Support NeoGAF

[Moonlight]

congrats to this thread for raising my blood pressure

you'd imagine you could accuse a hack and serial plagiarist of stealing art from artists who are literally incapable of directly confronting her of being a hack and a serial plagiarist without shitheads stumbling over their feet desperate to defend her while conveniently ignoring every guilty act she's ever conducted except the ones they can try to reinterpret as conveniently as possible

or accuse anyone who calls a hack and a serial plagiarist out for what they are as a gator or deflect this as Actually About hating women and not literally the act of stealing work from other people of colour and claiming it as your own as if anything else matters.

guess that can work too

 

[Futureman]

I'd say she'd probably avoid most of the hate if she wasn't saying, "You put it on the internet? IT'S MINE" and explained her process/thoughts behind the works.

 

[Fulminator]

I'd say she'd probably avoid most of the hate if she wasn't saying, "You put it on the internet? IT'S MINE" and explained her process/thoughts behind the works.

She should credit the original artists as well

 

[Herr Schwarz]

Thirsty.

She's pretty, therefore innocent.

wtf why are people white knighting her

She's pretty and...well that's about it really?

Herr is being completely disengenous in this thread.

Probably because she's pretty.

The term will always exist until desperate men stop feeling the need to come to the rescue of women they deem in trouble. Even one's so clearly guilty such as the topic of this thread.

Thirsty Gaf has no shame

As much as I enjoy being relentlessly attacked on the argument of the merits of artistic transformation that I aptly argued in this thread as in fact me just being a "white knight" and "thirsty" for a "pretty lady".......

Maybe you should change the forced narrative a bit. and maybe instead of jamming your personal ideas down my throat. Maybe think about how you look at scenarios with women in them. And not project. Thanks.


Some of her stuff pops and is decent. If however, she's just making digital prints, copy pasted then that is bad.

If she's transforming the medium and taking it into an original work ala oil painting, that's fair game. If you go by everything in the her storefront to this point, some of it pops. I mean it's her schtick at the end of the day right, you know what you're getting. Top Tag on her gallery? : Appropriation.

 

[Host Samurai]

No Persona 5 jokes?

 

[chekhonte]

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.

Photos from random life magazines aren't widely known unless you see them in a life magazine. There's no reference to where they were published or the photographer who was contracted to take them. It's directly related. Somebody is taking somebody elses work and combining them with other works to create a collage. I'm sure that neither Rauschenberg or the gallery owner who sold them could say who the photographer was.

I think that if this person 1. hadn't appropriated anime/manga and 2. wasn't a woman this thread wouldn't exist. I really try to stay out of toxic fan culture but fuck. It usually doesn't involve visual art.

 

[Staccat0]

Trying to kill a discussion about someone's work with comparing people in this thread with a movement which are insulting, harassing and threatening women... and you are shocked about the word "whiteknighting"?

I don’t know what you’re talking about. Is this thread about a specific gaffer or something? I just haven’t seen someone unironically use that term in a long-ass time. Am I honorbound to think it’s a cool term if the person they are replying to is wrong or what? I don’t understand what discussion was killed.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

Why do these idiots think no one will notice?

 

[DiipuSurotu]

She's pretty

 

[Wickerbasket]

As much as I enjoy being relentlessly attacked on the argument of the merits of artistic transformation that I aptly argued in this thread as in fact me just being a "white knight" and "thirsty" for a "pretty lady".......

Maybe you should change the forced narrative a bit. and maybe instead of jamming your personal ideas down my throat. Maybe think about how you look at scenarios with women in them. And not project. Thanks.


Some of her stuff pops and is decent. If however, she's just making digital prints, copy pasted then that is bad.

If she's transforming the medium and taking it into an original work ala oil painting, that's fair game. If you go by everything in the her storefront to this point, some of it pops. I mean it's her schtick at the end of the day right, you know what you're getting. Top Tag on her gallery? : Appropriation.

Not sure why you quoted me. I just explained why the term white knight is still being used.

 

[Kenstar]

I'll take my $9500 in bitcoin please

 

[chekhonte]

I'll take my $9500 in bitcoin please

You know that this person is probably OK with the idea of you selling that right?

 

[Oberon]

.

I love that there also photos in there. Oh no they used a photo reference. There's a difference between using an artstyle and badly copying something.
Also, this kinda more opens up the discussion of the how legal it is to sell fanart of copyrighted IPs.

 

[Dynomutt]

I mean there's a difference between inspiration and appropriation right?

 

[Wickerbasket]

I'll take my $9500 in bitcoin please

$4500 please. It is original art.

 

[chekhonte]

You mean Japanese. Not Korean.

Yeah, There's so much of it in South Korea that I just assumed that it came from there.

 

[Kenstar]

$4500 please. It is original art.

We here at Kenstar Curating® are proud to offer this one of a kind print for Only $4500 $4000!
Our Prices Can't Be Beat!

 

[AtomskEater]

I'm screaming

 

[anonymous_abc]

.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

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

It is:

Apparently called Paladin by Yuka Kaworu.

 

[Einchy]

It is:

Apparently called Paladin by Yuka Kaworu.

Was about to post that. It's not even a famous picture or even from a famous artist, just a picture that went slightly viral around places that post art.

.

Was gonna say, a lot those examples of that artist plagiarizing seem more like fanart. Some are a bit too close, but if he called them fan art, then I don't see too much of an issue there.

The ones of Blade Runner and Hermione are silly, though, those are famous pictures. Crazy to call something like that plagiarism.

 

[chekhonte]

I'm struggling to understand where some people here would draw trace the line.

• Is it ok for me to stand in front of the 2014 Dr Chau Chak Wing Building by Frank Gehry and paint it and then sell that painting without attribution?
  
• Is it ok for me to take a photo of that building, trace it, paint it, and sell it without attribution?
  
• Is it ok for me to sell a print of that photo without attribution?
  
• Is it ok for me to run the picture through some image editing filter and then sell a print of that that without attribution?
  
• Is it ok for me to take that filtered image, trace it, paint it then sell without attribution?
  
• Is it ok for me to take a photo someone else took of said building, trace it, paint it and sell it without attribution?
  
• is it ok for me to take someone else's painting of the building and trace that to then paint it and sell it without attribution?
  

Here's Gerhart Richter's repainting of a Titian painting. The attribution part is meaningless. Once an image has been placed in public space via reproduction online, in print or on public display it's anybody's to make a one off work of.

I don't think that digital or mechanical reproduction are legal but you can definitely paint, draw, sculpt anything.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

If she's transforming the medium and taking it into an original work ala oil painting, that's fair game.

Just doing an oil painting wouldnt count as transformative art. I cant just take a panel of a Naruto manga, use oil or acrylic paint, put some pixels in it and say its transformative art. It requires more than that.
Especially not if you are actually earning money with infringing copyrights.

I'm struggling to understand where some people here would draw trace the line.

• Is it ok for me to stand in front of the 2014 Dr Chau Chak Wing Building by Frank Gehry and paint it and then sell that painting without attribution?
  
• Is it ok for me to take a photo of that building, trace it, paint it, and sell it without attribution?
  
• Is it ok for me to sell a print of that photo without attribution?
  
• Is it ok for me to run the picture through some image editing filter and then sell a print of that that without attribution?
  
• Is it ok for me to take that filtered image, trace it, paint it then sell without attribution?
  
• Is it ok for me to take a photo someone else took of said building, trace it, paint it and sell it without attribution?
  
• is it ok for me to take someone else's painting of the building and trace that to then paint it and sell it without attribution?

I can tell you from a german media law graduates point of view:

-Self taken photos are okay. The art of the building/design is what makes the building art.

The last two things wouldnt fly here in Germany. The copyright of the photo of someone else is not yours. Same with the painting of someone else.

Transformative art here in Germany requires more than "do the same with another technique". An entirely new art has to be made with it's own meanings. Like I couldnt just trace someones else picture or use pencils instead of oil/acrylic and say its a transformative work.

 

[Fulminator]

I'm struggling to understand where some people here would draw trace the line.

• Is it ok for me to stand in front of the 2014 Dr Chau Chak Wing Building by Frank Gehry and paint it and then sell that painting without attribution?
  
• Is it ok for me to take a photo of that building, trace it, paint it, and sell it without attribution?
  
• Is it ok for me to sell a print of that photo without attribution?
  
• Is it ok for me to run the picture through some image editing filter and then sell a print of that that without attribution?
  
• Is it ok for me to take that filtered image, trace it, paint it then sell without attribution?
  
• Is it ok for me to take a photo someone else took of said building, trace it, paint it and sell it without attribution?
  
• is it ok for me to take someone else's painting of the building and trace that to then paint it and sell it without attribution?

There is a difference between painting a building and copying someone's drawing/painting etc

Everything you listed is fine except maybe the last one

 

[Herr Schwarz]

Just doing an oil painting wouldnt count as transformative art. I cant just take a panel of a Naruto manga, use oil or acrylic paint, put some pixels in it and say its transformative art. It requires more than that.
Especially not if you are actually earning money with infringing copyrights.

Some examples then so would you say this

classic oil tudor painting

then now this, which is an oil painting on her store front:

So that's not transformation but a copy or not art?

I wish I could paint

 

[chekhonte]

There is a difference between painting a building and copying someone's drawing/painting etc

Everything you listed is fine except maybe the last one

You can paint somebody else's painting and sell it for sure.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

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.

Looking through his DeviantArt, he doesn't actually try to pass those off as original art (though I haven't looked at every thing from that image). They're put in a "Non-original" gallery folder and he states whether something is based on something else. Although in at least one case of using a photo for reference (left side, third one from bottom) he just said that he used a photo as reference, without specifying the artist / linking to the specific photo, which I think he absolutely should. But he wasn't trying to pass them off as his own original work. (Unless he's edited in that later and it didn't originally say that. I don't know how/if you can tell on DeviantArt.)

I'm struggling to understand where some people here would draw trace the line.

• Is it ok for me to stand in front of the 2014 Dr Chau Chak Wing Building by Frank Gehry and paint it and then sell that painting without attribution?
  
• Is it ok for me to take a photo of that building, trace it, paint it, and sell it without attribution?
  
• Is it ok for me to sell a print of that photo without attribution?
  
• Is it ok for me to run the picture through some image editing filter and then sell a print of that that without attribution?
  
• Is it ok for me to take that filtered image, trace it, paint it then sell without attribution?
  
• Is it ok for me to take a photo someone else took of said building, trace it, paint it and sell it without attribution?
  
• is it ok for me to take someone else's painting of the building and trace that to then paint it and sell it without attribution?

I think public art is really in a category of its own. I think I should be allowed to take photos in a public space, even if they contain a sculpture/whatever. If a person can't expect privacy in a public space, neither should a sculpture. (Though I guess you can get privacy if you just always carry a copyrighted work along with you.)

 

[Chairmanchuck]

Some examples then so would you say this

classic oil tudor painting

then now this, which is an oil painting on her store front:



So that's not transformation but a copy or not art?

I wish I could paint

Of course this is transformative. Its a totally new art. The Sailor Moon things on the other hand imo not, since she is drawing an abstract female body and put a, what seems "traced" image of a Sailor Warrior on top of it.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

I think that if this person 1. hadn't appropriated anime/manga and 2. wasn't a woman this thread wouldn't exist. I really try to stay out of toxic fan culture but fuck. It usually doesn't involve visual art.

Oh you've gotta be kidding me. Warhol's works also incited similar reactions, and apparently the original artist to that Lichtenstein's jet plane work felt slighted. The subject of transformative art is always controversial amongst the laymen and sometimes even a sore subject to the professionals. To suddenly attribute this one mainly to toxic fan culture is a desperate reaching to some kind of a moral ground.

 

[chekhonte]

Oh you've gotta be kidding me. Warhol's works also incited similar reactions, and apparently the original artist to that Lichtenstein's jet plane work felt slighted. The subject of transformative art is always controversial amongst the laymen and sometimes even a sore subject to the professionals. To suddenly attribute this one mainly to toxic fan culture is a desperate reaching to some kind of a moral ground.

Being shocked and appalled by somebody doing this 50 years after Warhol is a bigger stretch to me.

 

[AtomskEater]

Looking through his DeviantArt, he doesn't actually try to pass those off as original art (though I haven't looked at every thing from that image). They're put in a "Non-original" gallery folder and he states whether something is based on something else. Although in at least one case of using a photo for reference (left side, third one from bottom) he just said that he used a photo as reference, without specifying the artist / linking to the specific photo, which I think he absolutely should. But he wasn't trying to pass them off as his own original work. (Unless he's edited in that later and it didn't originally say that. I don't know how/if you can tell on DeviantArt.)

The whole thing went down years ago and going by most of the earlier reaction (some of which can be read here), I'm thinking he just learned his lesson and cleaned up his gallery to make it clear that some of his work is heavily referenced. I don't think people would have gotten that mad if he had been clear from the start.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

Being shocked and appalled by somebody doing this 50 years after Warhol is a bigger stretch to me.

Laymen are not informed. Inform people without that kind of pathetic deflecting.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

Of course this is transformative. Its a totally new art. The Sailor Moon things on the other hand imo not, since she is drawing an abstract female body and put a, what seems "traced" image of a Sailor Warrior on top of it.

So you mean that this isn't "transformative" art

Can't one tell from the brush strokes or painting if it's traced or not? Again I'm a total novice.

 

[Kinyou]

Photos from random life magazines aren't widely known unless you see them in a life magazine. There's no reference to where they were published or the photographer who was contracted to take them. It's directly related. Somebody is taking somebody elses work and combining them with other works to create a collage. I'm sure that neither Rauschenberg or the gallery owner who sold them could say who the photographer was.

I think that if this person 1. hadn't appropriated anime/manga and 2. wasn't a woman this thread wouldn't exist. I really try to stay out of toxic fan culture but fuck. It usually doesn't involve visual art.

A white person making money of the back of asian artists probably added to this being highlighted

Not seeing any evidence of this being misogyny fueled though

 

[chekhonte]

Laymen are not informed. Inform people without that kind of pathetic deflecting.

I informed them rationally pages ago but but was met with deflection. I no longer believe that the subject of this thread is where the outrage is coming from.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

.

For the record, Lament of the Lamb was an awesome series. Glad to have that in print as part of my manga collection from back in the day.

 

[UrbanRats]

That line control is horrible.
Anyone with a minimal drawing experience should've noticed something was off (and given the complexity of the composition, deduced probable tracing).

 

[anonymous_abc]

.

 

[chekhonte]

That line control is horrible.
Anyone with a minimal drawing experience should've noticed something was off (and given the complexity of the composition, deduced probable tracing).

You can tell in the OP that it's not a trace.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

So you mean that this isn't "transformative" art

Can't one tell from the brush strokes or painting if it's traced or not? Again I'm a total novice.

It looks to me like that that the artist is actually using an actual Sailor Moon fanart image by Fujin Kazeno:

The problem is that in this case the "traced" image is still far too close to the original and just because she is adding some self drawn background, doesnt make it a transformative work.

Imagine I paint something in paint, just random lines and colors, then I trace some Naruto on top of it or even draw one "copying" a manga cover. it wouldnt fly here in Germany, because I am still using copyrighted material.

 

[Adam Sadler]

Lmao wow what a terrible trace tho

 

[UrbanRats]

You can tell in the OP that it's not a trace.

Yeah, it looks more like a copy.
I honestly don't have a problem with it, if it's done as an exercise or even as a tribute, as long as it isn't passed as an original.

But as i said, it's weird that nobody noticed the divide between complexity of certain elements, and the absolutely amateurish, insecure lines.
Even at first glance, it would make me raise an eye brow.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

I informed them rationally pages ago but but was met with deflection. I no longer believe that the subject of this thread is where the outrage is coming from.

Oh please. From the very start you are doing that trite and obnoxious "I am more informed than you ignorant people" routine. The vast majority of your posts are sarcasm, condescension or both. If your intention is truly to inform people, you are not being very efficient at it.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

It looks to me like that that the artist is actually using an actual Sailor Moon fanart image by Fujin Kazeno:

The problem is that in this case the "traced" image is still far too close to the original and just because she is adding some self drawn background, doesnt make it a transformative work.

Imagine I paint something in paint, just random lines and colors, then I trace some Naruto on top of it or even draw one "copying" a manga cover. it wouldnt fly here in Germany, because I am still using copyrighted material.

I mean regardless of what the image that is being lifted, it's still being re-rendered into an oil painting by the artists hand right? Or what's the method here? Apply the background, then get a full body image of the anime character, stencil an outline lightly onto the canvas, then fill in the gaps with paint?


On wider topic: So, all the work she's selling is oil paintings, riiiiight?

 

[Chairmanchuck]

You can tell in the OP that it's not a trace.

Part of it seems definitely traced.

I put both images over each other on photoshop and the spacing is the exact same. I didnt scale anything, just moved one image on top of the other and made it transparent:

I mean regardless of what the image that is being lifted, it's still being re-rendered into an oil painting by the artists hand right? Or what's the method here? Apply the background, then get a full body image of the anime character, stencil an outline lightly onto the canvas, then fill in the gaps with paint?

It might be, but since I assume you are German (judging by your username) here you cant just do it like that. Like I said. I cant just almost copy another copyrighted image 1to1 and add a "custom" background and then say "Its an own work of art so I can infringe copyright." Especially if you are earning money with it:

http://www.frag-einen-anwalt.de/Gemaelde-nachmalen--f110936.html

http://www.frag-einen-anwalt.de/Bilder-nach-malen-erlaubt--f22350.html

This is important:

Ein Konflikt mit den Urheberrechten des Künstlers besteht dann nicht, wenn Ihre „Kopie” wiederum selbst eine gewisse künstlerische Schöpfungshöhe erreicht, so dass sie selbst Urheberrechtsschutz genießt.

I would argue that if you trace an image or just draw it the exact same and just change the background, the "original" image is still used and just using a different background wouldnt change that.

 

[ultracal31]

Part of it seems definitely traced.

I put both images over each other on photoshop and the spacing is the exact same. I didnt scale anything, just moved one image on top of the other and made it transparent:

Clearly you need to sell that for 5k now

 

[chekhonte]

Oh please. From the very start you are doing that trite and obnoxious "I am more informed than you ignorant people" routine. The vast majority of your posts are sarcasm, condescension or both. If your intention is truly to inform people, you are not being very efficient at it.

So I can have a better understand of how obnoxious i've been from the very beginning. Has it been more or less obnoxious than your posts?

 

[Fulminator]

How so?
I specifically took a very recent building by a very famous architect. Not that it should make a difference, as every building is a piece of art.

because a building is a structural object that exists in three dimensional space. taking a photo or making a painting of that building does not recreate that building in the world, just a 2d representation of the building. So you are not really plagiarizing the building because what you have created or captured does not meet the requirements necessary to be considered a "copy" of the building.

it's probably debatable, but I think you are just making a representation of the building rather than the building itself.

This is different from copying something in a 2 dimensional space that only exists in a 2 dimensional space imo

You can paint somebody else's painting and sell it for sure.

i mean of course you can do it, but isn't that basically what this artist is under fire for

 

[chekhonte]

Part of it seems definitely traced.

I put both images over each other on photoshop and the spacing is the exact same. I didnt scale anything, just moved one image on top of the other and made it transparent:

It might be, but since I assume you are German (judging by your username) here you cant just do it like that. Like I said. I cant just almost copy another copyrighted image 1to1 and add a "custom" background and then say "Its an own work of art so I can infringe copyright." Especially if you are earning money with it:

http://www.frag-einen-anwalt.de/Gemaelde-nachmalen--f110936.html

http://www.frag-einen-anwalt.de/Bilder-nach-malen-erlaubt--f22350.html

This is important:

I would argue that if you trace an image or just draw it the exact same and just change the background, the "original" image is still used and just using a different background wouldnt change that.

ah, could be a projection trace where the image is a little skewed because it's not parallel to the wall exactly. The wonky "straw" on the left could have been missed in the initial tracing and added later once it was observed that it was missing.

 

[Blam]

That's subjective. very.