The line between theft and study

[XMegantronX]

***If you know who I'm talking about, please do not mention their name! I don't want this to become a bashing thread for this person who has probably had enough of that already. This thread is strictly for discussing the lines between theft and study.***

So, yesterday I get online to discover that word was out that a very popular artist and one of my favorites was being accused of theft. After reading through the case, it seemed as if the artist digitally painted copies of photos, screen shots of shows & movies, and other art he/she happens to like as studies. These studies did not credit the original artist or reference. Made worse, the artist was also selling prints of these studies.

The artist came out yesterday and confessed that they did copy and reference as a form of study and was mistaken in not crediting the originals. He/she said they were correcting this issue by editing the credit into the description of the piece. I don't think he/she commented on selling the prints and instead removed the referenced studies from their shop.

There were a few angry people posting about how this artist is a thief and has lost all credibility. There were a large amount of faithful fans, however, who eagerly supported this artist in saying they have nothing to be sorry for.

What are your thoughts about a situation like this? Where do you draw the line in theft vs study?

My personal thoughts are that, yes, this artist technically stole art by not crediting the original artists. However, they made up for that by coming clean about it and starting to go back and add the appropriate credit. For me, copying isn't really a crime. For me it does become questionable when posted online into you main gallery. Studies, for me, remain just that. They're not final works of art and should be kept out of a portfolio. I can overlook this as long as the work is credited when it comes to artists I like. However....selling these supposed studies is a crime. You not only don't own the characters, but the composition and even color-scheme is that of the original artist. So taking their art, redoing it in your own style, and then selling them (essentially profiting from their creation) isn't right in my eyes. It can be argued that fanart can fall under theft under this kind of description, but at least fanart will have an original composition, style, etc.

And of course, I'm probably not completely correct since some of these issues are fairly new and can tread into many gray areas. So, let me know what you think Gaia!

[Shanna66]

as long as you admit to doing it and dont try to make money off of it then i wouldnt consider it bad. copying and sometimes even tracing can help you learn so long as you know how to learn from those things. just my god be honest and give credit where credit is due

im not sure which artist you are talking about to be honest. i feel like a lot of popular atists have come out recently as tracers who have made money off of tracing.

[Phoenix Songbird]

Well, on one hand, I don't find it a big deal. Artists have been stealing ideas from each other since art began. It just seems like a natural part of creativity -- think of what would happen if the fashion world got touchy about stuff like this! It would be ridiculous trying to put a patent on a specific type of collar.

On the other hand though, I agree and think that the artist should not have been selling these studies. I can see it possibly being acceptable if these studies were in a sketchbook, which the artist was selling. But as individual prints? I wouldn't be too happy if I was the original artist. Especially if credit wasn't given. Though it's good to hear the artist wasn't a complete butt and starting adding credit to the studies.

As for fanart, I think it falls into a slightly different category than studies. Fanart is done of characters -- often well known characters -- so while the art is in the artist's own style, the secondary artist could never take credit for the characters themselves. Popular characters are essentially all the credit the original artist needs. Also, characters like these are made specifically for public consumption.

Individual artists, on the other hand, work under a bit of a different...mode of operation. For one, typically an artist focuses more on the "art" aspect of the piece, rather than a specific character. This means factors like originality (and the creation of a world, person, anything else you'd like to through on the canvas) and style play a much larger role. Over time, an artist will develop their own original way of working, which can evolve over years and years. So, while artists may also create for the public, it's -- I believe -- much more of an insult when sometime tries to take over this niche you've been carving out for yourself.

Sorry if that makes little to no sense. It's hard trying to explain xD
Essentially, fanart is of art, more specifically characters, that has been almost created for that use. Art from the singular artist however, is simply for the appreciation of the viewer. Almost like the difference between a coloring book and a piece you would see at a museum, if you will.

[God-the-almighty]

Studies should never be sold as original art. I also think they should have not even showed the studies publicly. Something like that is only an exercise.As for fan art itself, I would never sell it though I sometimes make it. It's something people do but I don't have to do it.

[HitokiriChibi]

A lot of artists these days post things like WIP shots or rough sketches to engage more with their viewers so things like studies I believe would fall into that sort of category as well - it lets their viewers see how they go about broadening/expanding their current skill base with practice.

So I'm all for people sharing their studies on things like instagram/tumblr where it's just a casual environment as long as they give credit to the original they are using and are clear that it is indeed a study.

[I will take a potato chip]

Everyone's stealing from someone. Whether it's art, writing, music, fashion, etc.

There's nothing that hasn't been stolen or appeared like it hasn't been. Regardless of whether it actually was or wasn't. Lots of artists say it's their inspiration that made them draw something. That can be true. But at the same time, someone else will say it was ripped off. While it could also have been ripped off because of greed/desperation/inspiration.

Most people who complain that someone else is stealing is usually someone who is stealing themselves. It's just their own cover. It's easier to lay blame on someone else, then to say it outright about their own selves. No one doesn't cheat from anyone.

The world wasn't created today or yesterday.


Plus, if they're not doing it for profit, no one should wretch about it.


Edit: (adds this) But as far as profit goes, everyone should go fight about how Hunger Games (The author denied the resemblance) is basically Battle Royale, that 50 Shades of Grey is actually Twilight...etc...

[XMegantronX]

Shanna66

as long as you admit to doing it and dont try to make money off of it then i wouldnt consider it bad. copying and sometimes even tracing can help you learn so long as you know how to learn from those things. just my god be honest and give credit where credit is due

im not sure which artist you are talking about to be honest. i feel like a lot of popular atists have come out recently as tracers who have made money off of tracing.

I can agree with copying and even tracing can be a good form of study, but not giving credit and actually making money off of it seems really dirty XD

I think this may be the first time one of my favorite artists have done something like this. I can usually tell when people are persistent copiers or tracers, but I guess I never realized it with this one until it was all brought out. What kills me is that the artist is obviously very talented and could probably make more original work all by themselves if they made more of an effort.

[XMegantronX]

Phoenix Songbird

Well, on one hand, I don't find it a big deal. Artists have been stealing ideas from each other since art began. It just seems like a natural part of creativity -- think of what would happen if the fashion world got touchy about stuff like this! It would be ridiculous trying to put a patent on a specific type of collar.

On the other hand though, I agree and think that the artist should not have been selling these studies. I can see it possibly being acceptable if these studies were in a sketchbook, which the artist was selling. But as individual prints? I wouldn't be too happy if I was the original artist. Especially if credit wasn't given. Though it's good to hear the artist wasn't a complete butt and starting adding credit to the studies.

As for fanart, I think it falls into a slightly different category than studies. Fanart is done of characters -- often well known characters -- so while the art is in the artist's own style, the secondary artist could never take credit for the characters themselves. Popular characters are essentially all the credit the original artist needs. Also, characters like these are made specifically for public consumption.

Individual artists, on the other hand, work under a bit of a different...mode of operation. For one, typically an artist focuses more on the "art" aspect of the piece, rather than a specific character. This means factors like originality (and the creation of a world, person, anything else you'd like to through on the canvas) and style play a much larger role. Over time, an artist will develop their own original way of working, which can evolve over years and years. So, while artists may also create for the public, it's -- I believe -- much more of an insult when sometime tries to take over this niche you've been carving out for yourself.

Sorry if that makes little to no sense. It's hard trying to explain xD
Essentially, fanart is of art, more specifically characters, that has been almost created for that use. Art from the singular artist however, is simply for the appreciation of the viewer. Almost like the difference between a coloring book and a piece you would see at a museum, if you will.

I agree on your opinion on fan art ^^ If I were one of the artists that this person copied from, I would be a bit upset to seeing them rehash and selling my art as their own. I agree that copying can be a form of informative study, but when it becomes most of your main gallery and you sell them...yeah...sticky territory.

[XMegantronX]

God-the-almighty

Studies should never be sold as original art. I also think they should have not even showed the studies publicly. Something like that is only an exercise.As for fan art itself, I would never sell it though I sometimes make it. It's something people do but I don't have to do it.

I agree that studies should not be sold. I would even go as far as leaving studies out of your main gallery too, but that's me. XD

HitokiriChibi

A lot of artists these days post things like WIP shots or rough sketches to engage more with their viewers so things like studies I believe would fall into that sort of category as well - it lets their viewers see how they go about broadening/expanding their current skill base with practice.

So I'm all for people sharing their studies on things like instagram/tumblr where it's just a casual environment as long as they give credit to the original they are using and are clear that it is indeed a study.

I could agree to this. It could be a good way to get viewers especially on sites like instagram and tumblr. Would you agree that the studies have no place in your main gallery on a site like Deviantart?

Your Closet Monster

Everyone's stealing from someone. Whether it's art, writing, music, fashion, etc.

There's nothing that hasn't been stolen or appeared like it hasn't been. Regardless of whether it actually was or wasn't. Lots of artists say it's their inspiration that made them draw something. That can be true. But at the same time, someone else will say it was ripped off. While it could also have been ripped off because of greed/desperation/inspiration.

Most people who complain that someone else is stealing is usually someone who is stealing themselves. It's just their own cover. It's easier to lay blame on someone else, then to say it outright about their own selves. No one doesn't cheat from anyone.

The world wasn't created today or yesterday.


Plus, if they're not doing it for profit, no one should wretch about it.


Edit: (adds this) But as far as profit goes, everyone should go fight about how Hunger Games (The author denied the resemblance) is basically Battle Royale, that 50 Shades of Grey is actually Twilight...etc...

I guess this can be true, but I would press that this form of copying would be like making the Hunger Games with the same characters, setting, etc but change the color of everyone's hair and put in a purple filter XD

The difference between Hunger Games and Battle Royale would, for me, be more inspiration based than just copying. XD

[I will take a potato chip]

XMegantronX

Your Closet Monster

Everyone's stealing from someone. Whether it's art, writing, music, fashion, etc.

There's nothing that hasn't been stolen or appeared like it hasn't been. Regardless of whether it actually was or wasn't. Lots of artists say it's their inspiration that made them draw something. That can be true. But at the same time, someone else will say it was ripped off. While it could also have been ripped off because of greed/desperation/inspiration.

Most people who complain that someone else is stealing is usually someone who is stealing themselves. It's just their own cover. It's easier to lay blame on someone else, then to say it outright about their own selves. No one doesn't cheat from anyone.

The world wasn't created today or yesterday.


Plus, if they're not doing it for profit, no one should wretch about it.


Edit: (adds this) But as far as profit goes, everyone should go fight about how Hunger Games (The author denied the resemblance) is basically Battle Royale, that 50 Shades of Grey is actually Twilight...etc...

I guess this can be true, but I would press that this form of copying would be like making the Hunger Games with the same characters, setting, etc but change the color of everyone's hair and put in a purple filter XD

The difference between Hunger Games and Battle Royale would, for me, be more inspiration based than just copying. XD

What're you going to say about the purple filter now? scream blaugh

It doesn't matter. Hunger Games still resembles Battle Royale. Someone else would definitely say it's a rip-off. Regardless of inspiration, the author denied the copyright. It's like you're saying it's okay for them to copyright just deny it and make your profit.


Everything can be inspiration. It's just a matter of how the inspiration is used. That's like comparing Rebecca (a novel) to A Sucessora (another novel) Yet, Rebecca was the well-known book which was taken from the other book. Names were just changed.

What about things like Romeo and Juliet? West Side Story has the vibe of that, it's just about gangs. Whites and Puerto Ricans instead of Capulets and Montagues...
A better comparison would actually probably be Laila and Majnun compared to Romeo and Juliet. The tale of Laila and Majnun is older than Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. But there are a lot of similarities. But it's famous so once again, no one cares. Plus, Romeo and Juliet is based off an Italian tale. By that logic, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet would be absolute rubbish.

Plus, Romeo and Juliet has been changed so many times. Color and race.


It's like comparing fairy tales that have come from either mythology or plays.

Or maybe, compare all the little teen bobbing mangas/animes that look so identical to the Sailor Moon stuff.

That's like sitting here and comparing DC comics to Marvel comics. Every other character is the same. The costume is just different by a little color differentiation. The background of one character belongs to another.

[XMegantronX]

Your Closet Monster

XMegantronX

Your Closet Monster

Everyone's stealing from someone. Whether it's art, writing, music, fashion, etc.

There's nothing that hasn't been stolen or appeared like it hasn't been. Regardless of whether it actually was or wasn't. Lots of artists say it's their inspiration that made them draw something. That can be true. But at the same time, someone else will say it was ripped off. While it could also have been ripped off because of greed/desperation/inspiration.

Most people who complain that someone else is stealing is usually someone who is stealing themselves. It's just their own cover. It's easier to lay blame on someone else, then to say it outright about their own selves. No one doesn't cheat from anyone.

The world wasn't created today or yesterday.


Plus, if they're not doing it for profit, no one should wretch about it.


Edit: (adds this) But as far as profit goes, everyone should go fight about how Hunger Games (The author denied the resemblance) is basically Battle Royale, that 50 Shades of Grey is actually Twilight...etc...

I guess this can be true, but I would press that this form of copying would be like making the Hunger Games with the same characters, setting, etc but change the color of everyone's hair and put in a purple filter XD

The difference between Hunger Games and Battle Royale would, for me, be more inspiration based than just copying. XD

What're you going to say about the purple filter now? scream blaugh

It doesn't matter. Hunger Games still resembles Battle Royale. Someone else would definitely say it's a rip-off. Regardless of inspiration, the author denied the copyright. It's like you're saying it's okay for them to copyright just deny it and make your profit.


Everything can be inspiration. It's just a matter of how the inspiration is used. That's like comparing Rebecca (a novel) to A Sucessora (another novel) Yet, Rebecca was the well-known book which was taken from the other book. Names were just changed.

What about things like Romeo and Juliet? West Side Story has the vibe of that, it's just about gangs. Whites and Puerto Ricans instead of Capulets and Montagues...
A better comparison would actually probably be Laila and Majnun compared to Romeo and Juliet. The tale of Laila and Majnun is older than Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. But there are a lot of similarities. But it's famous so once again, no one cares. Plus, Romeo and Juliet is based off an Italian tale. By that logic, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet would be absolute rubbish.

Plus, Romeo and Juliet has been changed so many times. Color and race.


It's like comparing fairy tales that have come from either mythology or plays.

Or maybe, compare all the little teen bobbing mangas/animes that look so identical to the Sailor Moon stuff.

That's like sitting here and comparing DC comics to Marvel comics. Every other character is the same. The costume is just different by a little color differentiation. The background of one character belongs to another.

I guess I'm trying to get at to what lengths is copying considered "ok" to profit from. Is it ok for you to draw something and have someone else copy it and sell it? I'm guessing people don't care about the Romeo & Juliet theft because it happened a really long time ago in an era where there probably was no copyright laws and not as many knew about the original source. Nothing can be really done about it now. Is it theft? I would argue yes since the characters names are basically the same still. It seems as if themes are ok to take from whatever you like, but perhaps things like plot is not?

[I will take a potato chip]

XMegantronX

Your Closet Monster

XMegantronX

Your Closet Monster

Everyone's stealing from someone. Whether it's art, writing, music, fashion, etc.

There's nothing that hasn't been stolen or appeared like it hasn't been. Regardless of whether it actually was or wasn't. Lots of artists say it's their inspiration that made them draw something. That can be true. But at the same time, someone else will say it was ripped off. While it could also have been ripped off because of greed/desperation/inspiration.

Most people who complain that someone else is stealing is usually someone who is stealing themselves. It's just their own cover. It's easier to lay blame on someone else, then to say it outright about their own selves. No one doesn't cheat from anyone.

The world wasn't created today or yesterday.


Plus, if they're not doing it for profit, no one should wretch about it.


Edit: (adds this) But as far as profit goes, everyone should go fight about how Hunger Games (The author denied the resemblance) is basically Battle Royale, that 50 Shades of Grey is actually Twilight...etc...

I guess this can be true, but I would press that this form of copying would be like making the Hunger Games with the same characters, setting, etc but change the color of everyone's hair and put in a purple filter XD

The difference between Hunger Games and Battle Royale would, for me, be more inspiration based than just copying. XD

What're you going to say about the purple filter now? scream blaugh

It doesn't matter. Hunger Games still resembles Battle Royale. Someone else would definitely say it's a rip-off. Regardless of inspiration, the author denied the copyright. It's like you're saying it's okay for them to copyright just deny it and make your profit.


Everything can be inspiration. It's just a matter of how the inspiration is used. That's like comparing Rebecca (a novel) to A Sucessora (another novel) Yet, Rebecca was the well-known book which was taken from the other book. Names were just changed.

What about things like Romeo and Juliet? West Side Story has the vibe of that, it's just about gangs. Whites and Puerto Ricans instead of Capulets and Montagues...
A better comparison would actually probably be Laila and Majnun compared to Romeo and Juliet. The tale of Laila and Majnun is older than Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. But there are a lot of similarities. But it's famous so once again, no one cares. Plus, Romeo and Juliet is based off an Italian tale. By that logic, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet would be absolute rubbish.

Plus, Romeo and Juliet has been changed so many times. Color and race.


It's like comparing fairy tales that have come from either mythology or plays.

Or maybe, compare all the little teen bobbing mangas/animes that look so identical to the Sailor Moon stuff.

That's like sitting here and comparing DC comics to Marvel comics. Every other character is the same. The costume is just different by a little color differentiation. The background of one character belongs to another.

I guess I'm trying to get at to what lengths is copying considered "ok" to profit from. Is it ok for you to draw something and have someone else copy it and sell it? I'm guessing people don't care about the Romeo & Juliet theft because it happened a really long time ago in an era where there probably was no copyright laws and not as many knew about the original source. Nothing can be really done about it now. Is it theft? I would argue yes since the characters names are basically the same still. It seems as if themes are ok to take from whatever you like, but perhaps things like plot is not?

When people update old versions of stuff, would you call that copyright? If it's say Romeo and Juliet but a newer version?

There is no okay for them to profit from it. What I tend to notice is that a lot of artists or writers usually write something that looks familiar like something else because they're running low on financial funds. Not always the case, but usually when a writer gets their book sold, they'll eventually confess that they had like nothing and suddenly inspiration hit them.

It's only fair for a true artist to be upset when someone else takes their work. But they can either sue them, leave it be or just think that's how desperate or inspired the other person was by them.

The plot....If we were to talk about plots then every single thing is the same. The male-centric book the guy has to either be some kind of a Superman or a Batman. He always has some kind of a bad shadowy past and he must resort to finding out what happened to his family, or must take revenge or save the world. He always has to save a damsel in distress. No matter what. There will always be a girl in need of saving. When I see stuff like that, I think it's the same thing. It doesn't matter if it's in a comic, manga, or a novel.

The female-centric book is all about romance. She chases around looking for a romance that magically comes before her. She is either sacrificing, defensive, needs to be persuaded by the guy to realize she's in love with him, etc. The romance stuff...I may like manga but the shoujo stuff that I like I know for a fact are overly repetitive. The females no matter how much they try to make them seem different, they remain vulnerable for the sake of the guy's rescue.

Even if things are different, the basic logic is still the same when it boils down to a short synopsis you'd offer a friend who asked you about the manga, novel, etc.

[XMegantronX]

Your Closet Monster

XMegantronX

Your Closet Monster

XMegantronX

Your Closet Monster

Everyone's stealing from someone. Whether it's art, writing, music, fashion, etc.

There's nothing that hasn't been stolen or appeared like it hasn't been. Regardless of whether it actually was or wasn't. Lots of artists say it's their inspiration that made them draw something. That can be true. But at the same time, someone else will say it was ripped off. While it could also have been ripped off because of greed/desperation/inspiration.

Most people who complain that someone else is stealing is usually someone who is stealing themselves. It's just their own cover. It's easier to lay blame on someone else, then to say it outright about their own selves. No one doesn't cheat from anyone.

The world wasn't created today or yesterday.


Plus, if they're not doing it for profit, no one should wretch about it.


Edit: (adds this) But as far as profit goes, everyone should go fight about how Hunger Games (The author denied the resemblance) is basically Battle Royale, that 50 Shades of Grey is actually Twilight...etc...

I guess this can be true, but I would press that this form of copying would be like making the Hunger Games with the same characters, setting, etc but change the color of everyone's hair and put in a purple filter XD

The difference between Hunger Games and Battle Royale would, for me, be more inspiration based than just copying. XD

What're you going to say about the purple filter now? scream blaugh

It doesn't matter. Hunger Games still resembles Battle Royale. Someone else would definitely say it's a rip-off. Regardless of inspiration, the author denied the copyright. It's like you're saying it's okay for them to copyright just deny it and make your profit.


Everything can be inspiration. It's just a matter of how the inspiration is used. That's like comparing Rebecca (a novel) to A Sucessora (another novel) Yet, Rebecca was the well-known book which was taken from the other book. Names were just changed.

What about things like Romeo and Juliet? West Side Story has the vibe of that, it's just about gangs. Whites and Puerto Ricans instead of Capulets and Montagues...
A better comparison would actually probably be Laila and Majnun compared to Romeo and Juliet. The tale of Laila and Majnun is older than Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. But there are a lot of similarities. But it's famous so once again, no one cares. Plus, Romeo and Juliet is based off an Italian tale. By that logic, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet would be absolute rubbish.

Plus, Romeo and Juliet has been changed so many times. Color and race.


It's like comparing fairy tales that have come from either mythology or plays.

Or maybe, compare all the little teen bobbing mangas/animes that look so identical to the Sailor Moon stuff.

That's like sitting here and comparing DC comics to Marvel comics. Every other character is the same. The costume is just different by a little color differentiation. The background of one character belongs to another.

I guess I'm trying to get at to what lengths is copying considered "ok" to profit from. Is it ok for you to draw something and have someone else copy it and sell it? I'm guessing people don't care about the Romeo & Juliet theft because it happened a really long time ago in an era where there probably was no copyright laws and not as many knew about the original source. Nothing can be really done about it now. Is it theft? I would argue yes since the characters names are basically the same still. It seems as if themes are ok to take from whatever you like, but perhaps things like plot is not?

When people update old versions of stuff, would you call that copyright? If it's say Romeo and Juliet but a newer version?

There is no okay for them to profit from it. What I tend to notice is that a lot of artists or writers usually write something that looks familiar like something else because they're running low on financial funds. Not always the case, but usually when a writer gets their book sold, they'll eventually confess that they had like nothing and suddenly inspiration hit them.

It's only fair for a true artist to be upset when someone else takes their work. But they can either sue them, leave it be or just think that's how desperate or inspired the other person was by them.

The plot....If we were to talk about plots then every single thing is the same. The male-centric book the guy has to either be some kind of a Superman or a Batman. He always has some kind of a bad shadowy past and he must resort to finding out what happened to his family, or must take revenge or save the world. He always has to save a damsel in distress. No matter what. There will always be a girl in need of saving. When I see stuff like that, I think it's the same thing. It doesn't matter if it's in a comic, manga, or a novel.

The female-centric book is all about romance. She chases around looking for a romance that magically comes before her. She is either sacrificing, defensive, needs to be persuaded by the guy to realize she's in love with him, etc. The romance stuff...I may like manga but the shoujo stuff that I like I know for a fact are overly repetitive. The females no matter how much they try to make them seem different, they remain vulnerable for the sake of the guy's rescue.

Even if things are different, the basic logic is still the same when it boils down to a short synopsis you'd offer a friend who asked you about the manga, novel, etc.

Nooooooo...lol In today's laws Shakespeare would be guilty of copyright because he copied Romeo and Juliet only a few years after the published novel (I think) By today's laws anyone can rehash Romeo and Juliet's story because it's over 100 years old and thus public domain. Same for Alice in Wonderland. True, many stories and characters fall into the same trope or character class (which is why I can't seem to get into too many comics anymore), but I'm not sure if that's the same as copying a picture and selling it. So while it's true that most everything is taken from something else, it's still no comparison to the direct copying and selling. Not only is it plagiarism, but it can really hurt your reputation.

[The Zorya]

Studies usually turn out different than original source since different people will have different impression of the same subject which results in different end product. Plagiarism is a very tricky area to dive into and unless it is obviously eyeballed, it is best to waste as little energy on the issue.

[I will take a potato chip]

XMegantronX

Your Closet Monster

XMegantronX

Your Closet Monster

XMegantronX

Your Closet Monster

Everyone's stealing from someone. Whether it's art, writing, music, fashion, etc.

There's nothing that hasn't been stolen or appeared like it hasn't been. Regardless of whether it actually was or wasn't. Lots of artists say it's their inspiration that made them draw something. That can be true. But at the same time, someone else will say it was ripped off. While it could also have been ripped off because of greed/desperation/inspiration.

Most people who complain that someone else is stealing is usually someone who is stealing themselves. It's just their own cover. It's easier to lay blame on someone else, then to say it outright about their own selves. No one doesn't cheat from anyone.

The world wasn't created today or yesterday.


Plus, if they're not doing it for profit, no one should wretch about it.


Edit: (adds this) But as far as profit goes, everyone should go fight about how Hunger Games (The author denied the resemblance) is basically Battle Royale, that 50 Shades of Grey is actually Twilight...etc...

I guess this can be true, but I would press that this form of copying would be like making the Hunger Games with the same characters, setting, etc but change the color of everyone's hair and put in a purple filter XD

The difference between Hunger Games and Battle Royale would, for me, be more inspiration based than just copying. XD

What're you going to say about the purple filter now? scream blaugh

It doesn't matter. Hunger Games still resembles Battle Royale. Someone else would definitely say it's a rip-off. Regardless of inspiration, the author denied the copyright. It's like you're saying it's okay for them to copyright just deny it and make your profit.


Everything can be inspiration. It's just a matter of how the inspiration is used. That's like comparing Rebecca (a novel) to A Sucessora (another novel) Yet, Rebecca was the well-known book which was taken from the other book. Names were just changed.

What about things like Romeo and Juliet? West Side Story has the vibe of that, it's just about gangs. Whites and Puerto Ricans instead of Capulets and Montagues...
A better comparison would actually probably be Laila and Majnun compared to Romeo and Juliet. The tale of Laila and Majnun is older than Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. But there are a lot of similarities. But it's famous so once again, no one cares. Plus, Romeo and Juliet is based off an Italian tale. By that logic, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet would be absolute rubbish.

Plus, Romeo and Juliet has been changed so many times. Color and race.


It's like comparing fairy tales that have come from either mythology or plays.

Or maybe, compare all the little teen bobbing mangas/animes that look so identical to the Sailor Moon stuff.

That's like sitting here and comparing DC comics to Marvel comics. Every other character is the same. The costume is just different by a little color differentiation. The background of one character belongs to another.

I guess I'm trying to get at to what lengths is copying considered "ok" to profit from. Is it ok for you to draw something and have someone else copy it and sell it? I'm guessing people don't care about the Romeo & Juliet theft because it happened a really long time ago in an era where there probably was no copyright laws and not as many knew about the original source. Nothing can be really done about it now. Is it theft? I would argue yes since the characters names are basically the same still. It seems as if themes are ok to take from whatever you like, but perhaps things like plot is not?

When people update old versions of stuff, would you call that copyright? If it's say Romeo and Juliet but a newer version?

There is no okay for them to profit from it. What I tend to notice is that a lot of artists or writers usually write something that looks familiar like something else because they're running low on financial funds. Not always the case, but usually when a writer gets their book sold, they'll eventually confess that they had like nothing and suddenly inspiration hit them.

It's only fair for a true artist to be upset when someone else takes their work. But they can either sue them, leave it be or just think that's how desperate or inspired the other person was by them.

The plot....If we were to talk about plots then every single thing is the same. The male-centric book the guy has to either be some kind of a Superman or a Batman. He always has some kind of a bad shadowy past and he must resort to finding out what happened to his family, or must take revenge or save the world. He always has to save a damsel in distress. No matter what. There will always be a girl in need of saving. When I see stuff like that, I think it's the same thing. It doesn't matter if it's in a comic, manga, or a novel.

The female-centric book is all about romance. She chases around looking for a romance that magically comes before her. She is either sacrificing, defensive, needs to be persuaded by the guy to realize she's in love with him, etc. The romance stuff...I may like manga but the shoujo stuff that I like I know for a fact are overly repetitive. The females no matter how much they try to make them seem different, they remain vulnerable for the sake of the guy's rescue.

Even if things are different, the basic logic is still the same when it boils down to a short synopsis you'd offer a friend who asked you about the manga, novel, etc.

Nooooooo...lol In today's laws Shakespeare would be guilty of copyright because he copied Romeo and Juliet only a few years after the published novel (I think) By today's laws anyone can rehash Romeo and Juliet's story because it's over 100 years old and thus public domain. Same for Alice in Wonderland. True, many stories and characters fall into the same trope or character class (which is why I can't seem to get into too many comics anymore), but I'm not sure if that's the same as copying a picture and selling it. So while it's true that most everything is taken from something else, it's still no comparison to the direct copying and selling. Not only is it plagiarism, but it can really hurt your reputation.

Yeah. In today's laws a lot of stuff would fall under copyright laws. But if that were so, it would mean everyone who ever wrote or created a book, movie, etc would be in front of a judge explaining themselves. Either that or already in a jail cell. Art in any form wouldn't even be considered art. If people can imitate Picasso's abstract art style, then really art wouldn't exist in any fashion.

I understand what you're saying. But that's why I said, the artists will often ignore the allegations.

As far as sales goes, there are those who will be hurt by the copying and selling. But at the end of the day, that scandal usually causes the art-whether it be a book or movie to earn more profit because of the critics who'll make purchases. They'll buy it to find out if what they heard was true or not. The purchases will be what counts even if the reviews are poor and even if people are angered over the content being from something else. It's all about profit.

Most of the artists don't appear hurt by their work being scrutinized. They're the ones who'll already have lawyers and be ready to fight it out in the courtroom.