Digital painting/copycatting an image
Copyright Corner :: FAQ'S :: F.A.Q'S
Page 1 of 1 • Share •
Digital painting/copycatting an image
by Tonya on Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:53 pm
From: ausfire2 (Original Message) Sent: 6/3/2008 9:44 PM
I dont quite know how to explain this so I hope you can understand what I'm asking.
If you take an image.......say for example a Luxottica ad (using this as an example as I know they are nono's)......and put the face as your bottom layer, then start freehanding the face, digitally painting it layer by layer doin the smudging, highlights etc etc EXACTLY over the original image and when you're happy, deleting the bottom layer so that 'your' image is 100% created by you...........then is this allowed and can you claim copyright to it. Say for example the only thing you changed was the pattern of some material say on a dress or a ribbon in her hair .....or a flower in her hair?
Its not something I've come across in my group yet but I've suspicions on another image I saw somewhere else. They'd changed the colour of the dress and mirrored the original pose .
Because its been 100% created by yourself then theoretically its yours, but it would also be recognised (or if good enough) mistaken for the original that someone else created.......that would be more plagerism(?) wouldn't it?
I thought to be able to put copyright on it of your own it would need to be a % different to an original.
Does anyone understand what I'm saying and what I'm asking lol
I dont quite know how to explain this so I hope you can understand what I'm asking.
If you take an image.......say for example a Luxottica ad (using this as an example as I know they are nono's)......and put the face as your bottom layer, then start freehanding the face, digitally painting it layer by layer doin the smudging, highlights etc etc EXACTLY over the original image and when you're happy, deleting the bottom layer so that 'your' image is 100% created by you...........then is this allowed and can you claim copyright to it. Say for example the only thing you changed was the pattern of some material say on a dress or a ribbon in her hair .....or a flower in her hair?
Its not something I've come across in my group yet but I've suspicions on another image I saw somewhere else. They'd changed the colour of the dress and mirrored the original pose .
Because its been 100% created by yourself then theoretically its yours, but it would also be recognised (or if good enough) mistaken for the original that someone else created.......that would be more plagerism(?) wouldn't it?
I thought to be able to put copyright on it of your own it would need to be a % different to an original.
Does anyone understand what I'm saying and what I'm asking lol
Tonya- Admin
- Number of posts: 3129
Age: 34
Warning:
-
Re: Digital painting/copycatting an image
by Tonya on Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:53 pm
From: ©SweetHeart1 Sent: 6/3/2008 10:09 PM
Yes i think i know what you mean...like traceing.....but adding your own touches to it.....Useing the bottom layer as a template in a way??
Um....i really wouldn't know hun....I think if the person has added thier own shadeing...changed the hair or added bits...then it might be ok...i think.....Might wait for someone who has a better answer i think
Raq
From: ausfire2 Sent: 6/3/2008 10:37 PM
yeah thats it Raq............tracing
One of my members said it was like 'using tracing paper' lol
From: MooñShadow•• Sent: 6/3/2008 11:14 PM
Plagiarism often deals with written works; however, it can apply to artistic as well. It can and often goes hand in hand with copyright violation but it differs in regard to a person's reputation, where as copyright violation deals with violations of the copyright belonging to the copyright holder. Plagiarism is the claiming or implying that one is the original author or creator of a work, thus tarnishing an individual’s reputation or achievements in a given profession or simply put taking their idea's or works without permission. Plagiarism is best used in an example of: copying and pasting text (say an artists TOU) into a group without the artist’s consent/permission. While this action does not take any given websites bandwidth it does violate their copyright of their website as well as can indicate plagiarism, if, taken without permission to do so and posted elsewhere.
With works of art to traced and altered, and ending up with something totally different, without the original... would there be no new creation? If the answer is yes, then copyright has been violated. The new work is constructed and created around a work that is pre-existing and would not exist if the image pre-existing did not exist. If the answer is no to the no new creation, why was the original work being used in the first place to create a new work? This is a thin line in all honesty, and there are variables. A parody on an existing work is a whole different matter. Works which are deemed as Public Domain, artists that don’t care if their work is copied, altered, reworked, reused, etc… Another variable involves model sessions where a group of artists attend and paint a model or models (or photograph), it is possible and does happen that 2 different artists create the same work or nearly the same work. Poser artists who allow who allow Derivative works of a poser image. With regard to copyright and Derivates: The Derivative work or works are to have enough difference in them from the original or the Derivate work must contain considerable new material to be considered as a Derivative work. Guess the bottom line in it all is finding the artists who allow retracing, reworking, etc or artist that allow and grant permission to make changes. Simply done on it’s own can be risky.
From: ausfire2 Sent: 6/4/2008 12:29 AM
Yeah I didn't think Plagerism was the correct word to use but didn't know what to sub for it lol I thought it was mainly for text.
I'll go absorb all that now lol
Sometimes it takes a few reads for it to sink in lol
From: MooñShadow•• Sent: 6/4/2008 12:56 AM
LOL like you say it takes a few reads, I read and reread things a lot.
It can also come down to the "matter of intent" by the person who is "doing the copying/altering/recreating" (gad I hate after thoughts, get em all the time) and that such intent by the party caused "harm" to the person or persons who's original work has been used..
As a group manager it's a judgment call. Good topic, LOL ya got me thinking
From: ausfire2 Sent: 6/4/2008 3:23 AM
Yeah had me searching too but then I thought........such learned people in here.....lets hear their thoughts on it all lol
From: -ѕωєєτ- Sent: 6/4/2008 2:48 PM
I feel that if the image is -so- close to the original that it could be mistaken as that first picture, then its not ok. I know I would not like it if an image popped up so similar to mine that people thought -my- work was the copycat.
I agree with Moon, its a judgement call, but a person that redraws Tigger or Mickey Mouse still cant claim it as their own because of the trademark. SO I guess what I think is CopyCats are violations, that is if the copy is VERY similar.
Yes i think i know what you mean...like traceing.....but adding your own touches to it.....Useing the bottom layer as a template in a way??
Um....i really wouldn't know hun....I think if the person has added thier own shadeing...changed the hair or added bits...then it might be ok...i think.....Might wait for someone who has a better answer i think
Raq
From: ausfire2 Sent: 6/3/2008 10:37 PM
yeah thats it Raq............tracing
One of my members said it was like 'using tracing paper' lol
From: MooñShadow•• Sent: 6/3/2008 11:14 PM
Plagiarism often deals with written works; however, it can apply to artistic as well. It can and often goes hand in hand with copyright violation but it differs in regard to a person's reputation, where as copyright violation deals with violations of the copyright belonging to the copyright holder. Plagiarism is the claiming or implying that one is the original author or creator of a work, thus tarnishing an individual’s reputation or achievements in a given profession or simply put taking their idea's or works without permission. Plagiarism is best used in an example of: copying and pasting text (say an artists TOU) into a group without the artist’s consent/permission. While this action does not take any given websites bandwidth it does violate their copyright of their website as well as can indicate plagiarism, if, taken without permission to do so and posted elsewhere.
With works of art to traced and altered, and ending up with something totally different, without the original... would there be no new creation? If the answer is yes, then copyright has been violated. The new work is constructed and created around a work that is pre-existing and would not exist if the image pre-existing did not exist. If the answer is no to the no new creation, why was the original work being used in the first place to create a new work? This is a thin line in all honesty, and there are variables. A parody on an existing work is a whole different matter. Works which are deemed as Public Domain, artists that don’t care if their work is copied, altered, reworked, reused, etc… Another variable involves model sessions where a group of artists attend and paint a model or models (or photograph), it is possible and does happen that 2 different artists create the same work or nearly the same work. Poser artists who allow who allow Derivative works of a poser image. With regard to copyright and Derivates: The Derivative work or works are to have enough difference in them from the original or the Derivate work must contain considerable new material to be considered as a Derivative work. Guess the bottom line in it all is finding the artists who allow retracing, reworking, etc or artist that allow and grant permission to make changes. Simply done on it’s own can be risky.
From: ausfire2 Sent: 6/4/2008 12:29 AM
Yeah I didn't think Plagerism was the correct word to use but didn't know what to sub for it lol I thought it was mainly for text.
I'll go absorb all that now lol
Sometimes it takes a few reads for it to sink in lol
From: MooñShadow•• Sent: 6/4/2008 12:56 AM
LOL like you say it takes a few reads, I read and reread things a lot.
It can also come down to the "matter of intent" by the person who is "doing the copying/altering/recreating" (gad I hate after thoughts, get em all the time) and that such intent by the party caused "harm" to the person or persons who's original work has been used..
As a group manager it's a judgment call. Good topic, LOL ya got me thinking
From: ausfire2 Sent: 6/4/2008 3:23 AM
Yeah had me searching too but then I thought........such learned people in here.....lets hear their thoughts on it all lol
From: -ѕωєєτ- Sent: 6/4/2008 2:48 PM
I feel that if the image is -so- close to the original that it could be mistaken as that first picture, then its not ok. I know I would not like it if an image popped up so similar to mine that people thought -my- work was the copycat.
I agree with Moon, its a judgement call, but a person that redraws Tigger or Mickey Mouse still cant claim it as their own because of the trademark. SO I guess what I think is CopyCats are violations, that is if the copy is VERY similar.
Tonya- Admin
- Number of posts: 3129
Age: 34
Warning: -
Re: Digital painting/copycatting an image
by Tonya on Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:53 pm
From: TESStwisted Sent: 6/4/2008 3:00 PM
I disagree with this that is in copyright infrengment. When a portrate artist does a portrate , a lot of the time uses a photo and he has the copyright
From: ausfire2 Sent: 6/4/2008 3:25 PM
I guess the question then becomes how close to the original is too close?
A lot of artists use 'references' be it a real person or an image but when
one can see traces of the original background around very fine areas of the original
eg around the hair line............and has traced the original or even manipulated the original, then where does it become 'wrong' or a copyright violation?
From: TESStwisted Sent: 6/4/2008 3:29 PM
Aus now this is a good question.
From: MooñShadow•• Sent: 6/4/2008 6:23 PM
If the photo is taken with the intent of using it for the only purposes to paint a portrait from, it's not infringement, but there can be factors involved. Many painters/artist work with photographers and some even take their own photos.
With tracing someone’s work to recreate a new image, what is the tracer’s intent? How can the "new" image harm (cause and effect) the original artist/artists? Does the tracer have an agreement with xyz artist to do so and/or does xyz artist grant permission or acknowledge that the tracer can do so? And if the tracer is doing this solely on his or her own without xyz artist’s permission how close to the original does it come? Does it violate another artist’s copyright? It becomes wrong or a copyright violation if the artist’s work has been used without the consent of the original artist. Again the first question in my mind is: without the original... would there be no new creation?
Similarities happen all the time and the lines between originality can often become blurred, as a group manager if it makes you uncomfortable to have an image on your boards that could cause problems, remove it. I said this somewhere else in a message, if you recognize it's similar, too similar for your comfort zone or the groups, you have every right to delete it and if necessary offer an explanation as to why.
From: MooñShadow•• Sent: 6/4/2008 6:44 PM
"They'd changed the colour of the dress and mirrored the original pose ."
Borrowing from Ausfire's original posting... that in and of itself is a copyright violation if the artist of the original work does not allow for copying of their work (copyright = right to copy). Further copyright violation can be: not properly crediting the copyright holder (whether permission is to use is given, or not given) and giving the appearance or impression that the poster of the image is the copyright holder. And that can lead into Plagiarism.
We recently had a recoloring of Chole Jones image, recoloring doesn't create a new copyright in that it does not add to the existence of the orginal work, recoloring alters it. Mirroring the original pose, same thing. These simply alter what a viewer sees, they do not actually alter the original core being or existence of the work in it's original format.
From: ausfire2 Sent: 6/6/2008 3:55 AM
Well the image I've seen I believe to be totally violating copryights then.
I seriously doubt that permission was gained and it is kind of a 'giveaway' then
when they leave traces of the original background around the hair lol
I wont be using this persons 'tubes' but the dilema is whether to say something to them or not. Then again.......although I hate it when people violate copyright issues
I don't like drama either so although I'll stand up for whats right I'm hoping the managers will 'see through' what this person is doing and make their own decision on it in their group.
Great feedback though and thanks.
From: huronna Sent: 6/6/2008 7:07 PM
Aus...I know exactly what you are talking about, and I'm sure you are aware that I put forth quite a few questions reagrding this type of work.
In the meantime, I have been in touch via e-mail with a couple of artists that I know personally, both do digital painting using photos as a reference. Not as a base layer. It's sort of like when you go to a museum and you see the artist's painting a likeness of a Rembrandt. Both of these artists said that is a definite no no to leave the original image as a base of the "new image"
If one was using their own photo and doing a "photomanipulation" that is a totally different case, their photo...to do what they want. But when they find another image and use filters to enhance areas and merge with the original it is a real no no in every sense of the word. The reason the person merges with the base layer is if they deleted it, all there would be left was bits and peices that were worked on, not a full image.
OK going back in my corner again LOL
From: ausfire2 Sent: 6/6/2008 8:27 PM
lol huronna yep we been obviously thinking alike lol
The first one still had the pink round the hair and that 'kinda gave it away'
Ok I may not be back till after Monday....long weekend and we've got the grand kids here so I was only just having a quick peek in here lol
I disagree with this that is in copyright infrengment. When a portrate artist does a portrate , a lot of the time uses a photo and he has the copyright
From: ausfire2 Sent: 6/4/2008 3:25 PM
I guess the question then becomes how close to the original is too close?
A lot of artists use 'references' be it a real person or an image but when
one can see traces of the original background around very fine areas of the original
eg around the hair line............and has traced the original or even manipulated the original, then where does it become 'wrong' or a copyright violation?
From: TESStwisted Sent: 6/4/2008 3:29 PM
Aus now this is a good question.
From: MooñShadow•• Sent: 6/4/2008 6:23 PM
If the photo is taken with the intent of using it for the only purposes to paint a portrait from, it's not infringement, but there can be factors involved. Many painters/artist work with photographers and some even take their own photos.
With tracing someone’s work to recreate a new image, what is the tracer’s intent? How can the "new" image harm (cause and effect) the original artist/artists? Does the tracer have an agreement with xyz artist to do so and/or does xyz artist grant permission or acknowledge that the tracer can do so? And if the tracer is doing this solely on his or her own without xyz artist’s permission how close to the original does it come? Does it violate another artist’s copyright? It becomes wrong or a copyright violation if the artist’s work has been used without the consent of the original artist. Again the first question in my mind is: without the original... would there be no new creation?
Similarities happen all the time and the lines between originality can often become blurred, as a group manager if it makes you uncomfortable to have an image on your boards that could cause problems, remove it. I said this somewhere else in a message, if you recognize it's similar, too similar for your comfort zone or the groups, you have every right to delete it and if necessary offer an explanation as to why.
From: MooñShadow•• Sent: 6/4/2008 6:44 PM
"They'd changed the colour of the dress and mirrored the original pose ."
Borrowing from Ausfire's original posting... that in and of itself is a copyright violation if the artist of the original work does not allow for copying of their work (copyright = right to copy). Further copyright violation can be: not properly crediting the copyright holder (whether permission is to use is given, or not given) and giving the appearance or impression that the poster of the image is the copyright holder. And that can lead into Plagiarism.
We recently had a recoloring of Chole Jones image, recoloring doesn't create a new copyright in that it does not add to the existence of the orginal work, recoloring alters it. Mirroring the original pose, same thing. These simply alter what a viewer sees, they do not actually alter the original core being or existence of the work in it's original format.
From: ausfire2 Sent: 6/6/2008 3:55 AM
Well the image I've seen I believe to be totally violating copryights then.
I seriously doubt that permission was gained and it is kind of a 'giveaway' then
when they leave traces of the original background around the hair lol
I wont be using this persons 'tubes' but the dilema is whether to say something to them or not. Then again.......although I hate it when people violate copyright issues
I don't like drama either so although I'll stand up for whats right I'm hoping the managers will 'see through' what this person is doing and make their own decision on it in their group.
Great feedback though and thanks.
From: huronna Sent: 6/6/2008 7:07 PM
Aus...I know exactly what you are talking about, and I'm sure you are aware that I put forth quite a few questions reagrding this type of work.
In the meantime, I have been in touch via e-mail with a couple of artists that I know personally, both do digital painting using photos as a reference. Not as a base layer. It's sort of like when you go to a museum and you see the artist's painting a likeness of a Rembrandt. Both of these artists said that is a definite no no to leave the original image as a base of the "new image"
If one was using their own photo and doing a "photomanipulation" that is a totally different case, their photo...to do what they want. But when they find another image and use filters to enhance areas and merge with the original it is a real no no in every sense of the word. The reason the person merges with the base layer is if they deleted it, all there would be left was bits and peices that were worked on, not a full image.
OK going back in my corner again LOL
From: ausfire2 Sent: 6/6/2008 8:27 PM
lol huronna yep we been obviously thinking alike lol
The first one still had the pink round the hair and that 'kinda gave it away'
Ok I may not be back till after Monday....long weekend and we've got the grand kids here so I was only just having a quick peek in here lol
Tonya- Admin
- Number of posts: 3129
Age: 34
Warning: -
Similar topics» [Sale]Apple TV AC3 5.1 - Rip Blu-ray to Apple TV 3 with Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound
» Digital painting/copycatting an image
» Multiple clickable portions on a Image.
» (WTS) KOSO DIGITAL SPEEDOMETER
» Border on Hovering over an Image
» Digital painting/copycatting an image
» Multiple clickable portions on a Image.
» (WTS) KOSO DIGITAL SPEEDOMETER
» Border on Hovering over an Image
Copyright Corner :: FAQ'S :: F.A.Q'S
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum