+- Hydaelyn Role-Players (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18)
+-- Forum: Resources (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Forum: Artisan House (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+--- Thread: Art Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=1554)
Re: Art Discussion - Zesiro Ghalib - 01-06-2013
Self-plagiarism
Self-plagiarism (also known as "recycling fraud"[50]) is the reuse of significant, identical, or nearly identical portions of one's own work without acknowledging that one is doing so or without citing the original work. Articles of this nature are often referred to as duplicate or multiple publication. In addition to the ethical issue, this can be illegal if copyright of the prior work has been transferred to another entity. Typically, self-plagiarism is only considered to be a serious ethical issue in settings where a publication is asserted to consist of new material, such as in academic publishing or educational assignments.[51] It does not apply (except in the legal sense) to public-interest texts, such as social, professional, and cultural opinions usually published in newspapers and magazines.
In academic fields, self-plagiarism occurs when an author reuses portions of his own published and copyrighted work in subsequent publications, but without attributing the previous publication.[52] Identifying self-plagiarism is often difficult because limited reuse of material is both legally accepted (as fair use) and ethically accepted.[53]
It is common for university researchers to rephrase and republish their own work, tailoring it for different academic journals and newspaper articles, to disseminate their work to the widest possible interested public. However, it must be borne in mind that these researchers also obey limits: If half an article is the same as a previous one, it will usually be rejected. One of the functions of the process of peer review in academic writing is to prevent this type of "recycling".
Re: Art Discussion - Ellie - 01-06-2013
I'm pretty sure this falls under fair use. Like it's been said before, he's not profiting off of it, and he's not claiming that it's all his original work. Granted, he could have stated more explicitly that it wasn't entirely his work, sure, but it wasn't like he was really trying to trick people.
Shawnzy, you're making this out to be of more consequence than it actually is. Posting more examples won't prove you right, it only confirms what we already know. Maybe you'd be better served by finding an argument for why we should care that someone is tracing art and showing people on the internet.
By the way Mtoto, I would strongly recommend that you take any works that are traced like this off DeviantArt. They only allow original works there. Don't want to see you get banned.
EDIT: Goodness this thread moves fast. I can see where Shawnzy is coming from, but I highly doubt the original artist would ever find out about Mtoto's stuff. I also agree that tracing isn't a great way to improve, and it sort of cheapens the effect of a piece for me, but I'd also rather not try to be the art police and go around telling people how to draw. You have a right to be upset, Shawnzy, but putting passive aggressive messages in your sig isn't the answer.
Re: Mtoto's Art Room - Zesiro Ghalib - 01-06-2013
Mtoto Wamoto Wrote:[img=center]http://i.imgur.com/IO8XI.jpg[/img]
That doesn't look like any tracing I've ever done.
Re: Art Discussion - Folken - 01-06-2013
Ellie Wrote:I'm pretty sure this falls under fair use. Like it's been said before, he's not profiting off of it, and he's not claiming that it's all his original work. Granted, he could have stated more explicitly that it wasn't entirely his work, sure, but it wasn't like he was really trying to trick people.
Shawnzy, you're making this out to be of more consequence than it actually is. Posting more examples won't prove you right, it only confirms what we already know. Maybe you'd be better served by finding an argument for why we should care that someone is tracing art and showing people on the internet.
By the way Mtoto, I would strongly recommend that you take any works that are traced like this off DeviantArt. They only allow original works there. Don't want to see you get banned.
Fair use applies to using a specific copyrighted object in another acceptable way. I.E. Using that exact copyrighted piece. This is a copy/imitation created from a copyrighted piece of artwork, meaning it isn't under fair use. Fair use would be like this very website, the background has artwork that is copyrighted used as the layout, that is fair use.
He wasn't trying to trick people? Then why not credit the original artist? Because doing so would belittle his own work he was submitting to be praised by the people of this community. And sure, he does so now, after he's been exposed.
And as to why you should care? Why not? Do you not care about other people breaking laws? I certainly don't want my own artwork to be stolen or plagiarized here, would you like your own writings and original work to be stolen too?
Ellie Wrote:EDIT: Goodness this thread moves fast. I can see where Shawnzy is coming from, but I highly doubt the original artist would ever find out about Mtoto's stuff. I also agree that tracing isn't a great way to improve, and it sort of cheapens the effect of a piece for me, but I'd also rather not try to be the art police and go around telling people how to draw. You have a right to be upset, Shawnzy, but putting passive aggressive messages in your sig isn't the answer.
My sig was a direct result of this community's attitude towards this situation. Which now upon further proof so many are quick to change their stance. I would hope in the future these people would not be so quick to denounce another forum poster who is trying to bring to light wrong-doing.
Re: Art Discussion - Rhostel - 01-06-2013
Seems like Shawnzy's been stuck in an echo chamber for a while. Perhaps Tumblr, for example. The kind of place where people of similar ideals cluster and pump each other up about those ideals while shouting down anyone who is even a little more moderate. The kind of place that breeds very thin skins. See also, FOX News. *rimshot*
Yes, blatant copying without credit, even for harmless, personal works, isn't cool. That said, lashing out blindly because others are more tempered in their attitude to it is not cool either. Hell, even being a jerk about it to the offender isn't cool.
You don't even have to be nice. Matter-of-fact is fine. Just lay out your thoughts plainly, don't get passive-aggressive, try to actually understand where other people are coming from instead of nitpicking their comments, and DON'T RAGEQUIT. Bowing out of a conversation? Fine. That's classy. Leaving an entire community in a huff, accusing everyone of something that's demonstrably untrue for most and open to interpretation for the remaining few, and playing the victim when you picked the fight in the first place? That's classless and childish.
My opinion, for the record: Copying isn't a good way to learn anything but style, because the only way to really understand how to draw right is by training your brain to understand form and anatomy. Copying will teach next to nothing about that unless it's specifically designed as tutorial art. As for style, it's nothing but a reductive element, taking away reality for the sake of impact and simplicity. You're always better off learning your own style, what reductions from reality work best for you, with any influences being passive, not forced.
As for copyright infringement, just because it's technically illegal doesn't mean that it's morally wrong. Without some very significant appropriation we wouldn't have some of the most important ideas about what art is or can be: Look at Duchamp or Warhol. Not saying that's the case here, but it is proof that copyright is highly flawed. It should be a protection against depriving the original artist of their ability to earn, and nothing more. (I also think copyright shouldn't be transferable, except to one's heirs at death, but that's a whole other argument.) Mtoto wasn't doing that by any stretch, so copyright as an argument holds no water for me, other than the aforementioned lack of proper credit. Only the learning argument does that for me.
(EDITSES: I should have proofread better to make sure the logic behind this was presented more consistently.)
Re: Art Discussion - Folken - 01-06-2013
Rhostel Wrote:Seems like Shawnzy's been stuck in an echo chamber for a while. Perhaps Tumblr, for example. The kind of place where people of similar ideals cluster and pump each other up about those ideals while shouting down anyone who is even a little more moderate. See also, FOX News. *rimshot*
How whimsically mature this is. I would like to go on record that I have not, during all of this, taken to cheap shots and petty insults like these.
My comments were directed at someone plagiarizing, and then making a generalized statement in my forum signature after the resulting behavior of a large chunk of individuals taking part.
Rhostel Wrote:Yes, blatant copying without credit, even for harmless, personal works, isn't cool. That said, lashing out blindly because others are more tempered in their attitude to it is not cool either. Hell, even being a jerk about it to the offender isn't cool.
You don't even have to be nice. Matter-of-fact is fine. Just lay out your thoughts plainly, don't get passive-aggressive, try to actually understand where other people are coming from instead of nitpicking their comments, and DON'T RAGEQUIT. Bowing out of a conversation? Fine. That's classy. Leaving in a huff, accusing everyone of something that's demonstrably untrue for most and open to interpretation for the remaining few, and playing the victim when you picked the fight in the first place, that's classless and childish.
As for copyright infringement, just because it's technically illegal doesn't mean that it's morally wrong. Without some very significant appropriation we wouldn't have some of the most important ideas about what art is or can be: Look at Duchamp or Warhol. Not saying that's the case here, but it is proof that copyright is highly flawed. It should be a protection against depriving the original artist of their ability to earn, and nothing more. (I also think copyright shouldn't be transferable, but that's a whole other argument.) Mtoto wasn't doing that by any stretch, so copyright as an argument holds no water for me. Only the learning argument does that for me.
Classless and childish? Like your opening statement right? Sure, I may have "picked a fight" as you put it. The thing is, I wasn't in the wrong. I was not wrong in bringing to light this wrong, and yet the majority of those involved saw fit to turn the situation on me, blinding themselves until overwhelming proof was provided. I'm not the bully here, if anything, the defense force are the bully's in this scenario. So yes, in a sense I am indeed a victim, a victim as a result of my own doing for daring to bring up a bit of wrong.
Generally things that are "illegal" are often morally wrong, that's why they're illegal because a vast majority of people feel it isn't right. Who are you to decide what is morally wrong or not? I find it morally wrong, AND illegal, and so you're asking me to be open minded and accept that others might not be bothered by this, but then you or they won't be open minded to the fact that it's an issue that would also upset and bother other people.
Re: Art Discussion - Aysun - 01-06-2013
This is beyond silly now. There have been insults on both sides and the point has long since been made. The "evidence" is posted and now I'm just seeing mud being flung. People can draw their own conclusions about the original point of this thread based on what was posted..
Re: Art Discussion - Deirdre - 01-06-2013
Shawnzy, a lot of people agree with you. But your signature, in my opinion, is rather insulting. You are part of this community too, so by saying that you are including yourself. Please do not lump everyone in by the actions of a few individuals.
This whole conversation is starting to get out of hand, everyone has said their piece, can we all move on and get along?
Re: Art Discussion - Yssen - 01-06-2013
Actually. Yes you are in the wrong. You are just too blinded by self-righteous zeal to see it.
Re: Art Discussion - Aysun - 01-06-2013
Yssen Wrote:Actually. Yes you are in the wrong. You are just too blinded by self-righteous zeal to see it.
This is uncalled for. ._. I'm requesting formally that this thread be locked, because it really has become a flame war.
Re: Art Discussion - Folken - 01-06-2013
Deirdre Wrote:Shawnzy, a lot of people agree with you. But your signature, in my opinion, is rather insulting. You are part of this community too, so by saying that you are including yourself. Please do not lump everyone in by the actions of a few individuals.
This whole conversation is starting to get out of hand, everyone has said their piece, can we all move on and get along?
Agree with me now. After I had to waste time to provide abundant evidence.
Whichever, I've gone a removed the offense from my signature, though my position still stands. I'm deeply bothered so many would condone such actions from artistic contributors to the community, and if it becomes a regular occurrence then my stay here will probably be very short.
Re: Art Discussion - Aysun - 01-06-2013
Shawnzy Wrote:Deirdre Wrote:Shawnzy, a lot of people agree with you. But your signature, in my opinion, is rather insulting. You are part of this community too, so by saying that you are including yourself. Please do not lump everyone in by the actions of a few individuals.
This whole conversation is starting to get out of hand, everyone has said their piece, can we all move on and get along?
Agree with me now. After I had to waste time to provide abundant evidence.
Whichever, I've gone a removed the offense from my signature, though my position still stands. I'm deeply bothered so many would condone such actions from artistic contributors to the community, and if it becomes a regular occurrence then my stay here will probably be very short.
I think until you had posted the other pictures as well many were still seeing it as "it's just a WIP" and such.. Many here are friends of Mtoto as well, evidence is required..
Re: Art Discussion - Deirdre - 01-06-2013
Thank you for removing it from your signature.
Everyone has said their piece, I also add my request to Aysun's to have this thread locked.
Re: Art Discussion - Kylin - 01-06-2013
Locking thread now. It seems very counter-productive and is only heating people up. I see a lot of insults, which goes against the respect rule of the site.
I sincerely hope my previous post wasn't missed in all these dramatics. Again, setting a positive tone in these kind of circumstances is more crucial than most realize. It can make worlds of difference.
Shawnzy, you're 100% free to state your opinions (especially on these boards where nobody has ever been banned save for spammers), but attacking the entire forum community with such a sig (myself included) based on a few users and their responses is a no-no. Also, please be more cautious when throwing out the word "illegal" in reference to something happening on this site, as that kind of thing directly impacts not only me, but our server host as well.
Take this to PMs if you wish to continue please.
Carry on everyone. Tomorrow is a big announcement from Yoshi so hopefully that'll cool some of the angst out there!