Can somebody explain to me why is this bad [tracing]

[Nekolover]

Just now, Nosebleed said:

Here's as simple as I can make it.

This is my original character, Minako-chan (do not steal):

I put many hours of effort into it. I even signed it to make sure people know it's mine. I completely came up with it myself using my own brain.

However, one day I'm walking across the street and I see a magazine that's running this new battle manga whose protagonist is this girl called Konami-chan

It's clearly based off of my original character since the lines used for the body pose are the exact same, but the magazine never asked me for permission to use my work as a foundation.

That makes me and Minako-chan very sad

And that's why tracing is bad in a nutshell.

 

 

Not trying to be mean but I wouldn't call that art.  More like the murder of art.   Also, doubt you can copyright such a simple design. Especially stuff you see in preschool. 

[Dergonu]

Yeah ... comment on his drawing skills and completely overlook the meaning of the post...

I mean, you are basically being spoon fed here. All the information you need is in this thread, repeated 1800 times. If you honestly can't understand it yet, I think it might be a good idea to just let this go now. You probably won't ever get what the issue is if it hasn't become obvious yet.

No one is out to get anyone here. People are honestly trying to explain in a calm manner. If you take a bit of a break, and come back to the thread later, then I'm sure it will make sense.

[Nekolover]

8 minutes ago, Dergonu said:

Yeah ... comment on his drawing skills and completely overlook the meaning of the post...

I mean, you are basically being spoon fed here. All the information you need is in this thread, repeated 1800 times. If you honestly can't understand it yet, I think it might be a good idea to just let this go now. You probably won't ever get what the issue is if it hasn't become obvious yet.

No one is out to get anyone here. People are honestly trying to explain in a calm manner. If you take a bit of a break, and come back to the thread later, then I'm sure it will make sense.

 

 

First, you need to learn and read the situation. You use that as an excuse to comment and add nothing of value.  I already explain myself and say what I think about it. So I felt no need to address it more.  I understand that it stupid  and nobody is going to agree with that.  So that that. I did but people keep dragging me back on it. Which is why  I ask how to ignore this thread to the mod.   Is pointless just like you being angry at  me. But sorry some people are. Especially those that call somebody a troll. Some of you are and other are not.  I being calm. Except with the person calling me a troll.  Break or not I doubt I will change my mind. Sorry for being different.   Let all agree to disagree.    About me commenting on his drawing skills. I was joking.   

[Dergonu]

You misunderstand, what I'm saying is that no one here is actually mad at you. They are just doing their best in order to make you understand, but it doesn't seem to be helping. That's why I suggested maybe just leaving the thread for a bit and coming back to it later.

[Nekolover]

Just now, Dergonu said:

You misunderstand, what I'm saying is that no one here is actually mad at you. They are just doing their best in order to make you understand, but it doesn't seem to be helping. That's why I suggested maybe just leaving the thread for a bit and coming back to it later.

 

Well sorry but I doubt it.   Sorry for being a moron. 

[DharmaFreedom]

27 minutes ago, Nosebleed said:

ere's as simple as I can make it.

This is my original character, Minako-chan (do not steal):

I put many hours of effort into it. I even signed it to make sure people know it's mine. I completely came up with it myself using my own brain.

However, one day I'm walking across the street and I see a magazine that's running this new battle manga whose protagonist is this girl called Konami-chan

It's clearly based off of my original character since the lines used for the body pose are the exact same, but the magazine never asked me for permission to use my work as a foundation.

That makes me and Minako-chan very sad

And that's why tracing is bad in a nutshell.

Mate this is amazing. Truly. Resplendent even. Thank you for this post it made me .

[KuroganeHomura]

18 minutes ago, Nosebleed said:

Here's as simple as I can make it.

This is my original character, Minako-chan (do not steal):

I put many hours of effort into it. I even signed it to make sure people know it's mine. I completely came up with it myself using my own brain.

However, one day I'm walking across the street and I see a magazine that's running this new battle manga whose protagonist is this girl called Konami-chan

It's clearly based off of my original character since the lines used for the body pose are the exact same, but the magazine never asked me for permission to use my work as a foundation.

That makes me and Minako-chan very sad

And that's why tracing is bad in a nutshell.

And now Konami-chan has suddenly started burning (or exploded into gore, it's a bit hard to say) and the world has three quite different images to look at instead of one. That's why tracing is good in a nutshell. Conversely, if neither of those derivative drawings existed, I would be very sad indeed because I happen to like them (well, not really). The argument kinda cuts both ways.

Pretty much boils down to the same as the issue of copyright (and even more so patents) in general.

 

iamnoob: I'm aware of the differences, but the basic point stands. But let's make it even simpler. Let's say I spend hours coming up with a brilliant argument in favor/against [insert political/whatever topic]. Minutes later, someone picks it up and uses it to argue in favor of something I really dislike. Now what?

[athos]

Fuwanovel in a nutshell< Having a fairly new user or not as old or 'popular' than others, asking a question, and displaying a different opinion.

Result= circlejerking against him (15 vs 1) And calling him a troll.

Putting this little digression aside:

in defense of Nekolover, he might not have a good english (he himself recognised it) but if he doesn't understand it, why are you blaming him? He probably has a different opinion. And from what i read he doesn't ask about it from a legal standpoint.

First, tracing is not bad. Did you know that tracing is very often involved in the creating process of many works? When you see an anime on tv, it has been traced. Yes, what we call the "genga" which are handrawn were traced by other people to renforce the lines and give a clear outline to the drawings, and also to do the inbetweens necessary for the animation to take place.  When you read a manga it has been traced: the mangaka assistants or himself traced the outline of the drawing with a ink pen, and this process is called "pen-ire". And so and on.

There's nothing morally wrong this the act of tracing by itself. Absolutely nothing. However, if you trace the drawing of an artist, make very few change to it and you claim you made everything in it without mentioning where the character comes from, and you try to sell it, then it's bad. And you could have problems (from a legal perspective).

For example, if you trace the character of a vn so all the characteristics are identic (facial features, hairstyle, clothes) just change the character name and say to other people that you created the character , what you do is not good. If you trace it then you change some details and say that it is a work based on the character from xxx vn then it's perfectly ok. If you are tracing the basic pose and are modifing every other detail of it, you should mention that you were inspired by xxx character from xxx artist, but there's absolute no problem with it. The first case is called plagiarism (because you claim everything was your own whereas it's not true), but the two others are called derivative works and also fair use. Morally speaking, it's just about aknowledging where the character comes from and your inspiration. Otherwise there's nothing wrong. That's why you have doujinshi in japan, and fanart, which are perfectly ok and even good, because they show the interest some people have for some series. And even known artists sometimes do fanart as a tribute to other artists. In that case no problem at all. But you should mention the name of the original character and where he comes from.

Also almost all artist get their inspiration from somewhere. As such it's very common to notice sometimes some similarities between some artwork especially if the artists in themselves have a pretty unnoticeable style. Remember for example that for many people with no interest with anime, manga, vn and such, and who know nothing about it all the characters coming from these media all look the same in their eyes. So some people may not like it, but even in the case of no game no life author, the problem is that the author didn't aknownledge the reference if it was not simply a coincidence, but even in that case, if he can prooves that what he did is sufficiently different than the other work, his art can be accepted as "transformative" and derivative.

Now to the people who talk about legality. Please. Stop being hypocrits, given that the forums talk about fan translation of vns. Fan translation is illegal. Because a translation is a derivative work, and so stricly speaking, making a release of a translation when it is made without the authorization of the Vn creators is technically unlawful. If a vn developer wanted to sue an user because he has released an english translation of their vn and they don't want to, if they start a trial, then the fan doing the translation will lose with 100% certitude. So stop using this argument.

 

 

[solidbatman]

12 minutes ago, athos said:

Fuwanovel in a nutshell< Having a fairly new user or not as old or 'popular' than others, asking a question, and displaying a different opinion.

Result= circlejerking against him (15 vs 1) And calling him a troll.

Putting this little digression aside:

in defense of Nekolover, he might not have a good english (he himself recognised it) but if he doesn't understand it, why are you blaming him? He probably has a different opinion. And from what i read he doesn't ask about it from a legal standpoint.

First, tracing is not bad. Did you know that tracing is very often involved in the creating process of many works? When you see an anime on tv, it has been traced. Yes, what we call the "genga" which are handrawn were traced by other people to renforce the lines and give a clear outline to the drawings, and also to do the inbetweens necessary for the animation to take place.  When you read a manga it has been traced: the mangaka assistants or himself traced the outline of the drawing with a ink pen, and this process is called "pen-ire". And so and on.

There's nothing morally wrong this the act of tracing by itself. Absolutely nothing. However, if you trace the drawing of an artist, make very few change to it and you claim you made everything in it without mentioning where the character comes from, and you try to sell it, then it's bad. And you could have problems (from a legal perspective).

For example, if you trace the character of a vn so all the characteristics are identic (facial features, hairstyle, clothes) just change the character name and say to other people that you created the character , what you do is not good. If you trace it then you change some details and say that it is a work based on the character from xxx vn then it's perfectly ok. If you are tracing the basic pose and are modifing every other detail of it, you should mention that you were inspired by xxx character from xxx artist, but there's absolute no problem with it. The first case is called plagiarism (because you claim everything was your own whereas it's not true), but the two others are called derivative works and also fair use. Morally speaking, it's just about aknowledging where the character comes from and your inspiration. Otherwise there's nothing wrong. That's why you have doujinshi in japan, and fanart, which are perfectly ok and even good, because they show the interest some people have for some series. And even known artists sometimes do fanart as a tribute to other artists. In that case no problem at all. But you should mention the name of the original character and where he comes from.

Also almost all artist get their inspiration from somewhere. As such it's very common to notice sometimes some similarities between some artwork especially if the artists in themselves have a pretty unnoticeable style. Remember for example that for many people with no interest with anime, manga, vn and such, and who know nothing about it all the characters coming from these media all look the same in their eyes. So some people may not like it, but even in the case of no game no life author, the problem is that the author didn't aknownledge the reference if it was not simply a coincidence, but even in that case, if he can prooves that what he did is sufficiently different than the other work, his art can be accepted as "transformative" and derivative.

Now to the people who talk about legality. Please. Stop being hypocrits, given that the forums talk about fan translation of vns. Fan translation is illegal. Because a translation is a derivative work, and so stricly speaking, making a release of a translation when it is made without the authorization of the Vn creators is technically unlawful. If a vn developer wanted to sue an user because he has released an english translation of their vn and they don't want to, if they start a trial, then the fan doing the translation will lose with 100% certitude. So stop using this argument.

 

 

You just wrote a wall of text to essentially repeat what we've all been saying lol we are trying to get him to simply understand. Not change his mind on the issue, but to just understand why it is the way it is. 

[athos]

I don't think i said the same thing. People here mostly say that it's wrong, and not many provided the reverse perspective that it could be perfectly ok and even a good thing.

And regarding the article in the OP, seriously, if it was nekolover question, i don't see anything wrong with the no life no game's artist drawing as well.

It is sufficiently different and transformative, and i don't think that even on a legal standpoint he would have any problems. Maybe it's where comes the misunterpretation, and actually maybe nekolover doesn't understand why there's a problem related to the drawing in the article. I think that's what he meant. It's simply the pose which has some similarities, every other thing about it is different. And the pose is not even 100% identical.

Could have simply been a coincidence or an inspiration. Like i said, inspiration is very frequent in artistic works, and by digging deep one could find many similarities between works in which no inspiration was aknownledged. Really you would be surprised how often artists could share similarities to others in their work. Sometimes it's not even intentional.

Also some people (in the first pages) said that it was wrong because it was illegal, which is first incorrect; it can be legal; and not even appropriate as an argument given the nature of fuwanovel.

 

[Nekolover]

43 minutes ago, athos said:

Fuwanovel in a nutshell< Having a fairly new user or not as old or 'popular' than others, asking a question, and displaying a different opinion.

Result= circlejerking against him (15 vs 1) And calling him a troll.

Putting this little digression aside:

in defense of Nekolover, he might not have a good english (he himself recognised it) but if he doesn't understand it, why are you blaming him? He probably has a different opinion. And from what i read he doesn't ask about it from a legal standpoint.

First, tracing is not bad. Did you know that tracing is very often involved in the creating process of many works? When you see an anime on tv, it has been traced. Yes, what we call the "genga" which are handrawn were traced by other people to renforce the lines and give a clear outline to the drawings, and also to do the inbetweens necessary for the animation to take place.  When you read a manga it has been traced: the mangaka assistants or himself traced the outline of the drawing with a ink pen, and this process is called "pen-ire". And so and on.

There's nothing morally wrong this the act of tracing by itself. Absolutely nothing. However, if you trace the drawing of an artist, make very few change to it and you claim you made everything in it without mentioning where the character comes from, and you try to sell it, then it's bad. And you could have problems (from a legal perspective).

For example, if you trace the character of a vn so all the characteristics are identic (facial features, hairstyle, clothes) just change the character name and say to other people that you created the character , what you do is not good. If you trace it then you change some details and say that it is a work based on the character from xxx vn then it's perfectly ok. If you are tracing the basic pose and are modifing every other detail of it, you should mention that you were inspired by xxx character from xxx artist, but there's absolute no problem with it. The first case is called plagiarism (because you claim everything was your own whereas it's not true), but the two others are called derivative works and also fair use. Morally speaking, it's just about aknowledging where the character comes from and your inspiration. Otherwise there's nothing wrong. That's why you have doujinshi in japan, and fanart, which are perfectly ok and even good, because they show the interest some people have for some series. And even known artists sometimes do fanart as a tribute to other artists. In that case no problem at all. But you should mention the name of the original character and where he comes from.

Also almost all artist get their inspiration from somewhere. As such it's very common to notice sometimes some similarities between some artwork especially if the artists in themselves have a pretty unnoticeable style. Remember for example that for many people with no interest with anime, manga, vn and such, and who know nothing about it all the characters coming from these media all look the same in their eyes. So some people may not like it, but even in the case of no game no life author, the problem is that the author didn't aknownledge the reference if it was not simply a coincidence, but even in that case, if he can prooves that what he did is sufficiently different than the other work, his art can be accepted as "transformative" and derivative.

Now to the people who talk about legality. Please. Stop being hypocrits, given that the forums talk about fan translation of vns. Fan translation is illegal. Because a translation is a derivative work, and so stricly speaking, making a release of a translation when it is made without the authorization of the Vn creators is technically unlawful. If a vn developer wanted to sue an user because he has released an english translation of their vn and they don't want to, if they start a trial, then the fan doing the translation will lose with 100% certitude. So stop using this argument.

 

 

 

Well, I understand this. 

The first example I agree with you. That just blatantly stealing. 

Second one.  I agree with you on that too. Here an issue thought.   Judging from people responses that seem taboo or somehow it diminishes the author.   I don't agree with that mentality. 

Three.  I strongly believe it "transformative" and derivative.  I think he should mention out respect for the original author  but even when he didn't.  I strongly believe  it "transformative" and derivative to not warrant that.

[athos]

Like i said in my above post, maybe you didn't explain it clearly enough, but at some point i understood that you didn't understand why some people  (in the article, which is an unofficial source btw) say some things about the no game no life drawing.  I guess there was a misunderstanding.

Also, once again, i agree, i don't see something wrong in the drawing. I think that it's sufficiently different even if the author doesn't mention the inspiration. Because maybe it was not even on purpose, artists having inspiration from a pose or a character to do another art, and who don't mention any reference are not rare at all. It's very common, even in other media as well (novels, films, modern art...).

By the way anyone can meditate about this quote from Picasso: "Good artists copy, great artists steal."

[Darklord Rooke]

People hit the nail squarely when they said the issue is about 'passing that work off as your own, then trying to sell it for a profit'. You can trace to your hearts content in the privacy of your own home, just keep it private. 

1 hour ago, athos said:

By the way anyone can meditate about this quote from Picasso: "Good artists copy, great artists steal."

People can start by acknowledging that there's no proof that quote came from Picasso. 

As a writer, or a poet (which may be where that quote came from,) you steal from everywhere but you do not plagiarise. There's a difference. It's all about influences, taking bits you like from different places (real life, other pieces of fiction,) and incorporating them into your own style. When you steal too much from one place then you start tiptoeing into the realm of 'copying', and that's when you get into trouble.

Tracing for profit is obviously right out. Even if that drawing isn't 100% copied, the artist is treading a fine line if people are starting to call him out.

[iamnoob]

10 hours ago, Nekolover said:

Not trying to be mean but I wouldn't call that art.  More like the murder of art.   Also, doubt you can copyright such a simple design. Especially stuff you see in preschool. 

[Nekolover]

7 hours ago, iamnoob said:

Is broken.

[athos]

I came cross the topic previous posts, and i've seen some people mention the Prism case and so on.

There isn't anything wrong with this exemple either. The artist just got inspired by poses from an actual photo, and i think he didn't even traced the photo. Just got it as a reference. The people who say it's a fault are deluded. Every artist come up with inspiration from somewhere. It doesn't appears just out of nowhere from the mind. References comes from real life inspiration or inspiration from others work to draw characters, write stories ect. Poses from artists are always inspirated from somewhere.

Every artist has references. The reality is that it's in fact it's about people not being able to know where the references are from. But if you were able to dig through every material on the world, you would be able to find them in 99% of the cases. (it's obviously impossible for people to know about them in virtually every case). How is it posing a problem? Simple. Because some people are idealising the creation process as being something which only comes out from one person's mind whereas it's actually not true at all. References and influences are something which are unnavoidable. Sometimes it's not even conscious.

There's one example: a lot of people problably now about the erotic painting (shunga) from the painter Hokusai involving an octopus? If so, fine. Then, do you know about Toshio maeda, who is the creator of urotsukidoji? He is known as the 'inventor' of tentacle rape, and some people keep asking him if he had done it in direct reference to Hokusai's painting. Here is his answer from an interview he gave to usa otaku magazine (complete link: http://www.otakuusamagazine.com/Manga/News1/Interview-Tentacle-Master-Toshio-Maeda-6904.aspx )

Quote

[sic] People always ask me that! When I got started using tentacles using tentacle scenes in my manga I didn’t think I was being influenced by artists like Hokusai and ukiyo-e prints, but I don’t know. It may be subconsciously implanted inside of me.

The point about a reference is that it's just a basis and a starting point, the artist is still creating something else out of it. Or is adding something else to it or expand it in the case of a derivative work (which is not really the subject here). In prism manga the characters have obviously no common point with the photos. In no game no life illustration, there are big differences which justify why the artist should not be obligated to mention his inspiration (if it was even intentional).

Here another actual example to illustrate the problem: anime adaptation of the manga 'Aku no hana'.

The anime was created by using rotoscoping which consists of tracing over actual footage of real actors for each frame. It's something very rarely used in Japanese animation normally, but has been quite used in western ones.

Basically, it's the prism manga case with a x1000 order of magnitude: instead of one drawing there's more than 10000 drawings traced over involved at each episode. Now think about it. Did this fact pose a problem to the point of having people claiming that the animation should be cancelled? No. The only complaints were from the audience who thought the characters looked too different from the manga, were ugly, and that the animation was unnatural. And indeed rotoscoped animation has this aura of weirdness around it. Rotoscoped animation paradoxally is perceived to be unnatural even if it just takes real persons movements.

There's nothing wrong with the game no life artist because his art is completely different and the pose is not even identical.  It could even have been unintentionnal. The article in question doesn't come from an official source, but the author very unlikely will get a trial for the sole reason (some of) the pose has been (supposely) traced. A pose cannot be copyrighted.

Once again, not directly the subject, but It's good to know that selling derivative works which are considered fair use (e.g doujinshi or fanart), can be perfectly legal, if you mention where and from which series the character comes from. It's just that if you are plainly tracting the drawings without any other element or novelty, obviously no one will be interested. If you take direct reference from another work and what you make is sufficiently different, even by not mentionning anything, it's not plagiarism. It happens all the time but audience doesn't know about it.

 

 

[wyldstrykr]

 

On 7/16/2016 at 2:01 AM, Nekolover said:

  On 7/16/2016 at 1:58 AM, Nosebleed said:

Here's as simple as I can make it.

This is my original character, Minako-chan (do not steal):

I put many hours of effort into it. I even signed it to make sure people know it's mine. I completely came up with it myself using my own brain.

However, one day I'm walking across the street and I see a magazine that's running this new battle manga whose protagonist is this girl called Konami-chan

It's clearly based off of my original character since the lines used for the body pose are the exact same, but the magazine never asked me for permission to use my work as a foundation.

That makes me and Minako-chan very sad

And that's why tracing is bad in a nutshell.

this picture is some random main girl character for an otome game (because she is a faceless void, dont let her farm)

if i post this picture, then there is no problem to it, even if i didnt give the proper credit to the owner

however if i make money using THIS picture without crediting the owner, then it is TOTALLY WRONG legally, morality and ethically

i know my english is bad but you get my point right..... 

 

i wonder why gintama, fangames, and clone games doesnt get sued? fangames is not for commercial but for others????

 

PS: i hope i didnt get banned for this or get a warning point

[Narcosis]

Good artists work with references; people need to understand copyright is deluded; creative work is all about nothing else but taking handfuls of inspiration from everything around you, including other people and their work. Whole drama regarding Yuu quickly got out of hand, mainly because of NGNL's popularity. I guess that's the kind of price you pay for a success and the more successful you are, the more careful you need to be; a lot of people, including other artists, who are envious would love to see you fall from grace. Everything else is subjective.

[ittaku]

This seems to be going the way of Nekolover's last thread.

Can anyone tell me what the common feature between these threads is?

[Forgetful Frank]

I'd just like to add my two cents in that I believe tracing is perfectly fine as long as it's something simple like fan art or learning to draw, but if someone who makes a living from drawing as a professional starts to trace other peoples' work, then it definitely is morally wrong and in a way, stealing the original artist's work.

Using other images for reference and inspiration is all well and fine, but tracing an original image and just replacing a couple of features to make it into your own, well you have to draw a line somewhere, right? Artists should aspire to create their own original work, not steal from others. Where's the creativity in that?

[tymmur]

1 minute ago, Forgetful Frank said:

I'd just like to add my two cents in that I believe tracing is perfectly fine as long as it's something simple like fan art or learning to draw, but if someone who makes a living from drawing as a professional starts to trace other peoples' work, then it definitely is morally wrong and in a way, stealing the original artist's work.

Summary: tracing is fine for personal use, but not for publishing.

[Forgetful Frank]

1 minute ago, tymmur said:

Summary: tracing is fine for personal use, but not for publishing.

Precisely~!

[wyldstrykr]

2 hours ago, tymmur said:

Summary: tracing is fine for personal use, but not for publishing.

tracing is fine unless it involves money

[Kawasumi]

On 7/16/2016 at 1:10 AM, Rooke said:

People hit the nail squarely when they said the issue is about 'passing that work off as your own, then trying to sell it for a profit'. You can trace to your hearts content in the privacy of your own home, just keep it private. 

People can start by acknowledging that there's no proof that quote came from Picasso. 

As a writer, or a poet (which may be where that quote came from,) you steal from everywhere but you do not plagiarise. There's a difference. It's all about influences, taking bits you like from different places (real life, other pieces of fiction,) and incorporating them into your own style. When you steal too much from one place then you start tiptoeing into the realm of 'copying', and that's when you get into trouble.

Tracing for profit is obviously right out. Even if that drawing isn't 100% copied, the artist is treading a fine line if people are starting to call him out.

just to go extremely offtopic for a second, I condone that people use the quote "  the immature poet imitates and the mature poet plagiarizes. " from T.S Elliot, since he was the first to make an actual statement like that and as Rooke says, cant be credited to picasso at all

source: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/03/06/artists-steal/

[Jibril]

Ethically wrong, legally right.

Also this thread is filled with so much  I think I can get rich selling it.