"Our ideas of stealing are based on real world physics, but the idea of stealing is perhaps different when it comes to the digital realm. This is because there is no original online (it was created in an offline way) and there are no limits to the number of copies that can be created. If you were to steal my computer, I'd be pissed off at you, sure. But if you were to create an exact duplicate of my computer so there were two of them, it certainly wouldn't bother me if you took one. After all, that's what we're doing; whenever someone views your work it is downloaded into their temporary internet files, so by showing your work you're effectively handing it to everyone who comes by. Possessiveness is a reaction based on the assumption that there is not enough of something, yet this is not true within digital realms.
As artists we're obviously concerned with our work and portfolios, yet these represent what we've done in the past, not what we're capable of now."

I posted that in the Graphics forum in a thread regarding copyright, but this (and also posts I've seen at other forums) got me thinking about other kinds of stealing. As traditional artists, I expect many of us have sampled work from other artists. Certainly, I've drawn works by Monet, Seurat, Constable, even Wilhelm Steiner, who's artwork can be seen at Dead Dreamer. This isn't considered stealing; it's borrowing, or studying. Looking at and researching other artists' works to further enhance your own understanding and ability. Trying techniques, such as pointilism, to widen your own range and gain inspiration from. When we use these techniques or influences in our artwork, we're not really creating anything new, simply reworking an idea. Perhaps, as someone I know on another board said, the key is to steal. To take something and truly make it your own, and to take it a step further - take pointilism (for example) and make it so no one can comment on how it looks like a Seurat piece, or any other artist who has previously used it.

Thoughts?

Too much text zzz... J/K! But I'm really a terrible reader...

o-o whoops, sigs okay, habit, sorry >_<

This message was edited by Griffin93(moderator) on Jan 24 2003.

I think you have the right idea Req. That's similar to what I do... I make no secret of it. I don't create most of the original images contained within my banners and other work, as I don't have the skill for such things. I take work from others and change it, altering critical characteristics while meshing it together with other work. The end result something that is totally my own. It's based off of another piece, but the similarities are generally few.

It also depends upon the intent of the person who uses the artwork. For example, if someone took something that I did and just took it without my permission and claimed it was their own, that would be stealing, without question. I would also consider it stealing if someone just took one of my images to use as an avatar or in a banner, because they don't have my permission. But if some one asks to use something I created as an avatar, so long as I give permission, I don't have a problem with, because I freely give it to that person.

Now sampling from public domain images to create banners, I don't find anything wrong with. And I've seen some pretty cool banners with copyrighted images in them, too. Is there anything wrong with this? I don't think so, because, they use the images in such away that it there is no confusion as to who created the image originally. So long as they don't try to sell it, I think it's ok.

quote Requiem

This isn't considered stealing; it's borrowing, or studying. Looking at and researching other artists' works to further enhance your own understanding and ability.

I agree, I think that when you start out, its best to use other peoples work as reference to help yourself get better. When using other peoples work, you learn a lot of new tricks, and you find out what works for you and what doesn't.

I know some great artists who have got talent from using "reference" drawings when they start out, as long as they get past that and start their own style.
It would be pretty hard to make something totally original, since pretty much everything has been done before, but you can make it unique to yourself. Like drawing anime, theres pretty much a set style that it is, but you can do so much within the bounds of anime which makes all the different styles of anime not stealing.


What bugs me is when people who call themselves artists never do any original work. I know a fella (If you can call him that) who can shade and copy drawings like no one else, but when it comes to his own ideas, he either one, won't do it, or two draws like a two year old. He never tried to do anything orignal so his skills are just horrible, though he thinks hes a god.¬_¬ Being like that will never help him become the best he can be.

quote

Perhaps, as someone I know on another board said, the key is to steal. To take something and truly make it your own, and to take it a step further - take pointilism (for example) and make it so no one can comment on how it looks like a Seurat piece, or any other artist who has previously used it.

True dat. That makes art such an enjoyable challenge.




This message was edited by serenity on Jan 17 2003.

I think that stealing is something that should be tried to be stopped as much as possible, if it is even possible, when it comes to artwork. I know it is peobably very hard to do so. But cretivity is definitely a very important aspect of artwork, and stealing others' pieces (or parts of them) certainly won't help your cause IMO.

Isn't it the very nature of fan art to steal? Going beyond just sampling an old master's work, for example, we're actually using a character or even an entire series and reproducing it. Just an interesting notion there

Anyhow, thanks for the replies, peeps. I've seen it argued that no artist should be allowed to copyright their work, because it will invariably contain elements taken from other artists or nature, and nature has no copyright (obviously this idea is rather impractical). As artists perhaps all we do is to take pre-existing ideas and rearrange them to our desire. It's like moving around the furniture in our homes - nothing new has been added, yet there is the illusion of freshness. To be truly creative your ideas would probably have to be so 'out there' that no one would really understand you. You might even have to be a little crazy.

Photography has an interesting role when it comes to stealing. Say I wanted to use a photo of an old master's painting to advertise something - even though the painting is public domain and the artist dead, I would still be expected to pay the photographer for using that photo in my work; the argument being that the photograph isn't public domain. By taking a photo of the painting, the photographer has claimed ownership over it. This sounds a lot like stealing; making money from something you didn't create, yet is allowed. However, artists can't do copies of other artist's works and sell them. There is, of course, a double standard here, but is this because photographs can never create, they can only ever steal?

This message was edited by Requiem on Jan 21 2003.

Isn't it the very nature of fan art to steal? Going beyond just sampling an old master's work, for example, we're actually using a character or even an entire series and reproducing it. Just an interesting notion there

In a way, unless we (meainig everyone who posts art here puts (c) by *artist's name here*), then yes, I can see it as stealing.

Anyhow, thanks for the replies, peeps. I've seen it argued that no artist should be allowed to copyright their work, because it will invariably contain elements taken from other artists or nature, and nature has no copyright (obviously this idea is rather impractical). As artists perhaps all we do is to take pre-existing ideas and rearrange them to our desire. It's like moving around the furniture in our homes - nothing new has been added, yet there is the illusion of freshness. To be truly creative your ideas would probably have to be so 'out there' that no one would really understand you. You might even have to be a little crazy.

There are some things in life and nature that can't be copyrighted, you know. We can't copyright the sun, trees, water, roads, etc. Things like that and so forth never will be and can't be copyrighted. As you said, adding an element of freshness to the pieces is what makes them "unique" IMO.

Photography has an interesting role when it comes to stealing. Say I wanted to use a photo of an old master's painting to advertise something - even though the painting is public domain and the artist dead, I would still be expected to pay the photographer for using that photo in my work; the argument being that the photograph isn't public domain. By taking a photo of the painting, the photographer has claimed ownership over it. This sounds a lot like stealing; making money from something you didn't create, yet is allowed. However, artists can't do copies of other artist's works and sell them. There is, of course, a double standard here, but is this because photographs can never create, they can only ever steal?

If you used a photo of an old master's piece to advertise something, and the guy or gal was dead, then you could still say something like Original work (c) *year here* by *name of original artist here*. As for the royalty part of it, I am not sure how that might work. Maybe the money would go to his or her contracted company? Or would it go to their family? I don't know. If you were to take a photograph of a public place, such as a shopping plaza; how can you expect to copyright such a public place? You can't IMO. Any discussion on this point is appreciated.

well, put it this way. Humans will steal, alter, or give false info on what's theirs all the time, for as long as we live. Posting our art up here can only be given credit to the artists they really belong to by
A- putting your signature, like I do, in the drawing/etc. that you post. For instance...this doesn't have to be a name, but rather, it can be a thing. There was a small picture, animated GIF i put up from a GM from gundam. I was sure to enclude one image in the deep blue color that's become a trademark of my GIFs. My name in japanese is also hidden in one of the solarized images. Other than that, I don't care who steals it or tries altering it. If you want to go as far as making proof of it, simply print the image when you first make it, sign it, keep the image in a floppy or CD disc when you first complete it, put it in an envelope, send it to yourself via mail, and never open it till you find yourself in court someday and need proof that you created the image on that early early date.

Sure beats the hell outta complainin' and whinin' about going to get it copyrighted, and for me, works even better.

Oh yeah, it's harder for most people to alter GIF work, as those people need to be able to deconstruct and reconstruct GIFs. If you submit layered work, chances that the evil doers do wanna steal, and would be able to alter it in its multi-frame state, is slim. There aren't many of us that know how to make a gif and can't make art of our own.

Also, everyone knows that posting anything on the internet is practically telling people to take your work home with them. That's why all my images are FOR THE PEOPLE. If you're into HTML and all that stuff, you can make a geocities, or other free site website that you can edit to let veiwers not be able to save your pics in any way......but really....what's the point if not to advertise your art?


In conclusion, the point of posting out art on the internet is pure and simple. To get that image out of our heads, and into the minds of others for user feedback.

And since there are lotsa good nice people on these forums than the opposite, comments are 90% good will at least.

So I'll just like to thank all 90% of you one more time!

quote weatherlover427

Isn't it the very nature of fan art to steal? Going beyond just sampling an old master's work, for example, we're actually using a character or even an entire series and reproducing it. Just an interesting notion there

In a way, unless we (meainig everyone who posts art here puts (c) by *artist's name here*), then yes, I can see it as stealing.

Photography has an interesting role when it comes to stealing. Say I wanted to use a photo of an old master's painting to advertise something - even though the painting is public domain and the artist dead, I would still be expected to pay the photographer for using that photo in my work; the argument being that the photograph isn't public domain. By taking a photo of the painting, the photographer has claimed ownership over it. This sounds a lot like stealing; making money from something you didn't create, yet is allowed. However, artists can't do copies of other artist's works and sell them. There is, of course, a double standard here, but is this because photographs can never create, they can only ever steal?

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the nature of fanart is stealing. I say this because those who make fanarts don't claim that the character they make an image of is their own idea. Oftentimes fanart becomes an original idea because it is rendered in a different way than is usually seen by the originator of the character or concept. As I've shown here, I drew pictures of characters from Samurai Shodown. But they are made original by me because they don't look like the typical depictions of the characters. But of course I don't claim that I came up with the original concept of the game or the characters.

The same with photography. Say, for example, that someone took a picture of an Old Master's work and sold it to a company who used it in an advertisment. He is perfectly within his rights to do so because he doesn't claim that the original work is is own, nor does the company he sold it to. But say, there is a photography exhibit and someone took a photo of the original photographer's work and tried to pass it of as his own, that would be fraud.

I think that technically, if you are incoorporating your own ideas into someone elses its not stealing. Its also not stealing to look at someone elses work for idea, as long as you don't outright copy them.

About creativity and stealing, its kinda the same, but all in different context.

Creativity is a person thing, and maybe you get your creativity by examining others idea and molding them to your own. Its not stealing necessarily, nor is it your own idea, but its something that has inspired you to create something new and original.

Stealing I believe is taking someones direct idea and making them your own, or claiming them as your own. I think that referencing others works maybe stealing, but you might be giving the artist credit and therefore, it is a study guide. This just reminded me of school, where they teach you how wrong 'plagerism' is. Then they turn it around and say, okay, you can copy someone as long as credit is givin to the side, or in a bibliograpy. I think art in itself almost works the same way, where you can outright copy someones ideas, or instead, do the right thing and use someone elses ideas as an aide.

I believe that copywrites are okay. It may not full on prevent someone from stealing something, like say, people trace but it never leaves the house. There is no actually harm in that. As I said, as long as they don't go showing it off as the exact same thing and claiming it as there own, then I see it as being okay.

This may not be the same for characters though. I think if someone creates and original character it is unacceptable to completly copy that characters image. The only way I see fit for people being able to do this, is if they ask first, or if they do it and submit is as Fan Art.

This is just how I see it, and I fully understand if you got to the 2nd paragraph and quit

I just woundered, if you find a picture you really like, and draw it by hand... may not do any changes to the figure of the picture... is that stealing..?

You have copied that persons Creativety of that picture. Therefore you have plagerised, However the crime would come under counterfeiting (spelling?) I believe. Remember stealing is in terms of a physical sence, you are copying not taking. Plagerization is illegal, however online the problem comes from that so many people plagerise and break copy-right laws online that it is very hard to track episcally when everybody has IPs that change. I will not go into how it works but I will say that even tho it is hard to track down do not think that you are completely safe because of your dynamic IP.

As it goes I think the problem with the internet is that it is still based most off of HTML. and due to this people can copy source code and get dircetly to the a picture by-passing blocks, Also screenshots do not help matters either.

As it goes I stil think that for like the next 7 or 8 years these problems of easily being able to copy someone's else work is not going to disappear. Eventually at one point Microsoft will disable Internet Explorer from being able to be screenshotted (spelling?) and there will be a better code prehaps that will allow people to protect there work much easier if they wish to do so.