Welcome to Gaia! ::

kargath64
In reality, characters are copyright too. Otherwise, Pixar could make a Shrek III, and Dreamworks could make Bugs' Life 2 ...

I guess the Gaia admins want to minimise risk without driving away the drones who can only draw fanart. :/


Characters are usually trademarked. There's a difference.

And Pixar is not going to sue you for drawing Shrek or showing off your Shrek drawing. In fact they may be delighted to see it. As long as it's understood that you're drawing Shrek and not "Joseph the green troll." They like for the likeness to be labeled correctly. If it's labeled correctly then people will understand that it's one of Pixar's creations.

But as long as they don't copy from a screenshot, color book, story book or anything else line for line, it has nothing to do with the copy faq.

Another example? If you draw a boy with green eyes, glasses, lightening shaped scar and black, unruly hair in wizarding robes and then call him your original character, Jake. What's more is that Jake was raised by Muggles and attends Hogwarts. It's rather obviously Harry Potter and you could get in trouble for labeling him as your original character named "Jake" or pretending that being raised by Muggles and attending Hogwarts was all YOUR original idea.
I'm still kinda confused on the subject of drawing from photographs of models and whatnot. I mean, I really don't have the luxury of getting a real model to pose for me and take a picture, so I find one in a magazine and use it. Is that really all that bad?
Xaforn324
I'm still kinda confused on the subject of drawing from photographs of models and whatnot. I mean, I really don't have the luxury of getting a real model to pose for me and take a picture, so I find one in a magazine and use it. Is that really all that bad?


From a magazine, it's copyrighted to the photographer. Usually you will see their name listed near the picture as the source. Unless you want to go to the trouble of contacting the photographer and ask permission to use their image...

If you don't have a model many people make do with a mirror or a wooden mannequin or another person in your household.
leloi
Xaforn324
I'm still kinda confused on the subject of drawing from photographs of models and whatnot. I mean, I really don't have the luxury of getting a real model to pose for me and take a picture, so I find one in a magazine and use it. Is that really all that bad?


From a magazine, it's copyrighted to the photographer. Usually you will see their name listed near the picture as the source. Unless you want to go to the trouble of contacting the photographer and ask permission to use their image...

If you don't have a model many people make do with a mirror or a wooden mannequin or another person in your household.
Or you could use stock photography from the very nice people at DeviantArt, who love to see themselves drawn. If you note them, they will almost always give you written(e-mail) permission.
Bare Naked Mizzie
leloi
Xaforn324
I'm still kinda confused on the subject of drawing from photographs of models and whatnot. I mean, I really don't have the luxury of getting a real model to pose for me and take a picture, so I find one in a magazine and use it. Is that really all that bad?


From a magazine, it's copyrighted to the photographer. Usually you will see their name listed near the picture as the source. Unless you want to go to the trouble of contacting the photographer and ask permission to use their image...

If you don't have a model many people make do with a mirror or a wooden mannequin or another person in your household.
Or you could use stock photography from the very nice people at DeviantArt, who love to see themselves drawn. If you note them, they will almost always give you written(e-mail) permission.


Oh ok, thanks, I'll remember that. 3nodding
i like all of those drawings!!!! 3nodding
leloi
kargath64
In reality, characters are copyright too. Otherwise, Pixar could make a Shrek III, and Dreamworks could make Bugs' Life 2 ...

I guess the Gaia admins want to minimise risk without driving away the drones who can only draw fanart. :/


Characters are usually trademarked. There's a difference.

And Pixar is not going to sue you for drawing Shrek or showing off your Shrek drawing. In fact they may be delighted to see it. As long as it's understood that you're drawing Shrek and not "Joseph the green troll." They like for the likeness to be labeled correctly. If it's labeled correctly then people will understand that it's one of Pixar's creations.

But as long as they don't copy from a screenshot, color book, story book or anything else line for line, it has nothing to do with the copy faq.

Another example? If you draw a boy with green eyes, glasses, lightening shaped scar and black, unruly hair in wizarding robes and then call him your original character, Jake. What's more is that Jake was raised by Muggles and attends Hogwarts. It's rather obviously Harry Potter and you could get in trouble for labeling him as your original character named "Jake" or pretending that being raised by Muggles and attending Hogwarts was all YOUR original idea.


In pure legal terms, any derivative work without prior permission is an infringement. Whether you try and hide it as your own work and whether you were exploiting it commercially are just exacerbating factors in sentencing.

Harry Potter's clear for non-commercial fan use, anyway, due to statements issued by JK and Warner Bros. Just so long as it isn't slash.
kargath64
In pure legal terms, any derivative work without prior permission is an infringement. Whether you try and hide it as your own work and whether you were exploiting it commercially are just exacerbating factors in sentencing.

Harry Potter's clear for non-commercial fan use, anyway, due to statements issued by JK and Warner Bros. Just so long as it isn't slash.


And if someone decides to do Interview With The Vampire fanart, that can be dealt with when it actually happens. rolleyes

Just about 99.9% of the stuff here based on series that creators are "ok" with seeing derivatives. Just about ALL the people who aren't ok with derivatives have lots of lawyers and it's known to their fandom not to even breathe on the characters.

There was once a website that listed it all.

But the copy faq is actually about line for line copies (as in xerox machine type reproduction...) NOT on the question of fanart, except to state that ALL fanart ISN'T xerox machine reproductions.
The Copied Art FAQ

While in and of itself, copying can be a useful tool when learning to draw, here on Gaia posting copied art isn't allowed in any of our forums or the art arena.

When art is deleted or rejected, many people ask the same questions over and over again. Here is the answer to most of the questions that get repeated.

Q. Why was my art taken down (rejected)? I didn't steal it.
A. Most likely your art was found to be copied or traced from a pre-existing source. When images are rejected the message you receive is a general one. You should receive another PM stating why it was rejected, whether it be traced, copied or stolen.

Q. What do you mean by "copied"? I didn't use a "xerox" machine.
A. Copying (aka Eyeballing) is a term used to mean duplicate. There was a single image that existed and now there are two that look almost exactly the same thanks to your pen, pencil, tablet or whatever your choice of utensil is. No xerox machines may be involved, but your pencil, pen, etc. played the part of the copy machine.

Q. What do you mean copying? I didn't trace it, I drew it myself while I was looking at a picture!
A. Yes, people reply with this... a lot. In answer: If you look at a picture and try to replicate it, that's called copying.



The image on the left is a copy of the image on the right. It's obviously not traced but it's still considered a copy.

Q. Why can't I copy from a photo? It takes skill, you know.
A. Photos, unless you took them yourself, belong to the people that take the picture. They are copyrighted. That means the person who took the image has say as to how their image is used. That would include the model's rights as well.



Could I claim this to be my own? No... the image and pose belong to the people that created Sailormoon Live Action.

Q. If I change it, can I post it?
A. It depends on how much you change... If the answer is "all of it so it's not recognizable as being referenced from" then that's ok. But it doesn't count as change if you just change colors or change eye shape... or change the clothes.

Q. I see other people posting it, why can't I?
A. It is against the rules. They too are violating the rules. They just haven't been caught yet. If you see someone else posting copies, TELL US. Bottom line is that it's NOT ok for anyone to do it and they'll probably get caught.

Q. Mine looks nothing like that... I've never even seen the series...
A. Coincidence does happen... But if it LOOKS like a line for line copy even if you've never even dreamed of the series, it will be taken down as a copy. That's just the way life is. People see the connection, that's the way the brain is programed. It's too close to a pre-existing image to be considered "unique."

Or you could just be trying to make an excuse to get out of it... I could lie and say I never saw the image one the right... that the way the one of the left turned out was pure coincidence... and that he's my original character... named "Bubba."



But I would be a liar... and only I would know that for sure. It still looks the same and it still will be taken down regardless of what excuses I give.

Q: Then why do you allow fanart? Aren't they all considered copies since the people drawing them don't own the characters?
A: You are correct in that people drawing the fanart don't own the characters they are drawing, however everything except the idea of the character is their own work. They decide on the pose, the lighting and the style making their image of the character unique. They aren't confined to the lines drawn on the paper by the original artist. They are free to interpret the characterization and share their vision of what they think the character actually looks like. Fanart can be very unique and drastically different from the official sources, therefore it's allowed.

Q. What is the difference between "referencing" and "copying"? Aren't they the same thing?
A. Referencing usually comes with many sources, taking small bits from each source. See below image for example.



The image on the right is the original. The image on the left is a copy. The image in the center is referenced. What is the difference between the center image and the image on the left?

Compare the original with the copy (in fact it's a near trace). It's obviously a different character, but if you were to superimpose one on the other, they would be near identical. The only thing I changed was the hair and the clothes. It is, in fact, a copy.

With the center image I used the pose as reference. It's not exactly the same as the original, and I left in the sketch structure to show that I used the same skeleton as the original with a few changes to the angle of the arm and head. Aside from the pose there is very little to connect the referenced with the original. Then, of course, there's other bits added, referenced from other places... the character design is Ryuuichi from Gravitation and he's drawn in my own personal non-manga/anime style... and for the left hand I looked at my own hands.

The original and my reference look very different even though one was inspired by the other. With referencing you can look very different and unique because you aren't limited to what the original looks like. You are "inspired" by the original and not anchored to it.

* Please note all images are copied by myself and are taken from the official merchandise... Kumagorou (Pin) from Gravitation, Usagi (Pencilboard) from Live Action Sailormoon, Seiichiro (Pencilboard) from Yami no Matsuei, Kagome (Postcard) from Inuyasha.

Update: Remade 6/24/05 so content could be seen and edited. Original version was retired.

7/8/05 Mirror post made in Picture Post

PLEASE NOTE: Thread is currently open for questions and clarification, but please don't "bump" or spam. Off topic posts in this sticky will be deleted with the possibility of warnings.


















Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:19 pm



I completely understand why this thread is here but I still have one little question:

Can you post copied pictures if you mention the fact that the image is not originally yours and that you copied it, with maybe a link to the original picture and mention that it is copyrighted to the original artist?







blissful_abyss











Sergeant Fudgeo
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:48 pm



Yeah, my question is similar to blissful_abyss's question. Could you answer?




















Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:00 pm



Quote:
Can you post copied pictures if you mention the fact that the image is not originally yours and that you copied it, with maybe a link to the original picture and mention that it is copyrighted to the original artist?
hi nice pics everyone
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.]www.imageshack.us

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games