Opinions?

I heard this happen with the creator of d grayman it is hard to say if it is the artist directly copying everything or creating this from a subconscious memory without realizing it.

Um well no that's clearly extremely unlikely...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sylux

Um well no that's clearly extremely unlikely...

---

Actually it is not. There are plenty of cases of plagiarism that happened because of this.

No seriously he copied like 4 drawings, all 4 from the same guy. That is so seriously fucking unlikely.

i have to say it does look very similar

I really can't care about this. The fact is that artists copy, steal and mimic everything they see, creativity is a myth killed after the romanticism, in part be the psychoanalysis and the hermeneutic, and probably others, it really doesn't mater, but the fact is that artist copy, and that's a fact.

So how can we determinate when someone does a plagiarism? As I can tell the only way to tell if someone is making such a thing is when someone takes similar elements and elaborate them in the same discussion. But I really can't care in this case (when I can see that both conditions are checked) because the artist, in both cases, were payed to do archetypes; "universal" constructs that don't change in their roles. So, by principle, they use a discussion that didn't belong to them, that wasn't their own, but rather "universal", and if another artist takes the same elements and elaborate them with some tiny differences. I really couldn't care.

Also, we should sue almost 99% of the artists in here, because we all start doing things, and we all keep executing some elements from other artists we appreciate. The deal is that to learn we copy. As Urasawa portrayed in Billy Bat "How did you learned to draw a glass of water? By imitating someone else, and that person did the same, and so the others. Who is the owner then?"

Yeah my ethic is pretty low, but who cares? Who made the rules on art in the first place (so we can kill him)?

I think we're mixing up originality and creativity. Originality is a myth, sure, since everything is inevitably based off a preexisting concept or idea. But the issue is not what the drawings are based off of, but how they are communicated. That's creativity: the ability to communicate even similar ideas in new ways. If you go through the portfolios on Conceptart.org, many of them contain extremely similar ideas, yet the compositions vary drastically. So yes, archetypes are universal constructs. How they are expressed in terms of drawing, though, is not. That is entirely of the artist.

And no, 99% of the artists here wouldn't get sued because there is a difference between copying a piece for personal use and claiming credit for it. For example, if I copied a passage from a book into my notes as part of a learning exercise, can I get sued? No. Because I am not attributing myself as the author of this passage. I am learning the work of another author. And nobody can "own" a glass of water in concept, but one can own their drawing of a glass of water, in terms of the elements of the drawing. You're really blurring the line between copying and plagiarism.

What Cypress said. Adding to it;

Let's say somebody really wanted to make a manga that looked like star wars, and wore it's inspiration on it's sleeve. If the plot, setting and characters were more or less exactly the same in all but name, that would be plagiarism. Originality is about going in directions where other people haven't thought of, and this story would fail at that...

But, this also means that if a major change was brought about in the same plot (making a story to a apathetic empire resisting cultural downfall), setting (changing everything from space to an underwater kingdom), or characters (perhaps making it from the point of a stereotypical stormtrooper goon), you can also make things much fresher without even denying your original inspiration material. You can even call these things 'points of inspiration'- Just one element and you have a nice spin on the story, two of them and you have a new-strain genre-bending mutation, and all three gives you an entirely different work. Maybe absolute originality isn't possible, but you can still have a high degree of it, rather than none at all.

Trying is what counts. That's your own personal mental uniqueness in action. Your soul, for lack of a better atheistic term.

If you want to say that originality doesn't exist at all, and you mightawise just continuously re-read flash gordon whilst re-listening to elvis. They both inspired alot of things, but that doesn't mean everything is a carbon copy of them.

Btw,forgot to mention it but I saw this comparison of the OT awhile back at this site here. Other interesting stuff on the site:

Nick Simmons Likes to Trace (copied Bleach panels)
Scholastic Winner is a Thief
But it's fair use...
Copying, Stalking and Shop Deletions on Etsy
Hot Topic Likes to Steal from Artists

Great...... :(