Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

Art, plagiarism and grey areas


Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

 

I have a question about art plagiarism - learning and copying from others is important but if you copy too much from an artist, you can be labelled as a plagiarist. I just wanted to know how people here view plagiarism.

 

Let's say I take an online tutorial to learn how to create a specific style of art and reproduce that same style of art but with a different idea, concept or composition... would you consider it plagiarism, especially if you want to produce that work commercially?? 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say I take an online tutorial to learn how to create a specific style of art and reproduce that same style of art but with a different idea, concept or composition... would you consider it plagiarism, especially if you want to produce that work commercially?? 

No, I would not. Consider how many styles in the art world have been used by multiple artists. Everything from Bauhaus to Cubism, from graffiti to ASCII art, is in some sense a style.

All 3 1.10.8, & all 3 V2.4.1 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
Affinity Photo 
1.10.8; Affinity Designer 1.108; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plagiarism only occurs when someone attempts to pass off some else's work as their own for profit. Essentially, its an act of fraud, or forgery. 

 

Working in a similar manners just makes the work derivative. The person doing it is a "wannabe," or worse, a "hack."

 

Everyone emulates their teachers. Teachers are happy when the pupil surpasses their work, or at least proceeds from it to something new innovative. Everyone copies works they admire. Its understood that it is just the way one acquires skill and an understanding of the fundamentals.

iMac 27" Retina, c. 2015: OS X 10.11.5: 3.3 GHz I c-5: 32 Gb,  AMD Radeon R9 M290 2048 Mb

iPad 12.9" Retina, iOS 10, 512 Gb, Apple pencil

Huion WH1409 tablet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Staff

Hi wordsberry,

As you said this is a grey area. What is a style here? Something you have learned from a tutorial on internet? How many other users have done the same and are also using it? Is that an artist signature style or just a trend going on? or even a trending/style already explored in the past? Unless you are literally copying a work from a known artist  (easily recognizable) and passing as yours - which is usually more complicated than it may look at first - it can be hardly considered plagiarism. As gbendy pointed derivative at least if you are just trying replicating its style. The point is why would you want to mimic such a style? If it's an easily recognizable signature style/expression that's clearly associated with the artist's name, people will associate it with the original artist... not you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi wordsberry,

As you said this is a grey area. What's is a style here? Something you have learned from a tutorial on internet? How many other users have done the same and are also using it? Is that an artist signature style or just a trending going on? or even a trending/style already explored in the past? Unless you are literally copying a work from an artist  (and easily recognizable) and passing as yours - which is usually more complicated than it may look at first - it can be hardly considered plagiarism. As gbendy pointed derivative at least if you are just trying replicating its style. The point is why would you want to mimic such a style? If it's an easily recognizable signature style/expression that's clearly associated with the artist's name, people will associate it with the original artist... not you.

 

No, they are just generic trending styles mainly flat vector illustrations... I've taken some classes online where someone teaches their own style, but when I try to produce it, it looks different because my own style creeps in so the design/illustration becomes unique, yet there are similarities with the teachers work as well... I'm only asking about plagiarism because everyone seems to define it differently. I personally believe that plagiarism is when someone takes another person's idea and claims it as their own, but some people seem to believe that remixing, replicating a style seperate from the subject matter/composition etc, transforming old art into something new etc all can fall under plagiarism as well... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot copyright a style or technique only the final works are subject to copyright.

 

So as long as your designs are not copies (or close copies) of other designs then you can use any style or technique you want to, to produce your designs.

To save time I am currently using an automated AI to reply to some posts on this forum. If any of "my" posts are wrong or appear to be total b*ll*cks they are the ones generated by the AI. If correct they were probably mine. I apologise for any mistakes made by my AI - I'm sure it will improve with time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot copyright a style or technique only the final works are subject to copyright.

 

So as long as your designs are not copies (or close copies) of other designs then you can use any style or technique you want to, to produce your designs.

 

Thanks!! That was helpful, i'm gonna make sure to read up on intellectual property laws. Hopefully it'll give me peace of mind :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plagiarism only occurs when someone attempts to pass off some else's work as their own for profit. Essentially, its an act of fraud, or forgery.

 

Even if it's not for profit it's still plagiarism, of course. The important point is that the offender is trying to claim the credit for work done by someone else.

Alfred spacer.png
Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 2 for Windows • Windows 10 Home/Pro
Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 2 for iPad • iPadOS 17.4.1 (iPad 7th gen)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One cannot claim to have been plagiarized if one discloses a method, either freely or for pay. So if you see it on a tute, or just an blog demonstration, its pretty much OK to use. 

 

Concepts, something like a description for a plot line, can be copyrighted, and assuming the owner protects the right, if someone appropriates it for commercial use, then there is a problem.

 

There are many uses for the term "idea." but the most important one is referred to in the old phrase "You can't stop an idea whose time has come." There are certainly historic records of people w. no relation to each other, working in different places w. no communication, who have discovered or created nearly the same thing. Or as is often said, "there are no new stories." My view is that basic ideas are not the property of any 1 person.

 

The actual expression deriving from the idea is what can be plagiarized, i.e. copied for profit by someone who does not own it.

 

Picasso was once accused of stealing someone's technique. His reply was something like "Everybody steals. The mark of genius is knowing who to steal from." I thought about that "Everbody steals" for years. (I worked in an art museum, and topics like this were part of day to day operation.) "Steal" might be to strong a term, but pretty much everybody borrows from everybody else. People who are honest will admit to being influenced by other peoples' works. In some cultures and schools, deviating from traditional standards is in fact discouraged or forbidden. As a for instance, a big problem with attributing works to Rembrandt is that he had many pupils, all of whom were encouraged to paint like their master. It wasn't a problem, until a few hundred years later when the real things and the students' works got mixed up and were all being sold as a Rembrandt.

 

This is a huge topic, and many facetted.  But "replicating a style seperate from the subject matter/composition etc, transforming old art into something new etc all can fall under plagiarism as well..." is not plagiarism. A style is just a set of conventions, and those are used to help formulate a particular item. Its like a set of words, phrases, syntax. Everyone who wants to can use them.

iMac 27" Retina, c. 2015: OS X 10.11.5: 3.3 GHz I c-5: 32 Gb,  AMD Radeon R9 M290 2048 Mb

iPad 12.9" Retina, iOS 10, 512 Gb, Apple pencil

Huion WH1409 tablet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it's not for profit it's still plagiarism, of course. The important point is that the offender is trying to claim the credit for work done by someone else.

 

I am speaking in a mostly technical sense. From what I recall of the discussions we had w. lawyers, the term "profit" is the crucial element. One may not profit from another's work, and fair use only goes as far as not reducing the profit of the creator, or right holder. "Claiming credit" does perhaps impinge on the creator's goods. But claiming something is one's own work is simple intellectual dishonesty, and that almost always is uncovered, and penalized at least in terms of reputation. 

 

Current law, tho', is very extensive on what can be claimed as a property. The facade of a building, for instance. The place I worked allowed people to take pictures of the outsides of the buildings, but would sue anyone who printed those pictures in anything.

iMac 27" Retina, c. 2015: OS X 10.11.5: 3.3 GHz I c-5: 32 Gb,  AMD Radeon R9 M290 2048 Mb

iPad 12.9" Retina, iOS 10, 512 Gb, Apple pencil

Huion WH1409 tablet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One cannot claim to have been plagiarized if one discloses a method, either freely or for pay. So if you see it on a tute, or just an blog demonstration, its pretty much OK to use. 

Thanks, that was my concern. It makes sense and I'm glad the general discussion about using techniques learned from tutorials isn't considered plagiarism...

 

 

This is a huge topic, and many facetted.  But "replicating a style seperate from the subject matter/composition etc, transforming old art into something new etc all can fall under plagiarism as well..." is not plagiarism. A style is just a set of conventions, and those are used to help formulate a particular item. Its like a set of words, phrases, syntax. Everyone who wants to can use them.

 

I understand this, but I find that copyright has two sides to it - one with the law, which is precise and one with the art community, which is subjective...  the latter is more dangerous in my opinion, because if the person calling out an artist as a plagiarist has any degree of influence they can seriously damage the reputation of an artist. In the magic community, we can clearly tell that an act is a copy of someone else's work... card tricks, bunny from hat etc etc... many artists do a variation of the work and profit from it, but most people don't seem bothered by the sameness of the technique. In comedy, having too many jokes similar to other artists, even if the jokes are set up differently, catered for a different audience or transformed from stand up to sketch comedy routines, can easily destroy the reputation of an artist.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you create something and then have serious concerns that you are 'borrowing' too much from someone else I'd suggest that maybe you are - but you could always ask them for their opinion?

Win10 Home x64   |   AMD Ryzen 7 2700X @ 3.7GHz   |   48 GB RAM   |   1TB SSD   |   nVidia GTX 1660   |   Wacom Intuos Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Staff

No, they are just generic trending styles mainly flat vector illustrations... I've taken some classes online where someone teaches their own style, but when I try to produce it, it looks different because my own style creeps in so the design/illustration becomes unique, yet there are similarities with the teachers work as well... I'm only asking about plagiarism because everyone seems to define it differently. I personally believe that plagiarism is when someone takes another person's idea and claims it as their own, but some people seem to believe that remixing, replicating a style seperate from the subject matter/composition etc, transforming old art into something new etc all can fall under plagiarism as well... 

 

I don't think you will have much problems with generic flat vector illustrations. This is a trend that's currently so spread that most variations were already covered in some way, specially if you are adapting the tutorials and mixing your own techniques. So unless there's something truly notable/particular with them I don't see how this can be a problem. Have you done some Google (re)search to find similar styles/images? Are these reference images complex illustrations? You can always post an example (not done by you) so we can see if it's easily identifiable with someone/something if you want...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you create something and then have serious concerns that you are 'borrowing' too much from someone else I'd suggest that maybe you are - but you could always ask them for their opinion?

 

I haven't stumbled upon the problem yet... my question was mostly hypothetical, I was just curious since I've been taking a lot of tutorials lately and it got me thinking if incorporating certain styles from published tutorials is acceptable practice..

 

 

I don't think you will have much problems with generic flat vector illustrations. This is a trend that's currently so spread that most variations were already covered in some way, specially if you are adapting the tutorials and mixing your own techniques. So unless there's something truly notable/particular with them I don't see how this can be a problem. Have you done some Google (re)search to find similar styles/images? Are these reference images complex illustrations? You can always post an example (not done by you) so we can see if it's easily identifiable with someone/something if you want...

 

Yes I have, most designers use the same techniques and if you browse through sites like Dribbble then you'll see identical techniques done by different artists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In art, illustration, my take and advice is, first master the technique, old style : Anatomy drawing, perspective, lighting, color, composition. With a good knowledge of it all you can do a better synthesis , I mean, style. Copying someone's style is like skipping several necessary steps. Is like making a summary of a summary. You want to make your own personal summary and/or emphasize or focus on aspects of what you see and reality.

 

This above is the -IMO- best way to build your very own style, and equally important, to actually learn the discipline (be it painting, comic creation, etc)

 

Otherwise you might copy other people's errors, and, more importantly, will have errors in whatever your style for lack of a solid technique, no matter how much you'd try to hide them, and your style would never fully be yours, plus the danger of being seen a bit as a "copycat"  (with no offense to cats, sth very dangerous to do around here... :P)

AD, AP and APub. V1.10.6 and V2.4 Windows 10 and Windows 11. 
Ryzen 9 3900X, 32 GB RAM,  RTX 3060 12GB, Wacom Intuos XL, Wacom L. Eizo ColorEdge CS 2420 monitor. Windows 10 Pro.
(Laptop) HP Omen 16-b1010ns 12700H, 32GB DDR5, nVidia RTX 3060 6GB + Huion Kamvas 22 pen display, Windows 11 Pro.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, that was my concern. It makes sense and I'm glad the general discussion about using techniques learned from tutorials isn't considered plagiarism...

 

 

 

I understand this, but I find that copyright has two sides to it - one with the law, which is precise and one with the art community, which is subjective...  the latter is more dangerous in my opinion, because if the person calling out an artist as a plagiarist has any degree of influence they can seriously damage the reputation of an artist. In the magic community, we can clearly tell that an act is a copy of someone else's work... card tricks, bunny from hat etc etc... many artists do a variation of the work and profit from it, but most people don't seem bothered by the sameness of the technique. In comedy, having too many jokes similar to other artists, even if the jokes are set up differently, catered for a different audience or transformed from stand up to sketch comedy routines, can easily destroy the reputation of an artist.. 

 

I have seen a case of a really talented artist, working for a very good company see her name totally marked for ever on internet, globally. So yeah, careful with dedicating your self to copy other people's work 

 

Plus, as I have mentioned: Doing so you don't learn more, you learn less. Maybe you need to stop only looking at some specific tutorials on internet, and read some base principles books (design and illustration books, depending on your focus) , stuff about color theory and composition are a must. 

 

If you do your very personal take of it, it would be impossible to blame you in any case. Even if you come up with ideas that are randomly coincident with other people's pieces, in court it will be super easy to check that you were not copying. 

 

Thing is, be original, as also, people gets bored very fast of seeing uninspired copied art. That wont be an incredible success, wont last at least,I tell you.

That said, IMO is very positive to see how people solve problems in composition, etc. That wont make you copy a thing, just get used to see things different ly, from many points of views. (not only composition: Also drawing technique, color treatment, etc. But this is not copying like neither is if your favorite artist uses certain Chinese brushes and you happen to do as well. You are not copying styles. ) 

 

Neither worry on if your reputation is damaged if you are really doing your very own thing (if you are copying, even slightly, YEAH, you can be worried, heh) because : a) people worry about this too soon, just wait until you have that so easy to get reputation (evil grin) , and B) also because is not the case. If you do your thing, chances are that even similarities wont make anyone think that you are copying. Is just as simple as that, happily. Copycats, imo in a 999 out of 1000 cases, are acussed of being so because... well, they actually copied.

 

Just  get past this insecurity on doing your own art. ...IMO.... :)  Don't have fears of making your own stuff...Going your own personal way is the safest bet, but yeah, just my opinion.

 

There's also the opposite fear, which as well makes me smile, too (the real issues for an artist end up being none of these...). The fear of, people having painfully built their style, fearing to be copied. I say to them : Neither worry, if is yours, you know the whys, the deep reasons for every brush stroke being so, you are the original author, the copying nature of the other person(s) will work against them, sooner or later. is not a theory, happens a lot.

AD, AP and APub. V1.10.6 and V2.4 Windows 10 and Windows 11. 
Ryzen 9 3900X, 32 GB RAM,  RTX 3060 12GB, Wacom Intuos XL, Wacom L. Eizo ColorEdge CS 2420 monitor. Windows 10 Pro.
(Laptop) HP Omen 16-b1010ns 12700H, 32GB DDR5, nVidia RTX 3060 6GB + Huion Kamvas 22 pen display, Windows 11 Pro.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all copy, that's how we learnt to write. Then as time marches on, our handwriting evolves into something that is unique. Typically this is how our signature take shape.

 

As for art in general: yes finished work is copyrightable, but a soup label redone as a piece of wall art...well judge for yourselves.

 

Context, intent and honesty are big factors here.

 

There are two famous Flemish renaissance painters Jheronimous Bosch and Pieter Breugel. Their work looks hard to distinguish to the untrained eye, as the artwork does look like it comes from the same vein. The key difference here is Bosch leans towards the religious and diabolical, where as Breugel aims for the mundane and secular, most of the time.

 

Both these artists have one thing in common with the likes of Lowry, Handford and even the Radio Times Christmas picture puzzle...that is they depict chaotic scenes, with multiple characters doing their own thing. I really like this sort of art, as there is always something new to look at.

 

As for Grayson Perry he painted Breugel's Hunter's in the snow, onto one of his own vases, albeit a homage.

 

So the key thing here is this...if you're going to a party, then bring a bottle: as those who have something to offer will always be more welcome. In a nutshell if you are going to copy/emulate then try to add something of your own creation to the mix.

MacBook pro, 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3, NVIDIA GeForce 9400M 256 MB, OS X 10.11.6

 

http://www.pinterest.com/peter2111

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.