[Shadow-X-]

Ok, here's my little question. I know plagerism is a really really bad thing, and I understand all that no-no stuff. I am in an arts class, and we have a sketch that is due once a week, on a certain topic, one that is taken from a sheet the teacher gives us. So everyone hands in a sketch with the same topic, but with different pictures of course. I, am not very creative. I am japanese, so people think I am all mighty with the anime. But the truth is, I suck at art, but I try. When I do come up with my own ideas, I can never draw them. Last week, our sketch was "Buskers". What I did was I was leafing through a PC Gamer, and saw an ad for ShadowMan , and Ad of a topless, built man holding a skull towards the reader. What i basically did was took the idea, and sketched off it. I guess its copying, and I did it. I handed it in. I know there are no 'BUT's for excuses, cause what I did was what I did, and it's been on my mind ever since. I did not copy everything, there were some additions and subtractions from the picture when I drew it, and my teacher gave me a perfect mark, except for the late marks taken off. It wasnt my idea, and I have no clue what I can do about it.... Any ideas, comments, suggestions welcome. Thanks.

[Xcal]

If you traced that pic, Shadow, that would definitely be 'shame on you'. If you just used the pic as a reference, and redrew your own version of it, changing things around, that isn't plagarism or copyright infringment, because by law, the derivative work falls under copyright infringement if it retains 66% or more likeness of the original, which is subject to many interpretations. My guess is that your version probably does not look very much like the original, because you said you suck at drawing (haha, no offense).

Still, trying to recreate other people's artwork doesn't yield a piece that you want to be too proud of. Since this was a school assignment, don't worry about it. Chalk it off as a 'waste' if you will, and try to do your own thing next time. Also, it is legally permissible to copy other people's work for purely 'academic' reasons (which assignments fall under), as long as you have NO plans on doing anything else with the art anytime later. This is called 'fair use law'. But again, the cases of 'fair use' are greatly subjectable to variable interpretations.

[Qory]

well, since we're on the subject of copyright infringement, and all that, I have a question about whether people think it's ETHICALLY correct to copy a character that someone else created, but change the mood... For example, what if I took Jack, from Dhabih's picture (named Jack) and placed him at the altar with some wierd lookin lady from somewhere else, but have the mood completely changed?
ANyways, it's unlikely that I could ever draw anything that detailed, but I'm just wondering about the whole concept of it.

Qory

[hennifer]

easy resolution: ask the artist first.

i just don't see why its such a big issue, when you have such a simple solution. if i couldn't ask the original artist, i wouldn't do it. it's usually better to err on the side of caution.

of course all this applies only to serious work. if i was going to redraw sayyy.. the bum character, i wouldn't ask.

[random]

but sometimes using some others pic to training techiniques and stuff is imho ok, but when I do things like that I don't spread the pic at all.. or if I show it to someone I tell him where I have ripped off.. for copying some others stuff I say straightly NO.. but if it's just for fun or practice it's ok..
about using someone else's art as a reference it is quite ok if you really do the pic just by using it as a reference... many artist copies some else artists but usually they tells when they have used someones art as a reference..

[SaltyDog]

I have to agree alot with what's been said. There are very strict laws in place for copywrite infringement and the like. (Just try going to Kinko's to copy some pics out of a 50 year old book for a freakin' book report)
After dancing through art college and rubbing elbows with such greats as C.F.Payne, Jon Jude Palencar, etc..the biggest thing I learned from these fellows was this. If you can't draw it out of your head, Get reference. And the only truly acceptable way is to take the shots yourself. Now this might be time-consuming and strenous, but in the really, real world, that's how it goes.

It teaches you how to approach things from an utterly unique perspective. Granted, there are artists out there who inspire us all. Using their techniques is the best way to pay homage. Jacking their characters isn't. I agree with Hennifer..ask the artist if you're dying to do a character created by someone else. Although all artists grow by practicing (I used to doodle Jim Lee's X-Men back in the day) there comes a time when you need to become inventive and totally embrace your own ability. There's nothing quite like saying to someone. "I just pulled that out of my head."

[RudeIota]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadow-X-:
Ok, here's my little question. I know plagerism is a really really bad thing, and I understand all that no-no stuff. I am in an arts class, and we have a sketch that is due once a week, on a certain topic, one that is taken from a sheet the teacher gives us. So everyone hands in a sketch with the same topic, but with different pictures of course. I, am not very creative. I am japanese, so people think I am all mighty with the anime. But the truth is, I suck at art, but I try. When I do come up with my own ideas, I can never draw them. Last week, our sketch was "Buskers". What I did was I was leafing through a PC Gamer, and saw an ad for ShadowMan , and Ad of a topless, built man holding a skull towards the reader. What i basically did was took the idea, and sketched off it. I guess its copying, and I did it. I handed it in. I know there are no 'BUT's for excuses, cause what I did was what I did, and it's been on my mind ever since. I did not copy everything, there were some additions and subtractions from the picture when I drew it, and my teacher gave me a perfect mark, except for the late marks taken off. It wasnt my idea, and I have no clue what I can do about it.... Any ideas, comments, suggestions welcome. Thanks.

---

All art is derivative. What you've done is nothing unusual, and was the right thing to do. If this is what you need to do in order to grow your creativity, then so be it. I'm interested in what changes you made to the drawing, what special unique features you added. If all you did was to sketch an exactly replica, then this serves the purpose of an art class, because such skills are to be developed in an art class.

Take consolation in the fact that there are almost no original ideas. Art = copying. Without copying, there can be no art.

[synj]

rudeiota,

that last statement is the biggest hunk of kaka someone's tried to get me to snort up my nose in a very long time.

-synj www.synj.net

(my words were kinda bad so i had edit it and make it smilier).


[This message has been edited by synj (edited May 17, 2000).]

[Nex]

I agree with synj here.

Thats a bag full of Orangeyfat-crap to me.

Art is innovation not copying.

[This message has been edited by Nex (edited May 17, 2000).]

[Nocturnal]

Art = Copying??? WTF???!!!!

I agree with Synj. That post was a waste of time reading. I think i killed brain cells reading it.

-Noc

[genesequence]

By now, most of you know that I am a skilled biotechnologist, but I also have a degree in Philosophy. Rudeiota is wrong for the following reason:

While it may be that subject matter is derived from reality (even abstract concepts like "love" and "war" have basis in experience), the language of art is created everyday by each new instance of art. I can draw a woman made of fire, and although I can be fairly certain that someone else has already done it, mine is unique. It is unique because I am the one who did it, and every penstroke, every nuance, every thought that I have as I make it makes it unique.

Another person on the board was mentioning Baudrillard, and I can quote Marshall McLuhan (since I'm Canadian), that the medium is the message. If I am a rapper, and I steal a sample from the Police or Queen to make a "new" song, I'm still making something different that incorporates the old work but makes it new through a process of synthesis. If I am Marcel Duchamp, and I put a urinal in a museum and call it art, I can get away with it because the process of me puttng said urinal in the museum is novel (was novel). If I am a CG illustrator/animator/artist, and I "borrow" a sketch from someone else and tell everyone that it's all mine, then I'm a liar. THAT's where the ethics come in. If I give credit where credit is due, and no one is upset, then I am paying hommage or at worst, taking a shortcut to creation.

Umm, is anyone still there? Wordy, I know, but I wanted to show that I really do have a BA in Philosophy. :P

-genesequence (BA 1991, BSc 2000)

PS. If anyone out there thinks that I am trying to :show off" my academic credentials, I apologize. I guess my self-deprication is less obvious to read than to hear me speak. After all, can anyone imagine two less practical, less complementary degrees than a degree in Philosophy and biochemistry? I must have been on crack.

[This message has been edited by genesequence (edited May 17, 2000).]

[Tinusch]

What the hell kind of first post was that? Forget about making a good impression...

[Francis]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by genesequence:
After all, can anyone imagine two less practical, less complementary degrees than a degree in Philosophy and biochemistry? I must have been on crack.

How about physical chemistry and architecture? I wasn't on crack, but it sure musta tasted like it.

------------------
TeamGT Studios

[genesequence]

Francis: What are you talking about?! How pH affects stability of metals and composite materials (concrete, stucco, etc.) with salt accumulation, rainfall, etc. That makes total sense! Unless I want to make the lecture circuit as a bioethicist, I am screwed! Better to become a graphic designer! My original destiny!

-gene (can't handle alcohol-hitting on sexy waitresses at nearby bar to the chagrin of unaware wife) sequence

[RudeIota]

art1 (�rt)
n.

1.Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2.
a.The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or
other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the
production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
b.The study of these activities.
c.The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
3.High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
4.A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.

art�ist (�rtst)
n. Abbr. art.

1.One, such as a painter or sculptor, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent to
create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.
2.A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill: You are an artist in the
kitchen.
3.One, such as an actor or a singer, especially one who works in the performing arts.
4.One who is adept at an activity, especially one involving trickery or deceit: a con artist

>> While it may be that subject matter is
>> derived from reality (even
>> abstract concepts like "love" and "war"
>> have basis in experience), the
>> language of art is created everyday by
>> each new instance of art.

Language is a means of communication. The language of art appears to be an incomprehensible dialect, a babble. Since art is in the eye of the beholder, and few beholders agree on what is pleasing or beautiful or ugly, then the language breaks down and often fails to communicate. Is this a really a language? Why does Rudolph Guliani fail to the see the exquisite beauty of the virgin Mary covered in Elephant poo poo? Is there anyone who can translate the language so that others may understand it?

>> I can draw a woman made of fire, and
>> although I can be fairly certain

Have you plagerized fire and woman?

>> that someone else has already done it,
>> mine is unique.

Are you saying that art must be unique? The great classical styles exist because artisans subjegated the desire for novelty in favor of "copying" the forms of the master, in some cases simply transcribing a previous work as closely as possible. The Japanese and Arabic styles for example,



...by today's standards are created by virtual rote copying of previous works in order to maintain the style. Such rejection of novelty appears to be the form that art held, as a matter of cultural integrity, until fairly recently (the last hundred years or so).

>> It is unique because I am the one who did
>> it, and every penstroke, every

For most of known human history, at appears that "uniqueness" is not synonymous with art. In fact, it appears that uniqueness is diametrically opposed to what the ancient world considered "art". Interesting is it not, that artisans existed to perfect society's cultural identity by copying previous forms as closely as possible, and to do otherwise would invite derision and ostricism? To introduce elements of change or uniqueness would have been jarring and socially unacceptable.

>> nuance, every thought that I have as I
>> make it makes it unique.

If uniqueness defines the quality of being art, then are you saying that the repetitive, virtually monotonous patterns of the classical forms are not art? Also, how sure are you that your works of art are truly unique? By what standard do you measure uniqueness?

>>If I am a rapper, and I steal a sample from the Police or
>>Queen to make a "new" song, I'm still
>> making something different that
>>incorporates the old work but makes
>>it new through a process of synthesis.

As long as it is 60% different, a ratio derived by the government and enforced by edict. Artistic quality determined by an arbitrary ratio by a politburo or reichstag?

Again, in the ancient world, a new work of art was determined by someone's hands chiseling or painting the proper forms on a different piece of rock or clay, not by whether such execution involved a process of synthesis. Other than commercial capitalist interests, why is this view no longer valid? Do classical forms cease to be art now?

>>If I am Marcel Duchamp, and I put a urinal
>> in a museum and call it art, I can get
>>away with it because the process of me
>>puttng said urinal in the museum is novel
>> (was novel).

Once again, we see a conformity to the modern view that what is art is determined by novelty. In the case of Duchamp's urinal, we see art being determined solely by novelty. Explain how this would be different from me photocopying the characters of Disney Corporation and plastering all over my wall, then charging admission. I'm certain to be sued by Disney Corp. Perhaps I could "get away" with it if I were part of the accepted elite art aristocracy? And who is to say?

>> If I am a CG...artist, and I "borrow" a
>> sketch from someone else and tell
>> everyone that it's all mine, then I'm a liar.

But would you also then be an artist? Did Duchamp sculpt the clay of the urinal? Did he personally glaze the porcelain? Was the size, shape, and color of the urinal unique and arrived at through a process of synthesis? Perhaps if we "borrow" someone's sketch and then present it in a unique or novel way, such as walking on our hands with the sketch taped to our buttocks, we can pass it off as "our" piece of art.

You've already told me that Duchamp's urinal display is art because of the way it was presented. Is Duchamp a liar? Is he both liar AND artist? As in: 4.One who is adept at an activity, especially one involving trickery or deceit: a con artist

I can think of a few more examples of the elite art aristocracy who perpetrated what amounts to fraud. Kasabe and even Salvador Dali come to mind. How do moral ineptitudes alter what is and what is not art? Why is there one set of rules for certain artists that don't apply to all other artists?

>>THAT's where the ethics come in. If I give
>>credit where credit is due, and no one is

How does giving or taking credit define what is and what is not art? Forgive me, but the above sounds like a statement from a class on property law. Is illegal art still art? Or does it cease to be art when it ceases to be legal in society's eyes?

>>upset, then I am paying hommage or at
>>worst, taking a shortcut to creation.

Now the conversation is shifting back to rules and laws and commerical interests rather than art. In no way does the citation of statutes, regulations, and ethics negate the validity of my assertion that all art is derivative. Art = copying. In one form or another, to one extent or another. In fact, we can expand this beyond art to the area of technology - I am hard pressed to think of any technology or product that mankind truly "invented". And each time I come up with an example, I find the analogue of said device somewhere in the the natural world or in physics.

I will be happy to go into more detail about the ethics and legal strictures which currently have "art" wrapped in a straight jacket, but I guarantee these views will not be welcomed. In the ancient world, to express uniqueness in public art might have invited ridicule, censorship, and stigmatization. The modern world is no different, except that lack of novelty is today's unforgivable crime. Those who hold an opposing viewpoint against today's orthodox art religion are dangerous and cannot be tolerated, as to most artist's minds an opposing view simply cannot exist.

I'm sure I will be banned from this conference in short order. I'm already preparing for my eventual crucifixion as an art heretic (I see some of you sharpening your rusty nails). Thank you for the detailed reply, I found it very stimulating.


------------------
��� R��ȷ���� ���

[This message has been edited by RudeIota (edited May 18, 2000).]

[Muzman]

Stretching the postmoderism a little hard aren't we? Strings of rhetorical questions don't constitute an argument (even though I do it all the time).
Anyway, it seems like you two are merely butting heads over the terms of your ultimate agreement. The old "individuality as creativity" problem. And folk end up dancing around the question of where style begins and ends. It usually takes the form of a cringe worthy mish-mash of ethics, postmodernism and the semiotics of art with each side trying to direct the terms of the debate. It amounts to intersecting monologues. (some say that's all there ever is, but when they do I use their own argument as an excuse for ignoring them).

I believe that if you can get away with it, it is art. Just how and what you get away with is where you find what kind of art it is. I have no intention of being more definitive than that.

[Nex]

Your "by the dictionary" art definition does not speak for you.. I don't see:

artist (�rtist)
1) copying another artists work.

there.

About you comment to genesequence:
>>"Have you plagerized fire and woman?"

I guess this is a bit different than copying from others isnt it? Nature after all is not copyrighted.

Would you say:
a) Art develops through the reproduction of all that has been here before.

b) Art develops through the discovery of new perspectives, viewpoints and approaches?

>>"For most of known human history, at appears that "uniqueness" is not synonymous with art. In fact, it appears that uniqueness is diametrically opposed to what the ancient world considered "art". "

We live in the year 2000. Not in ancient egypt, greece or rome. Times change and so do beliefs and definitions.

>>"As long as it is 60% different, a ratio derived by the government and enforced by edict. Artistic quality determined by an arbitrary ratio by a politburo or reichstag?"

Its not the evil nazi-artist censurers that only allow 2/3 similarity but the attempt to protect creative artists and their works from being copied stroke by stroke.

>>"Did Duchamp sculpt the clay of the urinal?"

Did the great artists make their own pencils?

>>4.One who is adept at an activity, especially one involving trickery or deceit: a con artist

Would you say con artists are the artists we are talking about here?

>>"I am hard pressed to think of any technology or product that mankind truly "invented". "

.) Microprocessor
.) fuel engine
.) electric lamp
.) plastic (I mean Polypropylen, Polymethylemetaacrelate and this kind of stuff with plastic)
.) The artificial chemical elements: ..., UUq, UUh, UUo, ... (dont exist in nature naturally)
.) drilling machines
.) electron tubes
...

>>"Art = copying"

Why would you say are the artists with a unique style and approach always those who get copied the most? Because what they did is ART and not Copying?

You are always referring to the anicent world of art. This time is over. Long gone.
You may have your own definition of art and stand outside the rest of the community with a kind of "I am the only true wiseman" feeling but fact is that:

Art involves creativity. Copying does not involve creativity thus it cannot be art.

Creativity could be changin the point of view, giving an expression/ impression, catching an emotion, and so on.



------------------
- Nex

http://www.geocities.com/nexxus00/

[Muzman]

You're illustrating his/her point Nex.
We are none of us perfect ideals, pure originals in thought and action. We are nurtured into the world, born of genes and culture, reacting to what is around us, to things not of our making. Given fickle fame and tastes and limited experience how can we be sure that any observation, any idea, any act has not been done before or we are not acting under unconcious influence of the world around us?
Cannot one copy in a creative way? blah blah...
and so we decend into epistemology and the semantics of creativity.
I'll illustrate some more;
making a picture is not a creative act, or at least not an original one. So when does it start being creative? content? materials? skill? the person doing it? all of the above?
Where does the artists influence start and the context of the act end?
tricky huh.
And if anyone answered "all of the above" for the previous question; what does copying a picture deny the original artist? Income? Respect? Why? it's still there's isn't it? They own the initial/original work still don't they? even if no one knows it. It's not as if copying a picture can usurp the original artist's existence. Or can it?
(what was I saying about strings of questions? haha)
I'll depart (because I think this is all so moot it really isn't terribly important) with this conundrum to everyone: Someone posts a crappy picture which you hate, but is a perfectly original work to you; you've never seen anything like it before, but it does nothing for you. You've never heard of the person and you never hear of them again. The image sinks without a trace.
Some months later another person puts it up again for response, claiming it is their own. They made some slight alterations but to you it is essentially the same.
But because the orginal was such a flop no one notices except you. This time it gets the same response, no one seems to care and it vanishes.
What do you do?
It's still technically plagiarism to you. But this isn't Dhabih or Scoop; someone you don't know or care about did a work of no consequence, then it was copied for some strange reason. Although you think this act was ethically wrong, you still don't like the picture and the plagiarist gained nothing from it at all.
Would you bother to do anything? honestly?
Do you think it's likely to cause a big stink?

[Nex]

I don't understand your point Muzman..

[genesequence]

I owe Rudeiota an apology. RI: I said that you were "wrong" for reasons that I then attempted to explain, when I should have said "disagreeing".

I feel that my statements may have been misinterpreted, but I am sure that they were not misunderstood. You obviously have thought about these ideas a lot, and it seems clear that the concensus view will not affect yours. And there is no reason that it should. I am the last person to be a proponent of validity by ascent.

That all having been said, the good thing about PoMo Art Theory is that we can both have our different world/artviews and coexist. You can believe that art should be defined by dictionary-writers and common vernacular, and I can believe that art is an elusive, organic and ephemeral concept. One point that I find inescapable though is this: while ancient societies may have been more conformist than our PoMo world, someone at sometime in the ancient world must have done something novel and creative to have exhausted all those novel ideas by the time we were born. (Hmm. That wasn't very clear.) If there's nothing new under the sun, then who did it all first? And more importantly, would it have been better that he didn't? Certainly not. If Plato had never written Republic, if DaVinci had not painted the Mona Lisa, if Shakespeare (or Bacon, whoever) had never plagiarized a whole bunch of older stories, then who would have? Someone at some point must defy the preconceived boundaries of what is acceptable, if even to have it rejected, so that evolution of a society can continue.

All I'm gonna say is that ut is only by one's own decree that one can call anything "art". I expect no one else anywhere to agree with me on that point, or on what that art is. If they do, it improves my chance of communicating my concept of "art". If not, then we can agree to disagree.

-gene

(ps. Muzman: very incisive. Thank you for being more succinct than I have been.)
(pps. Nex: good points. Org Chem was a horror and how anyone ever figured that stuff out at first, I'll never fathom)