Support NeoGAF

[WaterAstro]

Yeah, if she doesn't get permission from the original artists or studios, then she should be shut down.

 

[Kthulhu]

I disagree. Art, once released into the wild is fair game for transformation. Regardless of how popular it is or who made it.

Sadly we don't live in a post scarcity society where art is made for the sake of art, people gotta eat. This isn't transformative, it's random art taken from others as if it were hers.

Copyright law exists, most of this would be copyright infringement even with the old copyright laws the US used to have.

 

[Einchy]

We had that in France with Ideealize. It was worst cause she was just basically applying filters on works from other and selling it like crazy Warhol pop art for a lot of money.

And she was all "Yeah reproductive art has existed, Warhol etc." until the backlash was too big and she disappeared in a smoke cloud. No trace of her on internet now.

The worst with those artists is how they generally succeed cause of good relations and money. On a personal note, Ideealize, for exemple, was the big fad at some point and was officially featured at big gaming expo in France, Japan Expo if i remembered well.
Now me for example, who's been paying homage to videogames like nobody else for 10 years, they don't have any idea who i am, i can tell you.

I've no idea how many goddamn times I've seen images like this where it's someone just applying a filter and selling it as "art". Like 99% of vector art I see in stores is just a filter.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Would you say the same for literature.

If you can find a way to substantially transform a work of literature, then yes.

The music industry with its shit-ton of lawyers don't see it that way.

And that's unfortunate.

Hell no. Not without giving credit. You use something by someone else, you give credit.

Transformation is great. I've done it myself. But when I do I give credit to the originals. Attribution is what separates a tribute from plagiarism.

I 100% agree.

 

[firehawk12]

Sadly we don't live in a post scarcity society where art is made for the sake of art, people gotta eat.

Copyright law exists, most of this would be copyright infringement even with the old copyright laws the US used to have.

Even without copyright law, it's still shitty to straight up lift resources from other people.

I mean, the people that release shitty games on Steam for the purposes of selling Steam cards basically steal assets from other games in order to do so and NO ONE defends them.

(Although I guess there's a defence force for everything nowadays)

 

[TheShampion]

Ceci n'est pas une post.

Fixed ;P

 

[Poor GRIMES]

Just to make it clear:

You can do whatever the hell you want with another person’s art on your own time. However, the moment you start claiming ownership and selling the artwork which you plaiarized off of for monetary gain or recognition without crediting the original artist, then you fucked up.

 

[Big One]

I 100% agree.

If you 100% agree then you should also 100% agree what she's doing is wrong.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

I think the logic will be "well she said she painted it, do you know how hard it is to copy oil painting?"

Then move on to the next goal post

In case you missed the edit.

No I can't prove it wasn't just a print. Which is why I said, if it was just a print out of someone else's work, that'd be clearly wrong. I don't have a problem saying that, because it would be.

But going by all the oil painting she seems to be known for doing (all of her storefront is oil painting on canvas) and going by the her message saying "can i paint this" I just assumed it was a painting...

Why, can you prove it was a straight print? Because if you can, sure that's hella wrong!

I would be in total agreement, if this person is just reselling peoples art directly, copy pasting it, and printing it onto a canvas digitally. That'd be some shameful shit.

She's transforming digital art into oil paintings though by the looks, which is different in my mind anyway.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

If you 100% agree then you should also 100% agree what she's doing is wrong.

I haven't even glanced at what she is doing. I am merely arguing for the concept of transformative works. If she isn't attributing the original works in her transformations then she is morally wrong to not do so.

 

[Big One]

In case you missed the edit.

No I can't prove it wasn't just a print. Which is why I said, if it was just a print out of someone else's work, that'd be clearly wrong. I don't have a problem saying that, because it would be.

But going by all the oil painting she seems to be known for doing (all of her storefront is oil painting on canvas) and going by the her message saying "can i paint this" I just assumed it was a painting...

Why, can you prove it was a straight print? Because if you can, sure that's hella wrong!

I would be in total agreement, if this person is just reselling peoples art directly, copy pasting it, and printing it onto a canvas digitally. That'd be some shameful shit.

She's transforming digital art into oil paintings though by the looks, which is different in my mind anyway.

Easily enough for you and this discussion, this is exactly what she's doing. She isn't transforming these works into oil paintings.

 

[chekhonte]

If you can find a way to substantially transform a work of literature, then yes.


And that's unfortunate.


I 100% agree.

We have to just run off. We'll run off together away from these madmen. We'll live in the desert and do covers of songs out of range of the people who grew up with RIAA propaganda and reproduce drawings with a stick in the sand by the light of the campfire. Because yes, I would download a car.

 

[ItAintEasyBeinCheesy]

Disgusting. Same with pretty much every T-Shirt store you see online "we put this one thing you like into this other thing you like Pokemon Rickkkkkk".

 

[DiipuSurotu]

We had that in France with Ideealize. It was worst cause she was just basically applying filters on works from other and selling it like crazy Warhol pop art for a lot of money.

And she was all "Yeah reproductive art has existed, Warhol etc." until the backlash was too big and she disappeared in a smoke cloud. No trace of her on internet now.

The worst with those artists is how they generally succeed cause of good relations and money. On a personal note, Ideealize, for exemple, was the big fad at some point and was officially featured at big gaming expo in France, Japan Expo if i remembered well.
Now me for example, who's been paying homage to videogames like nobody else for 10 years, they don't have any idea who i am, i can tell you.

Oh yeah that one.

Video if anyone is interested (check out the links in the description):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgR_gIT2AP4

 

[Axass]

In case you missed the edit.

No I can't prove it wasn't just a print. Which is why I said, if it was just a print out of someone else's work, that'd be clearly wrong. I don't have a problem saying that, because it would be.

But going by all the oil painting she seems to be known for doing (all of her storefront is oil painting on canvas) and going by the her message saying "can i paint this" I just assumed it was a painting...

Why, can you prove it was a straight print? Because if you can, sure that's hella wrong!

I would be in total agreement, if this person is just reselling peoples art directly, copy pasting it, and printing it onto a canvas digitally. That'd be some shameful shit.

She's transforming digital art into oil paintings though by the looks, which is different in my mind anyway.

Even if she's actually painting them, art implies an idea or at least a thought behind it: if she simply takes someone else's idea and puts it on a canvas she's a nice painter with a good technique and a special talent for copying other people's style. She's not an artist and she definitely shouldn't be selling other people's ideas.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

Easily enough for you and this discussion, this is exactly what she's doing. She isn't transforming these works into oil paintings.

But this is my problem, because going by her gallery where she's selling stuff for $5,000 etc. They are advertised as oil paintings eg.

That's an oil painting, all of it is. On her storefront anyway I think that's pretty good if you're free hand painting that out, although as an artist, I suck completely so therefore maybe easily impressed.

I'd imagine you're going to know when you have it in your hands if its a print or not.

 

[LiK]

What a fucking hack

 

[Man Called Aerodynamics]

I haven't even glanced at what she is doing. I am merely arguing for the concept of transformative works. If she isn't attributing the original works in her transformations then she is morally wrong to not do so.

You might want to glance at it then. Nobody in the thread criticizing this artist is arguing against the concept of transformative art in general.

 

[chekhonte]

What a fucking hack

I'd feel more comfortable if you referenced your avatar if you're going to use somebody else's work in it.

 

[ivajz]

Have you ever been so scared by that thing you're piecing together from various sources that you had to take a break?

Pretty sure that topless woman in the top left, is something I've seen on reddit or possibly deviantart.

 

[ultracal31]

But this is my problem, because going by her gallery where she's selling stuff for $5,000 etc. They are advertised as oil paintings eg.



That's an oil painting, all of it is. On her storefront anyway

I'd imagine you're going to know when you have it in your hands if its a print or not.

Is it really that hard to believe that a person who was stealing others people art to sell for themselves would lie about selling "oil paintings"...?

 

[Big One]

But this is my problem, because going by her gallery where she's selling stuff for $5,000 etc. They are advertised as oil paintings eg.



That's an oil painting, all of it is. On her storefront anyway I think that's pretty good if you're free hand painting that out, although as an artist, I suck completely so therefore maybe easily impressed.

I'd imagine you're going to know when you have it in your hands if its a print or not.

That being an oil painting or not is irrelevant to this discussion. She's using other people's works and not giving them credit for it while selling it as an official art piece. Whether you like it or not, that violates copyright law. Just because she made a few transformative Sailor Moon paintings and gave credit where it's due doesn't excuse her other mishaps.

 

[firehawk12]

To be fair, there are people who make a living basically taking one work of art and transferring it to another medium.

They usually don't claim it as an original work though.

 

[chekhonte]

That being an oil painting or not is irrelevant to this discussion. She's using other people's works and not giving them credit for it while selling it as an official art piece. Whether you like it or not, that violates copyright law.

That's not true at all with one of a kind monetized works. Those laws are more about monetizing mass produced works through means of digital or mechanical reproduction.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

Is it really that hard to believe that a person who was stealing others people art to sell for themselves would lie about selling "oil paintings"...?

Yeah it would be hard to believe if the artists entire operating procedure from the get go, was stealing other peoples work and re-applying it to oil paintings would lie about selling oil paintings.

because if her entire business is, in selling oil paintings (her storefront is entirely oil paintings). I wouldn't imagine it would last very long?

You would be able to tell if you have a digital transfer over an oil painting. There's no way that operation would last a long time...

Edit: Well the heck would you pay 1,000 for a digital print of anything lol

 

[Zoe]

Pretty sure that topless woman in the top left, is something I've seen on reddit or possibly deviantart.

It is. The whole comic has been posted here before many times.

 

[Big One]

That's not true at all with one of a kind monetized works. Those laws are more about monetizing mass produced works through means of digital or mechanical reproduction.

It's almost like the fine art scene is a scam or something.

 

[benzopil]

Ehhhh......., I hope there's nothing bad out there about some of the other artists I follow like Loish or Gabriel Picolo, would suck to stop following their work.

I can also recommend Raichiyo33

(and RoninDude, but he's different)

 

[ultracal31]

Yeah it would be hard to believe if the artists entire operating procedure from the get go, was stealing other peoples work and re-applying it to oil paintings would lie about selling oil paintings.

because if her entire business is, in selling oil paintings (her storefront is entirely oil paintings). I wouldn't imagine it would last very long?

You would be able to tell if you have a digital transfer over an oil painting. There's no way that operation would last a long time...

Edit: Well the heck would you pay 1,000 for a digital print of anything lol

You do realize there are machines that can mimic the look of oil paintings right?

 

[Moonkid]

What a fucking hack

.

 

[Vigamox]

This is very common in the art field now, especially due to the recent surge in encouraging use of photo texturing and photobashing. It feels like artists just want to go the fastest possible way to a good image, and instead of figuring it out themselves they resort to lifting elements from other artists instead.

A recent example that this topic reminds me of is the popular artist kr0pr1nz, or Kuvshinov-Ilya. He basically copied/traced the exact composition and lighting/color palette of popular anime/manga images, mainly just changing the face to his own style. While this is arguably okay, what makes it worse is that he never once mentioned these images as being referenced, never credited the original artists, and even sold prints of these plagiarized works.It's like copying the Mona Lisa exactly, but giving her an anime face and then passing it off as your own work/idea.

 

[chekhonte]

It is. The whole comic has been posted here before many times.

And that cartoon spiky head fellow is none other than "Bart Simpson" made popular by the Fox broadcasting network from the cartoon of the same name "The Simpsons". If you look even closer you'll notice that his eyes are made of cats. Not just any cat but a cartoon cat of Korean origins that is sold by her trade name "Hello Kitty". Not only that but the two drawing of woman are of a classical caryatid from Classical Greece. It's like nothing in the drawing are her own images. It's like it's a 'collage' of images of other people references.

 

[Armaros]

And that cartoon spiky head fellow is none other than "Bart Simpson" made popular by the Fox broadcasting network from the cartoon of the same name "The Simpsons". If you look even closer you'll notice that his eyes are made of cats. Not just any cat but a cartoon cat of Korean origins that is sold by her trade name "Hello Kitty". Not only that but the two drawing of woman are of a classical caryatid from Classical Greece. It's like nothing in the drawing are her own images. It's like it's a 'collage' of images of other people references.

And other parts are from lesser known artists who are not part of pop culture. With zero references attributed to Them.

But keep trying to compare those parts to Bart Simpson.

 

[Garuroh]

People are still trying to defend her? Stuff like this is why hard working artists get over exploited and underpaid

 

[chekhonte]

And other parts are from lesser known artists who are not part of pop culture. With zero references attributed to Them.

But keep trying to compare those parts to Bart Simpson.

Her work is obviously taking part of the tradition of pop culture collage. It's no different when Rauschenberg illustrated the Divine Comedy using acetone transfers of life magazine. The idea that once you placed something out of it's own context (in this example the manga it was published in) you don't need to reference it. Historically nobody else does this and there's no reason for her to. I would say that this tradition will continue but after trump, I don't know what internet hate nerds are capable of.

 

[SchrodingerC]

This is just hilarious (and kinda sad)

Why is any of her work getting special attention? It’s trash tier college freshman level of work that’s obviously been traced.
My art professor would toss her ass out of the 2 story window for blatant plagiarizing and bad technique.

 

[Man Called Aerodynamics]

A recent example that this topic reminds me of is the popular artist kr0pr1nz, or Kuvshinov-Ilya. He basically copied/traced the exact composition and lighting/color palette of popular anime/manga images, mainly just changing the face to his own style. While this is arguably okay, what makes it worse is that he never once mentioned these images as being referenced, never credited the original artists, and even sold prints of these plagiarized works.It's like copying the Mona Lisa exactly, but giving her an anime face and then passing it off as your own work/idea.

Wow, I'm not even sure how to react to this. Was he really passing images of Kiki and Asuka off as his own creations and expecting people not to recognize the characters? That beggars belief.

 

[Armaros]

Her work is obviously taking part of the tradition of pop culture collage. It's no different when Rauschenberg illustrated the Divine Comedy using acetone transfers of life magazine. The idea that once you placed something out of it's own context (in this example the manga it was published in) you don't need to reference it. Historically nobody else does this and there's no reason for her to. I would say that this tradition will continue but after trump, I don't know what internet hate nerds are capable of.

Here you go again, comparing widly known things with relatively unknown artists work.

Along with the insult at the end.

Nice arguments and class in one.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

You do realize there are machines that can mimic the look of oil paintings right?

I'm sure there are, but when you view the body of work she's already got that goes beyond straight grafts I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, what with their not being any actual proof.

I mean it'd be an insanely weird cover up to be an artist that operates some kind of oil painting machine shop. Especially when you consider the other stuff on the website she's got where it's pretty obvious.

The paint brush is a lie!

And I'm getting called the goal post mover. Ya. Right. Notice y'all gone now. Except the "The oil painting machine algorithm" goal post

 

[FallingEdge]

can someone steal her art and sell it as their own?

 

[AtomskEater]

can someone steal her art and sell it as their own?

Yes, apparently.

 

[Zoe]

A recent example that this topic reminds me of is the popular artist kr0pr1nz, or Kuvshinov-Ilya. He basically copied/traced the exact composition and lighting/color palette of popular anime/manga images, mainly just changing the face to his own style. While this is arguably okay, what makes it worse is that he never once mentioned these images as being referenced, never credited the original artists, and even sold prints of these plagiarized works.It's like copying the Mona Lisa exactly, but giving her an anime face and then passing it off as your own work/idea.

Yeah but he apologized. His latest pieces should be original content (probably maybe)

It maybe look like stealing ideas etc (especially when you compiling pictures with it's original source\inspiration source\reference shot without giving a chance to see original description)

.

 

[Yukiari]

Yes, apparently.

But what would you steal?

 

[firehawk12]

But what would you steal?

Someone should reproduce her oil paint productions in ASCII art and say it's neo-futurist-80s-retro.

 

[AtomskEater]

But what would you steal?

Her collages, inserting them all together into some kind of mega-collage.
It's a meta commentary on plagiarism in art.

 

[Fisty]

It's like the Family Guy of art. Nothing but insubstantial references to other things, but at least McFarlane is pretty good at it.

 

[plasmawave]

And that cartoon spiky head fellow is none other than "Bart Simpson" made popular by the Fox broadcasting network from the cartoon of the same name "The Simpsons". If you look even closer you'll notice that his eyes are made of cats. Not just any cat but a cartoon cat of Korean origins that is sold by her trade name "Hello Kitty". Not only that but the two drawing of woman are of a classical caryatid from Classical Greece. It's like nothing in the drawing are her own images. It's like it's a 'collage' of images of other people references.

You mean Japanese. Not Korean.

 

[Jaguar Victory]

Lol building a temple around Gundam Age of all things.

The GUNDAM is the only thing I'm OK with. LOL

 

[hipbabboom]

Art is our soul crying out to the world from within the prison of our minds. Let us not shame this souls voice for it is a thing worthy of celebration that the artist has found another soul in this world who shares the same voice. This is the birth of love at a fundamentally human level. It is frail and at its infancy so lets help and nurture their love rather than make it this ugly thing which it is becoming.

If you want to connect with understanding at a deeper and more fundamental level like I can then

Spoiler

please send this post to 30 other GAFfers by 5 pm or you will die

.

 

[Kenstar]

It's one thing to say use widely known famous images and not source it, wel all know who bart simpson is
It's another to go trolling for new uploads by near unknown people and use them instead

can someone steal her art and sell it as their own?

Brb running the collage thru a prisma filter for max cred