@llfarms, You guys should take care of identity theft and plagiarism and not bully some art enthusiast for making a shitty drawing after a shitty photograph. And this "rule" that an artist must reveal all his inspirational references is complete bullshit invented by some overzealous but incompetent nobodies! You are not going to save this platform by being more papist than the Pope about the use of photo references and sources of inspiration! You should rather be worried about these tens of thousands of fake profiles and the automated corruption called "bidbots" because that's what's killing this platform! In 2017 I was able to inspire many artists to join Steemit because of its potential to reward their content. Most of them left by now because the revenues dropped to cents and so did the price of Steem, all this because of the automated abuse of delegation. But some of you are so concerned about kids posting their traced drawings! It's like having a dinner on the sinking Titanic and complaining about the meal! So please, adjust your perspective and don't encourage idiots to damage and destroy the rest of Steemit's art community!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Hey @gric I hear your points, I really do, we are all in the same side I think, how about that instead of supporting 10 tracers of 8th tier quality shit the curation groups support 1 REAL artist? would you support that? we need to adapt to the changing environment/price/etc.
How do you feel about having people as art curators that make art that before looking at it you need one of those airplane bags? Lets support real artists Peter, Im with you!!!!
@jaguar.force,
You must stop denounce people like you did in this example (and a few others):
https://steemit.com/abuse/@jaguar.force/art-plagiarism-case-2-caso-de-plagio-artistico-2-adelepazani
This is not plagiarism! Yes, she used parts of that photo but she created an entirely different artwork! She could state that she did use it as a partial reference but it's up to her! If you believe she should, then this is just your personal opinion which you can express in a comment, but you are not in the position or an expert to make a case of plagiarism out of it!
Yes, it's a common practice that artists are using references they find online or in books. But you can't just call something plagiarism because you have the method and time to identify a part of such a reference. What you are doing is in many cases malicious and damaging.
Steemit is full of real plagiarism and theft, so find and fight it where it makes sense! Bullying artists, enthusiasts and art students because they missed to do the research about the origin of a photo they used as a partial reference is wrong!
well, that user is posting for artisteem/ntopaz and according to the recently instituted ntopaz/artisteem rules:
https://steemit.com/ntopaz/@ntopaz/notice-ntopaz-s-view-on-content-ecosystems
So that's it, if the user is copying other people's work and posting for artisteem/ntopaz the user HAS to specify the source and author according to ntopaz rules. Period.
Have a great day.
I tried to explain to you that taking a reference for a part of an artwork while creating something new and unique is not copying other people's work. I have no idea why you don't get it.
Its taking a part of another persons work
and a part of another person's work,
is still clearly that person's work,
every single part of a person's work is that person's work,
so if you copy a part of a person's work or many parts,
or one part from one person and another part from another person,
you still have to specify the source(s) and the author, according to ntopaz rules.
The same way that if you write an article and cite many fragments of texts from different sources you have to cite them. Its really simple gric, very simple, I have no idea what part of it you dont understand. I understand that if you combine pieces of different works by other people you create a new work that its different from both works you are copying from, but that doesnt change the fact you are copying parts of other people's work, so you still have to specify the the author(s) and the source(s).
It's no more the other person's work if you create something new from it, even if you trace it. If you see it differently then this is just your personal opinion. Bullies are imposing their opinion on others by patronising and intimidating them, that's what you are doing.
I agree with you that the final work, if it combines parts of other people's work is not the work of the authors of the parts, it is the work of the author that combined the parts.
But those parts are still the work of the authors of the parts.
For example, lets say I design a car and all its parts, then you come and copy the carburator and the dashboard of the car I designed, and combine it with other parts from other cars, and then you design some parts yourself
.....
is the carburator of the car you made my work?
YES!! of course it is!!
is the dashboard my work?
YES!! of course it is!!
is the whole car you synthezised out of many parts my work?
NO!! of course it is not,
but the carburator of your car is still copied from my design, from my work.
Any reasonable person with 5 braincells would understand this that Im saying, and you eventually will too.
We have a few surprises in store for you and the people that still dont or refuse to understand this, but I dont want to spoil those surprises for you, you will love it Peter!!
Have a nice day my friend.