Thread Closed
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.)
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.)