ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
Because sitting back and thinking I am REALLY curious
Exactly where is the line drawn for technical "theft?"
Look at this
-Artists get mad when their style is borrowed or used, because they want it to be iconic to them
-But when you use an iconic style from a television show, it gets pardoned and people even say you're not stealing, you're "borrowing"
-Photos ARE art and taking them for use without permission is technically theft
-People pardon this a LOT and even think that tracing a photo is ok for art (outside learning); despite the fact that that is not what that photo was meant to be used for
-You can make your own carebear and not get into trouble
-Make something too similar to an individual artist on the internet, prepare your sheild because the wars have begun
In all these instances I'm wondering
where do we as artist actually start to draw a line, and pardon theft? As soon as it hits shelves? As soon as it goes on the TV? Isn't it still theft? What makes it so much more different if it's a name brand or a photo? You don't like your art copied or traced, why is it ok to use a companies iconic style of your own? Why is it ok to recolor a pikachu and call it your own? Is it because they can't be bothered to sue you?
Questions questions
Feel free to say your feels on this
Exactly where is the line drawn for technical "theft?"
Look at this
-Artists get mad when their style is borrowed or used, because they want it to be iconic to them
-But when you use an iconic style from a television show, it gets pardoned and people even say you're not stealing, you're "borrowing"
-Photos ARE art and taking them for use without permission is technically theft
-People pardon this a LOT and even think that tracing a photo is ok for art (outside learning); despite the fact that that is not what that photo was meant to be used for
-You can make your own carebear and not get into trouble
-Make something too similar to an individual artist on the internet, prepare your sheild because the wars have begun
In all these instances I'm wondering
where do we as artist actually start to draw a line, and pardon theft? As soon as it hits shelves? As soon as it goes on the TV? Isn't it still theft? What makes it so much more different if it's a name brand or a photo? You don't like your art copied or traced, why is it ok to use a companies iconic style of your own? Why is it ok to recolor a pikachu and call it your own? Is it because they can't be bothered to sue you?
Questions questions
Feel free to say your feels on this
[Open] SCPkid designs for sale
❤ - Porter on Toyhouse 500 - On hold Marble on Toyhouse 300 All are flatsales, firm Can do paypal or Cashapp Marble is the most tentative and most likely to be taken down.
Selling PlushPon Shoyru
Selling this plushpon Shoyru I bought a couple weeks ago! Looking for 100$, what I paid
Streaming
https://www.twitch.tv/jharicot Working on a warmup, redraw, and trade
Fursuit suggestions please
Hello friends I'm in the market for a furred suit
Something I've been wanting for a while!
If you have recommendations please drop them; I'm trying to pick out a maker before my birthday and treat myself during these lovely quarantine days
© 2015 - 2024 JubiIee
Comments12
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
They can bitch and moan all they want, there's nothing illegal (or even particularly immoral or unethical) about imitating another artist's style. Style isn't something that can be trademarked or copyrighted, nor should it be, because if it were, we'd all soon be unable to make art at all, for fear that we'd be sued for trademark infringement from the handful of 100 or so individuals and corporate entities owning the only trademarked art-styles. "Ooh look, this illustration is vaguely reminiscent of a Disney-style cell animation! Oooh! Too bad for you, you have to stop selling it and pay damages!!!"
I'm intimately familiar with this particular problem. Most people seriously just don't understand the law or why the law is the law. It's perfectly legal for Mad Magazine and Saturday Night Live and me (yes, little old me), to make as much parody of other people's work as we like and that's protected by our constitution (at least here in the US) for very strong reasons. Sometimes people get away (unfortunately) with suing parodies in the UK because their laws don't offer enough protection. And then of course, there are the eastern and middle-eastern countries like China, North Korea or the UAE where they just like to beat people and throw them in jail for making art the government doesn't particularly care for, like Ai Weiwei.
I'm a lot happier living in a country where the law is "oh, this artist hurt your feelings? Deal with it, you big baby!"
In this country, in order to get damages in court, you have to prove to a jury that the other person's art was a) passed off as yours and b) that you lost money you would have gotten, because people were duped into buying fakes. That's what the law calls a "fungible substitute".
I'm intimately familiar with this particular problem. Most people seriously just don't understand the law or why the law is the law. It's perfectly legal for Mad Magazine and Saturday Night Live and me (yes, little old me), to make as much parody of other people's work as we like and that's protected by our constitution (at least here in the US) for very strong reasons. Sometimes people get away (unfortunately) with suing parodies in the UK because their laws don't offer enough protection. And then of course, there are the eastern and middle-eastern countries like China, North Korea or the UAE where they just like to beat people and throw them in jail for making art the government doesn't particularly care for, like Ai Weiwei.
I'm a lot happier living in a country where the law is "oh, this artist hurt your feelings? Deal with it, you big baby!"
In this country, in order to get damages in court, you have to prove to a jury that the other person's art was a) passed off as yours and b) that you lost money you would have gotten, because people were duped into buying fakes. That's what the law calls a "fungible substitute".