HOME | DD
waywardgal — how I stay out of trouble with referencing.
Published: 2014-07-09 04:46:06 +0000 UTC; Views: 12438; Favourites: 533; Downloads: 37
Redirect to original
Description
So I've been seeing a lot of people getting flamed for "tracing" or not changing the reference material enough when they use other works to draw art.I personally believe that if you upload anything online, it is fair game for someone else to be inspired by it and use it to create their own works. At the same time, we should all be respectful enough that if we do use another artist's "artistic" photography or drawing/painting, we should either let them know or reference back to them.
We do not all have amazing imaginations. I NEED references to make even mediocre drawings. Referencing is something we all do. All in all, be nice, guys
*Edit: I didn't specify why I added tracing to this conversation. I'll do so now. A number of people have been blindly accused on other art websites (I actually haven't seen it much on DA) for tracing. However, when I saw the source material, I realized most of these people were mainly just referencing. I even used photoshop to check out the dimensions and it was an obvious "reference." However, people don't seem to understand that referencing is encouraged in the REAL art world. In cartooning, maybe not so much. However, that is only so you will be able to build your own style. To become a good artists, we all need references. I find it a bit harsh to attack people for doing something that we ALL do.
*Edit2: found another referenced drawing.
MY FAVORITE WEBSITE TO FIND MOVIE REFERENCES/SCREENSHOTS!
________________________________________________________
Get the PSD of the finished version and other PSDs of my work by becoming my Patron on Patreon !
I've been updating pretty regularly. If you want Wayward Girl stuff, check it out!
Find and Follow me on:
Tumblr: thewaywardgal.tumblr.com
Youtube: www.youtube.com/c/waywardgal
Instagram: www.instagram.com/oliviaebere/
Subscribe to my comic on Tapastic (because cookies)
Related content
Comments: 145
You can't do a direct trace on real people, it always looks off if you do. Some modifications have to be done to make it look right. Basically to me it looks fake.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I dont trace. This isnt about tracing, its about not accusing people who use references of tracing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah I know, I'm just saying tracing don't work well on real people. Artists do trace using a light box, or by digital trickery. So not all tracing is bad. Some people consider tracing as cheating, but I know people who consider digital art cheating. I think the debate on such things are pointless. It all depends on how you look at it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I agree. I just made the point because I saw people getting attacked.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I finally learned proper proportioning this year in a votech school, how did i do it? I traced and referenced until I knew exactly how things were set up. I did the same with hands and faces too! Everything takes practice but tracing and refrences are there to help you. Don't want to use someone ele's work? There's an ENTIRE section of stock photos, have at it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, but I try not to use too much stock because it makes things a bit, poster or commercial. I've learned that Movie screencaps/shots are amazing references
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Not saying ot use stock completely. Use it for what you need, and try and make it your own and not just a copy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
of course. I agree.
I just meant that movie screen caps give better references.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yeah.. you have have a point too, easily pause at any moment.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I do exactly that when I watch a movie. I thought I was the only who thought of it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, it's great! lol I get annoyed sometimes because I end up pausing so much that I don't enjoy the film.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah. I know how that feels u.u
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Referencing isn't bad at all...sure there is a difference between tracing and referencing, but I believe the ones who don't study real life or reference existing objects are the ones stuck in their own little box and refuse to leave it under the pretense of stye.
Good method, and keep learning as much as you can. Sometimes people get too too judgmental about basic things.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
agreed. I used to do that, you know? That's how I know you're right. I used to draw really realistic, then all of a sudden I became an anime style artist. Then when I tried to find my own style, my anatomy sucked and I would just tell people, "it's my style." lol No, it wasn't my style. I just sucked. lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I absolutely agree with everything you said. There's nothing wrong with using references (even the pros do it!), and unless you actually literally copy the image, it's not cheating. And of course it's always nice to let the original artists know if their work helped you out!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I hardly ever use references in my works, but then again because of that my anatomy is horrible. I actually have trouble copying poses, I prefer to draw from my mind's eye because it's easier for me. UuU I change the poses a lot when referencing, and the only time I reference completely is when I'm practicing. I figure I should use references more often, my poses are often plain.
Thanks for the screen cap website by the way. I'll find that useful for finding references to toy around with.
I'm alright with you doing this. Your art is your art, and you can do what you want with it. However, I encourage you to learn how to manipulate poses a bit more, and bring your mind's eye more into the picture. You might be surprised what might happen with it, so don't be afraid to try. You don't have to share the results.
Best of Luck to you,
- La Vivi
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thank you! I'm sure with time you will get better
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're welcome! Anytime.
We all get better the more we draw~ What's important is that we try our best to improve as artists.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Agree! If there was a like button this would be liked lol but I did fave!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mmm, to be honest I do think your versions are still a little too derivative from the photos you based them on. You could stand to change up the poses and angles a LITTLE more if you really want to 'stay out of trouble' with referencing, but they are on kind of a thin passable border?
At any rate, a reference in art is much like it is in writing.
Blatant plagiarism--Copying entire paragraphs of another work in your writing. Equivalence of tracing or directly eyeballing your work from a photo. Please note this is fine for PRACTICE but should not be passed off as serious original work.
Subtle plagiarism--Paraphrasing large quantities of another work in your writing such that your piece expresses very little original thought and holds practically the same value as the previous work. Equivalence of making a technically different but visually highly similar piece to another work such that even if you didn't copy it directly, it nearly looks like you did at first glance. Again, fine for practice, but not original.
True referencing--Paraphrasing a few key sentences of another work in your writing specifically for the purpose of providing accurate facts in a piece that needs to be substantiated. You have still contributed the argument and the interpretation and the material of the piece yourself, but have referenced another work for verification. Equivalence of drawing a whole piece yourself then looking up a reference for a part you want to make more anatomically correct, i.e. 'this hand is really giving me trouble, okay here's a hand I can base it off of', the rest of the piece still being your own original work.
Not having an 'amazing imagination' is no excuse to not at least try to come up with your own poses and ideas, and if you must base it off other ideas you should at least pull from a larger pool of inspiration and not just one singular image, that way something new is truly created. Inspiration can also come from songs, stories, movies, people you know, and places you've been, rather than just other still images.
Uploading anything online doesn't make it 'fair game', that's why copyright law exists. Referencing them back is a start but that's not always enough. Unless the artist has already given general permission you should still ask them directly before using their work to that extent. Even if they have given express permission, it's still a better habit to come up with your own ideas rather than to always rely on other artists. If a person isn't 'imaginative' their creativity will only be further stifled by using these kinds of crutches.
I'm not saying all this to be mean, I hope you understand what I'm getting at here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I highly disagree with the second body paragraph.
There are many beautiful works based completely on photograph. For example, the pen drawings of hyperrealistic animals or landscapes are not beautiful because of the photograph that was used as a reference, they are beautiful because of the work the artist put into creating said work. A "simple" photo take a few seconds. A drawing or painting derivative of said photo may take days or weeks. It is the work that artist put into the work that makes it art.
Writing, in it's barest of forms, can not be directly compared to artwork of the visual nature. There are only so many words and sentence structures a person can use. That argument cannot be used in this situation.
I visited your gallery, and seemed to get the idea that you are a cartoonist. As a cartoonist, you pride yourself on being able to create imaginative characters that may or may not be reminiscent of reality. However, even in that line of work, professional illustrators "cheat" all the time. I work directly under a professional illustrator who is now retired from Pixar studios. He creates editorials for a number of magazines currently. In many of his pieces, he will simply super impose backgrounds and trace over them to save time. It is not that he cannot reference the work, he just doesn't have time to draw the entire city of New York. Does this lower his value? No.
How about famous Renaissance artists who would only sign their name after all of their subordinates painted the actual work? Those this lower the value of the painting? No.
Visual information is a free forum. To require people to pay for reference material is no worst than the government forcing students to pay for scholarly papers. Information (even in the form of images) should be free for all to use.
(In addition, there is no such thing as coming up with your own poses. There are only so many poses a person can do. In most cases, if worst comes to worst, you will use yourself as a reference. Get too imaginative and you work is either abstract of completely ridiculous. Any pose I come up with will have already been used by another artist.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
-I would consider paintings based off photographs to generally be 'studies' and not original paintings.
-I disagree that writing is more limited than art. I think most writers would also disagree.
-Just because professional illustrators do something doesn't make it right, ethical, superior, ect. That's an argument from authority fallacy. You may not believe tracing a picture of New York for a piece lowers the value, but personally, I do. The reason artists have to resort to things like that is because of capitalism, and instead they should just be given enough time to produce it themselves.
-Information should be free to VIEW but that doesn't make it free to COPY and DISTRIBUTE. Copyright laws exist to protect the intellectual property of others and without it, anyone could distribute YOUR artwork, or copy YOUR ideas, and then claim they were just 'referencing' you. Would you want that?
-You are saying there are only so many poses a person can come up with but that art's limitations cannot be compared to writing and this seems like a contradiction. And regardless, I also disagree there are 'only so many poses'. There's practically an unlimited combination of poses and angles so no, there is no reason to need to copy one. If a pose you made is similar to another, that's fine. If a pose is identical, that's suspicious, and if you weren't aware of the other pose it probably just means you didn't put a lot of imagination into it. Many people will be drawn to a simple head-on pose with hands in a common position. That's not necessarily unethical if you weren't copying it, it's only generic. Realistically speaking, some drawings are going to be that way because not every piece calls for something more. However, there are still plenty of combinations of poses and angles you could come up with that are more unique.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, but not putting "study" in the title does not legitimize the fact that it is art.
I did not say Writing was limited. I said writing was different. There are a number of plagiarized written work that is hard to prove because of the nature of the written work. Ex. Juno and Juno. The North american writer still claims she was not inspired by the asian Juno, and frankly, she may be telling the truth.
Capitalism is not inherently wrong. If you love creating visual art, why can't you make money from it like actors and singers? Must we starve to legitimize our artistic strengths?
Copy and Distribute are words with a vast array of possible meanings. Should EVERYONE see art? Yes. Does everyone care to see art? No. Pop art proved that making a copies of art does not diminish the value of the original. ex. Warhol's copies of the Mona Lisa and various other works.
Imagination is not required to make art. It is celebrated by some constiuence, but but it is not required.
Bringing it all around, your work is reminiscent of the Gorillas(the virtual band) art style. Those that give me to right to attack you for copying or referencing? No.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Never said it wasn't art. But it isn't -original- art.
You said there are only so many ways to make sentences, that's a limitation. Just because it's hard to prove something is plagiarized doesn't mean plagiarism is okay?
I never said capitalism is inherently wrong. I like capitalism. I just think it gets pushed too far by trying to force workers to be overly efficient and sacrificing originality and effort in the process. I'm all for artists making money, and I think they should be able to make MORE money and have less strict deadlines because the current arrangement of efficiency for artists in large studios like Pixar is to monetarily benefit the studio, not the artists.
It's really no coincidence that Warhol is currently one of the more heavily criticized artists because of the lack of originality and effort involved. It may have visual value and discussion value but it still comes across as borderline theft and is often held as a point by art critics to claim modern pop art lacks effort when in fact it can require loads of effort if done correctly. Warhol essentially gave modern pop art an undeservedly bad name to the mainstream mind.
I disagree, imagination is a core foundation of art.
I think having a similar style to another artist is not remotely similar to referencing at all. That's a slippery slope fallacy and a false analogy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If you were actually referencing in, say, an academic essay, the main thing would be to cite the source. It's totally acceptable to quote word for word (as you say, to provide accurate facts) if you explain where it came from in a footnote, but even just paraphrasing without that could get you into hot water. I think there's also an equivalent to that in visual art: in terms of respecting the original artist, I'd probably be more concerned about linking back to their work than adding token differences to my own.
Also, I'm totally with you on the online thing. I don't know where this "if it's on the internet, it doesn't count as copyrighted for some reason" idea came from. Finding something online is legally no different than finding it in a book. What matters isn't where you saw it. It's what restrictions the creator has placed on its use.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Yes true, academic essays do require cited sources. I mean that may be where the analogy crumbles because I think if you're literally only grabbing a single hand or something from another image you don't really need to reference the other image unless you want to, although some people may disagree. And also the more you borrow from another person's art the more you need to ask if you can use it and not just link back... but anyway.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If there's a chance people will see your work and think, "Huh, this really reminds me of this other thing..." then a link back to the other thing seems wise just so no one will think you were trying to pass it off as 100% original. I definitely agree there are limits, though. If you had to cite everything you so much as glanced at while working, that would be a nuisance to you and be no help to anyone else.
I was just thinking that, generally, I'd feel bad about paraphrasing someone else's written work without citing it as a source, while I'd be totally happy to quote verbatim provided they got a mention.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm totally with you on all that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't have time to read the above comment yet, but I will.
To address the online issue, people need to realize that CC was created for that purpose. If we go along with the ideals of some more draconian beliefs, we will just give birth to another SOPA. The online is an open forum.
The reason I said this was because I saw someone getting bullied on tumblr because they referenced a photo on instagram. It was not an artistic photograph. It was just a regular photo. However, due to shipping wars, the person was attacked because she did not support the same "fictional slash couple" when she used the photo as reference.
People rallied around the accusers. And eventually the girl deleted her tumblr. I believe that if you upload something that could easily be stock images, be prepared for the possibility of ANYbody, not just artists, using it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There's a massive difference between being aware of copyright law as it stands (and Creative Commons licenses and such) and supporting some draconian SOPA clone. What you're describing simply isn't how copyright works.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay, I don't want to misunderstand you, and I don't want you to misunderstand me. (I am not for tracing a work then uploading it as original work.) So If it's not too much trouble, would you mind reading the edit* I made in the description, and then respond?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The edit doesn't change anything for me. Really, the bit of the description I take issue with is: I personally believe that if you upload anything online, it is fair game for someone else to be inspired by it and use it to create their own works. Okay. That's what you believe, but it's just not true. Putting something online has nothing to do with whether or not anyone else has permission to use it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I personally think there's a thin line between being inspired by something and using it :I
If someone posts a photo/work and says it's a stock (wheter it's being sold or if it's free), then anyone can use (following the creator's rules, of course, such as giving credit, linking back, mentioning and others). But if it is not stock, I'd say just stay away from using it. I mean, people could look at it and think "oh, what a cool pose, I'm gonna go try that", and do their stuff from the top of their head, without referencing from it, adding different details, adding another ambiance, changing the portraited character, respecting proportions... and then you'd have a whole another work, because it was just an inspiration and not a base. But if it is looking alike enough that it can be compared... then it's almost the same as tracing :/
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Agreed. I didn't want to get into too much detail quoting that one bit, but anyone who makes anything visible to another person anywhere has to be prepared for (and should probably embrace) the possibility someone else will be inspired by it because that's completely involuntary. If being inspired by one thing prevented you from creating another, nobody would ever make anything. But the idea that you're allowed to make a straightforward copy of just anything on the internet is completely ridiculous.
Take a look at this journal . This covers exactly why "It's on the internet, so I can just do whatever" is a really bad idea: a direct trace (with absolutely trivial changes) being used as a logo. Sure, a lot of people technically committing copyright infringement aren't doing anything malicious or harmful, and I pity the saps who bother going after them, but the laws that make it technically copyright infringement to do those things are the same laws that give artists any chance of stopping the designer who sells their work as his own.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, it's so sad to see that
I wish people would have more respect for each other. I mean, if I look at someone's work to inspire myself it is ok, but people being inspired by my work it's not...? Because, sometimes, it is all this is about.
Let's just hope that someday people will realise what is trully going on :I
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You're absolutely right with this. The way you reference is good and there's nothing wrong with it.
I think, however, that you should make a difference between "tracing" and "referencing". To me, referencing means that you take something as a help to make your own work, which is important for artists. "Tracing" on the other hand is unoriginal. Someone spent a lot of time and effort on creating an artwork, so you can't just copy that exactly as it is and claim it's all your own. If you just use it to practice, though, and credit the artist it should be perfectly fine. Being nice is never wrong
Off-topic: Please tell me that's not you in the picture. It'd be so unfair if you were talented at drawing and that beautiful on top of it!
Off-topic2: I didn't know you were on InkBlazers, that's great! Will you upload pages of "Waywardgals" there as well?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree with you. Yeah, I said "tracing" because they accuse people of tracing when the people are just really good at hyperrealistic referencing.
Off topic: haha no! I'm no where near that pretty! That's Queen Bee, love!
Off topic 2: Yeah, I will in the fall. It's just I find Inkblazers a bit for difficult to use than other websites. (I'll have to change it to a horizontal comic for them) I'm also trying to selfishly build a following there first before uploading the girls.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I often use references, both images found through Google and stock, and never was accused of tracing, though I virtually do it when painting from a photograph, and I never know what is all the tracing and referencing fuss about. I agree with you and follow your point of view, no one ever became good at ANY arts without learning how to copy things existing in reality. In fact my big art progress started once I started to use references. And what about hyperrealism? I don't really like copying exactly the same photograph, but people love to see someone do it and they are excited that a human is able to completely copy reality, and they can pay a lot for artist who can make it. Most popular realistic works are often completely based on photographs.
I also agree that you can copyright an IMAGE, but you can't copyright a POSE or facial expression, or light, or tree, or whatever is presented on the picture. If someone recognizes their own face on the portrait, there is a great chance their photo was used, but it could be as well a coincidence, because faces and genes are not infinite, they are a closed set because we all inherit our ancestors features. We all see unknown faces everyday and we remember them more or less adequately. If Russel Crowe or Les Miserables movie owner were to sue me for my Inspector Javert painting I would surely put it down (though I never meant to make any money on it), but when it comes to reference a pose or expression there's no way one should bother about copyrights.
And one more thing - if we were to start making COMPLETELY ORIGINAL art, we must have been out of our culture, everything we've learnt, everything we know, feel, because everything was created before. We are bound to our reality because we live in it and we can't run away from it. There's absolutely no sense in tracing/referencing discussion because even drawing from our imagination we trace and reference straight from our heads, which are sunk deep in the culture. Not sure if anyone gets my point, but for me it's one of the most important things about originality that makes bothering about being original senseless.
Cheers
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I agree with Picasso, who said, "good artists copy, great artists steal". I'm of the opinion that anyone can copy, but I think art really becomes Art when the artist makes the reference their own. It's also pretty apparent who relies too heavily on references as well, because there's too big of a difference between the referenced stuff and the stuff from imagination. Copied stuff also tends to be really stiff, because the artist often understand how to be flexible with the material (ie: what happens if you add/change a light source, or time of day?)
All in all, I think it all boils down to what you define as art, but as for me, I really appreciate the magic that is an artist who has "stolen" enough to create out of nothing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Using References and Tracing are two total different things O_O
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Yes, maybe I should explain why I included tracing. The thing I've noticed, is that people have been blindly accusing others of tracing if they do not change the source material. I feel that is unfair. Maybe that person is really good at drawing what they see.
(This is coming from someone whose whole art account was stolen year ago.) So I'm not some naive person who wants to give thieves the benefit of the doubt. However, I don't believe in throwing around accusations. It's debilitating to growing artists.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That was what I was thinking, too...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>