I've got some neutral life experience and questions for people more educated than I am because this is something I don't know much about at all.
I'm only a student, but I've never heard tracing being used in the same breath as referencing and I've always heard it scorned. I've watched professionals paint from photographs and I've drawn and painted from life but I've always been taught that learning form from two-dimensional images is bad because you can't get a true sense of the form the way you can when you look at a thing in real life and that to many it becomes a crutch. I remember reading this discussion on conceptart (which is mostly a website used by serious artists, art students, and professionals which is to say it is very much out of my league) and taking much of the concensus of the thread to heart.
I also know that there are professional fields where tracing like this is accepted in the industry so I am not really surprised either. That's why Marvel stood by their artists Greg Lands and Salvador Larroca even when people were hounding them to fire both men for tracing and many readers were boycotting their art.
Like Nirvana said, this is the first community I've ever seen backing it up--but I'm not a professional artist and if I had an opinion (I don't, I'm in this because I'm curious about legal implications) it wouldn't be an educated one.
I do have questions in general though for people who are more educated in art and plagiarism/law than me.
-Photography is an art, so why is tracing a photograph different from tracing a drawing or painting? Does a photographer not have as much claim to his photograph of his cat than someone who drew a cat in charcoal? Are there different levels of moral acceptability if someone traced over either the photograph or the drawing without the photographer/drawer's permission?
-Are there legal cases with any precedents regarding tracing? I have no idea where to begin looking for this and I'm fuzzy on where something goes from being fair use to plagiarism. This is probably different in all different countries too.
I very much like AlisonRobin's above comment and its questions, and it expressed a lot of my thoughts on this issue as well.
Gonna keep an eye on the responses as I am also curious.
And also, thanks for the link to that forum post, Allison. I think it is very useful, and a great way to see more views on this topic.
Also have to kinda have to agree with 3's comment, bellow. I know I said I did not wanna express too much of my opinion on this topic but I think 3 deserves an amen, personally. I like their points given, especially the point about there being a difference between referencing and tracing, and the obviousness of tracing also.
Personally, I do reference from photos and sometimes I also trace from photos as well, but when I do trace I normally at least give credit to the original photo, as I understand that you cannot really copyright a pose, but to me it is at least right and respectful to the photographer to give them recognition for what made the pose of what you are drawing, possible. But again, that is just me.
For the most part, the greatest downside of tracing is growing dependent on it and therefore losing and/or having trouble with the ability to draw free-hand, which can become an issue if you want to improve as an artist.
I've been hesitant about replying to this, but I am an artist, and this is something that every artist sees at least once in their life.
So, ah..
For as long as I can remember, tracing (ESPECIALLY for the final product) of any kind has been frowned upon in any community I've been involved in. Tracing artwork, tracing photos.
Referencing is not tracing. Tracing is tracing. Referencing is collecting one or several photos of the subjects and having them nearby or on hand to eye while drawing. Referencing is watching the subject in-life and drawing from what you see. Tracing is not referencing.
To me, the photos above are very obviously traced, regardless of what anyone else says-- that is what I see. One or two misplaced bumps do not change that.
I'm kinda really surprised to see so many people praise and support this kind of forgery, but I do not think negatively of anyone here for it. I'm just a little ashamed that it's seen as OK?
Googling it gets you a lot of opinions. And discussions! Which is good to form your own opinion, but the facts are a little more vague. I will admit I'm not going to be looking into it in-dept right now, what I've said before is pretty much what I was taught at my animation education (that rolls off the tongue so nicely) But doesn't neccessarily have to be factual either. It's a case-by-case thing too. But let's see what I can find.
However, since this case, courts have begun to emphasize the first fair use factor—assessing whether the alleged infringement has transformative use as described by the Hon. Judge Pierre N. Leval.[9] More recently, Koons was involved in a similar case with commercial photographer Andrea Blanch,[10] regarding his use of her photograph for a painting, whereby he appropriated a central portion of an advertisement she had been commissioned to shoot for a magazine. In this case, Koons won; the case sets a favorable precedent for appropriation art where the use is deemed transformative.
Transformative is the key word here. Not the original work anymore, something else, something the artist 'made their own' so to speak.
This guy made me smile but he adresses maybe something a little different than what people here want to hear. He's using his own art mainly, but does adress some good points.
I like this because it adresses a similair issue but in the faaar past. Like when it was an issue artists 'traced' by painting over a glass plane in an environment. Back then they tried to hide it because it was frowned upon, whilst right now I think that's pretty dang amazing. They used all sorts of tools back in the days to try and trace reality. In a way you could see new developments in the same light. Right now it's frowned upon, but it's a tool all the same. It's definitly better though to use your own photos. That can be hard if you don't live in a place with the animals you are looking for. Stock photos are definitly there for a reason, if you're about to heavily reference one photo specifically, always make sure you're not picking them willy-nilly off the internet.
Oh, also, what plays a big part is money. If you're using commercial work for anything, legal actions can absolutely be taken. Editing a photo and selling it is no good either. I think as soon as making money comes into the picture it becomes a different story.
i've worked with media and i'm faaaairly certain a pose from a deer that a photographer has captured can't be copyrighted. as long as there are no other traces of the photo i think you're fine to use it, the photo might be copyright in terms of composition and such, but animals belong to mother nature
don't take this as fact though, i haven't double checked or anything but we had a discussion about this once with a photographer and a journalist when talking about copyright laws
Where fair use is concerned then it seems like the transformative element would have to be decided in court? Maybe I should take more civil law classes. I wonder how judges feel about this sort of thing. I also wonder whether there are appropriate metaphors that could be used cross-media.
3 also said things more like what I expected to hear. Places where I go for anatomy help (I mostly paint nudes right now so I really need correcting a lot of times because I'm a turd) would figuratively lynch someone they caught tracing. But, TEFc is also much more laid back in general and I kind of thought that it had been previously established here that tracing wasn't a thing people got upset about, since if you read enough biographies here and google deer species you notice a lot of similarities.
But yeah, since money isn't trading hands it can't be that big of a deal in the end--the ultimate downside of tracing is just cheating oneself out of practice drawing freehanded.
I'm also curious what the community opinion is on sharing info on references and traced stuff. It seems to me that it would be appropriate to list references and inspirations with the completed product if followed even remotely closely, just like how you would turn in a research paper with several pages of annotated bibliography. Personally I really like to talk about inspiration and ideas with artists.
Nobody answered the question of AlisonRobin. Why?
I think if you ask yourself the questions that she asked, will begin a good logical chain.
Is photography Art? Undoubtedly.
If this is art, it has is the author? Sure.
The author has the right to his work? Sure.
He has the right to prohibit the use of his work? Of course.
If the photo is posted on the Internet, does it mean that the author has given permission to use it for some purpose? I think there is no single answer. And you do not know until you ask permission. Is not it? To use someone else's work in order to then distribute freely on the Internet, you need to ask permission. No?
I do not think that taking someone else's thing and use without permission is good. Even for educational purposes. As far as I know, for tuition paid in most countries. No?
I heard an interesting opinion that pose for photos authorship of mother nature. All right.
Then I can take a picture/art. Remove from there pose "for educational purposes", add creative attributes and ... be pleased with myself. And if the author of the work says that the pose is copied from his work, I will tell him that the deer he did not invent? Thus? Or what? And that deer pose also does not he invented? To be completely absurd. That is not the picture itself invented by mother nature? A man her child. So, under this pretext I can copy anything at all? It's great, "it's not you, it's generally thought up nature."
I do not understand. We must respect each author. Whether it's photography, drawing, music, or anything else. It is the work. As artists you need to understand that the author puts into his work soul.
I think if you use a photo, how do you explain, "for learning", you can specify something like "This work is based on this photo here. I learn to draw deer. Made improvement with a bonus track" or anything else.
I do not think the authors who see the work which is based on their work, will be delighted. Especially if they were not informed about it. Just imagine yourself in this place. Your drawing redone, "taken as a basis," your emotions? I think these emotions will begin with "what the fucking hell ...."
Dridro, I think I agree with you on pretty much everything. I bet that a lot of photographers wouldn't mind being helpful sharing art with people who ask. I know I would if I took good photos. But my feelings would be hurt for sure if someone used them without asking and without giving credit. Can't speak for everyone though.
Giving credit is also good in my opinion. I cannot think of any time when it would be bad in any way to cite references.
And thanks Mjrn! It seems to me from these examples that the law/courts very heavily favor the originator of the work. Then with the Vanilla Ice case you can see he was quite sure he'd lose the suit if it went to court so he finally gave credit.
Pay particular attention, please, to 11 minutes through 30 minutes (skip around that area if you don't want to sit for 20 minutes - for those of you who aren't inclined to even that, I'm actually drawing with a reference and occasionally resizing my sketch to put over the reference so that I can see my problem areas).
Can we accept for like two seconds that the world is not always black and white?
It was said earlier:
CagedMoon wrote:
Artists do life drawings by relentlessly studying and subsequently learning the forms of what they wish to draw, not copying them. They have their reference before them, but they use their knowledge to convey it.
Is it not possible that when the form is studied long enough that, in combination with a reference, a very good copy may be made?
Yeah, I'll admit, there are some areas that overlap suspiciously.
There are also some glaring anatomical errors if you get out the original image and can see it without the color of the drawing overlaying it.
tdlr; I can't prove things either way, but if anything I think there's room for benefit of doubt.
Edit: Aaand to avoid a little bit of drama, a quote from the last page.
Aivilo wrote:
I believe a majority of the posts are actually stating tracing over an image to help with your referencing is okay, NOT that tracing an image and then using the exactly traced outline for the rest of the piece is
Also as said before, I may trace over a photo as a 'warmup' and to outline the shapes so I can see them when I draw, and I may resize my sketch and overlay it on the photo so that I can see my problem areas. However, I do not believe in tracing the photo and using that outline as part of the piece.
In the case of most of the TEF communities artwork, I would indeed call it transformative. Some of my references (and remember, I am unable to trace due to my medium) can be so close to the photo you can line them up, but they certainly are not reproductions of the photo. When you get into fantasy and the like, theres no bones about it, and I expect a court would agree. What most artists here are tracing or heavily referencing is -=poses=-. And although there is one case where a pose was copyrighted, it was heavily refuted, and that subject matter could NOT be photographed.
I like these it kinda makes me think that a photographer caught a glimps of the character in the real work esp the second one. Its a good idea to map the patterns on a real deer to see how they fit in with the anatomy, then when you build them you know that it will work and fit.
PS no one need to get dramatic, passes cookies round. I dont care if the outlines traced or what ever, at the end of the day outstanding work has been made and helped inspire others. I use a light box now and then to map shadows. otherwise why would we have light boxes and tracing paper?
see this below
I used a light box on the nose and the eye lids. I drew the rest freehand, but still.... I used a light box!!!! to see through the images. when you mapping and learning does it truly matter?
After a long time, I make time for TEF (well, at least in community's new...) , going through folders, and suddenly I see this... O..o
In the first moment of need say - I do not see anything wrong. Is there anything it could pluck veins...
I'm not a super -art- expert, or even a lawyer, but the use of templates, or - as they say - references, there is nothing in terms of bad, really bad for this would be if they were photo copied and published purely for their own - which - of course -, is not these cases... heh .
I find it rather as an attempt to offend and humiliate. Stalking and accusation of dirt on the other is what really disgusts behavior of the person who shared this.
No one should be blamed for taking his inspiration found elsewhere, and that the final part used reference. Rather, I would think twice about whether it is a good idea to something unnecessarily shared there, and pointing the finger at someone.
The use of references is good for learn something more about the drawing...
fooooood
oh my god these cat photos xD
(No subject)
Image © Alhnna
(No subject)
(No subject)
Image © Alhnna
Not the food bowl D: !!!
I've got some neutral life
I'm only a student, but I've never heard tracing being used in the same breath as referencing and I've always heard it scorned. I've watched professionals paint from photographs and I've drawn and painted from life but I've always been taught that learning form from two-dimensional images is bad because you can't get a true sense of the form the way you can when you look at a thing in real life and that to many it becomes a crutch. I remember reading this discussion on conceptart (which is mostly a website used by serious artists, art students, and professionals which is to say it is very much out of my league) and taking much of the concensus of the thread to heart.
I also know that there are professional fields where tracing like this is accepted in the industry so I am not really surprised either. That's why Marvel stood by their artists Greg Lands and Salvador Larroca even when people were hounding them to fire both men for tracing and many readers were boycotting their art.
Like Nirvana said, this is the first community I've ever seen backing it up--but I'm not a professional artist and if I had an opinion (I don't, I'm in this because I'm curious about legal implications) it wouldn't be an educated one.
I do have questions in general though for people who are more educated in art and plagiarism/law than me.
-Photography is an art, so why is tracing a photograph different from tracing a drawing or painting? Does a photographer not have as much claim to his photograph of his cat than someone who drew a cat in charcoal? Are there different levels of moral acceptability if someone traced over either the photograph or the drawing without the photographer/drawer's permission?
-Are there legal cases with any precedents regarding tracing? I have no idea where to begin looking for this and I'm fuzzy on where something goes from being fair use to plagiarism. This is probably different in all different countries too.
I very much like
Gonna keep an eye on the responses as I am also curious.
And also, thanks for the link to that forum post, Allison. I think it is very useful, and a great way to see more views on this topic.
Also have to kinda have to agree with 3's comment, bellow. I know I said I did not wanna express too much of my opinion on this topic but I think 3 deserves an amen, personally. I like their points given, especially the point about there being a difference between referencing and tracing, and the obviousness of tracing also.
Personally, I do reference from photos and sometimes I also trace from photos as well, but when I do trace I normally at least give credit to the original photo, as I understand that you cannot really copyright a pose, but to me it is at least right and respectful to the photographer to give them recognition for what made the pose of what you are drawing, possible. But again, that is just me.
For the most part, the greatest downside of tracing is growing dependent on it and therefore losing and/or having trouble with the ability to draw free-hand, which can become an issue if you want to improve as an artist.
I've been hesitant about
So, ah..
For as long as I can remember, tracing (ESPECIALLY for the final product) of any kind has been frowned upon in any community I've been involved in. Tracing artwork, tracing photos.
Referencing is not tracing. Tracing is tracing. Referencing is collecting one or several photos of the subjects and having them nearby or on hand to eye while drawing. Referencing is watching the subject in-life and drawing from what you see. Tracing is not referencing.
To me, the photos above are very obviously traced, regardless of what anyone else says-- that is what I see. One or two misplaced bumps do not change that.
I'm kinda really surprised to see so many people praise and support this kind of forgery, but I do not think negatively of anyone here for it. I'm just a little ashamed that it's seen as OK?
III
Links & Info
Googling it gets you a lot of
I think this guy has some interesting points, possibly both in favour and against
The fair-use act. I think this part is interesting:
However, since this case, courts have begun to emphasize the first fair use factor—assessing whether the alleged infringement has transformative use as described by the Hon. Judge Pierre N. Leval.[9] More recently, Koons was involved in a similar case with commercial photographer Andrea Blanch,[10] regarding his use of her photograph for a painting, whereby he appropriated a central portion of an advertisement she had been commissioned to shoot for a magazine. In this case, Koons won; the case sets a favorable precedent for appropriation art where the use is deemed transformative.
Transformative is the key word here. Not the original work anymore, something else, something the artist 'made their own' so to speak.
This guy made me smile but he adresses maybe something a little different than what people here want to hear. He's using his own art mainly, but does adress some good points.
I like this because it adresses a similair issue but in the faaar past. Like when it was an issue artists 'traced' by painting over a glass plane in an environment. Back then they tried to hide it because it was frowned upon, whilst right now I think that's pretty dang amazing. They used all sorts of tools back in the days to try and trace reality. In a way you could see new developments in the same light. Right now it's frowned upon, but it's a tool all the same. It's definitly better though to use your own photos. That can be hard if you don't live in a place with the animals you are looking for. Stock photos are definitly there for a reason, if you're about to heavily reference one photo specifically, always make sure you're not picking them willy-nilly off the internet.
Oh, also, what plays a big part is money. If you're using commercial work for anything, legal actions can absolutely be taken. Editing a photo and selling it is no good either. I think as soon as making money comes into the picture it becomes a different story.
i've worked with media and
don't take this as fact though, i haven't double checked or anything but we had a discussion about this once with a photographer and a journalist when talking about copyright laws
Here's the art I mentioned
Lung's reference. (Imageshack nuked the quality for some reason.)
Reference 1.
Reference 2.
f'ckin legs man
Where fair use is concerned
3 also said things more like what I expected to hear. Places where I go for anatomy help (I mostly paint nudes right now so I really need correcting a lot of times because I'm a turd) would figuratively lynch someone they caught tracing. But, TEFc is also much more laid back in general and I kind of thought that it had been previously established here that tracing wasn't a thing people got upset about, since if you read enough biographies here and google deer species you notice a lot of similarities.
But yeah, since money isn't trading hands it can't be that big of a deal in the end--the ultimate downside of tracing is just cheating oneself out of practice drawing freehanded.
I'm also curious what the community opinion is on sharing info on references and traced stuff. It seems to me that it would be appropriate to list references and inspirations with the completed product if followed even remotely closely, just like how you would turn in a research paper with several pages of annotated bibliography. Personally I really like to talk about inspiration and ideas with artists.
Nobody answered the question
I think if you ask yourself the questions that she asked, will begin a good logical chain.
Is photography Art? Undoubtedly.
If this is art, it has is the author? Sure.
The author has the right to his work? Sure.
He has the right to prohibit the use of his work? Of course.
If the photo is posted on the Internet, does it mean that the author has given permission to use it for some purpose? I think there is no single answer. And you do not know until you ask permission. Is not it? To use someone else's work in order to then distribute freely on the Internet, you need to ask permission. No?
I do not think that taking someone else's thing and use without permission is good. Even for educational purposes. As far as I know, for tuition paid in most countries. No?
I heard an interesting opinion that pose for photos authorship of mother nature. All right.
Then I can take a picture/art. Remove from there pose "for educational purposes", add creative attributes and ... be pleased with myself. And if the author of the work says that the pose is copied from his work, I will tell him that the deer he did not invent? Thus? Or what? And that deer pose also does not he invented? To be completely absurd. That is not the picture itself invented by mother nature? A man her child. So, under this pretext I can copy anything at all? It's great, "it's not you, it's generally thought up nature."
I do not understand. We must respect each author. Whether it's photography, drawing, music, or anything else. It is the work. As artists you need to understand that the author puts into his work soul.
I think if you use a photo, how do you explain, "for learning", you can specify something like "This work is based on this photo here. I learn to draw deer. Made improvement with a bonus track" or anything else.
I do not think the authors who see the work which is based on their work, will be delighted. Especially if they were not informed about it. Just imagine yourself in this place. Your drawing redone, "taken as a basis," your emotions? I think these emotions will begin with "what the fucking hell ...."
AlisonRobin, someone posted
You're a malicious, gutless
Dridro, I think I agree with
Giving credit is also good in my opinion. I cannot think of any time when it would be bad in any way to cite references.
And thanks Mjrn! It seems to me from these examples that the law/courts very heavily favor the originator of the work. Then with the Vanilla Ice case you can see he was quite sure he'd lose the suit if it went to court so he finally gave credit.
Aaaaand segway back to the
To those who say the tracing is obvious:
I don't trace quite as well as Sight (legs are the devil), but how about that.
Here, you can even watch me do it.
Pay particular attention, please, to 11 minutes through 30 minutes (skip around that area if you don't want to sit for 20 minutes - for those of you who aren't inclined to even that, I'm actually drawing with a reference and occasionally resizing my sketch to put over the reference so that I can see my problem areas).
Can we accept for like two seconds that the world is not always black and white?
It was said earlier:
Is it not possible that when the form is studied long enough that, in combination with a reference, a very good copy may be made?
Yeah, I'll admit, there are some areas that overlap suspiciously.
There are also some glaring anatomical errors if you get out the original image and can see it without the color of the drawing overlaying it.
tdlr; I can't prove things either way, but if anything I think there's room for benefit of doubt.
Edit: Aaand to avoid a little bit of drama, a quote from the last page.
Also as said before, I may trace over a photo as a 'warmup' and to outline the shapes so I can see them when I draw, and I may resize my sketch and overlay it on the photo so that I can see my problem areas. However, I do not believe in tracing the photo and using that outline as part of the piece.
At least there's some
At least there's some ACTUALLY PRODUCTIVE discussion/debate of tracing going on now :B
It's really hard to PROVE someone has traced. If you have beef, find something else to use.
In the case of most of the
See: Scientific illustration of T.Rex. by Greg Paul
I like these it kinda makes
PS no one need to get dramatic, passes cookies round. I dont care if the outlines traced or what ever, at the end of the day outstanding work has been made and helped inspire others. I use a light box now and then to map shadows. otherwise why would we have light boxes and tracing paper?
see this below
I used a light box on the nose and the eye lids. I drew the rest freehand, but still.... I used a light box!!!! to see through the images. when you mapping and learning does it truly matter?
After a long time, I make
In the first moment of need say - I do not see anything wrong. Is there anything it could pluck veins...
I'm not a super -art- expert, or even a lawyer, but the use of templates, or - as they say - references, there is nothing in terms of bad, really bad for this would be if they were photo copied and published purely for their own - which - of course -, is not these cases... heh .
I find it rather as an attempt to offend and humiliate. Stalking and accusation of dirt on the other is what really disgusts behavior of the person who shared this.
No one should be blamed for taking his inspiration found elsewhere, and that the final part used reference. Rather, I would think twice about whether it is a good idea to something unnecessarily shared there, and pointing the finger at someone.
The use of references is good for learn something more about the drawing...
+ tracing is evil, guys. not
tracing is evil, guys.
not for someone in person, just saying, but learn independently.)
^Did you read the
This is super old. Why is this even back up? o.O
I don't know. just saying.)
lol how long did you spend to
oh this is old. Well. Still thinks this person deserved some popcorn for sitting down and digging through pictures for this thread