this, I know this is a sensitive issue for a lot of people, but there's no need to resort to name calling.



Here is the thing about the relationship between drawn art and photography:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with it if someone uses a photo that isn't public domain to figure out how to draw something. That is what referencing means.
The line is crossed when the drawing mimics the photo, when things like composition, lighting, the pose and other elements of the shot are copied. 
And this is the line that has been crossed in this case. 

And jeez, I didn't expect this to blow up like this XD But you guys seem to agree with me, I was worried that I care too much about this. 
I'm also concerned about admins handling similar issues in the same way. To me FA was always a place where original content was protected above all else.


----------



## Volkodav (May 30, 2015)

Taralack, i figured my images were self explanatory but i guess ill elaboratw
none of my images are eyeballed from the photos 
i didnt look at the photos and try to recreate them in my image. I looked at them to understand proportion, style, angle, detail, etc
that is the difference between what i did (true referencing, which is not a copyright violation) amd eyeballing someones image and recreating it line for line without permission 

If i eyeballed a picture zaush drew, you can bet your sweet ass thaf the mods aould take it down. I feel that this isnt being taken seriously because its photography


----------



## Kalmor (May 30, 2015)

Got a reply from the AUP enforcement lead and they say you need to file a dispute admin action ticket for them to review it.


----------



## StormyChang (May 30, 2015)

PheagleAdler said:


> Why would I wonder? I know you guys are narrow-minded.
> And I don't mean to brag, but PEOPLE do like me. That doesn't say much about the lot of you.



Funny, cause the rest of us seem to get along just fine and even if there's an argument at least come to some agreement or walk away not hating eachother.  There are more open minded people i've seen on these forums than you wouldn't believe.  The majority of which are more than willing to change their opinion on something if shown facts and good arguments.  Which is more than i can say for you, sir.  



Volkodav said:


> There's a difference between referencing a picture and eyeballing it and re-drawing it line-for-line against the photographer's permission.
> This is the most recent image I've drawn. Ill show you the pictures I used for reference.
> Unfortunately, I couldn't find the high Doc Martens that I used for the reference, but I did find another image that I referenced for the sole and threading colour.
> 
> See the difference now?



Hm.  Well i get what you're saying from the start, but even in art schools/classes they show and tell you how to draw 'exact' either from still life or photos, students can even be docked points for not being exact.  Or is this teaching method just wrong from the start?  Sorry if i'm asking weird questions, this interests me cause i see the world a bit different, i can pull images from memory so i tend to use refs sparingly.. ^^;;


----------



## CaptainCool (May 30, 2015)

Direct copies are just for practice. You are not gonna see a decent professional put out something that is just a direct copy of a photo. 

@Kalmor Thanks, I'll try that. I didn't even know that this option exists. 
However, given the currently still very slow response time to tickets you'll have to understand that this isn't exactly a satisfactory answer. It's annoying that as a photographer I have to go through this while if it was a drawing his copy would have been removed right away.


----------



## Stratelier (May 30, 2015)

RedSavage said:


> I think of Deadmau5's logo and his dispute with Disney. Certainly 3 simple circles could be attributes to being based off the Mickey Mouse logo, but it's obvious that the Deadmau5 head has a significant  style of its own.


Any thoughts on whether the image under discussion qualifies as fair use?

Minding that "fair use" is not a synonym for "in good faith".


----------



## Kalmor (May 30, 2015)

The US fair use bill if anyone's interested - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

edit: The second argument is about whether it is a derivative work or not I guess.


----------



## CaptainCool (May 30, 2015)

Stratadrake said:


> Any thoughts on whether the image under discussion qualifies as fair use?
> 
> Minding that "fair use" is not a synonym for "in good faith".



"[...]for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. "
This doesn't fall under any of that. 
And even if it did, the fa rules do not allow copies and plagiarism.


----------



## Volkodav (May 30, 2015)

Why are there stock photos on fa if literally any photo is up for grabs


----------



## CaptainCool (May 30, 2015)

So I just filed a new ticket. Now I'm curious what's gonna happen and how long this is gonna take. 
One thing is for sure though and I am sorry for saying this, but if the result of this makes clear that the FA staff doesn't care about copyright when it comes to photography I will consider leaving the site, or I will at the very least stop uploading my shots.


----------



## -Sliqq- (May 30, 2015)

Ain't gonna lie, but those shots are good asf.

It's not like getting paid for doing this right? Or am I missing the whole point entirely?


----------



## CaptainCool (May 30, 2015)

-Sliqq- said:


> Ain't gonna lie, but those shots are good asf.
> 
> It's not like getting paid for doing this right? Or am I missing the whole point entirely?



Thanks!
You mean if I make money with my photos? No, I just do that for myself.


----------



## Anarcho-Loser (May 30, 2015)

ITT: People complaining about copyright infringement while using forum icons cropped from other images without permission.


----------



## CaptainCool (May 30, 2015)

Anarcho-Loser said:


> ITT: People complaining about copyright infringement while using forum icons cropped from other images without permission.



You know what? You are right. I fixed that. In terms of context this one is way funnier anyway.


----------



## AnthonyStark (May 30, 2015)

The funny thing is, is that people are getting all uppity and jumping at each other's throat over things that shouldn't be an issue in the first place.

If I were to re-draw "heavily reference" a photo from Time Magazine or some other giant corporation with paid photographers, and it was caught, I could get into legal trouble. Just stating that I referenced it from their photo does not mean I can legally get out of it and I'd probably be laughed at.

Even if all they did was just click a button and post the image online without any edits, it is still _their_ photo and they are still protected by laws, no matter what you want to say.

Really, all the person had to do was ASK if they could reference the photo. It really isn't that hard to do and if they were told no, then they need to suck it up and move on. 

There is a big issue and I hope it gets solved in a proper manner and the idea of "heavy referencing" being allowed will bite the dust.


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 30, 2015)

Take a look at this photo.  Then take a look at the related court case.  The image on the right by Prince was determined to be sufficiently transformative to be 'fair use' under copyright law.  Yes, you can heavily reference a photo without the photographers permission and not violate copyright law.  Transformative art being fair use is HEAVILY established in copyright law legal precedence and anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant as to how copyright law works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cariou_v._Prince


----------



## Anarcho-Loser (May 30, 2015)

Roy Lichtenstein, along with Andy Warhol, was one of the most prolific and important Pop Artists. He also took his material blatantly from comic books.


----------



## Stratelier (May 30, 2015)

Anarcho-Loser said:


> ITT: People complaining about copyright infringement while using forum icons cropped from other images without permission.



I think that may fall under fair use points #3 and #4.

But, meh, I've taken to using avvies based on my own art for some years now, what do I know?


----------



## Volkodav (May 30, 2015)

Fact remains that this shit wouldn't fly if it were art
Why is it any different for photographs?

Can I please go eyeball Zaush's and Blotch's art now and gain a lot of followers?

edit: back in my day we called this sort of thing "tracing" or "copying", but ever since deviantart got more popular they changed it to a more public-friendly term: "referencing" lol


----------



## Volkodav (May 30, 2015)

StormyChang said:


> Hm.  Well i get what you're saying from the start, but even in art schools/classes they show and tell you how to draw 'exact' either from still life or photos, students can even be docked points for not being exact.  Or is this teaching method just wrong from the start?  Sorry if i'm asking weird questions, this interests me cause i see the world a bit different, i can pull images from memory so i tend to use refs sparingly.. ^^;;



Sorry bro, was on my phone last night and I didn't see this.

You're referring to life-drawings I believe, where the teacher sets up plates or fruits or whatever and you sit in a circle and re-draw it, yes?
This is quite different from ganking a photograph that someone spent time getting just right, not asking for permission, eye-balling it line for line (or as it's called these days, "referencing") and then laughing at the photographer when they confront you about it.

Referencing should be looking at images to get an idea of how something looks a certain way, how to draw a certain angle, that sort of thing. Nowadays people call it "referencing" when the correct term is tracing/eyeballing.
Like I said previously, if you can immediately tell which image someone "referenced" from, there's a good chance that it crossed the line from simple reffing into eyeballing. Honestly, it's not that difficult to ask someone for permission. CC seems like a cool guy and would probably let you eyeball his photos with permission, but to just gank his photos and then laugh at him when he's upset over it? Not cool, very disrespectful.

Sometimes people will do life-drawings based on photos they took or saw in a magazine (example here, I believe Kenket drew these from a live dog or photos she took): http://i.imgur.com/XEY1HX6.jpg
and personally I don't really care so much about that, but when you can *easily* ask the photographer with the click of a mouse "hey, mind if I use this".. _why not_???


----------



## StormyChang (May 30, 2015)

Volkodav said:


> Sorry bro, was on my phone last night and I didn't see this.
> 
> You're referring to life-drawings I believe, where the teacher sets up plates or fruits or whatever and you sit in a circle and re-draw it, yes?
> This is quite different from ganking a photograph that someone spent time getting just right, not asking for permission, eye-balling it line for line (or as it's called these days, "referencing") and then laughing at the photographer when they confront you about it.
> ...



Well still life drawings are just objects, but i've had art teachers before that had us go off photos too.  i dunno, it seems easy to just go ask someone if they can use a photo they've taken.  i wonder if the person might have thought it was just some random photo?  there are some people on fa who just take other people's or stock pics from google and post them like it's facebook or something.  (not saying cc did that, just offering an idea)


----------



## Ink Stained Rat (May 30, 2015)

AshleyAshes said:


> Take a look at this photo.  Then take a look at the related court case.  The image on the right by Prince was determined to be sufficiently transformative to be 'fair use' under copyright law.  Yes, you can heavily reference a photo without the photographers permission and not violate copyright law.  Transformative art being fair use is HEAVILY established in copyright law legal precedence and anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant as to how copyright law works.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cariou_v._Prince



The effects of and legal precedent set by Caribou v. Prince are still being determined. Before the initial ruling was overturned by the Second Circuit, appropriation artists who merely re-drew a photograph often lost to the photographers they based their work upon. Despite having greater additions to the images in the case you've linked, derivatives such as this and this, based off of this photo (Dennis Morris v. Thierry Guetta), or this based off of this photograph (Glen E. Friedman v. Thierry Guetta) were not considered transformative enough to be protected under fair use. Another similar case is Art Rogers v. Jeff Koons, and several of the other lawsuits Koon lost. The only case he won was because he added the photograph he borrowed to a much larger peice, merely than making a direct copy of it as he had before.

 Transformative works typically require a change in composition and cannot borrow too heavily from the orginal, as determined by a court analysis. They are expected to add to the original, and typically different enough that a layman can see it is a vastly different piece. Cases in which the appropriation artist won were more along the lines of using a Louis Vuitton bag as a part of a much larger painting (Plesnet v. LVMH) and cropping, enlarging ect. the original while superimposing multiple things on top of it (Hoepker v. Kruger).

The unorthodox Caribou v. Prince is being re-visted in a pending lawsuit. Thierry Guetta is attempting to appeal the rulings he had previously lost by citing that case, while Dennis Morris is filing in opposition on the grounds that the ruling is not actually precedence and has made no material change in law. If Morris loses, and the Second Circuit's interpretation actually does become precedent, than dozens of other previous rulings may also be contested and overturned. If he wins, it will re-affirm the prior precedent wherein transformative work required heavier alteration than seen in Caribou v. Prince and ruling on the Sid Vicious photograph will stand.

Until the dust settles, this makes it a little difficult to cite Caribou v. Prince as the end-all-be-all rulings for appropriation art.


----------



## Eggdodger (May 31, 2015)

I knew Prince did music, but I had no idea he tried his hand in art, too =v


...Anyways. Hope this swings your way, CC. I don't like that guy's attitude.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 31, 2015)

Can we sue artist who does realistic drawing like these?


----------



## Ink Stained Rat (May 31, 2015)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Can we sue artist who does realistic drawing like these?



If the image was directly reproduced from a film still or photograph (assuming directly from the LOTR series), the copyright holder of the source material absolutely could. They may or may not win, depending on whether or not it meets the criteria for transformative fair use work. The judicial system typically considers if it supersedes, adds to the original and/or alters the expression, meaning or interpretation of it. Take, for example, the lawsuit over the Obama Hope poster or how Damien Hirst was sued for infringement after sculpting a 20ft enlargement of a limited edition toy. Both cases were ultimately settled out of court. The first involved a split of an undisclosed amount of the profits made, and the second required the artist to donate to two different children's charities.

Lawsuits are filed over these sorts of subjects all the time, though  they typically occur when the appropriated piece is generating a  sizable income. Some of these cases spend years, even a full decade, in  litigation. More reason as to why settling out of court is so commonly seen.


----------



## Anarcho-Loser (May 31, 2015)

OP, are you aware of the existence of Creative Commons?

Perhaps for future works you will consider releasing them under Creative Commons.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 31, 2015)

Ink Stained Rat said:


> Lawsuits are filed over these sorts of subjects all the time, though  they typically occur when the appropriated piece is generating a  sizable income. Some of these cases spend years, even a full decade, in  litigation. More reason as to why settling out of court is so commonly seen.



So for CC's case it's just a matter of permission because I don't see any form of profit from the piece in question. 
OK so say the person/admins took down the piece from their FA.. What now? What is CC trying to gain? Respect? To prove a point? Does CC want to take this up to the law and sue the artist for money?


----------



## PheagleAdler (May 31, 2015)

Volkodav said:


> edit: back in my day we called this sort of thing "tracing" or "copying"



Maybe I'm just being picky here, but I always thought tracing was literally tracing. Putting the image under your canvas and tracing over it.




StormyChang said:


> Funny, cause the rest of us seem to get along just fine and even if there's an argument at least come to some agreement or walk away not hating eachother. There are more open minded people i've seen on these forums than you wouldn't believe. The majority of which are more than willing to change their opinion on something if shown facts and good arguments. Which is more than i can say for you, sir.




I can change my opinion, but it takes hard facts and evidence, having biased information doesn't sway me one bit. And with the drama that goes on 'round here you can see why I would be skeptical about most things.


----------



## ShadowEon (May 31, 2015)

Well, the guy did atleast link the photo.  If he was truly trying to steal it he would not have mentioned it at all. However,if you asked him to take down the image and he declines-that's not very good.

Typically when someone references a photo for an illustration the proper way to do it is to change the posing and/or species/color when you are making your actual illustration,rather than just making the same animal in the same pose as the photo. They just took your photo and turned it into a different medium.

As for the Pokemon example you gave, from what I can tell the person is not tracing over the Sugimori art and is just trying to copy/draw it themselves. Some of them have slight alterations. Kids on deviantart and shit do this,and Ken Sugimori probably doesn't care. The art has been used for over a decade,depending on which picture you are using.

If hes not making a profit on them its likely not going to bother him (Sugimori) or Nintendo/Game Freak that much. Like I said,kids do this.


----------



## CaptainCool (May 31, 2015)

ShadowEon said:


> However,if you asked him to take down the image and he declines-that's not very good.



I didn't ask him to take it down.
"I would have liked it if you had asked me for permission to use my photo as a reference, but hey! Thanks for liking it I guess!"
That was my comment on his piece. To which he replied
"HA! That's cute. Permission..."

I have no problem with people using my photography for references. In fact, I am glad when it helps artists to figure out how to draw something.
But if they are actually copying it I'd just like them to at least ask me.

So this is essentially about two things:
First , that guy behaved like a dick and I refuse to let shit like that fly.
Second, I want the FA staff to accept copyright claims for photos just like they would do it for drawn artwork. I will not let them treat photography like some kind of second grade art.


----------



## Stratelier (May 31, 2015)

StormyChang said:


> ...but even in art schools/classes they show and tell you how to draw 'exact' either from still life or photos, students can even be docked points for not being exact.  Or is this teaching method just wrong from the start?



Sometimes I think this method of teaching art IS flawed.  I mean, I learned a lot more about character structure from one year playing _Spyro the Dragon_ than I did from three years of high-school art classes.  Sure, the class was cool, the teacher was cool, and I got good grades in class assignments/projects, but I didn't really learn anything about how to _draw_ something until I found something I was passionate about on my own.



StormyChang said:


> Well still life drawings are just objects, but i've had art teachers before that had us go off photos too.


Oh yeah, and the last day of the year we spent clipping photos from assorted magazines specifically to create sheets of random images for next year's use.



PheagleAdler said:


> Maybe I'm just being picky here, but I always thought tracing was literally tracing. Putting the image under your canvas and tracing over it.


I agree, the term "tracing" has a very precise definition and does not encompass broader cases of copying (eyeballing, etc.).


----------



## GemWolf (Jun 4, 2015)

Such an awful fuss over such a simple little sketch! He liked your photo and wanted to draw it - should be flattered by this not offended. He did link you the image. People on YouTube link original artists to music they use in a home made video all the time. They didn't need to ask permission because they acknowledged the original owner, and are not making money of the video.

This artist did not make any money with this drawing, and he did link you - seriously, what a cry baby.
I would be flattered if this were me.


----------



## Stratelier (Jun 4, 2015)

GemWolf said:


> They didn't need to ask permission because...


Legally speaking that is _never_ true; if you didn't acquire written permission in advance, you're in trouble should the owning party decide to prosecute.

...but whether or not they do is the big question mark.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 4, 2015)

GemWolf said:


> Such an awful fuss over such a simple little sketch! He liked your photo and wanted to draw it - should be flattered by this not offended. He did link you the image. People on YouTube link original artists to music they use in a home made video all the time. They didn't need to ask permission because they acknowledged the original owner, and are not making money of the video.
> 
> This artist did not make any money with this drawing, and he did link you - seriously, what a cry baby.
> I would be flattered if this were me.



So when an image is copied it's a legit copyright claim, but when a photo is being copied without permission I should feel flattered? 
That's a nice double standard you got going there!


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jun 4, 2015)

CaptainCool said:


> So when an image is copied it's a legit copyright claim, but when a photo is being copied without permission I should feel flattered?
> That's a nice double standard you got going there!



Not at all what she was implying.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 4, 2015)

Butters Shikkon said:


> Not at all what she was implying.



But that's what this amounts to.
I do feel flattered when people like my shots and use them as references. But why didn't he need to ask me for permission? Because he liked my photo and linked to it? That's simply not how this works. Try this with a drawing from Zaush or Blotch and you are gonna be flamed to death by their fans and probably banned or warned by the staff. They are not going to let you do it because "you liked their image".


----------



## Gryphoneer (Jun 4, 2015)

Boy oh boy, so much e-lawyering in this thread.

Looking over it, there's only two conclusions. One, intellectual property law is a contradictory mess across the world or two, most people have no clue what they're talking about.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jun 4, 2015)

CaptainCool said:


> But that's what this amounts to.
> I do feel flattered when people like my shots and use them as references. But why didn't he need to ask me for permission? Because he liked my photo and linked to it? That's simply not how this works. Try this with a drawing from Zaush or Blotch and you are gonna be flamed to death by their fans and probably banned or warned by the staff. They are not going to let you do it because "you liked their image".



Personally, I think most people in this fandom are socially retarded and escalate issues to absurd levels. Yes, he was a dick to you, but you could have been the bigger man and explained why you wanted it taken down calmly. You could have come to an understanding. 

But you and I both know you don't like to be spurned and you are wasting the precious little attention admins spend on the site for an issue you could have solved yourself by being an adult. 

Really CC, I'd rather the child porn get removed than your cock contest be resolved.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 4, 2015)

Butters Shikkon said:


> Personally, I think most people in this fandom are socially retarded and escalate issues to absurd levels. Yes, he was a dick to you, but you could have been the bigger man and explained why you wanted it taken down calmly. You could have come to an understanding.
> 
> But you and I both know you don't like to be spurned and you are wasting the precious little attention admins spend on the site for an issue you could have solved yourself by being an adult.
> 
> Really CC, I'd rather the child porn get removed than your cock contest be resolved.



At this point I just really want the staff to treat photography the same way as any other artwork on the site.


----------



## SirRob (Jun 4, 2015)

After reading an article I found on the internet (and thus I now have the authority to decide what is or isn't copyright infringement) I would side with CaptainCool since the intent of the work is the same; it's not sufficiently transformed. If the intent of the artist was for practice, I would think it's okay, but since it's being uploaded to an art site, its purpose has been made specifically to be art. 
That said, I'm just as guilty as the artist for stealing references and making them my own, but no copyright law in the universe is going to stop me!


----------



## Taralack (Jun 5, 2015)

Once again I would like everyone to please *remain civil* when discussing this thread. I've already had to remove a few posts because of the pointless bickering and straying off topic. I want the FA admins to be made aware of this issue, and clogging it up with immature arguing is not going to help. If you don't have anything to contribute to the discussion, please do not post. Thank you.


----------



## RTDragon (Jun 5, 2015)

Butters Shikkon said:


> Not at all what she was implying.



Technically she was Butter Shikon and the thing that Gemwolf said about youtube basically that's not exactly true since a lot of the times a lot of videos on youtube get removed on either copyrighted complaints by the actual owners.
And i see this happen very often when vids get flagged. As with the fair use thing it does'nt exactly work this way depending on the countries https://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/fair-use.html


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 5, 2015)

There's a difference between referring to photos in order to construct art, and copying existing art. 

I'm cool with people making a drawing from a photo of a bird; all artists on these forums produce drawings from various photographic content on the internet.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 5, 2015)

So ask ppermission

Its literally not that hard if youre already gonn go througj the effort of srarching through his pics for a photo tp eyeball


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 5, 2015)

Volkodav said:


> So ask ppermission
> 
> Its literally not that hard if youre already gonn go througj the effort of srarching through his pics for a photo tp eyeball



I would draw photographs of objects even if people didn't want me to, to be frank. 


There are bigger things to worry about than someone producing a drawing which looks similar to a generic photo of a tiger, and so forth. 

Contrary to what a lot of people want to think, too, I'm going to surmise that drawing and sculpting* are* higher art forms than photography. Just like free hand paintings by Caravaggio are a higher form of art than Johan Vermeer's traces. 

Composition and photography < Vermeer style lens composition and over-painting < real painting


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 5, 2015)

Doesnt mean CCs requests should not be respected


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 5, 2015)

Volkodav said:


> Doesnt mean CCs requests should not be respected



I kinda get the feeling that the reason he would make a fuss is in order to have a fuss, not because he actually cares. :\

Even if people did care about others producing drawings of generic photos of monuments, museum specimens and zoo animals, nobody need bother responding to them.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 5, 2015)

Would you guys give more of a shit if someone were to take CCs art and use the photo itaelf in their art withiut permission? 
i just want to seee how far you tolerate disrespecting photographers


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 5, 2015)

Volkodav said:


> Would you guys give more of a shit if someone were to take CCs art and use the photo itaelf in their art withiut permission?
> i just want to seee how far you tolerate disrespecting photographers


 
I would care if someone copied and pasted a photo into their art. I would probably not care if someone made a collage out of bits of photos such that the work was new. 

People doing drawings though? Na. It's not as if everybody can go see lemurs or rhinos whenever they want, and let's face it- none of you reading this track down the photographers from google image searches when you're making drawings of leopards or eagles. 

I think that hosting generic photos on the internet, and objecting to anybody making drawings, is a pretense, rather than an honest concern about intellectual property or respect. 

Now, appropriation artists who take other people's photos print them out and sell them for thousands of dollars without permission, they *are* something to worry about: 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...tagrams-for-100-000-and-get-away-with-it.html

*sigh* this is what passes as 'art' nowadays. 

His 'work' has been upheld by courts, who stated that increasing the size of the photo 'transformed' it into high art that was Richard Prince's Intellectual Property, not the photographer's. 


This is the legacy of fiends and thieves like Roy Liechtenstein, essentially.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 5, 2015)

Theres a difference between using a pic as reference and copying a picturr line for line and claiming its your art


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 5, 2015)

Volkodav said:


> Theres a difference between using a pic as reference and copying a picturr line for line and claiming its your art



This is a strawman, given the person who produced the drawing, and it looks like a good drawing- rather than a perfect copy, stated where the image was from. 

In my opinion it would still have been acceptable if they didn't say where the image is from; it's friggin obvious that they didn't actually get a bird to hold still all that time, so we know that some photographer somewhere saw a bird one day and pressed click.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 5, 2015)

Fallowfox said:


> Contrary to what a lot of people want to think, too, I'm going to surmise that drawing and sculpting* are* higher art forms than photography.



I'm just gonna go ahead and call this bullshit. There is a difference between snapshots and photography, and that difference amounts to skill, experience and talent, just like it is the case with any other form of art.
Also, this doesn't matter one bit since the FA rules don't make a difference between drawn art and photography.

Sure, he can use my photo as a reference to figure out how to draw these animals. But copying the work of other people is entirely against the rules.
I don't want to make a fuzz here just for dumps and chuckles, I just want to be treated like any other artist on FA.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 5, 2015)

It literally takes like 5 sec to ask permission though lol


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 5, 2015)

CaptainCool said:


> I'm just gonna go ahead and call this bullshit. There is a difference between snapshots and photography, and that difference amounts to skill, experience and talent, just like it is the case with any other form of art.
> Also, this doesn't matter one bit since the FA rules don't make a difference between drawn art and photography.
> 
> Sure, he can use my photo as a reference to figure out how to draw these animals. But copying the work of other people is entirely against the rules.
> I don't want to make a fuzz here just for dumps and chuckles, I just want to be treated like any other artist on FA.



I'm a photographer _and_ an artist. Hewing images is more intensive and involves more work than visiting the zoo. Copying drawings where the 'solution' of marks has already been demonstrated isn't creative, but deciding how to translate a photograph into a drawing is a creative process, often of more merit than the photo itself. That's why I spend maybe a few minutes composing a shot, but a week painting it. 

I think you're only interested in this for the drama. :\ You have an opportunity to antagonise someone, so you're taking it.



Volkodav said:


> It literally takes like 5 sec to ask permission though lol



This isn't a possibility for photographs in magazines and other media; why should this twee courtesy be extended to anyone else? 
I don't think I would have the right to tell people they're not allowed to be inspired to make drawings from my photographs.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 5, 2015)

Fallowfox said:


> I think you're only interested in this for the drama. :\ You have an opportunity to antagonise someone, so you're taking it.



Go ahead and think that. Doesn't change that you are wrong about me.



Fallowfox said:


> This isn't a possibility for photographs in magazines and other media; why should this twee courtesy be extended to anyone else?
> I don't think I would have the right to tell people they're not allowed to be inspired to make drawings from my photographs.



There is a difference between beeing inspired and making a blatant copy. Or do you seriously think that a professional photographer who makes money with his images isn't gonna go against someone copying their shots?


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 5, 2015)

If youre gonna be disrespectful and sarcastic then maybe dont post


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 5, 2015)

Fallowfox said:


> Oh no; an amateur made a drawing of my photo of an elephant; the world is going to implode!
> 
> If they're not making money, this probably falls under rights to fair use.



Sarcasm aside... Fair use doesn't matter, the FA rules are what counts here. Because as we have pointed out multiple times, what you say implies that it would be perfectly fine to just make a rough copy of someone else's drawn art from FA and upload it. And that simply isn't the case!


----------



## Gryphoneer (Jun 5, 2015)

I have a hard time listening to your arguments if you're that presumptuous, Fallow. Who died and made you the supreme arbiter deciding what and what isn't True Artâ„¢?



Fallowfox said:


> Just like free hand paintings by Caravaggio are a higher form of art than Johan Vermeer's traces.



"Harumph, now let me tell you why Dorothea Lange and Gyula HalÃ¡sz were total _chumps_."


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 5, 2015)

What I say doesn't imply that, and I've made specific arguments to explain why. I believe that pedantry is your real motive.



Gryphoneer said:


> I have a hard time listening to your arguments  if you're that presumptuous, Fallow. Who died and made you the supreme  arbiter deciding what and what isn't True Artâ„¢?
> 
> 
> 
> "Harumph, now let me tell you why Dorothea Lange and Gyula HalÃ¡sz were total _chumps_."



So Johan Vermeer produced paintings by standing his subjects in front of a lens, and painting over the resultant projection which fell onto his canvas. 

People weren't aware of this until it was demonstrated by optical physicists, who discovered that his paintings had characteristic lens artefacts that could have only been produced this way. 


I think this undermines the quality of his art, and puts other painters, who weren't reliant on mechanisms, ahead of him.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 5, 2015)

Bottom line imo is that if someone is uncomfortable with you using their art or photos, it should be removed


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 5, 2015)

My problem with your arguments is simply that I supposedly do this just because I can or to be an ass. And that simply isn't the case!
Photography is important to me and right now I absolutely need to know if this website treats photography the same way as other kinds of art. If "heavily referencing" a photo to the point of copying it is alright but doing the same with a drawn image isn't then that isn't the case and they are treating photographers unfairly.
I am also co-owner/moderator of the photo group on FA. That is why I am interested in how the staff will react as well.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 5, 2015)

CaptainCool said:


> My problem with your arguments is simply that I supposedly do this just because I can or to be an ass. And that simply isn't the case!
> Photography is important to me and right now I absolutely need to know if this website treats photography the same way as other kinds of art. If "heavily referencing" a photo to the point of copying it is alright but doing the same with a drawn image isn't then that isn't the case and they are treating photographers unfairly.
> I am also co-owner/moderator of the photo group on FA. That is why I am interested in how the staff will react as well.



You're always trying to antagonise people over pinickity interpretations of FA's rules. A while ago you were reporting drawings with penises in them that were 'too realistic', which in your view made them photographs, photographs of genitals being banned on the main site. 

I think you just get a perverse pleasure from asserting authority over other people in order to make them feel worse. 

Photography shouldn't be treated the same way as art, because it's a form of mechanical documentation, the art of which is a confluence of composition of incidence, rather than systematic work and direct construction of imagery. 

You have to distinguish between translating photographic content into a drawing, which is a creative process, and copying an existing drawing, which is a slavish process.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 5, 2015)

So because he said this and that about dicks a while ago that means that his requests to hav his.photographs respected shouls be ignored
okay bud

You know what else is construction of imagery
photoshopping photos
should that be allowed?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 5, 2015)

Volkodav said:


> So because he said this and that about dicks a while ago that means that his requests to hav his.photographs respected shouls be ignored
> okay bud
> 
> You know what else is construction of imagery
> ...



That's not the reason I think that they should be ignored, but I do think that this behaviour fits a previous pattern, which makes me suspicious about his motivates. 

I don't know enough about photomanipulation to make any comments about it; I suppose it's like collage. The resultant piece must be sufficiently transformed from its ingredients that it doesn't constitute plagiarism. 

That's a wishy-washy criterion though, very dissimilar from, say, the difference between drawing and tracing.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 5, 2015)

Fallowfox said:


> Photography shouldn't be treated the same way as art, because it's a form of mechanical documentation



You realize that there are different kinds of photography, right? :T I'm not a journalist... My goal isn't documentation.
What you are refering to is representational photography. In that case, yeah sure go ahead and copy it.
What I strive for is a kind of low level fine-arts photography. Low level because I am not _that_ good yet... But I don't document, I approach it with a specific idea of what kind of photo I want.

And please stop assuming that you know why I am doing this...


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 5, 2015)

Nope a photomanip isnt a collage


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 5, 2015)

CaptainCool said:


> You realize that there are different kinds of photography, right? :T I'm not a journalist... My goal isn't documentation.
> What you are refering to is representational photography. In that case, yeah sure go ahead and copy it.
> What I strive for is a kind of low level fine-arts photography. Low level because I am not _that_ good yet... But I don't document, I approach it with a specific idea of what kind of photo I want.



You take photos of animals. You're essentially producing photos that look identical to those that are deliberately produced for reference and taxonomic use, and they're generic. Type 'lemur' into google and a thousand similar images will appear, almost all of which have been used for references in drawings too. 


Since an admin has already settled this problem, what you have to ask yourself is 'do I accept that if I upload photographs of animals to the internet people will draw those animals?' 
Nobody is forcing you to post your photographs on the internet. If you don't, illustrators will simply use one of the other 999 similar images for reference. 

If someone ends up drawing this: http://d.facdn.net/art/lollazer/1433446932/1433446932.lollazer_ma1_4894.jpg

then ultimately it's not very different to them having drawn any of these: 
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Bald_Eagle_Portrait.jpg
http://www.alaskazoo.org/sites/alaskazoo.org/files/bald eagle2.jpg
http://naturedocumentaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/bald-eagle_1_600x450.jpg



Volkodav said:


> Nope a photomanip isnt a collage




Collaging is a form of manipulation. Some photomanipulations *are* collages, but not all of them are. 

Doesn't take someone with many braincells to discern that. 

I'm putting forth the argument that the rights of fair use have a similar nature for both.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 5, 2015)

"Nobody is forcing you to post your photos on the internet"


I literally cannot comprehend the level of disrespect i just read


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 5, 2015)

Volkodav said:


> "Nobody is forcing you to post your photos on the internet"
> 
> 
> I literally cannot comprehend the level of disrespect i just read



Look at his images. They are the same as the millions of other images on the internet which illustrators everywhere are currently using. 

It is a ridiculous precedent to insist that each of those illustrators must identify the original photographers and seek their permission before producing a sketch. 

If that's what respect means to you, you've watered it down so far that it is not worth anything. :\


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 5, 2015)

Again, none of this matters if you take FA's rules into account! Plagiarism is not allowed, and there it makes no difference between photos and drawings.
If fair use would apply on FA anyone could just copy and trace other people's work whether it's a drawing or a photo.



Fallowfox said:


> Nobody is forcing you to post your photographs on the internet. If you don't, illustrators will simply use one of the other 999 similar images for *reference*.



Yes, exactly. *REFERENCE*. Copying a photo is not the same as using it as a reference! A reference is something you use to figure out how to draw what you want to draw. But you don't _copy_ it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 5, 2015)

CaptainCool said:


> Again, none of this matters if you take FA's rules into account! Plagiarism is not allowed, and there it makes no difference between photos and drawings.
> If fair use would apply on FA anyone could just copy and trace other people's work whether it's a drawing or a photo.
> 
> 
> ...



This isn't plagiarism, though. It's just an illustrator producing a sketch from a generic photograph of a bird on the internet. 
The act of transcribing a photo into a drawing is art, and the photograph was so generic that it could be from _anywhere_. 

Plagiarism is the act of passing off someone else's work as your own. The artist even credited you, so describing this as plagiarism is just factually incorrect.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 5, 2015)

And now I am starting to feel convinced that you just want to call my work generic.

Either way, the rules clearly don't say that copying photos of other users is ok. Also, I don't give a damn that he linked back to my photo. If you want to use my photos as a reference then go right ahead. But if you create a copy of it the least he could have done is ask me.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Jun 5, 2015)

Fallowfox said:


> What I say doesn't imply that, and I've made specific arguments to explain why. I believe that pedantry is your real motive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh for Christ's sake, if my motive is pedantry, yours is sophistry.

Vermeer's alleged mechanical aid remains a conspiracy theory concocted by some random hobby painter and a college teacher who just said "Yep, Renaissance artists sure could've used optics for their works" without putting forth any historical evidence whatsoever so they could sell their book. Even if we assume for a moment that their wild speculation is true, anybody capable of constructing an optical array with a camera obscura to project an image onto canvas and painstakingly draw according to the light lines in the friggin' mid-17th century would've to be a genius of Leonardo da Vinci's caliber, and that both in the mechanical as well as the artistic part.



Fallowfox said:


> Photography shouldn't be treated the same way as art


Ah, finally, after all the babble here we have Fallow's true motive: he doesn't consider photography to be Real Art.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 5, 2015)

CaptainCool said:


> And now I am starting to feel convinced that you just want to call my work generic.
> 
> Either way, the rules clearly don't say that copying photos of other users is ok. Also, I don't give a damn that he linked back to my photo. If you want to use my photos as a reference then go right ahead. But if you create a copy of it the least he could have done is ask me.




You've talked down to other people about not being photographers- and hence not understanding your artiness-, but I think in this instance, your lack of understanding probably results from you not being an artist, and hence not understanding what the nature of illustration is. :\


You didn't even know what the definition of plagiarism was. Think about the implications of putting all of your photos on the internet, before you complain that people draw stuff on the internet.




Gryphoneer said:


> Oh for Christ's sake, if my motive is pedantry, yours is sophistry.
> 
> Vermeer's alleged mechanical aid remains a conspiracy theory concocted  by some random hobby painter and a college teacher who just said "Yep,  Renaissance artists sure could've used optics for their works" without  putting forth any historical evidence whatsoever so they could sell  their book. Even if we assume for a moment that their wild speculation  is true, anybody capable of constructing an optical array with a camera  obscura to project an image onto canvas and painstakingly draw according  to the light lines in the friggin' mid-17th century would've to be a  genius of Leonardo da Vinci's caliber, and that both in the mechanical  as well as the artistic part.
> 
> ...




<-- Is also a photographer. 



So Johannes Vermeer's paintings include artefacts such as chromatic aberration. 

Like this image has chromatic aberration: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Chromatic_aberration_(comparison).jpg

Camera obscurers are relatively simple machines, dating back to before Aristotle, so it is not unreasonable to believe people thousands of years_ later _had access to them, although none was ever found that could be said to belong to vermeer. 

It would just be...really weird to accidentally paint a series of lensing effects consistent with a projection involving an obscura, if you were painting by eye. 


When I was doing Art A level a series of students used projections to make their paintings, and you would be able to identify warping effects due to parallax, and determine which were and were not produced with projection. 

Same deal with old art.


----------



## xAngelStormx (Jun 5, 2015)

Photography is just as valid an art as Line Art and should be treated as such. I know I can spend just as long taking and editing a photo as I can drawing something.
Another thing I should add is that, in most countries (Including the EU and USA), "all rights reserved" means that they can stop you from even seeing the image if they choose, so they can stop you from using it as reference material too.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED means you can't even look at it without their say so.

But um... if they display it then that counts as giving permission to view.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 5, 2015)

xAngelStormx said:


> Photography is just as valid an art as Line Art and should be treated as such. I know I can spend just as long taking and editing a photo as I can drawing something.
> Another thing I should add is that, in most countries (Including the EU and USA), "all rights reserved" means that they can stop you from even seeing the image if they choose, so they can stop you from using it as reference material too.
> 
> ALL RIGHTS RESERVED means you can't even look at it without their say so.



This is wrong, actually. The rights to fair use, which include things such as criticism and parody, mean that anybody- whoever they are- can have their say about a piece of literature or art, without being sued. 

For instance, if J K Rowling released a new book, but nobody liked it, she would not be entitled to 'reserve all rights' and have the book withdrawn so that nobody could talk about how bad it was. 

People would still be entitled to display pieces of the book's content and discuss them, or even write altered versions of the fiction- for example fans could write a version with a 'good' ending, instead of a sucky one.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 5, 2015)

Fallowfox said:


> Look at his images. They are the same as the millions of other images on the internet which illustrators everywhere are currently using.
> 
> It is a ridiculous precedent to insist that each of those illustrators must identify the original photographers and seek their permission before producing a sketch.
> 
> If that's what respect means to you, you've watered it down so far that it is not worth anything. :\



Respect is when you search up Secretary Bird on FurAffinity and then find an image, like it, message the photographer "can I please eyeball this/trace it/whatever" and then proceed once he says yes

That is basic respect

It's incredibly disrespectful to say "heh, permission" when the photographer confronts youabout it


----------



## xAngelStormx (Jun 5, 2015)

Okay, maybe its not as extreme as that  , but you still can't use it as reference material and have that work displayed without permission.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 5, 2015)

Volkodav said:


> Respect is when you search up Secretary Bird on FurAffinity and then find an image, like it, message the photographer "can I please eyeball this/trace it/whatever" and then proceed once he says yes
> 
> That is basic respect
> 
> It's incredibly disrespectful to say "heh, permission" when the photographer confronts youabout it



Millions of illustrators using google images

>suggests they should all try to find the original content uploaders and sit around twiddling their thumbs until the content uploader says yes. 

So many photos are near-identical anyway, it's making a fuss over nothing.




xAngelStormx said:


> Okay, maybe its not as extreme as that
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually you can. That's exactly what parody makers of films, and critics of art do all the time. It is an essential part of how culture works, and attempts to prevent people from being able to refer to material to review its value constitute censorship. 

This case obviously isn't as important as any of that. It's just an example of a photo of a bird, which looks like n other photos of birds, and someone is upset because a drawing has been produced that would have looked pretty much the same, had it been based on any of the other n photos. 

It really is trivial.


----------



## GemWolf (Jun 5, 2015)

Personally I think this has gone on long enough. 
CC, you have already received FA's response. You seem to keep quoting FA's rules all through your thread. FA made a ruling and you still argue. 
Let it go.


----------



## -Sliqq- (Jun 5, 2015)

GemWolf said:


> Let it go.



Oh gawd no. Frozen 2.

*hides under desk*


----------



## Stratelier (Jun 5, 2015)

-Sliqq- said:


> Oh gawd no. Frozen 2.
> 
> *hides under desk*



Hey, it could be worse....


----------



## GemWolf (Jun 5, 2015)

Keep on topic guys. Tara already said not to go off topic


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 6, 2015)

Here's the thing though, if you find an image through Google it usually really is impossible to find the original owner. But at that point an image has pretty much become public domain anyway. 
For example, if I had uploaded this shot to Facebook and it went viral the image would be out of my control because if someone copies it who got it from the 500th person who reuploaded it it's probably already impossible for them to know who the original owner is. 
But this case is different. He took it directly from my gallery. He knew who the owner is AND the aup don't allow copies of the work of other users. He could have taken any of the thousands of public domain and stock images on Google. But no, he had to choose mine. 
And honestly? I'm convinced he did it because he knows that I reported him for uploading cub smut which got removed by the admins  But that isn't my reason for this, I just want photography to be treated in a fair way and like all the other kinds of art on FA.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 6, 2015)

Volkodav said:


> If youre gonna be disrespectful and sarcastic then maybe dont post



I knew I was mistaken returning to this website; people clearly don't want me here.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 6, 2015)

Fallowfox said:


> I knew I was mistaken returning to this website; people clearly don't want me here.



I never said I didn't want you here, I just asked you not to be disrespectful when discussing this with us


----------



## TheArchiver (Jun 6, 2015)

Fallowfox said:


> I knew I was mistaken returning to this website; people clearly don't want me here.



So you come here to belittle someone's trade in the most classic snobby artist manner. Even to the point of needing a post of yours removed. You are called out on your disrespect. Then when you are cornered...you whine "woe is me"?

I was on board with you myself because frankly I agree that Captain is a ludicrous stickler for rules and can get over himself in this instance. But there is no need to directly put down his work in the pretentious manner you have. It wasn't even a critique. You essentially told him it will NEVER be good under your (garbage) pretense of "real art". 
Shape up, FallowFox.


----------



## Taralack (Jun 6, 2015)

Fallowfox said:


> I knew I was mistaken returning to this website; people clearly don't want me here.



Really Fallow? This coming from you? I expected more mature behaviour from you. 

This is the last I want to hear about this, could we get it back on topic please.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 6, 2015)

TheArchiver said:


> I was on board with you myself because frankly I agree that Captain is a ludicrous stickler for rules and can get over himself in this instance.



Hey now, you can't blame me for thinking that the rules on a website are important :V
Also, this isn't so much about my photos. I have given many artists permission to use my photos any way they like and even gave them access to my full resolution images. For me this matter is all about having photography treated in a fair way. I don't care so much about the guy who copied it. It's simply that the reply that I got implies that they don't care about copyright claims for photos. Now I want to know if that is what Sciggles actually meant when she worked on my ticket or if the staff does treat photography the same way as the other submissions on FA. Because again (I think this has been pointed out like 5 times already) if someone had done this with _any_ other kind of submission the copy would have been removed instantly. I know because I have reported many submissions like that.


----------



## RTDragon (Jun 6, 2015)

Considering that Deviantart treats photography as art as well as stock photos. I am not surprised FA does'nt think of the same thing.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Jun 7, 2015)

DA shows up in Google Images


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Jun 7, 2015)

So which is a more difficult skillset? Photography or Drawing?


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 7, 2015)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> So which is a more difficult skillset? Photography or Drawing?



Despite both being visual arts, and modern cameras being so easy to handle, they require different skill sets and are not really comparable in that area. You could argue that, as far as reproducing objects of the real world goes, drawing is harder, but that's as far as it goes. Not anyone can take a good picture.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 7, 2015)

In my opinion drawings capture a concept while photos capture distinct moments (it also overlaps a little but I'm going for a basic difference between the two). Being able to anticipate these moments and to capture them properly takes a lot of skill and experience. I'm not even claiming that I can do that, I've only been shooting for 2 and a half years so far. 
Photographers also need to learn how to utilize the light and sometimes how to manipulate it, just like a painter needs to learn how to handle different kinds of paint. The light is the paint of the photographer. Knowing how to interprete lighting situations usually makes the difference between a photographer and someone who enjoys taking a few snapshots here and there. 
And then there is all the other basic stuff like the rules of composition, keeping the depth of field in mind, editing, printing, the style you want to go for... It's most definitely more than just pressing a button if you want to do it seriously.


----------



## Anarcho-Loser (Jun 7, 2015)

CaptainCool said:


> In my opinion drawings capture a concept while photos capture distinct moments (it also overlaps a little but I'm going for a basic difference between the two). Being able to anticipate these moments and to capture them properly takes a lot of skill and experience. I'm not even claiming that I can do that, I've only been shooting for 2 and a half years so far.
> Photographers also need to learn how to utilize the light and sometimes how to manipulate it, just like a painter needs to learn how to handle different kinds of paint. The light is the paint of the photographer. Knowing how to interprete lighting situations usually makes the difference between a photographer and someone who enjoys taking a few snapshots here and there.
> And then there is all the other basic stuff like the rules of composition, keeping the depth of field in mind, editing, printing, the style you want to go for... It's most definitely more than just pressing a button if you want to do it seriously.



If photography is supposed to capture "distinct moments" then I would think candid snapshots would be far more valuable than highly edited or manipulated photographs, due to their rawness and genuinity.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 7, 2015)

Anarcho-Loser said:


> If photography is supposed to capture "distinct moments" then I would think candid snapshots would be far more valuable than highly edited or manipulated photographs, due to their rawness and genuinity.



Maybe. But it depends on how the photos are edited. For example, I go for stronger contrasts and slightly more saturated colors to make the images pop a little. Like this shot of a cock. But I always try to make it look natural. I like to show what I saw, not what I wanted to see at that time.
The most editing I do to a photo is to make a composite shot. Like when I have two shots of the same critter, one had good composition but the eyes are closed, so I put in the open eyes from a different shot.

In my opinion the most "genuine" photos are those taken by photojournalists. They don't try to capture something artistic, they want to show the raw reality. And that in itself makes their work art as well.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Jun 7, 2015)

Fallowfox said:


> So Johannes Vermeer's paintings include artefacts such as chromatic aberration.
> 
> Like this image has chromatic aberration: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Chromatic_aberration_(comparison).jpg


Chromatic aberration affects human vision, too. After all, the human eye is a lens. If you look at white clouds against a blue sky, you can make the colored fringes of CA appear. Red/yellow and blue/violet fringes appear depending on whether the clouds are at the upper or lower border of your vision.



> Camera obscurers are relatively simple machines, dating back to before Aristotle, so it is not unreasonable to believe people thousands of years_ later _had access to them, although none was ever found that could be said to belong to vermeer.



And the Antikythera mechanism had been constructed between 100 and 200 BCE, yet you would've been hardpressed to find anyone able to build something similar in the 1600s.

Most people wouldn't know about the mechanical aid conspiracy theory if weren't for some garage inventor who rekindled the flame by building a working camera obscura-based array to aid in painting. This wasn't exactly an exercise in experimental archaeology, however, because that guy had access to ~350 years of technoscientific progress, so it was easy for him to do the math for the positioning of the array, the canvas and the optimal daytime as well as fashioning the booth and the other equipment necessary. Vermeer and contemporaries had no such knowledge.

All the conspiracy theorists presented was idle conjecture and circumstantial evidence. Only because something is permitted by the laws of physics on the most basic level doesn't mean that's actual proof it did happen this way. If you can't cite concrete historical evidence stuff like this is just an exercise in glorified alternate history fanfiction. "Renaissance mechanical aid" is in the same ballpark as "Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare" and the da Vinci code.


----------



## Willow (Jun 7, 2015)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> So which is a more difficult skillset? Photography or Drawing?


This is kind of like asking if singing or playing an instrument is more difficult. Depends on the person and how much time (and money) they want to invest in actually learning it and learning it right.


----------



## rjbartrop (Jun 7, 2015)

Gryphoneer;5219192

And the Antikythera mechanism had been constructed between 100 and 200 BCE said:
			
		

> Some relevant historical references.   As always, take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, but you can always track down the original source material if you wish.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura
> 
> ...


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 8, 2015)

So Chase just got to my ticket and shot down my claim because "it's not similar enough" and also because, and I quote, "frankly, very similar images can be found elsewhere".
I reopened it.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jun 8, 2015)

That weird feeling when you agree with Chase...


----------



## Gryphoneer (Jun 8, 2015)

rjbartrop said:


> We do know for a fact that they were used by artists in the 18th century.  Here's a portable one used by the artist Joshua Reynolds.
> 
> http://lowres-picturecabinet.com.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/43/main/8/87232.jpg
> 
> You certainly can't explain away all Western art with the camera obscura, but in the case of Vermeer, it's not out of the question.



That's a difference of a century of advances in technical expertise.

The point still stands, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



CaptainCool said:


> So Chase just got to my ticket and shot down my claim


At least we now know you're in the right. With luck another staffmember will get to the new ticket and judge accordingly.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 8, 2015)

"Its not similar enough"
Lovely and vague. Time to make some easy money eyeballing popular artists


Im jk (;


----------



## Draconas (Jun 8, 2015)

CaptainCool said:


> So Chase just got to my ticket and shot down my claim because "it's not similar enough" and also because, and I quote, "frankly, very similar images can be found elsewhere".
> I reopened it.



not similar enough?

not only are the fucking submission names *AND* the dates are the same 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




an overlay 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 is pretty fucking similar


The eyes are similar
The beaks are similar
 The head is a similar shape
 neck
major head feathers

*IT'S THE FUCKING SAME IMAGE CHASE*


----------



## Croconaw (Jun 8, 2015)

Butters Shikkon said:


> That weird feeling when you agree with Chase...



Bitter sweet victory today.

I love it. CaptainCool's photos could've been heavily referenced by 1 or 2 other people dozens of other artists, and yet the one he's making a shitfit about is the one artist who had the decency to at least cite his sources. 



Justice was served today.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Jun 9, 2015)

Croconaw said:


> Bitter sweet victory today.
> 
> I love it. CaptainCool's photos could've been heavily referenced by 1 or 2 other people dozens of other artists, and yet the one he's making a shitfit about is the one artist who had the decency to at least cite his sources.
> 
> ...



Well, to be fair, it's hard to find someone who DOESN'T cite their sources, unless by chance, someone is watching both Captain Cool and the individual who used his photo(s) as a reference.


----------



## Croconaw (Jun 9, 2015)

PheagleAdler said:


> Well, to be fair, it's hard to find someone who DOESN'T cite their sources, unless by chance, someone is watching both Captain Cool and the individual who used his photo(s) as a reference.



Which begs the question as to why CC is crying about this matter in the first place. Because of this artist's efforts to cite where he referenced this image, it generated a way for people to discover CC's photography, which means more views and watches for him. It's single-handedly giving CC free publicity. You have to be an idiot for complaining about something like that. That's why I think it's him making a big stink about something small just to make a big stink, if you want my opinion about it all. He got just that. Some people just like to be angry. That or he has one hell of an ego about his work.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 9, 2015)

Well, at the risk of getting into something I don't really want to participate into, I'll agree with those claiming that CC could let this go. The person was kind enough to cite the source and it's not traced, as the overlay shows.
I have a relative who does very much the same thing, though she doesn't upload her stuff to the Internet.

EDIT: On closer inspection, though, it's rather doubtful. The feathers divert a lot, as well as the eye, but the head structure matches quite well, and that one does point to at least some amount of tracing, or simmilar processes.


----------



## LegitWaterfall (Jun 9, 2015)

At least he cited his sources with a link, that's more than what some people will do. When I go to art shows showing pieces where I've had to reference multiple photos, all they really care about is that you have the reference picture there, they don't demand who shot the photo and when and if we got permission, yada yada.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 9, 2015)

Ariosto said:


> EDIT: On closer inspection, though, it's rather doubtful. The feathers divert a lot, as well as the eye, but the head structure matches quite well, and that one does point to at least some amount of tracing, or simmilar processes.



Simple, it was copied by eye and not through tracing.
The feathers and other key details don't match my shot perfectly, but their relativ positions to each other are the same.
Secretary birds all do look pretty much the same, but these long feathers on their head do vary in position and shape.
But when you look at them side by side it becomes clear that the shapes and positions of these feathers are the same in both my photo and his drawing. The features that make this bird unique are one and the same.


----------



## StormyChang (Jun 9, 2015)

Draconas said:


> is pretty fucking similar
> 
> 
> The eyes are similar
> ...



No, not really.  you can tell how it was used as a reference but is not the exact same.  And what are you saying, two images can't have the same name, even when it's an image of the same animal?
let's break down the differences then, since you have the similarities.

The beak is curved outward more
The head feathers extend further and are thicker
The head feathers do NOT line up exactly
The neck drops down instead of to the right
The eyes are not the same (if you were trying to do a proper overlay you should have aligned the eyes but my assumption was you didn't want it to look wrong)
How could the dates be the same if one was apparently copied off the other?
Straight up, just cause something is 'similar' doesn't make it the same.  an oval is similar to a circle, a rectangle is similar to a square.

so that's.. 7 ways the pics are different. And you gave.. 5 for similarity?

I do both photography and digital art.  I have snapped some of my best pictures in less than 5 minutes.  It can take me 20+ hours to work on my actual art.  I didn't want to get into this argument because it's stupid.  But what's more stupid is this overlay.  If you think something has been copied, don't try to make the lines fit.  You make the eyes match up, and if it's actually copied then the overlay will speak for itself.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 9, 2015)

Just to clarify, I never said that this is an _exact_ copy. I'm saying it was copied by eye which does mean that the finer details don't line up perfectly.
What I do say is that the key features that make this bird unique exist in both images and they are all in the same place relativ to each other. He didn't make the bird look in a different direction, he didn't change the position of the feathers.


----------



## Croconaw (Jun 9, 2015)

CaptainCool said:


> Just to clarify, I never said that this is an _exact_ copy. I'm saying it was copied by eye which does mean that the finer details don't line up perfectly.
> What I do say is that the key features that make this bird unique exist in both images and they are all in the same place relativ to each other. He didn't make the bird look in a different direction, he didn't change the position of the feathers.



So?


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 9, 2015)

Croconaw said:


> So?



So it still means that he took my content and turned it into his own. My point still stands, if this had happened with a drawing and not with a photo it would already have been removed.


----------



## Anarcho-Loser (Jun 9, 2015)

CaptainCool said:


> So it still means that he took my content and turned it into his own. My point still stands, if this had happened with a drawing and not with a photo it would already have been removed.



All this talk and we've still left the most important question unanswered...

Did you get the birds permission to photograph it?


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 9, 2015)

Anarcho-Loser said:


> All this talk and we've still left the most important question unanswered...
> 
> Did you get the birds permission to photograph it?



Yes. I gave him my left pinky in exchange for the full rights for the photos of him.


----------



## StormyChang (Jun 9, 2015)

CaptainCool said:


> Just to clarify, I never said that this is an _exact_ copy. I'm saying it was copied by eye which does mean that the finer details don't line up perfectly.
> What I do say is that the key features that make this bird unique exist in both images and they are all in the same place relativ to each other. He didn't make the bird look in a different direction, he didn't change the position of the feathers.



ok, so if it's not an exact copy, where's the problem?  With real art this argument is brought up too.  Like I KNOW someone recently used a christmas ych I did.  But they zoomed it out and changed a few things about the character, so I can't do anything about it.  If I ticketed it, the admins would give me the same response they gave you.  The only difference is I put on my big girl panties and remembered that poses, colors, species, ect. aren't exclusive to any one person. 
The bird is not unique, there are other secretary birds out there.  The only way this bird would be unique from the others is if it had a color mutation or deformity that was copied over.  Prominent feather positioning and placement are pretty much identical in these birds anyway.


----------



## Croconaw (Jun 9, 2015)

StormyChang said:


> ok, so if it's not an exact copy, where's the problem?  With real art this argument is brought up too.  Like I KNOW someone recently used a christmas ych I did.  But they zoomed it out and changed a few things about the character, so I can't do anything about it.  If I ticketed it, the admins would give me the same response they gave you.  The only difference is I put on my big girl panties and remembered that poses, colors, species, ect. aren't exclusive to any one person.
> The bird is not unique, there are other secretary birds out there.  The only way this bird would be unique from the others is if it had a color mutation or deformity that was copied over.  Prominent feather positioning and placement are pretty much identical in these birds anyway.



Not to mention a google image search yielded multiple images that were pretty similar in stance to what CC took. It's akin to people redrawing Sugimori's pokemon art and posting it on their FA pages.


CC you got to get over it, because unless he was specifically using your images to make money, then there really isn't even a problem. You're practically making a shitfit over someone using your image over the thousands of better quality shots out their to practice and learn from. I'd take that as a compliment anyday if someone used my ametuer photography work like that. But hey, it just seems like, at this point, that you're just looking for somehing else to complain about. Which is okay, cause in the end, the poor mainsite staff have to deal with it again. And again. And again. And again.


----------



## TheArchiver (Jun 9, 2015)

I'm sorry CaptainCool, but honestly this is not at all a huge concern, or rather, it should not be. You reopening the closed trouble ticket over what could only be described as ego driven indigence should really be the issue handled by the moderation. If there is one thing I never wanted to nor expected to do, that would be siding with _anyone_ on mainsite staff. If you're actually expecting a different result, then you're beyond assistance at this point.

I understand the response you got from Sogarath was rude and trust me, he is 100% a top tier *ass* for it...but deal with it. This is _eight_ pages of raw pettiness due to a spat from _three_ months ago. I'm not trying to be rude, that's just the fact of the matter. 

It's not that serious.

EDIT: Further, if I may give my personal unsubstantiated _opinion_... I do believe some part of you only made this an issue in hopes that everyone would agree with you because it's common knowledge that FurAffinity's mainsite staff is disgusting and easy to call out regulalry. But in this instance their decision was fair.


----------



## Draconas (Jun 9, 2015)

I gave damning evidence!
same bird of the same species with the same pose with the same submission name with the same relative date with the same rough beak/eye/head/neck/major feathers shape size and location... but it's "not the same image"?
If this was the artclass in highschool this would've been done and over with in 5 minutes, not once were we allowed to basically trace by eyeball otherwise we got an F, and trust me the teacher was anal about trying to find the source (if any) of shit that you did.


----------



## StormyChang (Jun 9, 2015)

Draconas said:


> I gave damning evidence!
> same bird of the same species with the same pose with the same submission name with the same relative date with the same rough beak/eye/head/neck/major feathers shape size and location... but it's "not the same image"?
> If this was the artclass in highschool this would've been done and over with in 5 minutes, not once were we allowed to basically trace by eyeball otherwise we got an F, and trust me the teacher was anal about trying to find the source (if any) of shit that you did.



And I countered that evidence.  Did you look at it objectively?  Also, show me an overlay with the eyes lined up, like you're supposed to do when you assume someone is copying.


----------



## Draconas (Jun 9, 2015)

StormyChang said:


> And I countered that evidence.  Did you look at it objectively?  Also, show me an overlay with the eyes lined up, like you're supposed to do when you assume someone is copying.



If you want another overlay to your specifications, your better off doing that yourself


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Jun 9, 2015)

Just let it go CC

If anything you have taught us a lot about Plagiarism so it isn't a complete loss.


----------



## StormyChang (Jun 10, 2015)

Draconas said:


> If you want another overlay to your specifications, your better off doing that yourself



I'm not just throwing out an arbitrary spec.  Any time an overlay is in play you use a defining feature like eyes, or maybe a sun if it's a landscape and line those up between the original and the copy.  That's how it always works.  Otherwise just lining it up with some random head shape lines and you're manipulating evidence to fit your conclusion.  So quick to just slap an overlay together to make a point, so resistant to making a correct overlay.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 10, 2015)

TheArchiver said:


> I'm sorry CaptainCool, but honestly this is not at all a huge concern, or rather, it should not be. You reopening the closed trouble ticket over what could only be described as ego driven indigence should really be the issue handled by the moderation. If there is one thing I never wanted to nor expected to do, that would be siding with _anyone_ on mainsite staff. If you're actually expecting a different result, then you're beyond assistance at this point.
> 
> I understand the response you got from Sogarath was rude and trust me, he is 100% a top tier *ass* for it...but deal with it. This is _eight_ pages of raw pettiness due to a spat from _three_ months ago. I'm not trying to be rude, that's just the fact of the matter.
> 
> ...



At this point my only issue here is that I think that photography isn't being treated in a fair way on FA. Yes, there are similar shots on the web. Yes, I am not the best. I. Know. That. You have driven that point home quite nicely...
But the fact that there are similar images doesn't change that he took my image. It also doesn't diminish the fact that all images on FA should have the same protection by the staff and AUP.
Also, the idea that I should feel flattered that someone copied my work so closelywithout asking just because I'm an amateur disturbs me. Dint get me wrong, I do feel beyond flattered if an artist wants to use my images and I gladly allow it! I just want them to ask first! 
Every other artist on FA would have their work protected in FA. But I shouldn't just because it's a "generic photo"? Even though I did point out that the images aren't just similar?  I'm sorry but I can't accept that. I feel like I'm being treated in an unfair manner. 

And about me wanting attention... The only reason I made this thread is because it takes bloody ages to get a direct reply on FA... I just wanted this to be passed on to a mod so things get done quicker.


----------



## Anarcho-Loser (Jun 10, 2015)

CaptainCool said:


> I just want them to ask first!
> Every other artist on FA would have their work protected in FA.



The only people who consistently get images removed for this are "popufur" people. And even they shouldnt, not for something like this. It only happens because they get special treatment due to their position in the subculture. There are reasons people who bring this up use "Zaush" or "Blotch" as examples and not "Knotlicker123"



> Even though I did point out that the images aren't just similar?  I'm sorry but I can't accept that.



You should. Because they are.



> And about me wanting attention... The only reason I made this thread is because it takes bloody ages to get a direct reply on FA... I just wanted this to be passed on to a mod so things get done quicker.



Main site admins don't use the forums. If you wanted a mod to pass it along, you could have direct messaged one.


----------



## Draconas (Jun 10, 2015)

StormyChang said:


> I'm not just throwing out an arbitrary spec.  *Any time an overlay is in play you use a defining feature like eyes*, or maybe a sun if it's a landscape and blah blah blah blah


I lined up the head, apparently that was glossed over


----------



## StormyChang (Jun 10, 2015)

Draconas said:


> I lined up the head, apparently that was glossed over



The head is not a defining, measurable feature in an overlay.  As we can clearly see, the head in the drawn image is larger than in the actual photograph by ratio (even when they're put to scale). Eyes are always a defining feature that can be measured accurately in these situations.  If something is a copy, eyes will be the same distance apart or at the same measurement ratio with other features as the original.  Plain and simple, yea, the artist admitted to using this photo as a ref.  But the feathers don't all line up, they are larger in size in some places, the neck and beak are different as well.  It is a similar piece, because it was referenced.  It is not similar enough to be called a copy.  FA admins gave their ruling on it already.  Stop.

@CC  you complaining that art would get taken down if it was a copy of another art piece, and the admins are ignoring you because your's a photograph is false.  I posted earlier (I'm sure you ignored it because I was posting about how the two pieces aren't so similar) that I found out someone copied off of an art piece of mine for a commission they did.  But, because it's not an exact trace, I can't do anything about it.  And another thing, this site started out for mostly drawing artists, so sorry if photographs seem like second-class.


----------



## Croconaw (Jun 10, 2015)

Draconas said:


> I lined up the head, apparently that was glossed over



You should drop his, because its been proven (even with your own overlay) that while similar (No shit, they're TRYING to recreate the piece perfectly), there are quite a few variations.

I'd ask if you ever drew from ref, but yeah...




I think this thread has seen its use through to the end a thousand times over. I'm rather curious why it hasn't been locked yet since the issue has been resolved, but then again, people like to yell in these threads, so yeah.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 10, 2015)

At the moment I'm just baffled how we went from "you are right because US law doesn't allow this" to "just let it go, you raving spaz"


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jun 10, 2015)

CaptainCool said:


> At the moment I'm just baffled how we went from "you are right because US law doesn't allow this" to "just let it go, you raving spaz"



I think it was the pokemon/fnaf/fanart thing that was your undoing.


----------



## GemWolf (Jun 10, 2015)

CaptainCool said:


> At the moment I'm just baffled how we went from "you are right because US law doesn't allow this" to "just let it go, you raving spaz"



I can give you several reasons why this may have happened:

1.) FA already gave you their answer. 
2.) You opened a new ticket, harassing FA staff. FA have more urgent matters to deal with, and your silly little drama is delaying others from getting assistance.
3.) You keep acting like photography is under some sort of attack, but its not!
4.) This thread is still going and going and goooooooing...
5.) You are having a tantrum like a toddler, doing everything except stomping your feet.

Everyone is over it.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Jun 10, 2015)

This thread has been closed to the issue have already been resolved by the originally opened and closed trouble-tickets on the main-site.


----------

