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
well, that user is posting for artisteem/ntopaz and according to the recently instituted ntopaz/artisteem rules:
If you have practiced copying another person's work, you must specify the author and source.
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.
You compare here blatantly apples and oranges. It just shows me over and over again how ignorant, stubborn and presumptuous you are. I don't know what you do for living, but you are stubbornly arguing here with people who are decades in the visual arts business. You believe that just because you can use some online tools to find traces of references in images it now gives you the right and authority to redefine what is plagiarism, reinterpretation and inspiration.
You know, ignorance and arrogance are a very bad match.
This conversation is over and you will regret you said this.
Oh yeah! I already regret having wasted my time with you.